RIPON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

RIPON CITY HALL
TUESDAY MAY 13, 2008 - 7:00 P.M.

Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioners pledged allegiance to the flag

Roll Call: Commissioners James Lewis, Donald Berg, Mark Winchell, Garry Krebbs, and Stan Hall

Absent: Debra Van Essen

Others Present: Director Ken Zuidervaart, City Attorney Tom Terpstra, Bernice Finley, Lorraine Goff, Gerry Nies, Mike Maynard, Noreen Yigh, Charlie Brown, Vince Jamison, Gaynl Trotter

Public Discussion: Chairman Hall explained the public discussion process and asked if anyone would like to speak on a matter that is not on the agenda. No one wished to speak at this time.

Minutes: Approval of the minutes of the regular Ripon Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 2008.

MOTION: MOVED/SECONDED (BERG/WINCHELL) AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE (ABSENT: VAN ESSEN) TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 8, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

1.0 PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Hall explained the public hearing process.

1.1 HARMON FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA08-02) a public hearing on a request to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Ripon in order to develop a .209 acre (more or less) parcel for a previously approved residential project located at 321 Second St. in the R4 (multiple family residential) district. A Negative Declaration (PEA06-32) has already been adopted for this project.

Director Zuidervaart introduced the Staff Report into the record along with the findings and conditions of approval. Director Zuidervaart explained that back in September of 2006 Mr. Williams, the property owner, was approved to building a Planned Unit Development on the above mentioned parcel which was to include a four-plex with covered parking. Part of this agreement included an Owners Participation Agreement in which the City of Ripon’s Redevelopment Agency was going to participate in the project by funding a portion of the construction in exchange for some rent restricted affordable units.

The Redevelopment Agency was going to provide approximately $350,000 from our Low/Mod Housing Fund, and the applicant was also applying for approximately $145,000 from the HOME funds program, which is money that is earmarked for the City of Ripon for affordable housing type projects, but is managed and administered by San Joaquin County.

The Redevelopment Agency’s money was then placed into an escrow account for the project, and the applicant then applied with the County for the HOME funds. After reviewing the applicant’s project, the County was unable to approve his project with use of the HOME funds. Because of this shortfall in funding, the applicant is now unable to complete the project and is in the process of transitioning the property over to Harmon Financial Corporation.

Harmon Financial wants to continue with the approved four-plex project, but would like to opt out of the affordable requirement, which is an option allowed by the Ripon Municipal Code. In order to opt out of the affordable requirement, Developers must pay an in-lieu fee to the City to mitigate the affordable restrictions.

In order to transition the property and the approved entitlements from Mr. Williams to Harmon Financial, the City is proposing a five year Development Agreement to accomplish this task. The Development agreement includes the Termination of the Owners Participation Agreement, in which the Redevelopment Money will be release3d from escrow and returned to the City of Ripon’s Redevelopment Agency; Termination of the Regulatory Rental Agreement, which is required for affordable rental units; Termination of the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust and Security, which is required on the property to ensure that the units stay affordable rentals for a period of 55 years; Provides for a return of the Grant Funds to the Redevelopment Agency; Provides for an extension of the PUD approval, which is normally a two year approval and would have expired in September of this year, for a period of five years, the length of this agreement; An affordable housing provision, in which the timing of when the in-lieu fee is due is outlined; and all of the original Conditions of Approval of the previously approved Planned Unit Development.

Director Zuidervaart said that on April 21, 2008, a meeting was held with the project review committee to review the project and discuss any concerns and conditions of approval and those conditions have been incorporated into the staff report where appropriate.

Director Zuidervaart said that staff has included a recommended action in the staff report.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

Proponents: None

Opponents:

Gaynl Trotter (428 Orange Ave) said that she is not in favor or against the project but would like to ensure that it will architecturally fit into the neighborhood as the City is losing its historical character.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

Commissioner Krebbs said that he has some concerns about what it is going to look like as the drawing in not very clear and he does not want to see something that is cheaply built. Commissioner Krebbs said that it would not be too costly for the builder to build something that would blend in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Krebbs asked if the building in tack on the corner would remain and Director Zuidervaart replied yes, that this is for the vacant lot.

Attorney Terpstra explained that this project was approved by the Planning Commission two years ago.

Commissioner Krebbs replied that he does not remember if the design was discussed with Mr. Williams and that he would like to see what the building is going to look like.

Attorney Terpstra informed the Commission that the item before the Commission is the Development Agreement and that the plans have already been approved. Attorney Terpstra went on to say that at a staff level we are trying to make the best of a situation. Attorney Terpstra said that this will convert the project approval from a City funded project and change it to a market rate project and staff thought that the best way to do this was to do a Development Agreement.

Commissioner Krebbs asked if there is any way that we can make approval of the architecture a part of the approval so that it will fit in with the surrounding neighborhood.

Attorney Terpstra asked if the rendering that is in the staff report is something that the Commission is comfortable with or do they want something different.

Commissioner Krebbs replied that he does not like the rendering but does not believe that this is what it will look like. Commissioner Krebbs said that he believes that the developer will do something that will blend in to look like the surrounding neighborhood.

Attorney Terpstra said that the Commission could make a recommendation to City Council that the project go through architectural review to ensure that it blends in with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Krebbs said that this would be good.

Commissioner Berg asked if this issue is not before us tonight then why are we here and Attorney Terpstra replied that he was referring to the architectural review.

Commissioner Berg replied that he thought this was for the entire project and Attorney Terpstra explained that what we have before the Commission tonight is the Development Agreement. Attorney Terpstra said that staff has taken all the conditions that were already approved and incorporated them into the Development Agreement but that the Commission can recommend to the City Council on the underlying project.

Commissioner Berg asked if a motion is required and Attorney Terpstra replied yes, that it is a motion of recommendation and not of approval. Attorney Terpstra went on to say that between now and the City Council meeting the developer and applicant can always agree to other conditions.

Attorney Terpstra said that with a typical Development Agreement you would be working with a new project but this is not the case for this. Attorney Terpstra explained that this Development Agreement untangles all the previous approvals for this project and substitutes in this agreement.

Commissioner Winchell said that he was part of the Commission when it was approved in 2006 but he is concerned with maintaining the old town character.

Director Zuidervaart reminded the Commission that if someone came in for a building permit to construct a house; as long as they met the requirements of setback and standards; they could build what they wanted.

Director Zuidervaart said that the Commission has the right to make recommendations to the Council for approval.

Commissioner Winchell asked what the job of the Project Review Committee is and Director Zuidervaart replied that the Committee stays neutral on the project and ensures that it is in compliance with standards and safety matters but that the Committee does not go into architectural review.

Commissioner Winchell said that he would like to recommend to City Council that they put together an architectural review committee to look at this. Attorney Terpstra replied that he believes that is what Commissioner Krebbs is requesting. Attorney Terpstra then said that there is something similar with Palm Grove.

Commissioner Krebbs said that he does not think it would have been as long of a discussion if the developer had been here.
Commissioner Berg asked if we are going to start looking as to how the units are going to be designed and are we going to criticize those now. Commissioner Krebbs replied that the goal is that it blends in with the surrounding buildings.

Attorney Terpstra agreed with Commissioner Krebbs adding that he is also disappointed that the applicant is not here and although he is not in the position to put words in their mouth, he also believes that the developer is going to build something that will blend in with the neighborhood.

Chairman Hall said that his only concern is that we will be losing more moderate and low income housing.

Director Zuidervaart replied that the applicant wishes to do Market Rate and it is within his right per the Ripon Municipal Code to pay an in-lieu fee for the affordable requirement. Attorney Terpstra went on to say that the project was originally approved as a market rate project and later came through with the affordable condition. The silver lining is the in-lieu fee that will be paid to the Agency and the $347,000 that will go back into the Low/Mod Housing Fund to be used for other projects.

MOTION: MOVED/SECONDED (LEWIS/WINCHELL) AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE (ABSENT: VAN ESSEN) TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA08-02) FOR HARMON FINANCIAL WITH THE ADDED RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT BE APPROVED BY AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT IT BLENDS IN WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD

2.0 GENERAL PLANNING

2.1 MAJOR SITE REVIEW (SR08-05) for McDonald’s USA, LLC this is a request to construct a 3,531 sq ft restaurant with a two-lane drive-thru located on a .79 (+/-) acre parcel at 1382 W. Colony Rd. in the C4 (Highway Service) district. A Negative Declaration (PEA08-14) is recommended for this project.

Director Zuidervaart introduced the Staff Report into the record along with the findings and conditions of approval. The request is for a site plan permit to construct a 3,555 square foot McDonalds fast food restaurant, with a drive-thru window on a .79 acre parcel. The parcel is located at 1382 W. Colony Road, in Colony Plaza Pad B and is in the C4 (Highway Service) district.

The exterior of the building appears to be stucco, two toned in color, with cultured stone adorning the bottom half of the building. The roof will be flat; however it will be accented with parapets around the perimeter. All the windows appear to be accented with awning type covers.

The off-street parking facility provides a total of 28 spaces (25 standard, 2 handicap, and 1 compact) which slightly exceeds the required by local regulations, and all the stalls meet the City’s standard dimensions which are 10 X 19. The drive thru lane is proposed as a dual ordering drive thru which is meant to handle more car volumes at a faster rate, and although drive thru lane queue’s are not specifically addressed within the City of Ripon’s code, adequate queuing for proper site circulation is essential to good site design and safety. The site plan also indicates bicycle parking, located near the trash enclosure, which meets the City of Ripon Standards. There is also site lighting indicated on the plans, which will be reviewed in more detail by the Ripon Police Department to ensure adequate site lighting for security around the building and the site.

Access to the site will be provided by one (1) commercial driveway approach off of the soon to be constructed access road installed as part of the Colony Pad B site Plan permit. Access to this interior access road will be provided by three commercial driveway approaches two (2) from Brady Lane, and one (1) from Colony Road.

The site contains approximately 8,639 square feet or 25% of landscaping, which greatly exceeds the City’s standard of 10% for the C4 district. The applicant has submitted, as part of your packet, a very detailed landscaping plan which itemizes the types and quantities of plants for the site. Although the irrigation plan is not indicated, the applicant will be required to submit detailed landscaping and irrigation plans to the Public Works Department showing connection to the City’s non-potable water system for irrigation purposes.

There is one trash enclosure indicated on the plan, which will be constructed per City of Ripon Standards.

On April 21, 2008, a meeting was held with the applicant and project review committee to review the project and discuss concerns and conditions of approval. The comments and conditions of approval received during the review period have been incorporated into the staff report where appropriate.

Director Zuidervaart said that staff has a recommended action in the staff report.

Chairman Hall asked what the disposition of the existing McDonalds would be and Director Zuidervaart referred this question to the applicant but said that he believes that it will be shut down after the new store is open.

Chairman Hall asked if we could require them to remove the building and Director Zuidervaart replied that this would have had to have been in the original approval or part of the Ripon Municipal Code for such a requirement but the applicant has indicated that they will want to lease or sell the site.

Commissioner Winchell asked if this is a franchise and if they own both the building and the property. Director Zuidervaart referred this question to the applicant.

Commissioner Lewis asked about environmental energy conservation and if any requirements were put on the applicant to address this. Director Zuidervaart replied that the Mayor has put together a committee but nothing has been approved as yet. Director Zuidervaart then said that we can ask the applicant but we can not force them unless it is in our municipal code.

Applicant Mike Maynard said that he was here to answer any questions and that Charlie Brown from Vigen Architecture was here to answer any questions. Mr. Maynard said that McDonalds is very conservative regarding energy costs for the building and they do a variety of things such as incorporating recycled materials into the building to address this issue.

Commissioner Lewis said that this was very encouraging and asked if they have considered incorporating solar panels into their design. Mr. Maynard replied that this has been looked at but at this time it is very cost prohibitive.

Commissioner Krebbs said with regards to the old McDonalds, the City has two Starbucks, one in town and the other at the interchange and both are doing well. Commissioner Krebbs said that this McDonalds in town gets a lot of high school kids and neighbors in town who will go to this one but not at the interchange as the kids don’t have time or transportation to go to the interchange for lunch.

Mr. Maynard replied that this decision was strictly a business decision and evolved when the median was put in front of the restaurant. Mr. Maynard said that since the median was put in sales have dropped. Mr. Maynard said that McDonalds knew that eventually a median would be put in but did not realize that it would happen so quickly.

Commissioner Krebbs asked if the new McDonalds would include a play land and Mr. Maynard replied no. Mr. Maynard then said that with regards to the maintenance of original McDonalds, this building we be maintained and McDonalds will not let it fall into disrepair.

Commissioner Winchell asked if it will be the same franchisee and Mr. Maynard replied yes. Commissioner Winchell asked if the building will be left vacant and Mr. Maynard replied that McDonalds owns both the building and the land and it will be available for lease or purchase for another business.

MOTION: MOVED/SECONDED (BERG/WINCHELL) AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PEA08-14) AND APPROVE MAJOR SITE REVIEW (SR08-05) FOR MCDONALDS BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT

Commissioners Reports: None

City Attorney's Reports: None
Director=s Reports: Director Zuidervaart said that there may be minor amendment to Grace Brethren’s previously approved use permit at the next Planning Commission meeting but that it may be moved back to the July meeting as there is a Blue Print Meeting scheduled for the same night as the Planning Commission Meeting that he would like to encourage the Commission to attend.

Adjournment: There being no further discussion the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of June 10, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.

(Signed) Stan Hall, Chairman

ATTEST: ____________________ ______
(Signed) Ken Zuidervaart, Secretary