Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin 04-16-86307 PUBLIC HEARING 9b. Resolution Approving Tentative Subdivision Map No. 86-48, Redwood Business Park The City Manager introduced the Planning Director who had prepared the staff report. The Planning Director explained the area in question, 99 acres south of Talmage Road, and reviewed the proposal for the area to be known as Redwood Business Park. The major issue that staff and the Planning Commission have is the developer's proposed street improvement phasing which would be, the initial construction of the medium strip and two center lanes with the outside lanes in both directions graded but not fully improved until individual adjacent properties are developed. The City Attorney questioned Conditions No. 9 and No. 14 of the Resolution. Councilmember Henderson questioned Condition No. 4. The Planning Director clarified the intent of the conditions. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 8:32 P.M. Gary Ackerstrom, 425 Talmage Road, explained the intended use of the 99 acres and the proposed phasing. As he explained his proposal, each phase of his development would be divided into two parts. During part one, two lanes of the four-lane divided streets would be paved with the outer two lanes qravelled but unpaved. Lots would be developed during the first part. The second part of the phase would complete paving and other street improvements before beginning the next phase of the development. He presented Council with a two-page Developer/City responsibility list. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 8:49 P.M. Councilmember Kelley believes that in Item No. 10 of the proposed resolution, the bike lanes should be deleted in addition he questioned the condition of Item No. 4. Council questioned Mr. Ackerstrom's list. Discussion ensued. M/S Kier/Hickey to adopt Resolution No. 86-41, which approves the tentative Subdivision Map No. 86-48, Redwood Business Park, with the following changes: Item No. 2 delete "with each phase." Item No. 10 add (so long as required by Use Permit No. 81-39) after bike lane installation. Item No. 9 add after Association "will be formed and provide landscaping .... " The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Henderson, Kier, Hickey, Kelley, and Mayor Myers. NOES: None. Council recognized the fact that Mr. Ackerstrom's list needed more input by himself and staff and then Council could discuss it further. NEW BUSINESS lla. Discussion of Proposed Contractural Services - Recreation Activity Program The City Manager noted the proposal before Council is a result of the Mendocino County Youth Project terminating their co-sponsorship in the'Ukiah Recreation Program. He introduced the Park and Recreation Director who had prepared the staff report. The Park and Recreation Director explained the proposal regarding an independent contractor developing the recreation program. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. Reg. Mtg. April 16, 1986 Page 4 3O8 M/S Kelley/Kier to pursue the concept of hiring an independent contractor to administer the Ukiah Recreation Program. The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote. NOES: None. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE None. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Henderson Stated she would like to receive a copy of the RFP regarding the Electrical Energy Conservation Committee Feasibility Study. Commented on the Helen Putnam Award application. Noted that the City hasn't received any information on the May 17, 1986 Redwood Division League of California Cities meeting to be held in Ukiah. Councilmember Kier None. Councilmember Hickey Noted that Councilmember Henderson and himself toured the turbines in Roseville and the operation at the Geysers. NCPA meeting of April 24, 1986 will be held in Ukiah at the Lido. Councilmember Kelley Noted MTA hasn't received Council's minute motion regarding the continued JPA Contract. He would like to be taken off the MCOG Board as of April 30, 1986. Mayor Myers appointed Councilmember Henderson to the MCOG Board. Mayor Myers None. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney recommended that Council go into Closed Session regarding the Threatened Litigation Section 54956.9(b). M/S Hickey/Kier to go into Closed Session to discuss the following: 1. Threatened Litigation against the City. RECESS: 9:40 P.M. The Council went into Closed Session at 9:45 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Yvette S. Hayes City Clerk Reg. Mtg. April 16, 1986 Page 5 305 8d. Approved the Report of Administrative Actions and Proposals (R.A.A.P.) The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Henderson, Kier, Hickey, Kelley, and Mayor Myers. NOES: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Development Process Brochure The City Manager noted that this subject had been before Council previously and needed their final review. The Planning Director reviewed the changes and suggested format. Councilmember Kelley referred to Page 2 of the brochure and questioned whether the General Plan is consistent with zoning. The Planning Director noted they were consistent with each other. Councilmember Hickey requested that the number of days required to process a General Plan and a Zone Change should be added together and noted. Councilmember Kier requested a note be made that unless currently zoned P.D., the City would end up a timeframe of 208 days. Councilmember Henderson questioned the annexation process. Councilmember Kier questioned the Project Review Committee. He noted that on Page 20, the electrical transformers exception should be added for commercial hook-ups. The City Manager requested dating the brochure. M/S Kelley/Henderson approved the printing of the Development Process Brochure. The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote. NOES: None. PUBLIC HEARING 9a. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Use Permit No. 86-41, Western Developers Group The City Manager noted that the Planning Director had prepared the staff report in this matter and asked him to present the same. The Planning Director explained why the Planning Commission had denied the Use Permit; design, open space, and parking issues were of the main concern. Discussion ensued regarding the architectural, parking, and open space review. Also discussed were site development requirements. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 7:17 P.M. Robert Long, 468 No. School Street, presented a petition signed by persons opposing the development. He opposes the project because the design does not fit in a Victorian neighborhood. He read a letter from Betty C. Hook, 417 No. Oak Street, who opposes the project. Bob Richey, 456 No. School, opposes the project and addressed a forseeable parking problem. Leif Farr, 305 Scott Street, opposes the project and questioned whether the project is consistent with the City's planning. Bruce Roberts, 1091 So. State Street, represents the Western Developers Group. He explained the design and noted because there is no design ordinance in the City, the developers feel the design is appropriate for the area. He addressed the parking issue, common areas and believes the project has met all code requirements. Reg. Mtg. April 16, 1986 Page 2 306 Councilmember Henderson questioned the price range the condominiums will be selling for. Mr. Roberts replied it would be between $80-90,000. Irene Long, 468 No. School Street, noted the restricted play area for children. Leif Farr, 305 Scott Street, questioned whether the price range was appropriate or relative to the homes in the area. Bill Courtney, 307 Scott Street, opposed to the project because the added need for parkffng will put a strain on the area. PUBLIC HEARING CI,OSED - 7:45 P.bI. the available parking to be limited to one side of the street, t]~c ::~(~' ir, question is of narrow width, lack of play area, and the added traffic flow would be a detriment to the area. Discussion followed. Councilmember Kelley addressed the parking issue. Councilmember Hickey addressed the traffic issue. Councilmember Kier believed the on-site parking issue has been addressed and resolved by the developer. He further noted that the west side of Ukiah is of a homogeneous nature and explained why the project should be approved. Councilmember Henderson requested clarification on the Planning Commissioner's denial of the Use Permit. The Planning Director reviewed the reasons. Councilmember Hickey believes the project would have a profound impact on the neighborhood. The City Attorney reviewed the general standards of the code regarding the Use Permit application. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was declared lost by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers H.[ckey and Kelley. NOES: Councilmembers Henderson, Kier, and Mayor Myers. The Planning Director reviewed the Project Review Committee's findings. There was some discussion on the specific recommendations. M/S Kier/Henderson approve Use Permit No. 86-41, Western Developers Group application as this Council concludes the project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood in question. Council bases its findings upon: the 1,000 sq. ft. requirement regarding open space, exclusive of the balconies, private gardens, and driveway are provided, the traffic study provided supports the argument that the project would not have a negative impact on the area, and that the project in question is not being placed in a single family dwelling zone but on the edge of a commercial zone. In addition, regarding the Project Review Committee's recommendations, Condition 5 to be: On-site paving to be 2" asphalt concrete over 6" aggregate base or alternative to be approved by the City Engineer. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Henderson, Kier, and Mayor Myers. NOES: Councilmembers Hickey and Kelley. RECESS: 8:10 P.M. RECONVENED: 8:20 P.M. Reg. Mtg. April 16, 1986 Page 3 3O4 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - APRIL 16, 1986 The City Council convened in regular session at 6:30 p.m., in the Ukiah Unified School District Board Room. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Henderson, Kier, Hickey, Kelley, and Mayor Myers. Staff present: City Manager Payne, City Attorney Rapport, Public Works Director Pedroncelli, Planning Director Harris, Parks and Recreation Director Frame, and City Clerk Hayes. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Henderson delivered the Invocation and the City Manager led in the Pledge of Allegiance. PROCLAMATION Mayor Myers read the Proclamation declaring Loyalty Day, May 1, 1986, and presented the same to Clifton Taylor. Mayor Myers read the Proclamation declaring April 13-19, 1986 as Homeless Week and presented the same to Buddy Eller. Mayor Myers read the Proclamation acknowledging one year of service by "Safe Rides" and presented the same to Rick Phillips, Catherine Puckering, Rachael Mitchell, Verba Wright, and Derek Shaw. APPROVAL/CORRECTION OF MINUTES Mayor Myers noted a correction to the minutes as requested by Mr. Paul Richey. On Page 2, Item 9a, second paragraph, third line: omit "vendors will be asked to," will read: "noted further that Federal Express has offered to donate their vendor revenues to Plowshares." M/S Kier/Kelley to approve the City Council Minutes of April 2, 1986, Regular Meeting, as amended. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Henderson, Kier, Hickey, Kelley, and Mayor Myers. NOES: None. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion With Architect Victor Lopes - Yokayo Site Mr. Lopes stated that he is about to complete the contract documents and that they will be out by April 28, 1986. He hopes to be accepting a bid on June 4, 1986. There was some discussion regarding this matter. No action was taken. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Myers reviewed Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the appeal process. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Hickey/Kelley to approve the Consent Calendar Item 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d as follows: 8a. Approved Payroll Warrants of April 16, 1986, #9810 to #9950, in the amount of $83,101.04. 8b. Approved General Warrants of April 16, 1986, #31330 to #31468, in the amount of $348,724.38. 8c. i. Adopted Resolution No. 86-38, Repealing Resolution No. 77-46 - Twenty-Four (24) Minute Parking Zones. ii. Adopted Resolution No. 86-39, Repealing Resolution No. 84-22 - Ninety (90) Minute parking zones. iii. Adopted Resolution No. 86-40, Repealing Resolution No. 63-51 and No. 77-49 - Two (2) Hour Parking Zones. Reg. Mtg. April 16, 1986 Page 1