HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_10232013 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 October 23, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair Laura Christensen
7 Kevin Doble
8 Linda Sanders
9 Judy Pruden
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
18 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the August 14, 2013, September 11, 2013 and
25 September 25, 2013 meetings are available for review and approval.
26
27 The following changes were made to the September 25, 2013 minutes:
28 • Page 11, strike language beginning on line 50 that reads, `There is a high concentration of
29 historical materials including Indian burial grounds in this neighborhood and is of the opinion this
30 fact should had been alluded to. While this factual information may not affect the Project, it should
31 have been disclosed. The fining implies there are no burial grounds in the area when this is
32 contrary to the case.'
33 • Page 12, add a bullet to line 33 that reads, 'The Project would add to the housing stock that
34 complies with the Housing Element.'
35
36 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve the August 14, 2013 and September 11, 2013 minutes, as submitted and
37 the September 25, 2013 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0).
38
39 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
40
41 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
42 final date to appeal is November 4, 2013.
43
44 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
45
46 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
47
48 9. PUBLIC HEARING
49 9A. Hertz Car Rental Facility, 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19 (File No. 13-20-UP-PC).
50 Planning Commission consideration and possible action on Major Use Permit to allow the
51 operation of a car rental facility at 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19.
52
53 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report and noted:
54 • The Commission has been given a revised copy of the site plans (incorporated in the minutes as
55 attachment 1).
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 1
1 • No modifications will be made to the interior of the building.
2 Senior Planner Jordan:
3 • The applicant did not request a car washing occur on the site.
4 • Asked the Commission to specifically address the applicanYs plans for detailing/washing and/or
5 repair of vehicles.
6 • Washing the cars on-site requires review from Public Works related to water treatmenUdrainage
7 and the like.
8
9 Commission:
10 • Site is constrained in terms of parking for customers and employees.
11 • Sees that parking for the car rental use is inside the building.
12 • Determined the building will have a roll-up door.
13 • Car washing on-site would be problematic.
14
15 Commissioner poble:
16 • Asked if an assessment was conducted related to the five proposed parking spaces in front of the
17 building for compliance with City code requirements as far as backup space because it appears
18 parking spaces 13 and 14 do not provide sufficient backup space such that persons will have to
19 back out onto the sidewalk to exit the parking lot.
20 • Would like to know how much space there is behind the back of the parking stalls and the
21 sidewalk.
22 • Is the Planning Commission being asked to approve one less parking space and/or non-
23 conforming parking design?
24 • How did staff come up with five parking spaces?
25
26 Senior Planner Jordan:
27 • The normal backup space for a parking stall is 24 feet. The existing parking spaces do not comply
28 with this requirement. When Hospice leased the building the same parking conditions existed and
29 in some respects they were worse because they had more customers and employees than Hertz
30 will have.
31 • Planning Commission is essentially allowing an existing non-conforming condition to continue.
32 • Related to the parking, it may be that the use addressed in the staff report is not clear. While the
33 use itself requires ten or 15 parking spaces, the zoning ordinance does not include a parking
34 requirement for rental car facilities. The required parking is for employees, customers, and
35 visitors, not for parking rental cars. Accordingly, if 15 spaces are being required for the use, there
36 would be no parking available for the rental cares. What staff is suggesting is that five parking
37 spaces are required for employees, customers, and visitors and the remaining parking spaces
38 would be for the rental cars.
39 • Based on information from the applicant, the rental car business would have no more than two
40 employees on the maximum shift, almost all customers are dropped off, and customers are not
41 allowed to leave their vehicles on-site. Therefore, two spaces would be for employees and three
42 would be for customers. This leaves the remaining spaces within the building for the facility itself.
43 There should be a condition that says vehicles for the business cannot be parked outside of the
44 building so these spaces remain available to customers, employees and visitors.
45
46 Associate Planner Faso:
47 • Did not measure the distance behind the parking stall and the sidewalk because the parking lot is
48 existing.
49 • The site plans identify the parking for the Project. The Commission should likely defer to the
50 applicant concerning parking and the dimensions from the back of the parking stalls to the
51 sidewalk.
52
53 Commissioner Sanders:
54 • Would diagonal parking help with safety and backup?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 2
1 • Is concerned about safety and using the sidewalk to maneuver in the parking lot. Would like to
2 know about other parking lot configuration options for the five parking spaces.
3 Senior Planner Jordan: Is not certain that diagonal parking spaces would fit on the site. The
4 Commission may want to defer to the applicant in this regard.
5
6 Chair Whetzel:
7 • Will ventilation and/or exhaust fans be installed for the indoor parking?
8 • How will car washing and/or detailing be handled for the facility?
9
10 Associate Planner Faso: Defer aforementioned question to applicant.
11
12 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:15 p.m.
13
14 Commission:
15 • Asked about another Hertz operation that sells equipment located on the north end of State
16 Street.
17 • Has Hertz operated in another location?
18 • Asked if some kind of ventilation system is a consideration for the building?
19 • Determined there is one curb cut and this is the reason diagonal parking will not work for the site.
20 • The project is a `retrofit' and what typically has occurred at this site for a long time is that people
21 backup from the parking stalls onto the sidewalk in order to exit the parking lot and access State
22 Street.
23 • There is some off-street parking available.
24 • Is fine with minor detailing of cars such as vacuuming, washing windows and/or other types of
25 minor maintenance/general clean-up of vehicles so no additional condition of approval is
26 necessary in this regard.
27 • Has no problem with adding trees to the property where feasible.
28 • Pleased to see the applicant fully complies with the square footage of signage allowed. In fact,
29 the applicant is under the square footage allowance for signage on this building.
30
31 Matt Lundbeck, Construction Manager for Architectural Construction Services, Inc.:
32 • Related to parking lot measurements would have to defer to his staff architect. Will provide this
33 information to the Commission.
34 • A ventilation system will be added.
35
36 Anthony Urroz, Applicant:
37 • Related to parking, the normal inventory of cars will be mostly full-size or smaller. Will not have
38 any large cars or trucks with the long beds unless specially ordered.
39 • All car washing/maintenance and the like will be handled off-site.
40 • The other Hertz operation is an entirely different entity.
41 • Hertz once operated at the Airport. The staff for the proposed new operation is the same as when
42 it operated at the Airport.
43
44 Commissioners Doble and Sanders:
45 • Not in favor of people having to back-up onto the sidewalk to exit the parking lot.
46 • Inclined to support other parking solutions, but needs more information.
47
48 Commissioner Pruden:
49 • Does not favor the color palate selection. White is too bright and creates glare on sunny days.
50 • An off-white color would be a possibility.
51 • Questioned why the applicant chose a white awning?
52 • Has observed related to the parking issue, there is an alley to the south of the building that could
53 be of possible use. The alley is underutilized and could safely be used for egress and ingress.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 3
1 • A solution for a retrofit project would be to designate that only a compact car can park in the five
2 parking spaces. A compact car will not have to back-up onto the sidewalk.
3
4 Senior Planner Jordan:
5 • Compact spaces are 8 ft. by 16 ft. so there is a 2-foot differential from the standard parking stall
6 size.
7 • Providing for only compact parking is not a solution since City code allows 30% of parking spaces
8 to be compact.
9
10 Commissioner poble:
11 • Would like to see the Project move forward.
12 • Approves of back-filling vacant buildings, but does not support back-filing of such buildings where
13 parking continues to be a problem.
14 • Would like the applicant to come back to the Commission with some alternative solutions to the
15 parking situation for review.
16 • Would be open to possibly reducing the parking accommodations even more to make the parking
17 work in terms of safety and maneuverability.
18 • Is concerned with approving a project where the dimensions are not known from behind the
19 parking stalls to the sidewalk and with basically saying it is okay if the Project does not comply
20 with City code parking standards.
21
22 Matt Lundbeck: The color scheme and accompanying yellow sign is the corporate branding for Hertz
23 Rental Car.
24
25 There was Commission discussion concerning Condition of Approval 14 because any site that does
26 commercial car washing requires containment. Given the site constraints, does not see how power
27 washing could be done. There is no space for a car washing type of operation on the site.
28
29 Staff:
30 • Condition of Approval 14 is a Public Works requirement and is of the opinion this project
31 condition needs to be called out under the operating characteristics as to what the applicant can
32 or cannot do.
33 • Is requesting the Planning Commission determine what the applicant can or cannot do as part of
34 the operating characteristics on the site and make certain the necessary findings are in place for
35 what operations are allowed. The applicant has indicated there are no plans to wash cars on the
36 site.
37
38 Commissioner poble:
39 • There are commercial standards required for air exchange via a ventilation system.
40 • Suggests formulating a condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit a compliant air
41 exchange analysis relative to the parking garage for the car rental facility. This could be open
42 ventilation, fans or the like or whatever is required to get safe/adequate air exchange to happen.
43 The matter of providing appropriate ventilation may already be an OSHA requirement where a
44 condition of approval is not necessary.
45
46 Commissioner Sanders:
47 • Referred to the letter from Architectural Construction Services, Inc., dated October 10, 2013,
48 language that reads, `No maintenance would be performed on site other than washing and
49 general cleaning of cars' and would like to this to be clarified because the letter does talk about
50 washing cars on site.
51 • Acknowledged the condition of approval for the one street tree from the street tree list proposed
52 for the southeast corner of the property, but has concern about the location.
53
54 Anthony Urroz: The only maintenance that will be performed on the site is the cleaning of trash and
55 some touch up cleaning work. Confirmed there will be no `car washing' on the site. This procedure and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 4
1 maintenance is done off-site. Cars are sent to a maintenance facility in South San Francisco or
2 dealerships for general maintenance/repairs.
3
4 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:46 p.m.
5
6 Staff:
7 • Want to clarify that if the car rental facility was an allowed use and the required number of parking
8 spaces was provided, there would be no discussion of the parking situation since it is an existing
9 condition on the site.
10 • Confirmed that a Use Permit runs with the property for the use approved in the use permit.
11 • Staff is fine with whatever the Commission recommends.
12 • Related to the concern for the street tree such that if the applicant wants to look at some
13 alternative parking scenarios should also include the location of the street tree on the site plans
14 so it is understood how it would interact with any backing up of vehicles onto the sidewalk. It may
15 be the applicant should consult with Public Works to determine where the street tree should be
16 planted because of the curb cut and utility issues.
17
18 Matt Lundbeck:
19 • Related to the five parking spaces, the shortest back distance is approximately 13 feet to the
20 sidewalk.
21 • Elaborated on the dimensions related to the parking stalls and backup space for a normal size
22 vehicle.
23
24 Staff: Regarding the required parking spaces for the customers and employees, the southernmost
25 parking space that has the least amount of backup space could be designated compact. The other four
26 parking spaces have to be standard. The Project includes five parking spaces for employees, customers,
27 and visitors. The remaining spaces are for the rental car use. Again to clarify, the number of compact
28 parking spaces allowed for a project is 30% of the required parking for a project.
29
30 Commissioner poble:
31 • Would like to know about the minimum number of parking spaces that could be allowed for the
32 Project rather than trying to reconfigure the parking lot.
33 • Will not approve a project with 15 feet of backup space. The backup space for spaces 13 and 14
34 is less than parking spaces itself.
35
36 Staff: Would like to know the minimum number of parking spaces the Commission is comfortable with for
37 employees and Hertz customers. What is known from the applicant is that there are two employees on
38 the maximum shift and that people are typically dropped off at the facility so it might be that four spaces
39 would be adequate.
40
41 Chair Whetzel:
42 • Does not like the present parking lot configuration. Suggested making space 14
43 compacUemployee only.
44 • Does not want to eliminate a parking space.
45
46 Commissioner Pruden:
47 • Does not want to eliminate a parking space.
48 • Suggested making space 12 handicap rather than 13 and make spaces 13 and 14 employee
49 parking because spaces 13 and 14 have the least amount of backup space. Spaces 10 and 11
50 could be used for Hertz customers.
51
52 Staff: In order to approve the Use Permit, the Commission is required to make a finding that the Project
53 is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons. Two Commissioners have expressed
54 concerned about the present parking lot configuration and backing up over the sidewalk in order to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 5
1 maneuver out of the parking lot. It may be the applicant can re-design the parking lot for the Commission
2 to review at another meeting.
3
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • Supports reducing the number of parking spaces.
6 • Is of the opinion there are alternatives to the parking scenario that have not been discussed.
7 • Parking space 1 could be employee parking. Parking spaces 13 and 14 could face southerly
8 rather than perpendicular like they are now. Parking spaces 10 and 11 could become the one
9 ADA space. To this end, while the backup would be reduced from what is allowed for standard
10 parking spaces, it would not be directed toward the sidewalk. However, is of the opinion would
11 need to see a design on a site plan.
12 • Suggested also in terms of the ADA space could do a flip flop. Related to spaces 13 and 14, one
13 of the ADA spots could be closest to the building.
14 • It could be that space 12 could be handicap.
15 • Not comfortable with spaces 13 and 14 and cannot support approval of the Project the way the
16 parking lot is presently configured and having to back up onto the sidewalk.
17 • The opportunity exists to restripe the parking lot to be safer and more efficient even if one space
18 has to be eliminated.
19 • In order to make a sound and informed decision would need to see a revised site plan for the
20 parking.
21 • Would support approval of the Project if the parking situation worked in terms of safety and
22 appropriate maneuverability.
23
24 Commissioner Pruden:
25 • Supports making space 12 handicap.
26 • Asked if eliminating space 14 would improve the situation and make space 12 handicap and
27 make space 13 compact.
28
29 Staff:
30 • Would need to review what the backup standard is for an ADA space.
31 • It is great the Commission is willing to consider reducing the backup space, but is of the opinion
32 would need a revised plan from the applicant for review by the Building Official to review,
33 specifically the ADA space to make certain it is in compliance with accessibility requirements.
34
35 Commissioner poble: Is it under the Commission's purview to reduce the backup space to 20 feet.
36
37 Staff: The aforementioned should be acceptable because the Commission is approving an existing
38 condition but would need to review City code to confirm. Depending upon how the Code is written
39 sometimes an existing condition cannot be made better; it needs to be made to comply with the code
40 requirement.
41
42 Commissioner Sanders:
43 • Asked about the location for bicycle parking.
44 • Would like to see the building 're-tenated' right away, but cannot support the current parking lot
45 configuration, particularly space 14, due to safety concerns related to backing up of vehicles.
46 • Is of the opinion the Commission should not perpetuate an unsafe parking scenario.
47 • Would like to see a re-design of the parking lot.
48
49 There was Commission discussion about the best location for bicycle parking.
50
51 There was further Commission discussion about possible reconfigurations of the parking lot that might
52 work better for the Project in terms of safety, maneuverability and compliance with City standards.
53
54 Matt Lundbeck: Is fine with a re-design of the parking lot.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 6
1 Commissioner Pruden: Would like to see the `very white' color palate for the building toned down. The
2 color selected for the commercial building is too bright and would create glare. Would suggest the color is
3 off-white.
4
5 Commission consensus:
6 • Supports this use on the site, but need to address the backing up of vehicles.
7 • Supports the applicant revise the parking proposal to address the backup distance issue onto the
8 sidewalk for Commission review.
9 • Requests the applicant provide for some color alternatives for the building for review by the
10 Commission.
11
12 M/S Sanders/Doble to continue Major Use Permit 13-20-UP-PC to a date certain of November 13, 2013.
13 Motion carried (4-0).
14
15 Break: 7:02 p.m.
16
17 Reconvene: 7:05 p.m.
18
19 9B. Myszka Place Lot 2, APN 001-201-08 (File No. 13-23 Prelim-PC). Planning Commission
20 consideration of an application for preliminary review to allow removal of two trees located on Lot
21 2 of Myszka Place.
22
23 Senior Planner Jordan gave a staff report and noted:
24 • A Planned Development (PD) amendment would be required in order to allow two trees to be
25 removed. A minor PD amendment can be approved by the Planning Director if it does not change
26 the density of the Project or intensity of the development. The tree removal would not change
27 these things. However, since trees are a very sensitive issue for this community, the Planning
28 Director is of the opinion it would be more appropriate for the Planning Commission review this
29 minor PD amendment.
30 • Referred to three documents given the Commission at places. These items are `General Plan
31 Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (incorporated in the minutes as attachment 2) that
32 may be applicable to the proposed tree removal, a summary of the approvals for Myszka Place
33 that required the trees to remain and/or identified the approved building envelope (incorporated in
34 the minutes as 3), and a letter dated October 11, 2013 from a public member containing
35 information about the trees on the property(incorporated in minutes as attachment 4).
36 • This parcel is not located in a very high fire hazard severity zone.
37 • The parcel is not located in the Hillside District.
38
39 Commissioner Sanders: Requested clarification if there are three trees marked for removal?
40
41 Chair Whetzel:
42 • Has no problem with the removal of the trees.
43 • Noticed some of the trees are growing too close together.
44
45 Commissioner poble:
46 • Asked if there are plans to replace the two trees that are proposed for removal and the possible
47 location of the replacement trees?
48 • Looking at the hillside location from the street, the area looks well forested.
49 • Is of the opinion, there is an opportunity to plant other trees on the site. Does not want to dictate
50 where the trees should be planted.Would support replacement of the Redwoods Trees.
51
52 Commissioner Pruden:
53 • Has no problem removing the Deodar Cedar.
54 • Redwood trees are not a fire and/or safety hazard if properly pruned.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 7
1 • Has some concern removing the Redwood Tree. Redwoods are colony trees and as such would
2 like to see a construction protection zone in and around the tree being removed because there
3 appears to be many young Redwood seedlings. These young Redwood trees should not be
4 damaged by construction crews when the one tree is removed and that precautionary measures
5 need to be taken in this regard.
6
7 Julie Fetherston, Applicant's Daughter and is representing the applicant:
8 • Clarified the applicant is requesting the removal of two trees.
9 • However, when looking at the building envelop, there are actually three trees in close proximity to
10 the proposed garage. Two of these trees are within the 20-foot setback of the garage.
11 • Confirmed there are plans to replace the trees as a mitigation measure.
12 • Applicant has been looking at the City's Master Tree List for selection of street trees.
13 • Applicant intends to plant extensive landscaping.
14
15 Commissioner poble:
16 • Are there tree protection measures in the Development Plan for the Myszka Place subdivision?
17 • Would it be acceptable for the applicant to bring back a landscape plan concept for the
18 Commission to review?Would like the plan to identify the locations for the two replacement trees.
19 The plan can be essentially be anything the applicant is willing to offer by way of landscaping.
20
21 Staff:
22 • The Myszka Place subdivision was approved in the 1990s so it is unlikely there were tree
23 protection measures required for the project. The parcels created by the subdivision were subject
24 to specific Conditions of Approval and a Development Map. The map defined the building envelop
25 for each lot and also indicated which trees were required to remain.
26 • Tree protective fencing is a standard condition of approval and this could be applied to the
27 project.
28 • Recommends since the PD amendment needs to come back to the Commission for formal
29 review, a conceptual landscaping plan be included as part of that application that shows the
30 removal of the two trees, street trees, location of the replacement trees, and the size and species
31 to be planted.
32
33 Commissioner Sanders:
34 • Appreciates the applicant participated in a preliminary project discussion.
35 • Appreciates the letter concerning the Project.
36 • Understands that the grove was planted and was not there historically/naturally.
37 • It appears the area functions like a basin and as such talked with a neighbor who was concerned
38 about removal of the trees.
39 • While tonighYs discussion is a pre-application review, recommends the applicant talk to the
40 neighbors about the Project so that any issues involving the neighborhood and applicant
41 concerning the proposed tree removal can be worked out ahead of time before Planning
42 Commission review of the PD amendment.
43 • Would like to see a condition of approval drafted for protection of the trees we want to retain
44 during site development.
45 • Understands the rationale for having to remove two trees and appreciates the applicant's
46 willingness to plant new trees and/or other types of vegetation.
47
48 Julie Fetherston:
49 • Is amenable to providing tree protection during construction.
50 • Will consult with an arborist concerning protection of the trees.
51
52 Staff: Referred to the 11" x 17" project exhibit provided by the applicant that shows the approved building
53 envelope, building footprint, trees proposed to be removed and tree to remain and asked the Commission
54 if it would be acceptable for the applicant to add information to this existing exhibit for the formal
55 application Information to be included on this plan which would function as the conceptual landscaping
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 8
1 plan would be the location and species of the replacement trees and street trees, and the size and
2 number of trees to be planted.
3
4 The Commission was fine with the aforementioned recommendation concerning adding information to the
5 exhibit.
6
7 Kerry Vau, Realtor for Applicant:
8 • The applicant cannot move forward on the process of purchasing the property unless the
9 Commission gives support of the trees being removed.
10 • Would be amenable to talking to the neighbors and ask about the one neighbor who expressed
11 concern about removal of the two trees.
12
13 Commissioner Pruden: Is okay with removing the one Dedora Cedar and one redwood tree, but the
14 concern is not to damage the colony of redwoods when the one redwood Tree is removed. To this end,
15 recommends the applicant consult with an arborist to make certain the root systems of the existing
16 redwoods are not damaged when the one tree is removed. Redwood trees are colony trees and the
17 removal of one tree has the potential to affect the others in the colony.
18
19 Commissioner poble:
20 • The other concern is replacement of the two trees removed.
21 • Recommends talking to neighbors because it is better to have more people in support of a Project
22 rather than opposed.
23
24 Commission consensus:
25 • Supports PD amendment to Myszka Place — Lot 2 based on the information presented at the
26 preliminary review.
27 • Okay with the tree removal to accommodate the building with protection of existing trees to
28 remain and the replacement of trees removed at a ratio of at least 1:1.
29 • Should have an arborist review the removal of the trees to ensure the removal does not damage
30 the grove of redwoods.
31 • Provide a planting plan using the same exhibit submitted for the preliminary review and identifying
32 the species of trees that would be planted, the location, and size.
33 • Recommend the applicant talk to the neighborhood about the tree removal.
34 • Support for the removal of the trees could change if new information comes to light or if there is
35 opposition to the removal of the trees from the neighbors/community at a formal hearing.
36
37 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
38 Senior Planner Jordan: Discussed upcoming Planning Commission agenda items including the Costco
39 Project draft EIR agendized for the November 21St meeting and corresponding dates that would
40 work during the upcoming holiday season.
41
42 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
43 Commissioner Sanders:
44 • Asked about the status of the possible code enforcement violation related to the Blue Drug
45 property.
46 • Asked about the status of the previous request for reinstallation of playground/recreational
47 equipment for the Duane Hill Apartments on Clara Avenue and Orchard Avenue because the
48 project is in violation of its conditions of approval for the Site Development Permit and has made
49 inquiries as to the status of compliance with the conditions of approval for the apartments. Stated
50 will inquire as the status of compliance with conditions of approval for the project until the
51 required recreational facilities are repaired and consistent with the conditions of approval.
52
53 Staff will follow-up Duane Hill Apartment concern and report back to the Commission. Related to the Blue
54 Drug eyesore issue and possible street encroachment violation recommends the public make a formal
55 complaint to the City Police Department since this department the lead for code enforcement violations.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 9
1
2 Commissioner Pruden: Pumpkinfest was a big success and well attended.
3
4 12. ADJOURNMENT
5 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m.
6
7
8 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 10
SITE SUMMARY KEYNOTES � � � °
SITE AREA 0 NEW PARKING STRIPPING
� > -
1 °`
w �
I N Q
APN: 003-031-19 0 EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN � o �
~ ? �
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 4,650.00 'SQ.FT. 03 NEW ADA PARKING STALL � � �
I = _
OFFICE AREA 1,485.00 'SQ.FT. 04 EXISTING GATE TO REMAIN - - - - _ _ � � Q
' EXISTING TIRE STOPS TO REMAIN ' — Z F
OUTDOOR AREA 1,750.00 SQ.FT. — — _ �
05 _ o ,
— � � v E o �n d .o
06 EXISTING 6'-0" HT FENCE TO REMAIN - - - - _ � J " ° ° �' � � N
w ._ ` ,�
� � � � I Q � � O O � N
PARKING GARAGE AREA 3,150.00 'SQ.FT. 07 LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE — — — — _ _ °` ° �- °' °' `� �
- - _ � � ° - a
H � � � � y o V
PARKING REQUIRED Og LINE OF SIDEWALK — — — — — _ _ � " V "' " '" "" N
W ro
� J � � � � •y N
BUILDING AREA @ 1/500 9 STALLS 09 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN - - - - _ _ _ _ _ � � _ 3 ^ ^ °- N �
� Q � ^ o
OUTDOOR AREA @ 1/2000 1 STALLS �
a o 3 a � c� r. c�
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 10 STALLS �
I z
PARKING PROVIDED 14 STALLS � o Q O
>-
r
I � �
I � Q �
1 � � z
� w
I o � o
I � � �
I � � �
� � Q
EXISTING I � o
BUILDING � I�I w
1 � �
I 0°
W �
— _ — — — _ — — — _ — � � � � � � N
� � — � — — I w
t 144'-3" � �, _
� - - _ _ --0 I � �
- - - � o
Ww
� W =
❑� J CO p ~W
wZ�n¢ J �wOO=J�Z
>��_ � W v� ��J�O
I W U W❑ = H W Z O�=U�
N �Z ��O(n w fn Z U
r — — — — — — — — — — — �— — — — — — — — — — — —� — �— — — — — — — — — �
- - - - - - - - - - � w�wa=pu'��o~� wo�
I – �aaa'�woo=UZa�w�M
I ^ I �cn�>O 2 a��w a z a w w o
���� �U' a W a'F�W a'd'H��LL(nLLJ N
I - ° 7 I � az�WaQO�O�wQWJ=Z
�� �a �o °�Q�u�izov�
� � � � _-� � ���w�z w O��a>p�U w¢
+� I O CANOPY AREA I �w�,Z=~�omao~�,wZ=
m m�W z��O a�a�Z�a�
� a¢ui�ax��o�az3inw>
�wQa�c�av��oc�¢zc�a
O Oxwww�w`!�O–z��0U0
z���cc¢ccocn�¢¢oU¢U
�
' � 10a:
��
12'-6" 25'- '
� �
�i �
; _ 11 �
� __ ... � �
�
i -
;�, - � ..
� �✓ $ �a
� _ �i O O ,_� �
� � OFFICE AREA � � ° i �v
f 1,488 SQFT 12 0� � �
�
�
° ��� o �
I 0 ;' I � I �
��-I O� O O � Z O
� � I
� PARKING GARAGE - z Q �
_ f 3,165 SQFT � ' � �
- O� O � 13 , - i m
6, I � o �
f49'-6» _ » 24'-0" 19'-0" °O 30'-6" 4'-0"� 19'-p» r � �
� M
– � � w
N Q
� �
O O
I
O 6, O � 14 o t 12'- "
� �
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �
�
��' z
0 0
�- > „ __� � �
f93 -3 � -E �
- � w
o � � o
�
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N f134�_8�� � aaaaaaa �
I
I
1
I
1
I M
I �
� ,
I � �
I = �
I
1 � � �
EXISTING �
I o o �
BUILDING j �� z � �
� z m �
EXISTING I � � �! � �
B U I L D I N G � 0' 2.5' 5' 7.5' 10' 15' 20' 30' W � z J � U
� I�I I�I `� � =� w = o �
(� QO � (� �
� � (B � (6
� SCALE: 1"=10'-0" �o � 1 N `1
I � (n � l` �
I
I
�
0 0
I �
� w
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � g o
� Z
I m �
� HERTZ APPROVAL SIGNATURE N Q
I /� , z � �
I V m
� � U � m o
I SIGNATURE DATE ~ � J � Y
z
� U
� � � U � � 2
� PRINT NAME � � � � � v
� Sheet Number:
' A1 . 1
SITE PLAN ,�
� 1/16" = 1'-0"
\\crosrv1\currentproj\Hertz\N00011_Ukiah, CA\08 Construction Drawings\N00011_A1-1.dwg- Oct 22, 2013- 11:18am -ACS
Myszka Place Lot 2
General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures
Pro�ided at places at 10/23/2013 meeting.
Goal OC-24:Replace aging trees with new trees.
Policy OC-24.1: Develop a program to ensure continued healthy tree propagation.
Implementation Implement the program to replace aging trees giving preference to native species.
Measure OC-
24.1(a):
Goal OC-25:Maintain and enhance the City's canopy of shade trees.
Policy OC-25.1: Protect existing healthy mature trees to maintain shade and area attractiveness.
Implementation During the short-term planning period, utilize the Land Development Code or enact an ordinance
Measure OC- identifying important shade tree areas and providing for their long-term management and
25.1(a): health.
Implementation Establish a requirement for public notice and hearing when trees are to be removed from
Measure OC- undeveloped public, private,and redeveloped property—except for recreational purposes or in
25.1(b): relation to agriculture—as part of the design review program.
Goal OC-29:Maintain and enhance the"urban forests"which create a sense of urban space.
Policy OC-29.1: The development review process shall incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the urban
tree canopy.
Implementation The Land Development Code shall incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the urban tree
Measure OC- canopy.
29.1(a):
Implementation Review construction and landscaping site plans to ensure that healthy trees are not removed
Measure OC- unnecessarily.
29.1(b):
Policy OC-29.2: Cultivate an understanding of and appreciation for the social,environment,and aesthetic values
of trees.
Implementation Make available information on sound urban forest management practices.
Measure OC-
29.2(a):
Goal EG-5:Site design shall incorporate shade trees for energy conservation.
Policy EG-5.1: Encourage minimum canopy coverage of all paved area on a lot.
Implementation The Land Development Code shall include in its design requirements the requirement that all
Measure EG- new development shall provide a canopy coverage of 50%at the maturity of all paved areas on
5.1(a): the lot.
Goal CD-4:Seek uniform,attractive landscaping standards for non-single family residential development
throughout the Valley.
Policy CD-4.1: Establish and enforce landscaping standards in all non-single family residential, multi-family
residential,commercial,and industrial development and all redevelopment projects.
Implementation Create a combined City-County landscape program to ensure uniform standards and
Measure CD- requirements for new non-single family residential, multi-family residential,commercial,
4.1(a): industrial development,and all redevelopment projects.
Policy CD-4.2: Encourage planting of native trees and plants.
Implementation The landscape standards in the land Development Code shall include provisions for street
Measure CD- canopies and streetscape enhancement.
4.2(a):
Policy CD-4.3: Require landscaping that will result in the creation of new street canopies.
Implementation The landscape standards in the Land Development Code shall include provisions for street
Measure CD- canopies and streetscape enhancement.
4.3(a):
Implementation The City and County shall cooperate to permit planting of canopy trees within the rights-of-way
Measure CD- to improve or enhance the streetscape.
4.3(b):
Goal CD-12:Conserve the character and architecture of Ukiah and Valley neighborhoods.
Policy CD-12.1: Maintain and improve Ukiah's streets, lighting,trees, landscaping,and parks in a manner that
enhances the City's beauty and historic fabric.
Implementation Establish public design standards for street furniture and landscaping that enhance the
Measure CD- streetscape and general fabric of the City.
12.1(a):
Myszka Place
Supplemental Information
Ordinance 920: Planned Development Approval
■ Condition 7H: Tree removal only as shown on the Development Map
Resolution 91-55: Tentative Subdivision Map Approval
■ Condition 12: Setbacks as shown on the Development Map
■ Condition 23: Tree removal as shown on the Development Map
Resolution 93-54: Final Subdivision Map Approval
■ Condition 3: Tree removal as shown on the Development Map (environmental
mitigation measure)
■ Condition 6: Setbacks as shown on the Development Map (Planned Development
condition of approva�
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone: Myszka Place is not located in the Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone.
_ ,
l
October 11, 2013 ��
. ��,�
�cr ��
To Whom It May Concern : � 212�13
����
F�
RE: 1210 Myszka Place
It has been called to my attention there is interest in the purchase of the above listed property by
Rich and Karen Keehn . Since that property (on a larger scale) was purchased by my parents in the
1930's, you might be interested in some historical perspective.
When purchased, there existed a vineyard covering the property. This was replaced by the present
home now owned by Tom Hill . The redwoods in question for the lot the Keehns are purchasing were
among many trees planted in the 30's and 40's enhancing the property and helping with erosion control .
The redwoods are not native to that property.
The Keehns would build a nice home but there are too many trees to complete a plan for �
construction . Whereas I would hate seeing these trees cut down for sentimental reasons, to retain
them on a small lot is impractical . •
I hope you will consider their plan positively.
Sincerely,
�I"/�!L ��. <'_�9 � ' l�I�f�7L/'r. .
Wanda Myszka Mannon