HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_11052009 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 November 5, 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 - N/A
29
30 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—None
31
32 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
33 None.
34
35 7. APPEAL PROCESS- N/A
36
37 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Downtown Zoning Code Workshop # 6 was properly noticed
38 in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
39
40 9. PUBLIC HEARING
41 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop #6. Review and Discussion of Section 10: Tree
42 Standards and Section 11: Circulation
43
44 Staff: After the draft was reviewed previously, it determined that RELEAF would provide the tree
45 standards for the Downtown Zoning Code. The tree standards were provided by RELEAF
46 and staff revised only the format, so that the format is consistent throughout the DZC. Staff
47 did not modify the content.
48
49 Page 48, Item D, Tree Preservation, the table lists the trees recommended for preservation
50 due to their maturity, beauty, and/or local prominence and their location. The list was
51 formulated by ReLeaf.
52
53 Chair Pruden: Because a tree is recommended for preservation is no indication they are a `landmark'
54 tree. As a separate undertaking, the City will be identifying landmark trees in public right-of-ways.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 1
1 Pinky Kushner:
2 • Likes the tree preservation list. Is partial to the Deodar Cedar, Holly Oak.
3 • The Crape Myrtle is a shrub rather than a tree and should not be on the tree preservation list.
4 In this area, Crape Myrtles may reach a height of 12 feet and do not contribute in any way to
5 a pedestrian friendly environment that encourages walkability and the like. School Street is a
6 good example of a pedestrian friendly environment.
7 • The Crape Myrtles on State Street should eventually be removed prior to maturity and
8 replaced. A solution would be to plant acorns on the site and allow the Oak tree to eventually
9 take over and replace the Crape Myrtle.
10 • Street trees should be able to provide a canopy that spreads over the street with branches
11 that hang no lower than 12 or 14 feet. Crape Myrtles do not have this capability even at
12 maturity.
13 • The south side of Clara Avenue has some good size Crape Myrtles. They are planted in lawn
14 and are not street trees.
15
16 Chair Pruden: A Crape Myrtle is considered to be in the small tree category and does not do well as
17 street trees or parking lot trees. They are essentially a `flowering ornamental' and do not provide for a
18 large shade canopy. Street trees and parking lot trees are effective when they provide the necessary
19 canopy and their branches allow for specific clearance concerning cars and pedestrians. Crape
20 Myrtles do not grow large enough to be concerned about clearance.
21
22 Commission Comments:
23 • Oak trees require a lot of water.
24 • The Red Plum is drought resistant.
25 • A medium tree generally reaches a 20-foot height.
26 • Chinese Pistache is a hardy tree species and survives under`brutal' conditions.
27 • Crape Myrtle is slow growing.
28 • Crape Myrtle should not be used as street trees or parking lot trees.
29 • Street trees and parking lot trees must be hardy/sturdy in order to survive difficult living
30 conditions.
31
32 Susan Knopf: One of the reasons the Crape Myrtles are stunted is because they are over-pruned. If
33 allowed to grow, they would be considerably taller. She understands they are not broadly-branched
34 shade trees. Questioned how complete the table concerning trees recommended for preservation?
35 The Dawn Redwoods that are in front of the Courthouse are not listed. What about the Cork Tree in
36 the neighborhood that is not listed?
37
38 Chair Pruden: The list of trees in the table are not necessarily landmark trees.
39
40 Susan Knopf: The list of trees are those recommended for preservation.
41
42 Staff: The trees listed in the table are on private property and are regulated by the Zoning Code.
43 These trees are recommended for preservation. It may be necessary to list tree species in the public
44 right-of-way in a separate table.
45
46 Commission Comments: With regard to the Magnolia in front of the Courthouse, why is the
47 Courthouse considered private property?
48
49 Staff: The Magnolia is not located in the public right-of-way. Who owns the property is irrelevant to
50 zoning.
51
52 Commission Comments: Are `heritage'trees to be preserved?
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 2
1 Chair Pruden: There is no formal `heritage' tree list. Accordingly, only the criteria has been
2 established for trees in the public right-of-way that can be identified as landmark trees relative to
3 those that are significant to the community and not on private property.
4
5 Commission Comments: Are there landmark trees in the DZC? The City Tree Ordinance would
6 address street trees.
7
8 Chair Pruden: Considers the Chinese Pistache on School Street to be a tree of significance for this
9 street.
10
11 Commissioner Whetzel: Do the Chinese Pistache on School Street follow the criteria relative to the
12 definition of a heritage tree?
13
14 Chair Pruden: The Chinese Pistache on School Street are `landmark'trees.
15
16 It was noted the Magnolia species at the Courthouse have been there a long time. One of the
17 Magnolia species has been there since 1892. These trees are located on private property.
18
19 Commissioner Sanders: Would like to hear the rationale concerning the trees recommended for
20 preservation. The discussion has included trees on private property and in the public right-of-way and
21 questioned how this relates to trees recommended for preservation. Is the list considered `inclusive?'
22
23 Staff: It may be necessary to focus on the scope of what is supposed be included in the DZC
24 wherein the Planning Commission makes suggestions/propose changes based on public comments.
25 All of the tree lists were developed by ReLeaf. It is my understanding that some members of ReLeaf
26 also wanted to include a list trees recommended for preservation. Tree species in the public right-of-
27 way are a different discussion and scope of work. The zoning code distinguishes between private
28 property and public right-of-way, such as streets and sidewalks. Whether or not the property is owned
29 by a government agency, state, or school district does not matter. It is private property and not the
30 public right-of-way. Again, ownership is completely irrelevant just as was discussed in the use table.
31
32 Commissioner Molgaard: Who determines how street trees are planted and maintained in the public
33 right-of-way?
34
35 Chair Pruden: The City Public Works Department has a tree planting detail and utilizing specific
36 direction cares for and maintains these trees.
37
38 Commissioner Molgaard: There should be an interconnection between what the Public Works
39 Department is doing in the public right-of-way and the DZC document.
40
41 Chair Pruden: The subcommittee tree group is working on this. The subcommittee is working on an
42 integrated tree policy establishing best practices for growing an urban forest.
43
44 Nick Thayer:
45 • Section 10 is titled `Tree Standards' when in reality the working portions of the document is
46 street trees and parking lot trees.
47 • Some of the trees recommended for preservation are located in the public right-of-way. For
48 instance, the 24 Crape Myrtles on State Street two blocks north and two blocks south of
49 Perkins Street are encased in the public right-of-way. This brings about many questions as to
50 `what about this and that tree' which then expands the scope to include the whole area rather
51 than just the streetscape. The `trees recommended for preservation' list does create some
52 confusion such that either all or no trees are protected that are located on private property as
53 opposed to street trees specifically.
54 • Crape Myrtle: There are issues about adaptability/maintenance/ultimate scale. It may be
55 more cost effective to replace street trees to a more suitable species than to protect what is
56 existing when changes/improvements are made to sidewalks and/or parking lots.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 3
1 Recommends putting in a new species when streetscapes are re-done. Agrees the tree
2 preservation list should be revisited.
3
4 Chair Pruden: Even though the tree included in the table is on private property, it does contribute to
5 the urban forest in a way that people like. It may be the list should be re-worked. For example, the
6 Chinese Pistache trees in front of the library are street trees. She volunteered to work on revitalizing
7 the list.
8
9 Staff: Recommends creating two separate lists of the trees recommended for preservation —a private
10 property list and a street trees/right-of-way list. There appears to be some interest in not retaining the
11 Crape Myrtles. The table does not require the trees listed to be preserved. The table `recommends'
12 preservation of these trees.
13
14 Pinky Kushner:
15 • Recommends allowing the community to decide what tree species should be on the list using
16 Nick Thayer's expertise as a landscape architect to review for further input because this is the
17 vision for the future.
18
19 • Language should be included about how existing tree species fit into the vision and where
20 they do not. Recommends formulating a narrative about the importance of maintaining an
21 urban forest and the significance of trees species as street trees, parking lot trees, riparian
22 trees and even trees on private property as a way to introduce the concept.
23
24 Bruni Kobbe:
25 • Supports having the urban forest concept in place first; likes having a primary table of trees
26 recommended for preservation and to rethink whether an alternate tree table is necessary
27 since the intent is to strive for uniformity in the DZC district. The trees recommended for the
28 preservation table appears to conflict with creating that uniform design principle in the
29 Downtown area.
30 • Recommends review of the three tables as part of Section 10 and refer to the tree advisory
31 group for further input. There are qualified experts serving on the tree advisory committee
32 that can discuss which tree species are suitable and whether it is necessary to name
33 alternate tree species because there are already several choices for each of the primary
34 streets. Also, the committee can determine which of the tree species should be on the list of
35 recommended trees for preservation.
36
37 Chair Pruden: The tree advisory committee will not meet again until December and this could be a
38 problem in terms of effectively coordinating time constraints and making decisions about the required
39 and preservation of trees in the Downtown even though Staff/Planning Commission is taking public
40 input regarding the DZC document for possible amendments/changes before it can be adopted by
41 Council.
42
43 Nick Thayer/Commission - Item D Trees Recommended for Preservation:
44 • Camphor—State StreeUSmith Street-street trees
45 • Crape Mvrtles—State Street, Perkins Street-street trees;
46 • Deodar Cedar— Pear Tree Shopping Center- private property
47 • Hollv Oak - in front of the Courthouse is not a Holly Oak. Unknown whether the tree is a
48 street tree or on private property.
49 • Maqnolia — in front of Courthouse should be 4 trees rather than 3. Trees should be identified
50 by the actual scientific name so it can be readily identified by the species. There are
51 essentially two kinds of Magnolia trees;
52 • Chinese Pistache in front of the library and Chinese Pistache on Perkins Street, Main Street,
53 State Street—street trees;
54 • Redwood — Pear Tree Shopping Center— Private trees
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 4
1 Nick Thayer: The process and discussion appears to be essentially cataloguing of all the trees in the
2 DZC? Is this necessary if the purpose is to talk about street trees, parking lot trees and riparian trees
3 because the trees for recommended preservation are not any of these? The purpose/intent would
4 have to be restated to include all trees.
5
6 There was a brief discussion regarding the origin of the Trees Recommended for Preservation list.
7
8 Chair Pruden:
9 • Recommends eliminating the street trees from the preservation list;
10 • Take note there are signature trees and/or trees that are major contributors to the Downtown
11 area that are private. The Magnolias in front of the Courthouse are signature trees.
12 • The Chinese Pistache trees on School Street are signature trees and, they are street trees.
13 • Two tables should be created to distinguish between street trees and private trees
14 concerning trees recommended for preservation.
15 • The narrative for both tables should essentially contain the same language and state, `There
16 are trees that provide a signature and/or an identity to the Downtown area that create
17 zones/entities, which is the intent of the tree preservation list.'
18 • Whether these trees are private or public they do create a particular character.
19
20 Staff:
21 • Since the tree section and corresponding language was essentially created by ReLeaf,
22 recommends the Planning Commission, Nick Thayer and others work on the language.
23 • While it is appropriate to include a purpose statement, the language should be formulated for
24 a zoning code (regulatory language) as opposed to language in a policy document.
25 • The purpose statement may have to be modified to be appropriate for a zoning code. If the
26 intent is to regulate these trees, as noted by Nick Thayer, it becomes an exercise of
27 accurately identifying each and every tree that are intended to be preserved. In this way,
28 there is no confusion between the staff, property owner, developer and others as to which
29 trees should be retained and which can be removed.
30
31 Commissioner Sanders: Agrees the street trees should come off of the tree preservation list. The
32 language being used to identify signature trees that may include such terms as historical, interest,
33 aesthetics should be clearly defined. Allow/encourage those members of the public that have offered
34 their time to work with ReLeaf on a tree preservation list.
35
36 Chair Pruden: Is willing to work with Nick Thayer to draft some language about preservation of trees
37 with ReLeaf and other interested persons. This language may not be ready until January.
38
39 Staff: The terminology is very important. In addition to identifying whether a tree is a signature or
40 character tree, a definition must also be created. She recommends common language be used that
41 people are familiar with such as `landmark' or`heritage' noting providing a definition is critical.
42
43 Robert Gitlin:
44 • Has commercial property in the downtown.
45 • Is interested in the tree section of the DZC.
46 • His property has soil conditions where only planter size trees would be appropriate to plant
47 and inquired whether it is possible to add a section that addresses planter-size trees.
48 • The trees being discussed tonight are too large and would not go in planters very well.
49 • He is seeking funding for improvements to his property from the Fa�ade Improvement
50 Program.
51 • It would be beneficial to have an alternative option for properties that have physical
52 constraints relative to the tree section of the DZC.
53 • Planting trees on his property may be a big issue.
54 • There does not appear to be flexibility with regard to the DZC rules that pertain to compliance
55 with the tree standards.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 5
1 • He is not just talking about his project, but future projects that have site constraints such as
2 the sidewalk being too narrow, only a planter size can be put in and/or soil conditions that
3 restrict development and compliance with zoning standards.
4
5 Chair Pruden: The zoning code rules may not apply to Dr. Gitlin's property because the buildings are
6 at zero lot line and there is a creek that runs underneath the property. If street trees are required for a
7 project, there may be options that can be ascertained.
8
9 Staff:
10 • If the project triggers a site development permit or there is a dollar amount that triggers
11 frontage improvements, street trees would be required. Standards and zoning codes are
12 typically written for the 95% situation and there is a process for dealing with exceptions to the
13 standards.
14 • The table for street trees on page 49 allows for modifications from the tree standards. If there
15 were constraints that made it difficult to comply with the requirement, the applicant would
16 apply for a modification to the requirement. In the situation noted, Dr. Gitlin would ask for
17 relief from the street tree requirement. It is likely depending upon the level of improvements,
18 the project would require site development permit approval from the Planning Commission or
19 Zoning Administrator. An exception from the tree standards would require approval by the
20 Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator.
21
22 Chair Pruden: Looked at the DZC map and noted the area where Dr. Gitlin's property is located is
23 not in the DZC district. According to the boundaries of the current DZC map, only the corner parcel is
24 located in the DZC district. It may not be possible to extend the boundaries for the DZC due to the
25 cost of environmental documents that certain projects would trigger. The matter of boundaries will be
26 reviewed in another section of the DZC. Whatever improvements are being considered for the
27 property would be subject to the current zoning standards since the DZC has not been adopted.
28
29 Commissioner Sanders: The table for Trees Recommended for Preservation does not allow for a
30 major or minor exception for relief from the standard while the other tables do.
31
32 Chair Pruden: Allowing for major/minor exceptions may not apply to existing trees.
33
34 Commissioner Helland: At this point trees recommended for preservation is only a
35 recommendation.
36
37 Staff: The table for `Trees Recommended for Preservation' is not a requirement for preservation of
38 the trees; therefore, an exception is not required. The information is included to inform people that
39 these trees are important to the community. There is no exception needed when identified as
40 recommended.
41
42 Commissioner Molgaard: What do other communities do in this regard? It seems reasonable to
43 make the `Trees Recommended for Preservation' a requirement with a major exception to deviate
44 from the standard rather than simply a recommendation.
45
46 Staff:
47 • When the scope was originally developed for the tree list, this recommended list was not part
48 of the scope. The focus was probably street trees and which trees are appropriate for parking
49 lots and riparian areas and then the list concerning preservation of trees was formulated in
50 addition to the other lists.
51 • If it is the Planning Commission preference to develop a list that is a required list for
52 preservation of trees, then this is the purpose of the workshop.
53
54 Commissioner Molgaard: Supports making the tree preservation list a requirement because
55 people's awareness of their interdependence relative to appreciation/integrity for nature/the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 6
1 environment, particularly for trees are much greater than it used to be. It is right and justified to take a
2 different attitude toward trees even if they are on private property.
3
4 Chair Pruden:
5 • Instead of `trees recommended for preservation' state `trees to be retained in the DZC
6 District.'
7 • The ultimate goal is to have a healthy urban forest whereby the associated
8 policies/requirements are consistent with one another and in place that allows for
9 training/education and other mechanisms to preserve/maintain trees as a vital resource to the
10 community.
11 • There is a software program that has the ability to survey and provide data on the City's
12 urban forest. The first test site is McGarvy Park. The information from this software program
13 will provide information about the City's urban forest in order to formulate measures/plans to
14 preserve/protecUmaintain a healthy urban forest for the community. The information will also
15 allow for policy to be written to assist City staff on how to plant and care for City street trees.
16 • The initial intent is to provide community standards for trees that presently exist in the urban
17 forest. It may be that a City Tree Ordinance is necessary in the future. A tree ordinance would
18 have to be enforced.
19
20 Staff: The table would read, `Trees Required for Preservation' and then clearly identify the trees and
21 the property where the trees are located on the DZC Map. An exception process will also have to be
22 created, as well as identify under what circumstance it would be acceptable to remove these trees or
23 allow construction within a certain distance. Many communities regulate trees in this manner.
24
25 Commissioner Helland: Interested in knowing about other city ordinances communities have that
26 address trees in communities. It is her understanding the tree committee is working on a tree
27 ordinance for the community.
28
29 Commissioner Sanders: The tree advisory group, a voluntary group of citizens, adopted language
30 for landmark trees and is a program concerned with preservation of such trees on private property.
31 An analysis on City property will be conducted whereby landmark trees will be identified and
32 protected. The committee has plans for a presentation to Council about their progress concerning
33 trees in the community and how to best address preservation, care and maintenance of
34 signature/heritage/landmark trees. While the group is concerned with tree preservation, they do not
35 have plans to formally pursue a City Tree Ordinance or Code requirement.
36
37 Staff: Suggested that policy language formulated for trees be consistent with the DZC. It may be that
38 the trees being considered for preservation as a requirement are consistent with the `landmark' tree
39 definition. The `heritage tree' definition is also common terminology. Heritage and landmark trees can
40 be voluntary or required for projects in communities. The intent is to be consistent throughout all City
41 policy and regulatory documents.
42
43 Commission: Discussed whether there is `political will' exists among the community as to the need
44 for a City Tree Ordinance. Enforcement may not be problem because most people obey the law.
45
46 Nick Thayer: Is there separate text that is included in the tree standards as to how trees not in the
47 public right-of-way, but exist in the Form Based Zone should be handled? In other words, what does
48 the City control or not control? The document should control what the City does not control itself. It
49 has been established the City controls trees in the public right-of-way, but has no jurisdiction over
50 trees on private property. How do other Form Based Zoning Codes in communities work to
51 encourage the preservation of trees on private land?
52
53 Staff: The DZC provides the public, decision makers, property owners, developers and the
54 community with some idea of what to expect for development. The intent of the required street tree
55 list is to let people know what trees need to be planted for a project. Who maintains the trees and/or
56 the standards for maintenance is a separate document.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 7
1 Nick Thayer: The point is trees on private property are unprotected and can be removed at any time.
2 What category do these trees fall under in terms of protection? Is the intent for preservation of trees
3 to be a part of the urban forest policy?
4
5 Staff: The table concerning preservation, as presented, is a recommendation. At this point, trees on
6 private property can be removed. Trees on private property would fall under the `Trees
7 Recommended for Preservation' category. The DZC document is code rather than policy. The issue
8 of preservation would become a code requirement wherein trees listed for preservation would be
9 retained. Seeking relief from the requirement would necessitate some form of exception.
10
11 There was discussion how effective is Form Based Zoning Code. While this is a new concept, most
12 jurisdictions do not have Form Based Code so in terms of tree preservation issues, communities have
13 other manners of ordinances to control/regulate tree preservation. Since the City of Ukiah does not
14 have a tree preservation requirement, this is the opportunity to have one in place.
15
16 Commissioner Molgaard: Should the table reflect that the trees are examples of trees to be
17 preserved but also include in the criteria trees 50 years or older and/or having a height of 25 feet or
18 more and/or other relevant criteria so that not every tree has to be identified? Is this an effective
19 approach? What about the trees not on the current list, but become significant later? How does the
20 Code stay current in this regard?
21
22 Staff: Age/height is essentially a `built-in' factor, which can be assessed just by looking. The Code
23 could be reviewed on a regular basis for needed amendments. Also, as trees become meaningful or
24 significant to the community, people would likely bring this matter forward for a code amendment to
25 add specific trees to the list.
26
27 Commissioner Molgaard: Should regular updates to the tree preservation list be required and
28 planned for so that the list is not forgotten or modified when necessary.
29
30 Staff: This is not the typical protocol for updating codes. Such an approach may bring about possible
31 unrealistic expectations and may not be consistent with the priorities that the City Council has set for
32 staff in a given time period. Creating a supplemental document may be the solution to trigger review.
33
34 Commissioner Sanders: Read a good working definition for `landmark.' The definition identifies five
35 criterions to qualify as a landmark tree: 1) Outstanding specimen of a desirable species 2) One of the
36 largest or oldest trees in Ukiah 3) Having historical/commemorative interest 4) Having distinctive form
37 5) Serve as important habitat for wildlife. In order to qualify as a landmark tree, a tree must have all
38 the above characteristics. The majority of the tree advisory group likes the definition.
39
40 It was noted this voluntary group is interested in documenting signature trees for preservation. The
41 City will survey the Street Trees and designate as part of the urban forest.
42
43 Chair Pruden: It is the `landmark' definition that would be used when considering revision to the
44 preservation tree list.
45
46 Commissioner Whetzel: Emphasized the importance of unifying all information created from the
47 various groups/organizations/commissions working on tree issues.
48
49 Commissioner Helland: Has the group surveyed trees on private property in the City that could
50 qualify as a landmark tree?
51
52 Commissioner Sanders: The group has not formulated such a list. There are people in the group
53 that has identified trees they would like included for preservation as a landmark tree. The City
54 Arborists has asked the group to do an inventory of trees on City property. The group is hoping to do
55 this inventory next year. Through this process, it would be educational to include the public to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 8
1 participate and help with the inventory. The matter of tree care can also be addressed. The group is
2 in the process of developing plans and objectives.
3
4 Commissioner Molgaard: Noted in South Carolina property values have increased because the
5 trees in the urban forest are protected. All trees are part of the urban forest not just trees in the public
6 right-of-way. While considering/documenting landmark trees is beneficial and important, she would
7 like to see them documented and protected with code requirements rather spend valuable expert
8 volunteer time creating policies/recommendations that are not enforceable. Trees need to be
9 protected whether they exist in the public right-of-way or on private property. If trees are documented
10 as landmark and not protected by code requirements, there is no guarantee they will remain. The
11 time is now with this Planning Commission and this City Council.
12
13 Commissioner Whetzel: The table needs to allow for major exceptions.
14
15 Chair Pruden: It may be important to document the trees that should be retained on private property
16 rather than all trees. Asked the Commission if there was any other necessary information from staff
17 regarding preservation of the existing urban forest on private property?
18
19 Commissioner Molgaard: Would like to see a strict set of tree standards versus more moderate.
20 Enforcement requirements concerning trees in the community should be addressed in the DZC
21 document.
22
23 Staff: Enforcement is a large issue and takes an incredible amount of staff time. Recommended
24 looking at other City Ordinances as models for tree protection.
25
26 Commissioner Molgaard: A violation of the law is a big matter.
27
28 Senior Planner Jordan will consult with her former Assistant Director of Planning in Petaluma, since
29 tree issues are very important in this community and others he had worked in.
30
31 Susan Knopf: Agrees with Commissioner Molgaard that a more stringent approach to application of
32 tree standards for the DZC is necessary. The table does not necessarily have to distinguish whether
33 a particular tree is a signature/landmark/heritage tree, but that it is recommended for preservation.
34
35 Commission consensus:
36 • Continue the tree standard discussion. Work on language for the Trees Recommended
37 for Preservation table; revise two include two tables — private property and street
38 trees/right-of-way.
39 • Chair Pruden/Nick Thayer and other interested persons formulate a list of trees
40 recommended for preservation in the Downtown area in the public right-of-way and on
41 private property.
42
43 Commission Comments:
44 • The group that worked on the required tree lists had problems agreeing on tree species. The
45 end result is a compromise of tree species.
46 • The selection process required that the trees needed to be hardy enough for Ukiah's climate,
47 sturdy enough to survive as a street tree and sturdy enough for a parking lot.
48 • Some of tree species listed have not been used.
49 • The intent was to expand the variety of tree species in the urban forest.
50 • The `Golden Rain Tree' does well as a street tree and is not listed.
51
52 Chair Pruden had recommended a Pink Locust on Main Street, but it was not selected for the list.
53 She does not feel that the list needs to be revised because the process of creating the lists was very
54 thorough.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 9
1 Commissioner Molgaard: Item 6, Page 3 of 22 Benefits of Urban Street Trees, Less drainage
2 infrastructure. `Trees absorb the first 30% of most precipitation through their leaf system, allowing
3 evaporation back into the atmosphere,' This means the leaves absorb the moisture and does not fall
4 to the ground. When compared to the number of deciduous trees this community has and if this
5 process is factual, why not consider more evergreens as opposed to deciduous.
6
7 Chair Pruden: The opposite occurs in the winter wherein the evergreens do not let sun in
8 through its branches.
9
10 Commissioner Molgaard: Is the intent to balance sun versus moisture absorption?
11
12 Chair Pruden: Evergreens are screening trees. During the winter months, screening of the sun is
13 disadvantageous because it creates a damp environment.
14
15 There was discussion about the effectiveness of deciduous and evergreen trees in terms of location
16 appropriateness and other types of vegetation that can be used as a bio-swale, for instance, for
17 mitigation measure purposes to control runoff.
18
19 Nick Thayer:
20 • There are some misspellings of the trees on the lists.
21 • Discussion of trees on side streets should also be a consideration for the purpose of
22 addressing the whole area rather than just primary and/or gateway streets such as Perkins
23 Street, Main Street, State Street; There are other side streets and alleys that are not included
24 in the tables.
25
26 Staff:
27 • Trees are very important to communities because they contribute significantly to how
28 pleasant an environment is or can be. In keeping with goal/objectives of the DZC, it is
29 important the element of trees operating in various capacities either as street trees, trees on
30 private property, riparian trees, or parking lot trees be properly addressed in the document.
31 • A list should be developed of appropriate/alternate street trees that are not included in the
32 required street trees table so the tree selection list and process is clear to people. At this
33 time, there is no specific direction. Primary streets need to have clearly defined and identified
34 list of street tree species and planting prototype as demonstrated in the tables. For
35 secondary streets and/or side streets, it may be more important to allow for some flexibility
36 and variety to create some interest and variety.
37 • The Planning Commission needs to determine which list should be used for selection
38 purposes and make revisions if this is desired. In addition to the required list in the tables, the
39 City has a very extensive Master Street Tree List that has been used in the past for projects.
40 Staff does not recommend using this list because the list is too broad and based on previous
41 comments from Planning Commission and staff some of the species are not suitable as street
42 trees or even parking lot trees and/or do not perform well in Ukiah.
43
44 Commission Comments:
45
46 Commissioner Whetzel: Use the required and alternate lists; The Planning Commission will be
47 reviewing the landscaping plan for projects.
48
49 Staff: Review depends upon the level of the project. For instance a street tree may be required, but
50 the project is a minor project that would be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator rather than the
51 Planning Commission.
52
53 Bruni Kobbe: Recommended revising the master tree species list for the City. People can choose
54 the tree species for the side streets from the master list. Further recommends eliminating the
55 alternate tree list for street trees since there are at least three choices for each of the primary streets
56 listed on the table. Having an alternative list is too confusing because there are too many choices.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 10
1 Staff:
2 • The alternate tree list was created for a purpose. The applicant is to use a tree from the
3 required list when possible. If site constraints make the trees on the required list infeasible,
4 the applicant is to select a tree from the alternative list. Both lists would already have been
5 reviewed by the decision makers and public. Regarding the City's Master Tree List, some of
6 the species are inappropriate for the location because of possible site constraints as noted in
7 the table, canopy and confined spaces, overhead wires, roots and confined spaces.
8 • In terms of providing an informational document that creates some certainty for the
9 community, property owners, decision makers, and developers, it seemed appropriate to
10 have a required street tree list so that people understand what is required whenever the site
11 allows.
12 • The required street tree list was generated by ReLeaf so if a particular property has a site
13 constraint the list provides choices concerning tree selection. If none of the choices on the list
14 are feasible, there is an alternate list or a person can ask for an exception. If the applicant
15 does not want to use a tree on either list, they can apply for an exception to request approval
16 of a different tree.
17
18 The Commission discussed the number of choices a person can have on the Required Street Tree
19 list and the choices on the alternate list for the three major City gateways, Perkins Street, Main Street
20 and State Street, and whether the lists are reasonable.
21
22 Bruni Kobbe: Having too many choices, defeats the purpose of allowing for some type of uniformity
23 and makes the process too complicated. She is hopeful the Master Tree List will be updated so if a
24 person has an exception, he/she can chose from the master list.
25
26 Chair Pruden: Does not have a problem with the matter of street trees on side streets, but
27 recognizes the importance of having a required list for the three major City gateway streets. An
28 alternate street tree list simply allows for more choices.
29
30 Commissioner Whetzel: Noted the alternate street tree list also allows for choices for each of the
31 three major City gateway streets.
32
33 Staff: One of the primary differences between the required and alternate street tree list pertains to
34 the suitability/compatibility section, which identifies what species would best fit the specific site
35 conditions and allow for an alternative if there are site constraints.
36
37 Commissioner Whetzel: Which list does one chose from if a street tree is required for a side street?
38 What should occur for side streets?Which list does one chose from?
39
40 Chair Pruden: The City does have a master tree list that is in the process of being revised. People
41 can chose from this list.
42
43 Staff: It is her understanding that many of the trees in the master tree list are not appropriate. It is
44 also a matter of timing, the tree standards for the DZC is moving forward in one direction and the
45 master tree list is also moving forward in another direction. It may be appropriate to develop a list for
46 the other streets in the DZC that is comprised of all of the trees included in the required and
47 alternative street trees list, as well as others as determined as part of the workshop process.
48
49 Commissioner Sanders:
50 • The master street tree list has 102 choices. There are many Crape Myrtles in the community
51 because they are cheap. The Crape Myrtle is not a desirable species, ideally.
52 • As far as the DZC selection, there are categories for street trees, parking lot trees and
53 alternates. The public is suggesting not offering as many choices, but rather have alternates
54 in place for the City Public Works Department to work with.
55 • The question is how many alternatives should there be? There are six alternates for parking
56 lot trees and eight for the required street trees.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 11
1 Staff: The varieties for the required street trees are based on the street. For instance, Perkins Street
2 has three alternates.
3
4 Commission Sanders:
5 • Should tree species be chosen for specific streets?
6 • If this is the case, then review of the alternate tree species is necessary and a determination
7 made whether there should be a reduced master tree list.
8 • Or, should there be an incredible number of choices with the results that have been seen
9 over the years?
10
11 Staff: The information in the DZC will be specific to the boundaries of the code and the City Master
12 Tree list is Citywide so there would be that additional variety, but since the DZC will eventually be an
13 adopted ordinance, this will supersede/be a substitute for the City Master Tree list just within the
14 boundaries of the DZC.
15
16 Pinky Kushner: Provided the Commission with information for some tree species. She asked a
17 general question why on street corners are smaller trees proposed when at a corner a tree has the
18 opportunity to spread out and possibly become a large signature tree.
19
20 Chair Pruden: In the form based zoning district, all corners are busy in terms of traffic and trees are
21 often affected by large trucks that take out limbs/branches. Having large trees on corners is a safety
22 concern because they block line-of-sight.
23
24 Pinky Kushner: This may be a maintenance issue for City workers.
25
26 Commissioner Sanders: With regard to corner street trees, vehicles and safety, people tend to slow
27 down at corners/intersections.
28
29 Commissioner Molgaard: The only issue really is if a person can see left and right and be able to
30 see the signs.
31
32 Chair Pruden: Added many of the buildings are at zero lot line so there is conflict already built into
33 street corners/intersections. Consideration has been given to corners when the required street tree
34 list was consummated because no one wants a bush on a street corner.
35
36 Commissioner Molgaard: The alternative list is important because it provides clarity of either yes or
37 no.
38
39 Chair Pruden: Having four choices on State Street is not overwhelming.
40
41 Commissioner Molgaard: Asked if the parking lot trees listed are the same for Perkins, Main and
42 State Street?
43
44 Staff: The required street trees will have alternates as shown in the code. Parking lot trees apply to
45 any parking lot anywhere in the DZC. There are six required parking lot choices and six alternate
46 choices. The six required were the trees species recommended and staff requested the alternatives
47 list because of issues that often come up concerning site constraints, such as overhead lines, limited
48 areas for planting, canopy restrictions and other types of constraints.
49
50 Nick Thayer: The parking lot species in the required list are the most adaptable to almost any site
51 and they are among the largest trees. The alternate list represents trees that people would like to see
52 used more often, but they are smaller in size. The trees chosen for parking lots are suitable for this
53 purpose just like the street tree species chosen are suitable for use as street trees. The difference
54 between the required parking lot trees versus the alternate parking lot trees pertains primarily to
55 scale/size. The alternate trees are smaller in size at maturity to allow flexibility for developments with
56 site constraints.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 12
1 Commissioner Helland: Is there a consultative process to address when it is appropriate to switch
2 from a required to an alternate tree species?
3
4 Staff: The language written into the code would state when there are sites having specific constraints
5 that do not allow the use of a required tree, an alternate tree can be considered upon appropriate
6 demonstration of whatever the constraint may be.
7
8 The Commission recommended that the determination of whether or not a site constrain warrants the
9 use of a tree from the alternative list be made by the Zoning Administrator since people would
10 automatically select cheap or smaller trees.
11
12 Nick Thayer: Cheap does not necessarily imply the tree is small.
13
14 Commissioner Whetzel: Will there be a size requirement written into the code or can the trees be
15 saplings?
16
17 Nick Thayer: A tree species should be a certain size.
18
19 The Commission noted trees must be no smaller than a#15.
20
21 Commissioner Whetzel: This requirement should be included in the tree section.
22
23 Staff: The requirement is in the parking section and will be coordinated with the tree standard
24 section.
25
26 It was noted there are no alternates for the required riparian trees.
27
28 Staff: The matter of riparian trees is a different issue since you do not usually see the same
29 constraints for riparian trees as for street trees and parking lot trees.
30
31 There was a discussion concerning the number of required and alternate tree species for street trees
32 and parking lot trees.
33
34 Nick Thayer: Recommended adding language about predominate tree species for required street
35 tree or parking lot trees that would be for special circumstances, such as for street corners or other
36 special circumstance so that if the species chosen from the list is not a good fit, the next species
37 would be considered.
38
39 Commissioner Whetzel: Recommended adding language which tree species the community would
40 like to see in the DZC areas and then identify the location.
41
42 Nick Thayer: The problem with the Master Street Tree list is not whether they are adaptive to Ukiah,
43 but they are not street trees. The Master Street Tree list should not encourage free reign.
44
45 Commissioner Whetzel:
46 • The list should cover all the trees the community wants to see in the Downtown.
47 • There is no reason to deviate from the list because the list defines what trees the community
48 wants to see in the Perkins Street, Main Street, and State Street areas.
49 • Even if a development is outside of the primary street areas, it must still go by the table.
50
51 Staff:
52 • Recommends creating a separate table for streets not included in the required table list for
53 Perkins Street, Main Street, and State Street.
54 • Requests the Planning Commission based on Nick Thayer's comments about adding
55 language that lists tree species by order of dominance to address special circumstances that
56 would provide for some leeway without giving free reign. In this way, a determination will be
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 13
1 made about which trees are the most appropriate from the required and alternate tree lists
2 and put them on in a table. A table would be better than a list to be consistent with the format.
3 It is easier to give a developer a list of required street trees/parking lot trees for a street.
4
5 Commissioner Molgaard: Page 49, Required Street Trees, Inquired instead of creating a separate
6 table, could it say Main Street, Perkins Street, State Street, and all other areas?
7
8 Staff: Would prefer to create a separate table for streets not included in the required street trees table
9 list.
10
11 Nick Thayer: There is a broader range of tree species that can be used for parking lot trees to add
12 variety than the six required and the six alternate in the tables. The same may be true for the side
13 streets. As been brought up by members of the public, there is a very consistent look in all of the
14 gateway corridors in terms of street trees.
15
16 With a more or less reduction in tree species for the main corridors, it may be beneficial to allow the
17 side streets to have more variety of tree species for street trees in terms of aesthetics. It does not
18 matter if every shop owner had a different tree in front of it, provided there is a thought process on
19 how the trees are selected.
20
21 The existing Master Street Tree List should be revised. If this document is updated within the same
22 timeframe as the DZC process moves forward, it could be a valuable tool.
23
24 Create a separate table of the preferred street trees to be planted from the master list within the
25 context of all the recommended street trees. In this way, if both documents are completed at the
26 same, the Master Street Tree List could be the default list within the street tree list.
27
28 Staff: Recommends creating a table that is a combination of information already available that simply
29 is a list of trees in the event a project is located on a street that is not included in the tables.
30
31 Don Larsen: Since Chinese Pistache already exist on School Street, make a separate list.
32
33 Commissioner Sanders: Likes Nick Thayer's suggestion of allowing for more variety of tree species
34 in parking lots, less of a variety for streets and alternate species for site constraints. The tables in the
35 document should be simple for the developer and public to understand.
36
37 Staff:
38 • The tables were designed to be simple and easy to understand.
39 • There is a unifying theme that is related to spacing of the trees.
40 • Over time if trees are spaced every 30 feet, the spacing becomes the unifying pattern which
41 can allow for a variety of species to be planted and still maintain unity of a street.
42 • A consistent type of tree species helps to identify the primary streets, Main Street, Perkins
43 Street and State Street as just this and essentially the signature trees for these streets. This
44 can allow for the use of a variety of trees on the side streets. This approach would provide for
45 a nice blend in terms of aesthetics and in keeping with a unifying form and distinguishes
46 primary streets from secondary streets.
47
48 Commission Consensus:
49 • Make certain there is also reference made in the tree standard section of the code that the
50 minimum street tree size is#15.
51 • No need to have a Master Street Tree list.
52 • Make a separate table for required street trees for side streets.
53 • Agreed the combination of required/alternates for required street trees and parking lot trees
54 provide for a sufficient number of choices and the 7 choices for the required riparian trees is
55 also sufficient. In this way, signature trees are identified for the primary streets and the variety
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 14
1 offered in the new table for side streets will maintain the uniformity theme that is important to
2 the Commission. If none of the trees are a good fit for one reason or another, a person can
3 seek a major exception.
4 • With regard to the signature trees on School Street, clarification should be made in the
5 document about what should occur if one of the trees dies and needs to be replaced.
6 • Make certain the document sufficiently addresses tree maintenance and care, including the
7 element of requiring sufficient irrigation facilities for projects.
8
9 The Commission directed staff to revise the Tree Standards section as noted and will review the
10 revised tables and text once the revisions have been completed.
11
12 Section 11: Circulation Standards.
13 Includes streets, alleys, and pedestrian paths and there will be a required section for each of
14 these circulation types.
15
16 The Circulation Map identifies the existing circulation system, extensions of existing streets, locations
17 for rear alleys and pedestrian/bicycle paths in block perimeters for the three zoning designations.
18
19 Circulation Standards Purpose: To establish the circulation improvement standards for the DZC and
20 to identify the location of special designations (such as terminated vista or turret) as determined, in
21 part, on the circulation system.
22
23 Circulation Standards Applicability: Apply to the design and construction of a new or reconstructed
24 street, alley, or pedestrian path within the DZC boundaries as shown on the Circulation Map. No
25 grading or building permit shall be issued and no discretionary entitlement shall be approved unless
26 the proposed construction complies with the circulation standard section.
27
28 All existing street within the DZC boundaries are considered primary streets except the following: Oak
29 Street from Clay Street to Henry Street and Standley Street from Main Street to Mason. Street.
30 Primary streets are to be held to the highest standards of the code in support of pedestrian activities.
31
32 Extensions proposed: 1) from clay Street across the railroad tracks to connect to Leslie Street; 2)
33 Stephenson Street from Main Street terminating at the railroad right-of-way; 3) Hospital Drive to
34 connect with the extension of Clay Street.
35
36 The regulations apply to new developmenUredevelopment of sites.
37
38 Staff: The circulation area is a rather small plan area. It is walkable, but could use some type of
39 pedestrian connection and/or pedestrian/bike circulation. There appears to be streets for the sake of
40 including streets so in some areas allowing for some kind of pedestrian/bike circulation would be
41 beneficial instead of having a block perimeter a specific size and having no circulation available. It
42 may be appropriate to create more walking and biking opportunities and less important to provide
43 streets. With regard to the element of circulation, staff recommends having a philosophical discussion
44 about how this can best be achieved. In some areas, it may be important to provide access to the site
45 and to parking via alleys wherein a full street may not be needed.
46
47 The Planning Commission can review the Circulation Map for the DZC that demonstrates block
48 perimeters of varying sizes for the Planning Commission to consider possible preferred locations for
49 pedestrian/bike circulation. No new streets are included on the Circulation Map, but extensions of
50 existing streets are included.
51
52 Commission comments:
53 • The railroad corridor is a major pedestrian walking path and has been for a very long time.
54 The City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan addresses the railroad right-of-way corridor and
55 the need for improvements for bike/pedestrian use in this area The railroad corridor should
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 15
1 be included as a pedestrian component in the Downtown and does not appear to be
2 addressed in the document.
3 • The railroad corridor makes for a natural walking and bike path extending north to south.
4
5 Staff: The Railroad owns the property and is essentially not for public use/access purposes. The
6 circulation discussion is about how to create public pathways and identify areas that are appropriate.
7
8 Commission comments:
9 • It may be that government and railroad right-of way properties are viewed as public places.
10 • It may be the Railroad would be willing to work with the City to create a public corridor without
11 contributing money.
12 • The area of Main Street through Leslie Street constitutes a large block of land that could be
13 more pedestrian friendly, particularly with some type of easement to allow for a crossing from
14 East Clay Street over the Railroad property. This would provide access over the back of this
15 property and if Hospital Drive were to align with this access, this would create a very nice
16 block pattern circulation for pedestrians/bicycles. Having to walk down Perkins Street can be
17 a very unpleasant experience. Being able to access East Clay over the Railroad tracks to
18 Hospital Drive would be beneficial. While people do walk this route, it is dangerous
19 particularly for woman at certain times of the day because of the transient population in the
20 Clay StreeUrailroad area.
21 • Commissioner Helland: Likes the extensions of Stephenson and Clay Streets to encourage
22 walkability.
23 • Chair Pruden: Has concerns about extension on Stephenson because it would carve up a
24 large block of property with only a small gain of footage.
25
26 Staff: The DZC relevant to circulation standards takes into consideration block perimeter size
27 and limited existing circulation when looking at proposing connections for consideration of
28 pedestrian/bike circulation so as not to carve up a block of property. Streets are what make the
29 block perimeter work. The Circulation Map provides the block perimeter dimensions for the areas
30 of Oak Street from Henry Street to Clay Street to include Main Street and Perkins Street and the
31 intersecting cross streets of Stephenson Street, Church Street, and Smith Street. The intent is to
32 look more thoughtfully about which streets make sense for circulation purposes. Blocks cannot be
33 carved up such that they do not comply with the block perimeter standards. In keeping with the
34 block perimeter standards and because the railroad right-of-way property cannot be included for
35 circulation consideration at this time, no extension for Stephenson Street is recommended. Also,
36 since Perkins Street is well traveled and impacted at the intersection relevant to traffic and
37 circulation, adding a new street in the area is also not recommended to make a connection.
38
39 Chair Pruden: What if a new street was only for a pedestrian right-of-way and closed to
40 vehicles?Would this be a choice?
41
42 Staff: This could be a feasible choice.
43
44 Commissioner Helland: What about creating a bike and pedestrian corridor a block to east of
45 Perkins Street along the railroad corridor?
46
47 Staff: This is what Planning staff would like the Commission to entertain. Originally, the Form
48 Based Zoning Code draft had streets on the east side of the railroad tracks for the sake of
49 creating a block perimeter. It appears to be more realistic if the intention is walkability to
50 designate this area as some kind of pedestrian/bike corridor if this is the preference of the
51 Commission.
52
53 Commissioner Helland: Referring to the Downtown Zoning Code Map for the 2600 and 4000
54 block perimeter, she generally views this area as unusable for redevelopment because there are
55 no streets.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 16
1 Chair Pruden — The 4000 block perimeter is being considered for the new Courthouse system,
2 which will improve the area and this would open up the area, particularly at the end of E. Clay
3 Street.
4
5 Commissioner Whetzel: Is a driving extension planned for the proposed new Courthouse
6 development?
7
8 Staff: The Courthouse development is exempt from City requirements so when looking at the
9 DZC document, one has to assume that this development is not happening. Look at the
10 document as to what the community would like to see. The only street extensions proposed in the
11 revised version of the document are the extension of Hospital Drive and the extension of E. Clay
12 Street. There is the possibility of an extension for Stephenson Street depending upon whether the
13 properties at the end of the street are purchased and recommended for redevelopment. A street
14 extension cannot run through the existing privately owned buildings at the end of the street that
15 are located on the west side of the railroad tracks. If the developer purchases the property for
16 redevelopment purposes, then an extension can be a consideration.
17
18 Is the Commission comfortable with limiting the new street extensions to what is shown on the
19 Circulation Map?
20
21 Commissioner Sanders: Asked about the parcel on E. Clay being purchased by the City
22 Redevelopment Agency and if Cleveland Street is currently a dead end street and whether there
23 is a plan for extending this street even though the railroad runs north to south at the end of the
24 street.
25
26 Chair Pruden: There was a plan about a road extension in the area when MTA wanted to
27 relocate to the Railroad Depot. To get an on-grade crossing, one on-grade crossing has to be
28 given up. There is only one on-grade crossing that can be given up for the entire length of the
29 City. The on-grade crossing at Talmage Road, Gobbi Street, Perkins Street, Clara Street, Ford
30 Street or Brush Street cannot be given up. The only one left to possibly give up is located down
31 by the Ukiah Municipal Airport. This is an on-grade crossing at the former Langley property. The
32 PUC will not give an on-grade crossing unless one such crossing is given up. The E. Clay Street
33 crossing was abandoned in the 1940s. So as long as the railroad exists, no more crossings can
34 be added even though the train is no longer operating.
35
36 Staff: The E. Clay Street extension is proposed with or without the crossing because it is about
37 having an extension to Leslie Street. Ideally, a crossing would be advantageous to allow for a
38 much larger housing development in this area, which is exactly the issue being discussed by
39 Chair Pruden. It may come down to some negotiations with the PUC to allow for a right-of-way
40 crossing and this may be possible. Again, the street extension is proposed with or without the
41 crossing because the connection to Leslie Street is important.
42
43 Is it important to the Commission to have a connection to Leslie Street even if it is a walk-over
44 crossing as opposed to a drive-over crossing?
45
46 Staff: From a circulation perspective, either E. Clay Street will dead end at the railroad tracks
47 moving west to east and begin at the opposite side of the tracks on Leslie Street. It is important to
48 create circulation on this large 4000 block perimeter.
49
50 Chair Pruden: Clarified if is important enough regardless of whether a vehicle can go across the
51 railroad tracks to create a street from Leslie Street to open up the back part of this property?
52
53 Commissioner Molgaard: Would this not depend upon what is being proposed for development
54 off of Leslie Street as to whether this is important?
55
56 Staff: The streeUconnection would not get built unless the entire parcel was being developed.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 17
1 Chair Pruden: Allowing for an extension from Stephenson Street and/or Church Street is not
2 feasible if no on-grade crossing is possible. They are essentially dead-end streets whereby E.
3 Clay Street has a possibility for a connection to Leslie Street and onto Peach Street. It would be
4 nice to be able to take E. Clay Street all the way to Orchard Street.
5
6 Staff: Allowing for an extension from Stephenson Street would be feasible if there was some
7 way for those blocks at the end of the street to be redeveloped. The document is not
8 recommending a street be built extending from Stephenson Street unless there is a plan in place
9 to redevelop that entire area wherein it must be shown on the Circulation Map.
10
11 Chair Pruden: Is this then a potential?
12
13 Staff: If a developer was to purchase the parcels for redevelopment, it is required to be shown
14 on the Circulation Map and this is written into the text of the circulation standards (Attachment 1).
15 If a person desires to expand a particular building, change the use or complete an exterior
16 modification to the building, there is a requirement the street is a turret. Page 55 of the Circulation
17 Standards section, item G, Special Designations, no. 4, Turret Element states, Turret elements
18 are strongly encourage on new buildings located at certain places on the Circulation Map. The
19 turret element shall be an integral and complementary part of the overall building and site design.
20
21 Chair Pruden - It is unlikely that if a person was to redevelop the block would not put in some
22 kind of parking lot circulation to access the middle of the site.
23
24 Staff: It is a matter of what the community desires relative to creating a circulation pattern for an
25 existing street that allows for a sidewalk and street tree pattern. Every random street and alley
26 was eliminated so as to leave the Circulation Map with the connections that make sense and did
27 not create traffic impacts on Perkins Street so the Planning Commission could focus on
28 pedestrian and bicycle activities throughout the plan.
29
30 Chair Pruden: The most important connector is Clay Street probably on to the railroad property
31 allowing for a north/south pedestrian/bike pathway along the railroad tracks.
32
33 Commissioner Molgaard: Is putting in car a lane a consideration along the railroad tracks?
34
35 Chair Pruden: This would not be feasible because there is no room. The railroad right-of-way in
36 this area is narrow in some places and wide in other thus limiting the use for vehicles. This was
37 the problem when MTA was looking at relocating in this area.
38
39 Staff: This was a consideration in the original version of the Circulation Map for how streets were
40 proposed, but does not make sense where the extension of Hospital Drive does make sense.
41 Staff is of the opinion the extensions of Clay Street and Hospital Drive are important and that
42 there are other ways to make connections whether it be a new street as part of a large
43 development or alley access or pedestrian circulation.
44
45 Commissioner Whetzel: Is there room for a pedestrian/bike path way on one side of the railroad
46 and a car lane on the other side?
47
48 Staff: This may not be necessary at all.
49
50 Commissioner Helland: According to the Circulation Map, there are alleys on either side of the
51 railroad tracks.
52
53 Staff: The intent of the Map is to show areas that could have pedestrian/bike or other circulation
54 in order to meet the intent of the block perimeters established in the DZC. It appears from the
55 discussion the block that has the Hospital Drive extension would be appropriate for pedestrian
56 connection along the railroad right-of-way.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 18
1 Commissioner Helland: If a pedestrian/bicycle connection along the railroad right-of-way is
2 feasible, safety should be a primary consideration.
3
4 Staff: What would occur is if the properties in this area were to be developed, the project would
5 be required to provide a pedestrian/bicycle pathway along the railroad right-of-way in compliance
6 with circulation standards included in the DZC.
7
8 There was a discussion about Gibson Creek and it was noted a pedestrian pathway is shown
9 along Gibson Creek on the Circulation Map.
10
11 There was discussion about the 4000 block and street access for vehicle use without going on
12 private property from the backside of the property to access Clay Street.
13
14 Staff: The Hospital Drive extension could be used to access Clay Street. The conceptual intent is
15 to show what would be required for a project if the properties for the 4000 block were to be
16 developed in terms of circulation patterns utilizing the Clay Street and Hospital Drive extensions
17 to possibly include a pedestrian pathway along the railroad right-of-way. There other ways to
18 provide site access other than a street. The purpose of the Circulation Map is to show the
19 required streets. The previous version of the Circulation Map was loaded with required additional
20 streets and alleys for the purpose of ineeting the block perimeter requirements where the end
21 result were neat and tidy carved up blocks when there may be other more creative ways to
22 provide to access and circulation patterns without carving up blocks. For instance, it may be
23 perfectly acceptable in some areas to have a pedestrian and bicycle circulation that would satisfy
24 block perimeter requirements. The intent of discussions tonight is to look at alternative solutions
25 without having to neatly carve up blocks with too many streets and alleys for access purposes.
26 Another problem with caving up blocks is the creation of terminated vistas whereby it looks nice
27 on plans, but in reality may not be feasible in terms of developing effective access circulation
28 patterns for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles and providing for an architecturally pleasing site
29 layout.
30
31 The Circulation Map presented tonight would be the only streets/alleys required and includes the
32 Hospital Drive and Clay Street extensions. The Stephenson Street extension would only be
33 required if all the properties were to be redeveloped.
34
35 Chair Pruden: There a pedestrian path on the north side of Perkins Street that goes through the
36 hospital property behind Walgreens.
37
38 Staff: This is not a path. As delineated on the Circulation Map, this area does not meet the block
39 perimeter size requirement. It is only 1150 feet from Orchard Avenue to Hospital Drive whereby
40 the bock perimeter standard is 1400 feet so this area will never meet the block perimeter
41 standard if developed. However, the Planning Commission may want to see some pedestrian
42 connections as part of redevelopment or development of properties in these areas as opposed to
43 a street designation.
44
45 Commissioner Helland - As a reminder, the reason School Street is likeable is because of the
46 small blocks and she dislikes walking around in other areas because there are no connections.
47 Streets actually make the areas more friendly.
48
49 Chair Pruden: Would like to see the 2600 block perimeter left mostly in tact. It would be
50 appropriate to entertain the Stephenson Street extension because in order to have an anchor
51 store in the Downtown, there has to be a block with sufficient square footage, which this area has.
52 There are not many good size parcels left in the Downtown. The E. Stephenson Street area is
53 one of the few larger block areas left so potentially carving up the block into 200 by 200 square
54 feet blocks would eliminate the possibility to attract a large anchor store or two in the Downtown.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 19
1 Staff: This section could be written showing the required extensions in the event of a particular
2 development such that other streets or pedestrian/bike connections need to be created should
3 there be project that is comparable or larger than what is presently Safeway. The objective is to
4 let a developer understand there are circulation requirements for projects and how this can bet be
5 accomplished and still comply with block perimeter standards and refrain from carving up blocks
6 in order to possibly attract larger developments or redevelopments without putting a specific
7 location on the Circulation Map. In this way, the developer is put on notice that additional
8 circulation is a requirement, but that there is no specific location.
9
10 Chair Pruden: Consideration should also be given to mixed use components for projects when
11 this is a possibility. She supports maintaining the larger blocks in the Clay Street extension area,
12 particularly in the event the Hospital Drive extension somehow also ties in.
13
14 Commissioner Helland: Mixed use components are more viable when there are connections
15 between and to them.
16
17 Staff: Limiting the number of streets required on a map may possibly attract a better or larger
18 project by allowing for flexibility because there is no way of knowing how a redevelopment project
19 will be configured. The required streets should be specified and a site may not be possible
20 without creating additional streets or connections as shown on the Circulation Map. For example,
21 it may be a new street and/or connection is necessary if a project came forward similar to the size
22 of Safeway in the Clay Street area.
23
24 Chair Pruden: Commented on the 1150 block and how people use this block to access the
25 shopping center in this area and inquired whether any connections should be added other than
26 what already exists?
27
28 Staff: The Planning Commission can make recommendations in this regard. Staff does not
29 necessarily have a preference. Again, initially there were too many required streets and alleys on
30 the Circulation Map showing locations that might be unfeasible where there would be no
31 appropriate connection possible. Staff is more concerned the Planning Commission look at
32 streets and alleys and whether they would be feasible as connectors and/or whether
33 pedestrian/bike connectors are also important for blocks as shown on the Circulation Map.
34
35 There may a block/area of a particular size that should likely be considered for a street.
36
37 Commission Consensus:
38
39 2600 Block Perimeter Area. Area bounded by Perkins Street, Clay Street, ,Main Street, and
40 Railroad right-of-way). What type of road extensions, if any, are preferred in order to create the
41 required block perimeter?
42 • Commissioners Molgaard,Whetzel: One road extension—Stephenson Street extension
43 • Commissioner Helland: At least the Stephenson Street extension, prefers Stephenson &
44 Church Street extension
45 • Chair Pruden: Stephenson Street extension
46 • Commissioner Sanders: Stephenson Street& Church Street extensions
47
48 Staff: Stephenson & Church Street extensions can be written into the text as a recommended street
49 just as Stephenson Street extension is similarly written into the text as a required street with the
50 understanding in the event the properties develop/redevelop that certain connections must be made
51 in compliance with the DZC circulation standards to provide for appropriate circulation.
52
53 Commissioner Molgaard: Supports staff's recommendation in terms of being able to make sound
54 decisions with having Stephenson Street extension required and Stephenson & Church Street
55 extension recommended, which would depend upon the type of project proposed.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 20
1 Clay Street and Hospital Drive Extension:
2 • Planning Commissioners Whetzel, Molgaard, Helland, and Chair Pruden support the
3 Clay Street and Hospital drive extension.
4 • Commissioner Sanders does not support this extension because of potential impacts to
5 Gibson Creek. Her alternative suggestion for a connection would be Clay Street through to
6 Leslie Street.
7
8 Staff: A north-south connection is also necessary for the 4000 Block site.
9
10 Commissioner Helland; Agrees with Commissioner Sanders in suggesting that the connection be
11 on the Railroad right-of-way rather than Hospital Drive.
12
13 Chair Pruden: This connection is not possible because a road cannot be constructed in the Railroad
14 right-of-way. One alternative in the redevelopment documents state the alignment of Hospital Drive
15 on the north side of Gibson Creek to Leslie Street creates `a curbed streeY that extends from Hospital
16 Drive. This would eliminate the upper `T' part of Leslie Street that is awkward and dangerous. This
17 alternative would allow access from Gibson Creek to Leslie Street with the potential of connecting to
18 Clay Street from the back portion of this block. Originally, when the railroad was running and the
19 redevelopment documents were created there was the alignment of Leslie Street on the north side of
20 Gibson Creek to Hospital Drive. What were to occur by abandoning the upper `T' of Leslie Street is
21 while on Leslie Street, curb left on the north side of Gibson Creek and connect with Hospital Drive by
22 the stop light at the intersection of Perkins Street and Hospital Drive.
23
24 Staff: This alternative does not add circulation to the block that is needed to comply with the required
25 block perimeter standard.
26
27 Chair Pruden: Agreed, and stated the original plan was to realign Leslie Street to connect with
28 Hospital Drive and then realign again on Norton Street. However, the Ukiah Primary Care Medical
29 Group was allowed to be developed over this potential circulation pattern. This circulation pattern is
30 no longer possible. It is possible to build a bridge on Gibson Creek at Hospital Drive. If the Hospital
31 Drive extension is successful, part of Leslie Street can be abandoned.
32
33 Chair Pruden: Other than the pedestrian/bicycle aspect, is there more to circulation aspects to
34 discuss concerning the Circulation Map?
35
36 Staff: Still need to discuss the Pear Tree Shopping Center area.
37
38 The Commission mostly agrees with the concept of the Hospital Drive extension, the Clay
39 Street extension and a pedestrian pathway along the railroad right-of-way.
40
41 Staff: Inquired how the Commission views pedestrian circulation opportunities for the 4000 Block.
42
43 Chair Pruden: A person could walk from Perkins Street and walk along Gibson Creek to Leslie
44 Street.
45
46 Staff: Similarly with having a pathway circulation section, staff recommends there be a standard
47 section for the protection of creeks.
48
49 Commission: Likes the idea of including a section for creeks in the circulation standards.
50
51 Staff: Since the Commission expressed concern about not having streets in some areas, as well as
52 concern about having blocks that are too large, staff can draft language that addresses these
53 concerns for later discussion.
54
55 There was some discussion concerning possible location of vistas.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 21
1 Chair Pruden: What is the standard size proposed for block perimeters?
2
3 Staff: The Block perimeter standard minimum size is 1400 feet for the GU, UC & DC zones.
4 Language should be incorporated into the circulation standards for the various block perimeter sizes
5 in the DZC that addresses pedestrian/bicycle circulation requirements and written with the
6 understanding the standards must be project specific and where the development is located. It may
7 be that for a particular area no street is required, but pedestrian/bicycle circulation of some kind would
8 be required. These kinds of designations must be written into the document standards.
9
10 The Planning Commission reviewed the Circulation Map and the various block perimeter sizes for the
11 areas in the DZC, and made no other recommendations. In terms of the 1150 Block perimeter, the
12 Commission discussed the driveway into the Pear Tree Shopping Center and why this would not
13 count for pedestrian circulation.
14
15 Staff: The driveway is privately owned property and is not public right-of-way or a public access
16 easement.
17
18 Commissioner Molgaard: A lot can be done in terms of landscaping and striping to make
19 pedestrian/bike pathways safe. Can this be required for private property?
20
21 Staff: Project applicants would be required to comply with circulation standards and provide some
22 type of pedestrian/bicycle pathways. Applicant would be required to provide some sort of access to
23 include a sidewalk and street frontage amenities, as well as provide for safe pedestrian access in
24 parking lots. The required components of the pathway would be included as part of the section for
25 pedestrian/bike pathways and Planning Commission could require landscaping, striping, a specific
26 width, etc.
27
28 Commission Consensus for the 1150 Block: If the block perimeter is redeveloped or improved,
29 that a pedestrian/bicycle pathway be required. There was a brief discussion of different locations for a
30 pedestrian/bicycle pathway for the 1150 block perimeter.
31
32 The Commission requested staff make revisions to the Circulation Maps and the associated text as
33 noted above and bring the item back to the Commission for review and direction.
34
35 10. ONGOING EDUCATION
36 10A. 22 Benefits of Urban Street Trees
37 The above-referenced publication is for the Commissioner's information.
38
39 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
40 There was discussion concerning upcoming Planning Commission dates during the holiday season.
41
42 12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
43 There was discussion concerning the Planning Commission stipend that has been recently reinstated.
44 There was discussion about it being used for travel expenses for planning seminars.
45
46 13. ADJOURNMENT
47 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
48
49
50 Judy Pruden, Chair
51
52 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
53
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 5, 2009
Page 22