HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_09242009 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 September 24, 2009
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Listed below, Respectively
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
13 Charley Stump, Director of Planning None
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
26 Everyone cited the pledge of Allegiance.
27
28 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION -Site visits for agenda items 9A and 9B were verified.
29
30 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 26, 2009
31 M/S Molgaard/Helland to approve August 26, 2009 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (5-0).
32
33 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
34 None.
35
36 7. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this
37 meeting, the final date for appeal is October 6, 2009.
38
39 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Staff confirmed agenda items 9A and 9B were properly
40 noticed.
41
42 9. PUBLIC HEARING
43 9A. Grocery Outlet Site Development Permit No. 09-33-SDP-PC. Request for approval of a
44 Major Site Development Permit to allow exterior building and site modifications to the Grocery
45 Outlet store located at 1203 North State Street, APN 001-360-23.
46
47 Staff presented the staff report.
48
49 The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project and made suggestions that are addressed in
50 attachment 4 (DRB minutes 8-13-09)of the staff report.
51
52 The Commercial Design Guidelines Checklist for projects outside of the Downtown Design Area
53 (attachment 5 of the staff report) incorporates the suggestions made by the DRB at the August 13
54 meeting.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 1
1 The plans submitted by the applicant were projected on screen for questions and clarification
2 purposes:
3
4 Site plan rendering A.101 shows the accessibility plan
5 Site plan rendering A.401&2 show the existing exterior elevations
6 Site plan rendering A.403 shows the signage
7 Site plan rendering A.501 shows canopy and parapet
8
9 Chair Pruden:
10 ■ Requested clarification regarding the number of parking stalls. The site has a sufficient
11 number of parking spaces.
12 ■ Is the recycle business on the south side a permitted use? Parking could be reduced by 4
13 parking spots in this area.
14
15 Staff:
16 • The project consists of two parcels; one parcel contains the existing commercial building and
17 40 marked parking spaces and the other parcel contains 25 parking spaces used by Grocery
18 Outlet customers. The second parcel is located outside of the City limits and is not subject to
19 City review.
20 • The recycling business is a permitted use.
21
22 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:13 p.m.
23
24 Applicant, Dwight Ashdown, Architect for the project
25 ■ Incorporated most of the suggestions from the DRB.
26
27 Chair Pruden asked the following questions of the applicant:
28
29 • Is the canopy completely enclosed on top or is there an open part?
30 ■ What are the plans for T1-11 siding?
31 ■ The fire suppression system has been damaged from vehicles.
32 ■ Has thought been given to changing the circulation pattern on site, such as entering on the
33 south side and exit on the north side curb cut? It may be beneficial to change the circulation
34 pattern since the parking will be restriped and there are existing on-site circulation/parking
35 constraints.
36 ■ Provided the UMC allows, would it be possible to put handicap parking on the western portion
37 of the parking lot that fronts State Street or is it illegal to have this handicap parking across
38 the parking lot?
39 ■ Where do the employees generally park?
40 ■ Is it possible to lose the parking spaces fronting State Street and increase the landscaping?
41 The site is over-parked.
42
43 Applicant:
44 • Referred to the site plans and demonstrated the changes to the canopy in relation to the roof
45 and columns (support posts). The canopy is a steel canopy with an open 3-foot steel trellis
46 that extends off the canopy. The canopy cannot extend/wrap around the building on either
47 end because large vehicles may hit it.
48 • Demonstrated how drainage for the building will work and the location of the gutters. Excess
49 water from the building will go under the sidewalk and into the City's storm drain system.
50 • Existing fabric canopy will be removed, including the parapet returns at the front of the
51 existing building and replaced with horizontal steel canopy along front fa�ade; parapets will
52 be constructed at each end of the front fa�ade.
53 ■ The plan is to re-build/re-case the fire suppression facility to protect it from being damaged.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 2
1 ■ While stucco would look nice on the building as suggested by the DRB, for economic reasons
2 the plan is to retain the T1-11 siding and replace where necessary for those that require
3 repair. The entire building will be repainted.
4 ■ The entire parking will be repaired and resealed/restriped.
5 ■ Thought has been given to making the south entrance the primary entrance, particularly with
6 the way the parking spaces are angled in front of the building.
7 ■ Accessible parking should be located as close to the store as possible. One of the accessible
8 stalls was located near State Street and it became apparent customers would be backing up
9 into the first diagonal stall at which time the parking plan was rethought.
10 ■ The employees park in the rear of the building. The area is not designated. Employees
11 usually park in the northeast corner of the lot.
12 ■ Would need to consult with the property owner regarding the removal of the parking spaces
13 in front of the store. It may be a possibility.
14 ■ Diagonal parking works on the south side of the building with this being the primary entrance,
15 but not on the north side of the building if this side is both an entrance and an exit.
16
17 Commissioner Whetzel:
18 ■ It is easier for the service trucks to come around from the north to the south and back
19 straight in as opposed to driving to the corner and face a blind turn.
20 ■ The reason the trucks enter from the north curb cut is because it is a straight shot to the
21 corner and they can back up straight into the loading dock area. The way the dock is set up,
22 trucks have to go to the corner and do a blind turn and then back up. The right side is
23 blinded briefly.
24
25 Applicant:
26 ■ It is his understanding service trucks drive into the site from the north entrance and proceed
27 along the north side of the building and park parallel to the loading dock.
28 ■ With regard to Safeway, service trucks must enter from one street and exit on another. It is
29 not uncommon to have this type of requirement for service trucks.
30 ■ Diagonal parking would not be a problem if the circulation pattern for the site is changed
31 where there is a designated `in and an out.' Diagonal parking would be angled northwest.
32 ■ The recycling center business would present some problems if the circulation pattern were
33 changed; It is doable.
34
35 Chair Pruden:
36 ■ Asked what the best approach should be? Should the trucks enter from the north or the south
37 curb cut.
38 ■ What are the plans for signage?
39 ■ The DRB asked the applicant to consider eliminating the red background color and use
40 individual lettering for the sign on the building as well as hanging signs under the canopy to
41 advertise individual products that are being sold. Also, consider a smaller freestanding sign.
42 ■ Likes the new color palate for the building.
43 ■ What are the plans for cart return? Is there space for a cart corral in the parking lot rather
44 than in front of the building?
45 ■ The Commission may consider asking the applicant to eliminate parking space for carts or
46 provide for a cart corral.
47
48 Applicant:
49 ■ The plan is to use the existing freestanding sign and reface using Heritage Red for the
50 background and replace the sign copy with an updated Grocery outlet logo; add channel
51 letter sign on front of the store; use hanging signs under the canopy as shown on Sheet
52 A.403 of the site plans.
53 ■ A new 3-foot wall has been added to soften the building and screen the cart return.
54
55
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 3
1 Commissioner Molgaard:
2 ■ Is it feasible to have a truck entrance only and exit for everyone else?
3 ■ Would it be possible to extend the canopy in front of the handicap parking spaces so that
4 when handicap persons get out of their cars they do not get wet when it rains. This feature
5 would be really good for business. Extending the canopy would also provide additional shade
6 during hot weather months.
7
8 Applicant:
9 ■ Has not thought about this issue. The primary intend of the project is to `dress-up' the front of
10 the building rather than provide shelter from the rain. It is not possible to extend/wrap the
11 canopy around the building because large vehicles are likely to hit it based on the design/site
12 and parking plans.
13
14 Commissioner Helland:
15 ■ The parking lot does not have sufficient landscaping and greenery. The UMC required one
16 tree for every four parking stalls. Has consideration been given to adding landscaping? She
17 recommends adding trees along the north and south sides of the building, particularly the
18 south side. Agrees with the DRB — provide additional landscaping features if possible and
19 make improvements to the existing landscaping in front of the building. Also, provide
20 additional landscaping on the west side of the parking area to create additional shade and
21 screen the parking lot.
22 ■ How far back will the parapets to be constructed on each end of the front fa�ade extend?
23 ■ Agrees with DRB that use of stucco rather than paint with texture to better complement the
24 building. If not stucco, recommend a sample of an alternative be provided. T1-11 on a west
25 facing elevation may be a maintenance issue.
26 • `Heritage Red' is a nice color; concern it may be too red.
27
28 Applicant:
29 ■ Consideration has been given to adding landscaping. There are three additional trees on the
30 south side of the site that are not readily seen on the site plans between the front corner and
31 the recycling building. The applicant will make considerations about improving the
32 landscaping.
33 ■ See Sheet A.501 of the site plans; 16 feet as shown from the first gray line on the plan. He
34 further elaborated on the architectural features in this regard as to how the elements
35 complement one another.
36 ■ The use of stucco is a cost issue and agrees stucco would be a better option. He will consult
37 with the property owner about the application of stucco.
38
39 Chair Pruden :
40 ■ There is a brownish tint to this paint color.
41 ■ Agrees with the DRB suggestion, consider more landscaping to the shopping cart corral area,
42 such as a half wall with a `greenscreen' that vines can grow on. She does not recommend
43 wisteria or any flowering vine close to the building that draws bees for safety purposes.
44
45 Applicant:
46 ■ The Grocery Outlet is corporate and this recommendation does not correspond with the
47 corporate design/image. He referred to the staff report (pages 4 and 5) that outlines what
48 DRB recommendations the applicant is willing to do.
49
50 Page 3 of the staff report provides a list of the DRB comments/recommendations.
51
52 Chair Pruden and Commissioner Helland support adding vegetation by removing the front parking
53 stalls that front State Street.
54
55 Commissioner Sanders:
56 ■ Inquired about plans for lighting with the change in the design of the canopy.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 4
1 Applicant:
2 ■ The intent is to put lights under the canopy in front of the building. There will be 4 lights along
3 wall of the north and south elevations that will be shielded on the top and downcast.
4
5 Chair Pruden:
6 ■ Recommended using motion sensor lights on the building to discourage graffiti and other
7 types of vandalism. The Ukiah Police Department likes them.
8
9 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:38 p.m.
10
11 Commission summary of comments/recommendations:
12
13 ■ Pleased the applicant took many of the DRB recommendations and made many
14 changes/improvements to the project.
15 ■ The Commission discussed whether a new circulation pattern is necessary. While the current
16 pattern does not appear too problematic, it may be that a one-way circulation would better
17 address traffic congestion on site whereby the public would enter at the south curb cut and
18 exit on the north allowing for a more effective flow of traffic.
19 ■ The applicants can make the determination about on-site circulation.
20 ■ Pleased the applicant intends to made sidewalk improvements.
21 ■ The Commission discussed removal of the four parking spaces that front State Street and
22 increase the landscaping. The site has ample parking; The project requires 36 parking
23 spaces and the site currently has 40 parking spaces. Discussed impacts to the overall site
24 circulation if the parking stalls that front North State Street were eliminated.
25 ■ Elimination of the parking stalls would resolve traffic circulation conflicts on site and allow the
26 tree canopy to grow in this area even if it is not economically feasible for the applicant at this
27 time to increase the landscaping.
28 The trees in the front landscaping bed are City street trees. The property owner does not
29 have the authority to trim these trees and has so that the Grocery Outlet sign is clearly
30 visible.
31
32 Commissioner Molgaard:
33 ■ Recently assisted with helping a child in the parking lot that was a safety issue. The front
34 area of the site appears to have traffic problems, in which the proposed improvements may
35 very well resolve. She has no opinion whether making diagonal parking stalls would help.
36 ■ Understands that allowing for a more pedestrian friendly environment is important, but
37 questions whether it is necessary to eliminate the parking spaces that front State Street.
38 ■ In support of a pedestrian friendly environment would like to a pedestrian walkway from the
39 north sidewalk to the building for safety purposes, which can be accomplished by striping
40 designating the walkway.
41
42 Commissioner Whetzel:
43 ■ Having two entrances is less congestive than having one. His general observation is that
44 overall the present circulation pattern works. The elimination of one entrance could create
45 traffic problems on State Street.
46
47 ■ The four parking spaces should be likely be retained from a business perspective. He does
48 not want to hold up the project.
49
50 Chair Pruden, Commissioners Helland and Sanders supported eliminating the four parking stalls
51 to allow the existing trees to grow and/or for the purpose of increasing the landscaping in this area to
52 include two additional trees in place of the removed parking spaces.
53
54 Staff asked if were important that those particular parking spaces be eliminated or that additional
55 landscaping could be compensated for at another location of the site.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 5
1 Applicant:
2 ■ He would have to consult with the property owner about the Commission requiring the
3 parking spaces fronting North State Street be eliminated.
4
5 Commissioner Whetzel:
6 ■ If the parking stalls are removed, on-site circulation would change. As an alternative option
7 to maintaining safety on-site and assisting with effective on-site circulation, would it be
8 beneficial to make two of the four stalls ADA accessible and two stalls used for access
9 purposes.
10 ■ stated other retail establishments have ADA accessible parking staff located across the
11 parking lot from the building, citing Lucky as an example.
12
13 Chair Pruden:
14 ■ Is not sure what the ADA requirements are in circumstances where a handicapped parking is
15 across the parking lot as opposed to in front of the building. This is the opportunity to make a
16 more aesthetically looking project that would better assist with on-site circulation.
17
18 Planning Commission: Discussion whether additional trees should be planted on the south side of
19 the building. It was noted there are three existing trees in this area; No formal
20 recommendation/condition was made about planting additional trees in this area.
21
22 Chair Pruden:
23 ■ Would the Commission like to see a pedestrian-striped walkway at both entrances to the
24 business?
25
26 Commissioner Helland:
27 ■ The crosswalk on State Street is located to the south of the building so pedestrians will likely
28 use the southern portion of the building. Requiring a crosswalk from the north sidewalk to the
29 building would serve no real purpose.
30
31 The Commission crafted a new Finding to substantiate elimination of the four parking stalls on the
32 western portion of the site and reads, "With the removal of the four spaces the project site will still be
33 in conformance with the City Code parking requirements. The parcel that is within city limits and
34 contains the building currently has 40 parking spaces and based on the square footage of the building
35 the site is only required to have 36 spaces. Furthermore the adjacent county parcel to the north has
36 25 spaces that are used by Grocery Outlet customers."
37
38 Revise Finding No. 4(b)to show removal of the parking spaces would not change the site access and
39 circulation to read, `Removal of the four parking spaces at the front of the site will not change site
40 access or circulation; therefore the project would not result in hazardous or inconvenient traffic
41 conditions for adjacent or surrounding uses. Furthermore replacement of the parking spaces with two
42 trees, as mitigation for noncompliance with City Code's requirement for parking lot shade tree; two
43 trees will not create a hazardous condition.'
44
45 Additionally, the Commission modified Condition of Approval No. 3(b), which reads, `landscaping
46 plans that show the removal of the four existing parking spaces in the front of the along North State
47 Street with the addition of two shade trees in place of the removed parking spaces.
48
49 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve Grocery Outlet Site Development Permit No. 09-33-SDP-PC with
50 Findings 1-5, the addition of Finding No. 6, modification to Finding 4(b) and Conditions of Approval
51 Nos. 1-12 with modification to Condition of Approval No. 3(b) with Commissioner Whetzel
52 commenting he has reservations about eliminating the four parking stalls on the western portion of
53 the site that front North State Street. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. (4-1).
54 AYES: Commissioners Whetzel, Helland, Sanders, Chair Pruden
55 NOES: Commissioner Molgaard
56 ABSTAIN: NONE
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 6
1 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
2 EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GROCERY OUTLET STORE
3 LOCATED AT 1203 NORTH STATE STREET.
4
5 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
6 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
7
8 1. See"General Plan" under staff analysis above.
9
10 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the uses allowed in the Heavy
11 Commercial (C2) zoning district pursuant to Section 9097 which allows retail stores with
12 approval of a use permit. Use Permit 88-84 was previously approved for the site for retail
13 sales. Retail sales have been ongoing at this since 1988.
14
15 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the
16 Heavy Commercial zoning district in that the footprint, height and parking configuration of the
17 existing building will not be changed by this project.
18
19 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the following specific findings
20 required pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9263(E) in order to approve a site
21 development permit.
22
23 a. The site is located on an arterial street with an existing driveway. The site has a sidewalk
24 as required. The project will not modify the access or the sidewalk and an ADA
25 accessible path of travel will be added. As such, the project will not create a hazardous
26 or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.
27
28 b. Removal of the four parking spaces at the front of the site will not change site access or
29 circulation therefore the project would not result in hazardous or inconvenient traffic
30 conditions for adjacent or surrounding uses. Furthermore replacement of the parking
31 spaces with two trees, as mitigation for noncompliance with the City Code's requirement
32 for parking lot shade tree two trees, will not create a hazardous condition.
33
34 c. The existing landscaping if allowed to grow higher and the addition of parking lot tress will
35 provide adequate screening and separation of structures and will soften the paved
36 parking area.
37
38 d. The project will not increase the height or footprint of the building and, therefore, would
39 not restrict light or air on the property or on adjacent properties.
40
41 e. The site is not located in or adjacent to a residential zoning district.
42
43 f. The site is located in a commercial area that is developed with an existing retail store and
44 parking area, no water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat, floodway or flood plain or other
45 environmentally sensitive areas are present.
46
47 g. The project includes updating the existing fa�ade with a new steel canopy, new parapet
48 returns, repainting the entire building exterior, installing new channel letter sign on
49 storefront, and replacing copy of exiting freestanding sign. The proposed modifications
50 are compatible with the architecture of the existing building and will improve the design
51 thereby avoiding a monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting appearance.
52
53 3. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
54 Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 (a), projects that involve
55 exterior alterations to existing structures based on the following:
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 7
1 a. The project involves modifications to the exterior of the existing building that will not
2 enlarge the footprint of the building.
3
4 b. The project is not located within an environmentally sensitive area in that the site is
5 located on an arterial street and in an urban area that includes a variety of
6 commercial businesses. The site is developed with a building that is currently used
7 and will continue to be used for retail sales and associated parking areas and
8 landscaping. No water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat, floodway or flood plain or
9
10 4. With the removal of the four spaces the project site will still be in conformance with the City
11 Code parking requirements. The parcel that is within city limits and contains the building
12 currently has 40 parking spaces and based on the square footage of the building the site is
13 only required to have 36 spaces. Furthermore the adjacent county parcel to the north has 25
14 spaces that are used by Grocery Outlet customers.
15
16
17 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
18 EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GROCERY OUTLET STORE
19 LOCATED AT 1203 NORTH STATE STREET
20
21 1. Approval is granted for the exterior modifications to the existing building as shown on the
22 plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 1, 2009 except as
23 modified by the following conditions of approval.
24
25 2. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as notes
26 on the first sheet.
27
28 3. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review
29 and approval:
30
31 a. Details and location of bike rack. An inverted U style bike rack is preferred.
32
33 b. Landscape plans that show the removal of the four existing parking spaces in the front
34 of the site along North State Street and the addition of two shade trees in place of the
35 removed parking spaces.
36
37 4. All signs require application and approval of sign permit from Community Development
38 Department.
39
40 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv)
41
42 5. A building permit is required for proposed project the building permit submittal shall include a
43 plot plan and engineered plans.
44
45 Standard Citv Requirement
46
47 6. Construction hours are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through
48 Saturday.
49
50 7. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
51 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
52 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
53 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
54 Permit is approved and issued.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 8
1 8. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed
2 prior to building permit final.
3
4 9. Building, Grading or other required Permits shall be issued within two years after the effective
5 date of the Site Development Permit, or the discretionary actions granted by the permit shall
6 expire. In the event the required Permits cannot be issued within the stipulated period from
7 the project approval date, a one year extension may be granted by the Director of Planning if
8 no new circumstances affect the project which otherwise would render the original approval
9 inappropriate or illegal. It is the applicant's responsibility in such cases to propose the one-
10 year extension to the Planning Department prior to the two-year expiration date.
11
12 10. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit shall be granted only for
13 the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Site Development Permit and shall
14 not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except
15 to such specific purposes.
16
17 11. The approved Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation
18 process if the approved project related to the Site Development Permit is not being
19 conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is
20 not established within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established land
21 use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty four(24)
22 consecutive months.
23
24 12. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
25 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
26
27 9B. Retail Building Preliminary Review Permit No. 09-31-UP-PC. Request for preliminary
28 review of a Major Use Permit for a new 16,000 square foot retail building in the Airport
29 Business Park, 1230 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-080-25.
30
31 Staff presented the staff report and the following information was provided to the Planning
32 Commission:
33 ➢ Project plans were projected on the screen during the meeting.
34 ➢ Minutes from the 9/21/2009 meeting where the project was reviewed by the DRB were
35 provided to the Commission.
36 ➢ AIP PD Ordinance 1098 with the development standards for the project were provided as
37 attachment 2 of the staff report and addition pages with the landscaping requirements were
38 provided at places.
39
40 Commissioner Whetzel requested a better map that shows the parcels of the AIP. Commented that
41 the Vicinity map on the first page of the plans is incorrect.
42
43 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:15 PM
44
45 Steve Honeycutt commented:
46 • The intent is to construct a 16,000 square foot commercial retail building and associated site
47 improvements on the rear portion of the vacant parcel. The project would develop
48 approximately half of a larger parcel. The project includes the subdivision of the existing
49 parcel into two parcels. The proposed project will include three tenant spaces. The existing
50 Sears in town will be the primary tenant.
51 • The owner of the existing Sears franchise, Dan Peterson, is also a partner in the project.
52 • The existing Sears franchise will relocate to the site as the main tenant as shown on Sheet
53 A1.1 (Suite c `Millan').
54 • The building is nicely designed. Careful consideration was given to the layout in order
55 appropriately address how the site would function in terms of access, loading docks for
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 9
1 merchandise and other related site matters for the retail establishments that will exist on the
2 site, as well as comply with the development standards in the AIP PD Ordinance.
3 • Applicant has incorporated most of the DRB recommendations.
4 • The building is L-shaped/concrete tilt-up to accommodate the loading dock design in the rear
5 of the property that fronts the Railroad tracks.
6 • There is no plan as to the type of development/use for the front parcel at this time (Phase II).
7 Phase II was included as a conceptual design as requested by staff.
8 • In response to the DRB comments, the ADA parking spaces have been relocated to the
9 south to allow for a pedestrian pathway. There will be another pedestrian pathway on the
10 northeast corner of the building and loading zone area. The paths of accessible travel are
11 shown on Sheet A0.2.
12 • There will be a monument sign for the project which will be located at the front of the site.
13 Further details about the signage will be made available when the project goes through
14 discretionary review.
15 • Sheets A0.2/L-1 show the landscaping plans and elaborated on the plans for the front portion
16 of the building.
17
18 Planning Commission questions/comments:
19 • Will merchandise for the Sears be displayed in front of the store like the existing store?
20 • Explain the layout of the building and confirm the warehousing for the Sears building will be in
21 the rear of the building. Will the unloading/loading of inerchandise occur on the south of the
22 building because there is sufficient space for large vehicles to access.
23 • The applicant was asked to demonstrate the location of the pedestrian walkways added with
24 regard to pedestrian orientation in response to the DRB's comments. The DRB
25 recommended:
26 o The applicant provides a pedestrian walkway to the stores because pedestrians have
27 to walk between cars or use the ADA area.
28 o In the row of parking located at the front of the building, the DRB recommended
29 reconfiguring the location of the landscape planting islands and parking stall
30 distribution and possibly eliminate a parking stall in order to provide a pedestrian path
31 that is separate from the ADA ramp.
32
33 • Has consideration been given to a residential use on a second story?
34 • Is daylighting an option? Skylights?
35 • The applicant was asked to explain the passive solar design.
36 • Even though Phase II is conceptual at this point. Parking for development should be hidden
37 from street view. The parking shown on the side of the building does not appear to be
38 consistent with the AIP requirements for the location of parking.
39
40 Dan Peterson, Sears Owner: The intent is for the merchandise to be displayed in the store and not
41 outdoors.
42
43 Steve Honeycutt, Applicant:
44 • The Sears building will be L-shaped. The front portion of the building will be the sales area
45 and the area in the rear of the building will be for appliances and for operational needs. He
46 demonstrated how the rear portion of the building will be accessed by large vehicles.
47 • Demonstrated how the design was changed relative to ADA parking to provide for a better
48 balance of access to the sidewalk. The DRB asked the applicant to consider reconfiguring the
49 ADA ramp due to the lack of space remaining between back of ramp and building and create
50 another pathway. In response, as an alternative approach, the design was changed so that
51 the ADA parking was moved farther to the south to allow for a pedestrian pathway.
52 • A residential componenUmixed is not viewed as a feasible use for this particular site. There
53 could be limitations related to the airport which is located immediately west of the site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 10
1 • Daylighting would not be feasible for the sales area of the Sears store, but daylight could be
2 added to the warehouse area. The application of`solar tubes' will likely be implemented into
3 the project design for the warehouse area.
4 • The biggest aspect of passive solar is placement/protection of the windows. There will be no
5 windows on the north side of the building. Windows will be constructed on the east side of the
6 building, which is the coolest side of the building. There will be one window on the south side
7 of the building, which is protected by a trellis.While the building is not LEED per se, careful
8 thought was given to the design in terms of making it as `green' as possible.
9 • Phase II represents a development challenge. There is currently no tenant for the building
10 and Phase II would not be constructed until there was a tenant interested in the location. The
11 intent for Phase I was to design a building and be able to provide appropriate
12 landscaping/other building amenities, allow for a pedestrian environment, and make it as
13 aesthetically pleasing as possible with regard to materials, building treatments, and color
14 palate.
15
16 Planning Commission provided the following comments and asked the following question:
17 • Complimented the applicant on the design of the building and the willingness to
18 consider/revise the project to address the DRB recommendations and comply with the design
19 guidelines in the AIP PD Ordinance.
20 • Likes the landscaping proposed with regard to the percentage of shade that will be provided
21 as a result.
22 • Will outdoor pedestrian seating be included in the plans?
23 • A white reflective roof is acceptable. A second story building is acceptable provided it
24 complies with the height restriction of the Airport Master Plan.
25
26 Steve Honeycutt, Applicant:
27 • A comprehensive landscape plan will be submitted when the project is reviewed.
28 • Benches will be placed in the front area under the portico. They are difficult to see in the site
29 plans.
30
31 Staff requested that the Commission provide direction on appropriate trees species for the project.
32
33 Planning Commission commented:
34 • Recommended using native oaks along the Railroad and noted that while native Oak is nice
35 choice for the selection some of these species, such as Live Oak/Cork Oak, are slow
36 growing. Holly Oak and Red Oak are faster growing.
37 • Could consider use of interior live oak.
38 • Could consider Chinese tallow, Chinese golden rain, pink locust, Chinese pistache for the
39 parking lot trees.
40 • Does not recommend the"Dogwood"shown on the plans.
41
42 The Commission likes the project.
43
44 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:46 p.m.
45 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
46 Planning Director Stump provided the Commission with a map and instructions for a self-guided
47 housing tour.
48
49 There was a brief discussion concerning review of the General Plan Housing Element Update. Staff
50 encourages the Commission to begin reading the document and make comments prior to formal
51 review.
52
53 11. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 11
1 Commissioner Sanders expressed concern about the number of residential units that have been
2 converted to professional office use, thus reducing the housing stock and would like to talk about this
3 problem. She is in the process of taking an inventory of such buildings.
4
5 Commissioner Sanders asked about the City of Ukiah water conservation program and how the
6 Commission should proceed with requiring applicants provide landscaping for new construction when
7 the City is in Stage 1 water emergency.
8
9 Planning Director Stump recommended asking City Engineer Tim Eriksen to address this matter
10 and what it means in terms of projects.
11
12 12. ADJOURNMENT 8:06 at p.m.
13
14
15 Judy Pruden, Chair
16
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19
20
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 24, 2009
Page 12