Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 08-18-00MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Adjourned Regular Meeting Friday, August 18, 2000 The Ukiah City Council met at an Adjourned Regular Meeting on August 18, 2000, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 3:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Smith, Libby, Baldwin, Ashiku, and Mayor Mastin. Staff present: Planning Director Stump, Associate Planner Lohse, Assistant City Manager Fierro, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, and Recording Secretary Elawadly. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Director Stump led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Mastin read the appeal process. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward to address Council. PUBLIC HEARING Sa. Introduction of Ordinance Amendinq the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development to Allow Hotels and Restaurants in the Professional Office Land Use Desi.qnation Planning Director Stump reported the hearing's objective is to discuss the proposal to amend the AlP Planned Development Ordinance establishing hotel/restaurants as allowed uses in the Professional Office land use designation within the AlP. The purpose of the amendment would be to accommodate a 75-room up-scale hotel proposed for this particular area of the AlP. The Professional Office designated land within the AlP is situated west of Airport Park Boulevard between Talmage Road and Commerce Drive, and is specifically outlined in Attachment 1 of the Planning Report, dated July 21, 2000. The Planning Commission recently voted 3-2 to deny the proposed Ordinance amendment. The Commission expressed dissatisfaction with the project-by-project amendments to the Ordinance during the past several years, noting that such projects conflict with the "Master Plan" for development in the AlP. The Commission questioned the suitability of the Professional Office land designation for hotel and restaurant development and was of the opinion the Hotel was a good project in the wrong location, referencing the lumber mill to the west and the retail "shopping cente~' to the eastern and southern portions of the Park. The Planning Commission also felt the proposed Hotel would allow for a loss of opportunities relative to Professional Office Development in the AlP, which in their opinion was acceptable because offices are better suited in the Downtown area. The Commission also noted that Professional Office development opportunities exist in the newly created 32-acre "Industrial/Mixed-Use" area to the south so that the potential loss of Professional Office land would not be an important issue. The subject acreage is situated between Airport Park Boulevard to the east, the lumber mill to the west, Professional Office development to the north, and Commerce Drive to the south. Staff concluded that although August 18, 2000 Page I of 8 the site is not perfectly ideal, its positive qualities outweigh any potential conflicts with surrounding land uses. The proposed project was determined to be consistent with the Certified Program EIR and that no subsequent or supplemental EIR would be required. It was noted the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the build-out of the AlP. A number of potentially significant environmental impacts were identified and mitigated in the document. A Capital Improvement Fee for traffic was adopted for the AlP as a mitigation measure of the Certified EIR. This program provided that a particular fee be collected at the time of Building Permit issuance for necessary street and intersection improvements resulting from increased traffic in the area. During the regular July 26, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Site Development Permit No. 00-26 and Variance No. 00-31, which are contingent upon the City Council's adoption of the Ordinance Amendment No. 00-18. Staff stated it is common practice for County seats experiencing growth to make such amendments and it would be unreasonable to expect the AlP Planned Development Ordinance to remain fixed and rigid. Since Ukiah is not a large metropolitan city, development generally occurs on an individual project-by-project basis wherein interest in locating and developing is primarily driven by market conditions, and it is not unusual to amend land use plans in response to changing market, environmental, political, or other circumstances. The AlP has continually evolved wherein periodic reevaluations and amendments of the Ordinance can be regarded as good planning. Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance amendment and supports the concept that the AlP Planned Development Ordinance is a dynamic plan for the growth and development of this area, and as such, is subject to reevaluation and change as market, political, and environmental circumstances change. Staff concluded the Professional Office designated land is situated in a good visitor serving location, and that potentially replacing this five acres with hotels and restaurants is logical given the close proximity to Highway 101, gas stations, and retail commercial land uses. Councilmember Baldwin inquired whether staff supported changes to the AlP Planned Development Ordinance during the past ten years. Mr. Stump replied staff and AlP property owners have disagreed on various Ordinance amendment projects from time to time, but staff has been supportive of good projects in the past. Staff's policy is to work with applicants in shaping projects in a manner which would be acceptable and pleasing to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. City Manager Horsley stated staff's intention is to assist an applicant in the creation of a project that is both workable and conducive to a particular site. It was noted, generally speaking, Plans are formulated to comply with certain objectives, but ideally such Plans are often subject to reevaluation and could be construed as long- range planning tools in many respects. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 3:40 P.M. Gary Akerstrom, Ukiah, provided a brief history of the AlP and its correlation to the August 18, 2000 Page 2 of 8 proposed project. He stated businesses are appropriately scrutinized prior to being allowed to develop in the AlP. Prior to being zoned into the City, all property north of what is commonly known as Commerce Drive or Hastings was designated as Highway oriented Commercial or Office/Commercial, all property on the west side of Airport Park Boulevard was designated Office/Commercial, and all property located on the east side was designated Highway-Oriented Commercial, which alluded to 14.8 acres of Highway/Commercial that allowed hotel, restaurant, and gas station use. Currently, this land use designation has been reduced to 1.4 acres. Allowing some of those Highway- Oriented uses, in this case a hotel on the west side, does not alter the originally envisioned intention of the AlP. The adjacent lumberyard is located in an area designated Office/Commercial and is considered an existing non-conforming use, which would be utilized differently should this operation be suspended. All property north of Hastings was never designated as Industrial. The concept of the Park being utilized as Industrial was a misconception as the Park is actually a Business Park containing a variety of business uses. The Redwood Regional Center has future plans to expand its facility and the Savings Bank of Mendocino County is in the process of producing plans for its parcel on the corner adjacent to Talmage Road. Mayor Masfin inquired what types of businesses were not considered for the Park. Mr. Akerstrom provided certain examples of businesses not considered for operation in the Park such as a sales/equipment business, various retail stores, and a mobile home park. He referred to the AlP development plan as modified in 1995, and noted this was the time when some of the Office/Commercial land use designation was changed to Professional Office. Al Beltrami, Mendocino County Employees Council, Ukiah, stated he is not speaking on behalf of the County Board of Directors, but rather the Policy Committee who supports the proposed recommendation. He stated the Industrial Park concept, as originally envisioned, is now considered history in many ways wherein many of the Ordinance amendments recommendations have been approved. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 3:48 P.M. Councilmember Smith noted he supports staff in their recommendation of the proposed Ordinance amendment and stated the AlP has not been inundated with industrial businesses desiring this particular site wherein a hotel would be a pleasing addition. Councilmember Ashiku queried staff relative to the lighting requirements and whether the provisions, as outlined in the Conditions of Approval, are sufficient with regard to appropriate shielding. Mr. Stump replied lighting requirements pertain to the Major Site Development Permit, which is contingent upon the City Council's approval of the Ordinance amendment. He stated the Planning Commission in their action for the Major Site Development Permit addressed the Lighting issue in detail wherein a Condition of Approval was imposed for a Final Lighting Plan incorporating appropriate shielding. August 18, 2000 Page 3 of 8 Councilmember Baldwin inquired that once a precedent has been formulated relevant to allowing hotels/restaurants in this area, could total build-out follow this same plan? Staff replied affirmatively. Mr. Baldwin inquired regarding the traffic study and questioned whether a hotel/restaurant precedence in this area would denote less traffic as opposed to a build-out of Professional Office use. Staff replied affirmatively during the PM Peak Hours between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Should the build-out reflect hotel/restaurant use, traffic would not be as concentrated as Professional Office would be during the PM Peak Hours. Therefore, the Ordinance amendment would be in scope with the EIR as well as consistent with the associated Capital Improvement Program appropriately formulated for AlP build-out. Replacement mitigation measures would not be necessary should the Ordinance amendment be approved by the City Council. It would also not be necessary to impose additional Conditions of Approval. Mr. Baldwin questioned whether the Traffic Study and accompanying Capital Improvement Program was based on general daytime traffic rather than peak hour traffic. Mr. Stump replied the study was based on the Average Daily Traffic (ADT), but the crux of traffic congestion begins at the PM Peak Hour. Staffs study focused mainly on the PM Peak Hour where mitigation measures would be applicable. Councilmember Libby inquired regarding the Planning Commission's opinion that there exists a more appropriate location for the proposed hotel within the City limits and whether there was a specific location denoted. Mr. Stump replied some of the Commissioners desired the hotel be located in the Downtown, but no specific site was formally discussed. It was noted the Downtown is limited in area in order to accommodate a hotel of this magnitude. The exact percentage of office space available Downtown was not readily known, but there is vacant space available. Councilmember Ashiku expressed his concern regarding the loss of a large parcel where there exists the potential for development of a large office building for this site. However, he addressed this particular parcel's history and noted the proposed hotel development would not be a large transition and/or deviation from the Professional Office zoning to Hotel and/or Highway oriented Commercial zoning. He noted the Hotel would not eliminate what may have been referred to as "historical Industrial land." He commented briefly on the advantages of developing a hotel for this area. He would not support this particular project provided the development was located south of the proposed area and out of the zoning designation. August 18, 2000 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Stump indicated when the Mixed-Use designation was established, it provided an opportunity for Professional Office development on large vacant parcels and the elimination of 1.5 acres would not be detrimental to this goal. Mr. Ashiku agreed with staffs conclusion relative to the traffic study that Professional Office use designation would create increased traffic during the PM Peak Hours as opposed to Hotel/Restaurant use at this same time. Mr. Stump further reported that staff investigated what the peak hours would be for hotel/restaurants and the conclusion resulting from a telephone survey within the area revealed the peak hours as being from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Mr. Mastin stated although Ordinance amendments to the AlP are cumbersome, he supported staffs recommendation wherein the change in use designation would not be significant. Mr. Baldwin drew attention to the potential for future traffic congestion on Talmage Road at 2:00 or 3:00 p.m. He expressed his concern relevant to hotel clientele being detained in traffic congestion. He further expressed concern whether the mitigation measures proposed would be sufficient. It was noted when the AlP reaches build-out, there exists the likelihood of significant traffic increases, and no appropriate modification to traffic mitigation measures were proposed that have not been previously addressed and/or modified. Ms. Horsley noted a meeting would be formulated with Caltrans for the purpose of improving and widening Talmage Road, in phases, to accommodate bicycle/pedestrians. Mr. Baldwin inquired whether a Capital Improvement Fee would be paid representing a percentage of the total as determined by the existing traffic mitigation measures thought to be necessary. Staff replied relative to the Capital Improvement Fee, that the Hotel would pay their respective portion when the Building Permit is issued. It was noted the rate of contribution is based upon the traffic study completed for Professional Office and/or Office Commercial for that site, which would be the rate the applicants would contribute. The existing Resolution relevant to the Capital Improvement Fee schedule would not change unless there is evidence traffic would significantly increase in the AlP. It was noted each lot contributes a pre-determined amount to the Capital Improvement Program accessed for the individual parcels based upon the assumed use at the time the Resolution was adopted. This assessed fee schedule may not be completely accurate. It was noted should a zoning change be implemented which would significantly increase the total traffic affecting the necessary mitigation measures, a revision would be made to the existing Resolution. MIS Ashiku/Smith to introduce Ordinance by Title Only, Amending the Airport Industrial August 18, 2000 Page 5 of 8 Park Planned Development, was carried by an all AYE voice vote. Recording Secretary Elawadly read the title of the Ordinance. MIS AshikulSmith to introduce Ordinance Amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Smith, Libby, Baldwin, Ashiku, and Mayor Mastin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING 5b. Appeal of Plannin.q Commission Condition of approval No. 48 for Major Site Development Permit No. 00-26 Permit Limitinq Monument Si.qn to Ei.qht Feet in Hei.qht Planning Director Stump reported the Planning Commission, at the July 26, 2000 meeting, recommended denial of the Ordinance revision. However, staff asked the Commissioners to consider the Site Development Permit in the event the City Council was supportive of the proposed amendment revision. The Planning Commission approved the Findings as well as a number of Conditions of Approval for the Site Development Permit. The applicants filed a timely appeal to Condition of Approval No. 48. This Condition limits the applicant to constructing a monument sign along Airport Park Boulevard in front of the hotel to a height of eight feet. The applicants initially requested a height of 21 feet for the monument sign and since the appeal was filed, the applicants have requested a monument sign be placed at 11.5 feet. This compromise is the subject of the hearing. Staff is supportive of the Planning Commission's action to retain the maximum height at eight feet for various reasons. The first reason being the two other common free-standing monument signs in the Park were held to an eight foot height limit. Practically speaking, an eight-foot monument sign would be appropriate as well as tasteful for the site wherein there would be another sign integrated into the building's architecture and the clientele should have no problems locating the hotel. Councilmember Ashiku inquired whether the attached reader board is considered a part of the proposed monument sign. Staff replied affirmatively and stated this would be a question for the applicants. Provided the eight-foot height limit is retained as recommended, it is still questionable whether this height could accommodate a reader board, which is a design issue. Councilmember Baldwin inquired whether most up-scale hotels incorporate reader boards. It was noted some hotels/motels in Ukiah do incorporate reader boards. The Planning Commission agreed the reader board concept was not a necessary component for such an up-scale hotel and aesthetically detracted from the sophisticated appearance of the facility. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 4:08 P.M. Mark Watson, Ukiah, Hampton Inn representative, addressed the signage and/or reader August 18, 2000 Page 6 of 8 board issue and stated there are specific reasons for the 11.5 feet monument sign height. The monument sign would appropriately guide incoming guests to the hotel's entrance as well as provide conferencing and event information for the corporate/professional clientele. Councilmember Baldwin inquired regarding the definition of a monument sign. Associate Planner Lohse stated a monument sign is typically a sign incorporating a monument style base and can accommodate poles within the basic structure, but is mainly defined from a free-standing pole sign concept by the fact that the major structural support is monument based. Mark Watson indicated the proposed 11.5-foot monument sign would encompass no visible poles and/or support structures other than the masonry base. Any support structure would be integral to the sign. There would be frame-work surrounding the reader board. Eric Jacobs, Hilton Hotel Corporation, commented in terms of height, a monument sign must be visible by the clientele. He expressed concern that the proposed project's landscaping would eventually block the sign's visibility and, therefore, the hotel's entrance. He supports the reader board concept. It was noted a scripted Hampton Inn logo would be incorporated into the facility's architecture. It was further noted most hotel guests would not utilize the sign for identification purposes, but previously made arrangements to stay at the hotel. Lynn McNamara, Ukiah, Realtor/Broker, supported the Ordinance amendment and addressed the proposed signage concept as compromised by the applicants. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 4:24 P.M. It was noted the Jack-in-the-Box sign is part of the AlP. Councilmember Libby questioned the location of the Ken Fowler monument sign. Staff replied the sign would be located on Airport Park Boulevard in front of the facility and would not be located on the east side of the lot close to the freeway. There would be smaller, subdued rectangular signs on the freeway side. Staff also noted the required landscaping for the Ken Fowler project was designed not to obscure the monument sign. The landscape trees could be spaced for the hotel project in the same manner as the Ken Fowler project. All proposed trees for the project must be consistent with the approved Final Lighting and Landscaping Plan and this Plan must be in substantial conformance with the conceptual Plan, wherein it would be acceptable for the applicants to alter tree locations to coincide with the monument sign. Councilmember Ashiku inquired regarding Condition of Approval No. 20 for the Site Development Permit and whether the Final Lighting Plan incorporated appropriate Iow wattage and shielding. August 18, 2000 Page 7 of 8 Associate Planner Lohse drew attention to the revised language for Condition of Approval No. 20, specifically item (d), which appropriately addresses the above-referenced inquiry and/or concern. Mayor Mastin briefly elaborated on the various grounds supporting the maximum eight- foot height for monument signs citing such examples as Park consistency relevant to signage. MIS Ashiku/Baldwin to deny the Appeal and retain Condition No. 48 as one of the required Conditions of Approval for Major Site Development Permit No. 00-26, as recommended by the Ukiah Planning Commission, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Smith, Libby, Baldwin, Ashiku, and Mayor Mastin. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None The City Council congratulated the applicants for a quality project. City Manager Horsley advised that a state committee representing the Community Development Block Grant approved the Homeless Planning and Assistance Grant. She advised the plans regarding the 200 street trees proposed for the State Street corridor were submitted to Caltrans, and the City anticipates a timely response. She noted there would be approximately a $40,000 cash match required by the City and/or Redevelopment Agency at the time these funds are disbursed for a grand total of $70,000 wherein $30,000 could be used for in-lieu services for engineering purposes. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned to August 23, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. Cat~ Eli~wa~lly~ Re-c~d i~ Secretary August 18, 2000 Page 8 of 8