Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. Min 02-12-08 MINUTES UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Joint Meeting February 12, 2008 CITY COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT COUNCILMEMBERS RECUSED Benj Thomas John McCowen Phil Baldwin Mari Rodin Doug Crane, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Ken Anderson None Mary Anne Landis James Mulheren Anne Molgaard Judy Pruden, Chair STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively Pam Townsend, Senior Planner Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Planning Director Stump advised City Council did not have a quorum and Planning Commission Chair Pruden would conduct the meeting whereby the meeting would reconvene when the City Council has a quorum. The joint meeting of the Ukiah City Council and Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Pruden at 4:20 p.m. in the Ukiah Valley Conference Center, 200 South School Street, Ukiah, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER 1A. City Council— Roll Call 1B. Planning Commission— Roll Call Roll was taken with the results listed above. 2. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward. 3. NEW BUSINESS 3A. Introduction and Discussion of the Draft Downtown/Perkins Street Form Based Code— Possible Direction to Staff. Planning Director Stump stated the purpose of the joint meeting is to introduce the draft Form Based Code (SmartCode) for the Downtown and Perkins Street Corridor and associated Regulating Plan/zoning map, discuss issues that have been identified, and discuss the path/next steps for developing the final draft document for the public hearing process. The intent of `SmartCode' is to implement the vision to include the application of urban planning principals for the study area created by the community who participated in the group interviews and charrette/workshop as they relate to compact development, mixed land uses, revitalizing the local economy, providing opportunities for residential development in the Downtown, provide for a pedestrian environment, building up not out, signifying the value of historic preservation, creek and environmental resource enhancement, allowing for new civic spaces, and enrichment of the urban forest. He introduced and welcomed Form Based Code consultants Laura Hall and Lois Fisher. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2008 Page 1 Laura Hall addressed the `Nuts and Bolts' and provided an overview of the `SmartCode project as an effective planning/development tool: • `SmartCode' is a template created for the purpose of rewriting the zone codes of the last five decades and customized to meet the expectations of the community and property owners. `SmartCode' essentially fuses the design guidelines and zoning code into one document. • The pattern of development and/or application of `transect zones' focuses on form rather than use. • The SmartCode District is based on the model `SmartCode' that encourages the development of diverse, compact and walkable urban communities where the project area is customized to fit Ukiah's historical and 60s/70s eras of development and in keeping with effective urban form that becomes more critical as the years go by. `SmartCode' was also formulated to comply with the Global Warming Act of 2006 that is also a crucial element of today's urban living standards. • The vision created by the community for the Downtown and Perkins Street Corridor during the charrette process is one of environmentally providing for sustainable and economically vital public spaces and buildings to encompass a renewed civic square, attractive civic buildings and spaces, a healthy creek corridor, aesthetically pleasing gateways to reflect Ukiah's sense of place, a mix of building types and affordability, new development to support/enhance the train depot and rail corridor, interconnected and pedestrian-oriented public streets, specific locations for potential anchor buildings that involve large-scale retail, employment centers and parking structures, and pedestrian-friendly buildings and streetscapes. • The scale/general character for new development is intended to be based on the best aspects of Ukiah's heritage. • Additionally, `SmartCode' defines an accord between the public and private realms so that new developmenUredevelopment will be connected and compatible in terms of building/maintaining high quality developments having pedestrian-oriented streets to encourage/promote walkability, public parking facilities, squares, plazas, parks, and creek corridors for the purpose of allowing for an aesthetically pleasing presentation/appeal/appearance. • While the `SmartCode' District emphasizes the `urban form' as it relates to the relationship of buildings to each other, to the street, and public spaces being as important as land uses, it encourages a mixed-use/infill/redevelopment theme incorporating multi-story buildings where commercial uses can take advantage of an active environment of ground floor street frontages through the appropriate design of street frontages and residential and office uses can benefit from a quieter environment offered by upper floors. 4.46 p.m. meeting reconvened with City Council roll taken as noted above. Lois Fisher commented on the technical aspects of `SmartCode' relative to transference from concept to reality to code to sustainment over time: • The Regulating Plan will replace the existing zoning map that shows the different zoning categories for the project area by delineating zones, special designations, civic spaces, buildings and uses, thoroughfares, block perimeters and other elements that help define the community's vision. • The existing C-1 and C-2 zoning designations will be replaced with `Transect Zones' that define the zone standards, including restrictions relative to residential density (minimum/maximum/maximum with bonus), block perimeter (maximum/parking structures), lot standards (size/fa�ade width/lot coverage), building siting (front, side, rear setbacks), building height (principal building/principle building with bonus story/accessory building), private frontage types (terrace/light court/forecourt/stoop/shopfront & awning/gallery/arcade, and building types (sideyard/rearyard/courtyard) and summarized on TABLE 6 (Summary of Standards): GU: General Urban Zone MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2008 Page 2 Mixed-use and residential urban fabric. It has a wide range of building types, single, sideyard and rowhouses; Setbacks and landscaping are variable. Streets typically define medium-sized blocks. UC: Urban Center Zone Higher density residential and mixed-use building types that accommodate retail, office and residential, both single-family and multiple-family. It has a tight network of street, with wide sidewalks, steady street tree planting and buildings set close to the frontages. DC: Downtown Core Zone The highest density, with the greatest variety of uses, and civic buildings of regional importance. Streets have steady street tree plantings buildings set close to the frontages. SD: Special Districts: Civic Space Civic Building The summary of urban zoning standards can be translated to the Regulating Plan to determine the zoning for a particular property and the corresponding standards that apply. There must be uniformity/consistency between the Codes and Regulating Plan in order for developments/improvements/redevelopment projects to be workable in accordance with the community's vision of what makes `good' sense and what they want to see in the project areas. • Table 5 of the code document summarizes the allowed and permitted uses subject to a Use Permit by use for the above referenced zones, noting residential uses are allowed in the `transect zones' and not allowed under the current zoning districts and mixed-uses are allowed only by permit. Under `SmartCode' mixed-use is actually required. By comparison, there are other uses allowed under `SmartCode' that were not allowed under the current zoning districts, such as parks and civic spaces. • In addition to the `transect zones' as defined in the Code, the Regulating Plan also addresses special designations such as new streets, secondary streets other than primary streets, new alleys, required storefront frontage, recommended storefront frontage, required terminated vista, recommended parking garage and/or anchor tenant opportunity sites, including thoroughfare type related to street type or pedestrian path. • The Regulating Plan shows development site opportunities in conjunction with existing property lines, noting some areas have more development potential than others, such as those areas that are primarily residential or have existing buildings and/or where the lots are smaller where the chance for change is low. • Civic space is an important category and not allowed in the previous zone and is defined as `an outdoor area dedicated for public use.' Civic space types are defined by the relationship among certain physical elements, such as their intended use, size, landscaping, and buildings along the Frontage line. Civic spaces may be approved in any zone by Warrant and addressed in Table 10 relative to park, green, square, plaza and playground. Gibson Creek runs through Ukiah where the community desires to see more of the creek as part of the town rather than have it run underneath buildings, streets, and parking lots. Some of the civic space areas, including the Depot area are related to the desired creek restoration. Examples of creek enhancements/restorations from other cities that have adopted `SmartCode' were demonstrated. The category `Existing Civic Spaces' with no change proposed, includes, for example, the Alex Thomas Plaza. The category `Existing Civic Spaces to be Reconfigured' could include reconfiguring of the existing Courthouse square and Sun House site area. It may be that streets should be constructed on all sides of the Sun House terminating at the building allowing for a greater presentation by bringing the building into the `fabric of the town.' The community likes the appearance of the older section of the Courthouse as opposed to the newer section of the building, supports having a larger library whereby a `library square' could be established that incorporates the older portion of the Courthouse and corresponding development more in architectural harmony with the more historical building that might house a library, accommodate green space, all contained within the square. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2008 Page 3 • The community also expressed a need to have community gardens that could be accommodated in designated alley areas. • The community appreciates the `green space/civic space' at the Pear Tree Center and a desire to make it formally a civic space. • A civic building is defined as `a building designed specifically for civic use. The particulars of building design shall be determined through the permit process.' The Regulating Plan indicates possible locations for the Courthouse that might include the terminus at the end of Mason Street. • Development incentives include bonuses to be determined by decision makers that may be granted in exchange for the provision of `Benefits' listed on page 16 of the document and include: *Reduced Parking requirements "Additional height of up to 12 feet, not to exceed one story with a floor area not exceeding 75% of the floor area of the story immediately below "Financial incentives such as grants or low interest loan when available, or deferred or reduced fees adopted by the City of Ukiah. "Density bonus not to exceed 25% *Expedited permit processing • The black dots on the Regulating Plan indicate areas for pedestrian paths and notably shown along the railroad and Gibson Creek areas. • Shop fronts are recommended for the `public realm,' in areas shown by a blue line that would be determined by Design Review Board (DRB) and Planning Commission. • Elements of the `public realm' provide for public spaces including buildings, open areas, parks, spaces and transportation corridors open and accessible to the general public as keyed out in Regulating Plan and cross-sectioned/referenced in the code document. • Rear alleys are important to encourage parking in the rear of buildings rather than in front and are shown in the Regulating Plan. Alleys can be made straight, curved, or necked down so they blend nicely with buildings, landscaping, and sense of place for the community. • Building siting is specifically addressed on page 36 with regard to setbacks and frontage buildout for the three zones (GU, UC, DC) indicating buildings are to be located directly behind the sidewalk having a front setback of 0 ft. minimum/10 ft. maximum. There can be variations for building sitings as noted by asterisk to avoid all buildings on a particular street having the same variation. • `SmartCode' lot coverage varies from 70% to 100%, which can be beneficial in certain project areas. • Mixed-uses are allowed/encouraged under`SmartCode' and there is a 10 to 25 unit minimum density requirement per gross acre for the three zones, thus encouraging people to come to the Downtown to shop and/or interact. • Compact development is also encouraged under `SmartCode' allowing for 30, 45, and 75 residential units in the three transect zones where people can virtually walk to take care of daily needs by keeping people out of vehicles and reducing the effects of global warming. • The parking location is required behind the building or on the street and the parking standards are addressed in the parking standards by zone on page 22 of the code document. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to accommodate the parking needs of residents, employees, visitors and other vehicles customary to the use. Required parking may be reduced based on the `Sharing Factor' as addressed on page 22. Parking at the rear of the lot shall be accessed by the Alley provided the Regulating Plan shows when an Alley has been constructed and is available for use. If, for instance, an Alley as depicted on Regulating Plan is available to either side of the lot, the Alley over the lot shall be constructed. Additionally, if the alley is not available to either side of the lot, development may only proceed if the alley right-of-way over the lot is granted to the City and the proposed development will not impede the future development of the alley and access to the site. Other corresponding parking requirements are specifically provided for on pages 22 and 23 and address such matters as parking garages, parking lots for buildings on secondary streets, on- street parking along `Frontage Lines' and other parking requirements. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2008 Page 4 • A terminated vista is defined as `a site or space at the end or axial extension/alignment of a thoroughfare. A building located at a Terminated Vista designated on a Regulating Plan shall be designed in response to its visual prominence." There are cases when a street curves before it reaches the end of the street and/or terminated vista, as designated on the Regulating Plan. • Building standards vary in the zoning codes depending upon the type of building. • Public street trees are an important element in effective urban planning and the corresponding code requirements are addressed on pages 27 and 28. Additionally,Table 4 represents a Public Street Tree Planting Plan. • There are two levels of deviation from the requirements and they include `Warrants' and `Exceptions,' specifically defined on pages 14 and 15. Senior Planner Townsend explained the application process for the proposed SmartCode District provided in `Attachment 2" of the staff report. There is some flexibility built into the Code for`Warrants' and `Exceptions.' Much of the process has been to figure out a balance between how much should be subject to discretionary review and how much should be determined by the details of the Code. SmartCode like many planning documents has a Use Permit process whereby some uses are permitted by right while others require approval of a Use Permit application. The proposed SmartCode allows more uses to occur in Downtown area, including more of a mix of uses. Additionally, SmartCode sets a much higher threshold for requiring of discretionary review. Under the current adopted Ukiah City Code for this area if a building or addition is proposed at more than 150 square feet, a Site Development Permit application is required whereas under the proposed SmartCode a building or addition can go up to 1,000 square feet without a discretionary review permit. SmartCode allows up to 5,000 square feet at the staff discretionary review level for developments that involve new construction, additions, major exterior alterations, and amendments to previously approved permits before such developments are subject to the discretionary review process requiring a public hearing. By comparison, under the current code, projects are allowed up to 150 square feet before requiring discretionary review with a public hearing while under the proposed code projects are allowed up to 5,000 square feet before requiring discretionary review with a public hearing. In an effort to more streamline projects without discretionary review, the project must: 1. Comply with all requirement of the District Code and Regulating Plan 2. Have no Warrants or Exceptions requested/required 3. Does not significantly alter architectural character or appearance of historic structures or sites 4. Is consistent with Airport regulations And, the exemptions from Site Development applications include: 1. New construction, additions up to 1000 square feet 2. Interior building remodels, repair or maintenance of structures, parking areas and lots 3. Minor alterations to existing building exteriors and minor fa�ade modifications 4. Minor modifications to existing permits 5. Other minor projects as determine by the Planning Director SmartCode allows advisory boards and committees to review projects with the Planning Director having the authority to make decisions for minor site development permits. The Zoning Administrator has the authority to make decisions for major site development permits with appeal to the Planning Commission for projects 5000 to 15000 square feet and all projects under 15000 square feet with Exception. All projects over 15000 square feet and/or other major projects significant or complex as determined by the Planning Director must be reviewed by the Planning Commission with appeal to the City Council. The DRB raised the question about building `footprint' versus the determining factor of building square footage in conjunction with building heights for the three zones and the discretionary review process. Since the District code requires two-story buildings in much of the project area it may be that when a proposed building has a total `footprint' of 15000 square feet, the project should be reviewed MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2008 Page 5 by the Planning Commission. For instance, if a proposed two-story building has a total of 30000 square feet, at this point the project could be allowed to up to 30000 square feet provided the `footprinY was not more than 15000 square feet. Questions are being raised as to how the District code would be effectively administered. Consideration must also be given to additions to buildings because there are many existing buildings wherein much of the development that will occur will be additions/modifications to buildings and how would the code apply in these instances. Planning Director Stump stated at this point, the path is to note questions/comments/concerns from the public, staff, and decisions makers for review before the code document can be finalized and approved. The current vision to implement into the code would be to require buildings be placed close to the sidewalk, allow for higher lot coverage/higher densities/mixing of land uses, allowing two and three stories and four stories in some locations, requiring wider sidewalks, creating new streets and alleys, rehabilitating Gibson Creek, providing a path along Gibson Creek and the railroad right-of- way, requiring building shopfronts on street frontages, provide for street standards, possible new sites for the courthouse and parks, and possible sites for parking structures. Some of the issues and questions raised include: • Are the new alleys and streets required or recommended? Who is going to pay for them? What happens if an alley goes through my building or makes my property undevelopable? • Are two and three-story buildings mandatory? If I want to construct an addition to my existing single-story building, will it have to be two or three stories? • What happens to non-conforming buildings? • What if my property is designated for a civic building or a civic space and I want to build a retail store? • What about the public improvements? Are private property owners going to be required to pay for them? How is the City going to finance public improvements? • How will the increased lot coverages and densities affect traffic volumes? • I thought that if a project fully complies with the code, there would be no discretionary review process? • How is the creek going to be rehabilitated? Councilmember Thomas questioned the element of zoning in connection with design principles and whether the design principles have been established and further inquired whether the principles impact on architectural and color creativity. Lois Fisher stated the design principles are incorporated in the frontage, the streeUsidewalks, height, etc., sections of the document. Typical design guidelines are often too detailed/restrictive and those incorporated into the SmartCode are the ones that really count in terms of compactness and walkability. The materials and elements section on pages 23 and 24 outline/provide the corresponding standards in this regard. Councilmember Baldwin commented while he does not necessarily support the use of corrugated tin noting its application in the community, he questioned why this material is not listed as one of accepted materials. Staff noted the use of inetal was added. Councilmember Baldwin supports that if the architectural style has a historical overtone in the community the goal should be uniformity with the historical style. Mayor Crane supports that the code does not exclude any particular type of building material. Communities that incorporate architecture that is modern or reflective of past styles is attractive and appealing. He does not support that the community takes on architecture that resembles a `museum' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2008 Page 6 and that developments use designs unique, complementary and a good fit for the look and feel of the community. Chair Pruden commented on the Dragon Lair building that effectively utilizes embossed metal and its architectural appeal. She supports if the material complements and works with the look/style and period of the area, a consideration should be made. Commissioner Landis commented one of the biggest charms of the community is the eclectic base of architectural style that includes `agrarian aesthetics' because Ukiah is situated in farm country having a history thereof whereby the use of inetal is prevalent on structures. There are innovative ways to use metal on buildings and that the community should be receptive in this regard. Commissioner Mulheren noted Petaluma as an example of nice architecture and form in its renovation of the Downtown and its application of`SmartCode' allowing for a unique and eclectic style that highly complements the community. Chair Pruden understands that tonighYs meeting is to make comments and ask questions about the code, and inquired whether corrections/adjustments to the document will be made in-house with staff after the `fine tuning' process has been completed. Planning Director Stump commented this question is one for the decision makers to decide, since the code document has been formatted for Ukiah. Commissioner Landis supports having other joint meetings. Councilmember Baldwin asked how churches are treated with regard to `SmartCode.' Chair Pruden stated churches are typically viewed and used as social centers having multiple purposes, citing mid-western examples. Councilmember Baldwin commented on the proposed creek restoration, and inquired how much public funding should be spent on restoring a creek that is dry six months out the year. Commissioner Molgaard understands how form affects walkability and carbon footprints and inquired how form affects the economic opportunities and utilizing property to its best and highest use. In other words, what makes Petaluma successful or unsuccessful with regard to the most effective use of property in conjunction with providing economic opportunities and revenue generating for the community. Windsor is likely an example of unsuccessful use of land from an economic and aesthetic point of view. Windsor does not appear to be a busy metropolis. Laura Hall stated Windsor broke the first law of urban design by not building the town square in the middle of the city and on the main street and therefore, the city will never really be economically viable. She briefly stated how `SmartCode' effectively applied to commercial developments will provide economic opportunities now and into the future. Mayor Crane commented good planning and economic vitality is linked to the diversity of mixed-use having a blend of large and small establishments in proximity. Small blocks and parking structures massed by walkable building opportunities around the perimeters typically require much bigger spaces than the Regulating Map demonstrates and asked if it would be appropriate to consider modification of some of the proposed circulation to accommodate larger spaces for parking. Laura Hall acknowledged Ukiah has small block perimeters where the requirement for larger block perimeters for the parking structures is addressed in Table 6. The block perimeter standards indicate a maximum footage for each zone where the maximum standard for parking structures is much larger. It is more cost effective to have a larger block perimeter and this element needs to be closely assessed as the code document moves forward. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2008 Page 7 Mayor Crane stated the matter of block perimeter is not adequately proportioned in the Regulating Plan with the reality of the block size as provided for in the code standards to get a sense of the actual density and compaction that a parking structure requires for optimum operating efficiency. Laura Hall commented it may be necessary to document flexibility for buildings on particular blocks such as an anchor building so as not to specify size and/or limit the size to allow for corresponding adequate parking space. She stated designated anchor buildings and recommended parking garages are large structures. Mayor Crane stated anchor buildings and dense parking are synonymous and go hand in hand. While part of the goal is to ensure that all types of developments, buildings and parking structures, leave sufficient space to provide for the human scale, there has to be sufficient volume for buildings to attract anchor establishments to maintain economic vitality and this issue must be factored/addressed in the code document. On another issue, how incremental or at what point should the revised zoning standards change or have an effect on the effective use of land. Councilmember Baldwin commented on the southern block between Orchard Avenue and Warren Drive on Perkins Street, which is one the primary gateways to Ukiah that people see and mostly constructed of 1950s single-family dwellings. In his opinion, this area is not aesthetically pleasing and because the parcels are small not much can be done as far as change. He anticipates that the community looks at possibly combining parcels and working with the property owners to address ways to improve the appearance as the existing residential units are presently being used as various forms of businesses. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 5:41 p.m. Lisa Mammina addressed the issue of`placeholder buildings' such as the existing Bank of America, designated as having the potential for a terminated vista for the Civic Center/Grace Hudson Museum, and whether this building is legal non-conforming and what might be the future for this building. The Saturday Afternoon Club is another example of a non-conforming building in a terminated vista area. Planning Director Stump stated the matter of non-conforming land uses has yet to be determined and there is no definitive answer for buildings such as this. Commissioner Anderson asked how the code will affect public transportation as to ingress/egress for buses and public transportation in general for outlying areas to encourage people to shop in Ukiah without the use of vehicles, Planning Director Stump stated MTA participated in the charrette and he will meet with Bruce Richards about the subject of improving public transportation and the problems of narrowness of streets and circulation with the onset of the new code. Councilmember Baldwin expressed concern about the limitations that will be placed on parking with the density requirements for this code for people living/working in the more densely populated areas of the urban core, including mandated parking restrictions in less densely populated areas of the Downtown core. A public member commented on how decisions makers will proceed during the transition period for the new zoning and how new developments coming forward will be handled. Planning Director Stump stated there is a lot to learn about this new approach to zoning wherein the Planning Commission is exploring new ways of looking at developments. It is staff's intent to guide/encourage development projects in the direction of new code's approach to urban planning. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2008 Page 8 Councilmember Baldwin is of the opinion for the interim while coordinating the code that staff steer new developments in the direction of what the new zoning is about where the risk of appeals to the City Council for projects might be less. Alan Nickolson commented on the new zoning code as it relates to the need for integrating of transportation and affordable housing plans because, in his opinion, these issues have not been adequately addressed. Also, the matter of who will be responsible for the infrastructure of constructing new streets and alleys must be given consideration and whether the City has a plan in place such as a bond to update its sewer system and the like. Mayor Crane stated infrastructure improvements made over the top of existing infrastructure that is not in good condition will drive substantial costs and this issue should be a consideration. Lisa Mammina commented on the price of economic opportunities in light of the two-story minimum requirement for principle buildings in the GU and UC zones and the minimum of three stories for the DC zone with the prospect that property owners have the opportunity to borrow money from the City so developments will comply with the code requirements. Chair Pruden commented the City needs to have appropriate planning mechanisms/tools/guidelines and zoning documents in place because Ukiah is the County seat and there is a duty of responsibility associated with this designation. Planning Director Stump stated the intent is to continue dialoguing with the public, conduct joint meetings with City Council and the Planning Commission and other committees/boards to shape the code into a document that effectively works for the community. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:11 p.m. Douglas F. Crane, Mayor Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 2008 Page 9