Date of Meeting: November 22, 2005

Time of Meeting: 5:15 p.m.

Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers

555 Washington St.

Commissioners Present: Doug Dale

James Brink

Jack Winter

Andrew Christ

Dennison Herring

Commissioners Absent: None

Staff Present: Charlie Mullen, Planning Director

Mark Barthel, Interim Public Works Director

Scot Timboe, Planner

Cheryl Smith, Deputy City Clerk

Patrick Fox, Building Inspector

Chairperson Dale called the meeting to order at 5:16 p.m.




M/S/C Brink, Winter to approve the Consent Calendar.

AYES: Commissioners: Brink, Christ, Dale and Winter

NOES: None

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING: Commissioner: Herring (abstained – absent from meeting)


APPROVED – 4-0-1



Charlie Mullen, Planning Director, reviewed the staff report and gave staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing.

2. Consider all public testimony and all other information relating to this project submitted to the Commission.

3. Consider the project issues raised in the staff report and provide appropriate direction.

4. Adopt Resolution No. 05-015, approving Modification of Use Permit No. 351 with the Findings and Conditions of Approval as contained in the Resolution.

Chairperson Dale requested clarification on the sloping roof referred to for the carports.

Mr. Mullen stated that the sloping roof utilized would match the same slope and roof materials of the main buildings.

Commissioner Herring stated that he felt there would be an additional cost to the project if sloping roofs were required.

Commissioners Brink and Herring stated that they agreed with staff that the carport parking spaces should all be full size, not compact.

Commissioner Brink questioned if the Planning Commission would be setting precedence if a waiver for above ground utility was granted and stated that he felt the utilities should be underground.

Commissioner Winter questioned if the 4:12 roof pitch was standard.

Mr. Mullen stated that it was and that it would require trusses.

Commissioner Christ questioned if the parking situation is outlined in the new engineering standards recently passed by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Mullen stated that the only reference is to isles and parking space dimensions. The use of a carport requires one covered carport space per residential unit, so that is a standard of the Zoning Code. There is no design standard that says that a sloped roof is required.

Chairperson Dale stated that he understands staff’s question to be on the required length of the carport.

Mr. Mullen stated that was correct and that it appears from the drawing that the length of the carport did not cover the length of the parking space.

Commissioner Herring stated that he did not agree with the 8 foot pedestrian bike path. He also questioned if the General Plan Update Advisory Committee was going to rezone the area from C-1.

Mr. Mullen stated that it could be done, but the C District does allow residential uses with a Conditional Use Permit.

Commissioner Herring also suggested that a concrete block sound wall be added at the property line to separate residential from residential.

Mr. Mullen stated that to his knowledge concrete and/or masonry walls have not been used to separate land uses and that he is not aware of any provisions that require a sound barrier wall and that this would be a significant cost to the developer.

Chairperson Dale opened the Public Hearing at 5:43 p.m.

Gary Shimotsu, Architect for the project, stated that in regards to staff’s concerns:

1. Parking – 22 of the 56 are compact and it is acceptable to the developer to change all 56 to standard.

2. Carport Design - Covering the entire parking space with the roof slope is acceptable to the Developer. There are three homes that do back up to the project on the northern property line and that the carport cover will encroach more on the property line.

3. Sidewalks and Right-of-Way -- Building #8 has been moved back to accommodate this request.

4. Above Ground Utility Poles – This condition did not exist in 2004 when this project was first approved, so it is not in the project budget to underground poles and they would like to keep these above ground.

5. Building Design – Would like to keep the low profile flat roof design as submitted with the modifications of making the compact spaces standard and also increasing the roof overhang so that it encompasses the entire carport.

Two other points that he wanted to clarify was that there would not be any roof top equipment on the project and that the condenser units would be on the ground. Regarding the sound wall that was mentioned on the north and east property line, on the north there are three residential units that back up to the property so this would encroach into the carport areas and that the project budget did not include monies for a sound wall.

Chairperson Dale stated that the cost of under grounding the utilities was not in the budget, but right across the street at the Community Center the City and County did not underground the utilities there.

Commissioner Winter questioned the developer if they were against putting the utilities underground.

Mr. Shimotsu stated yes and that the original approval in 2004 did not place that condition on the project.

Mr. Mullen stated that it had been pointed out that there may be a 60 KV power line that runs down Kimball Road and that the higher the voltage the more costly it is to underground, which may explain why it was not done when the Community Center was built.

Mark Barthel, Interim Public Works Director, stated that it would be very complicated and costly to underground the utilities. Staff is proposing that with an 8 foot path the poles will end up in the landscape strip and this will allow an ADA ramp at the location.

There was a general discussion of under grounding utilities and the cost associated with that to this project as well as future projects.

Elva Grant, applicant, stated that if the under grounding the power lines is imposed that it would kill the project and asked that the Planning Commission not impose that.

Chairperson Dale closed the Public Hearing at 5:58 p.m.

Chairperson Dale questioned the cost for under grounding a corner such as this.

Mr. Barthel stated that he would estimate $100,000 and that it might not even be feasible. But is would be extremely expensive.

Commissioner Herring questioned if everything was going to be under grounded.

Mr. Mullen stated that the City did not have an under grounding existing utilities plan in place at this time and that there had been other projects that have not under grounded their utilities.

Chairperson Dale questioned the roofing material that would be used on the parking structures and if it was the same as the roof on units and would it not cause problems for up keep as proposed to installing a metal roof.

Mr. Mullen stated that it would be the same upkeep as the main buildings and that there would be an additional cost to it.

Commissioner Brink stated that in regards to the above ground utility poles were never brought up when this project first came to the Planning Commission it should be left above ground for now and in the future for new developments it should be brought up when plans are submitted.

Mr. Mullen stated that this project had received a tax credit allotment recently and this is what was needed to make the project viable.

The general consensus of the Planning Commission was to leave the poles above ground at this time and that the flat roof design on the carport was a better fits for the project.

M/S/C Brink, Herring to adopt Resolution No. 05-015 approving Modification of Use Permit No. 351 with the Findings and Conditions of Approval as contained in the Resolution and with the following statements:

1. All carport parking spaces shall be full size.

2. Carport roofs shall entirely cover the carport spaces.

3. An additional 5 feet of right of way shall be obtained to accommodate a future 8’ wide pedestrian/bike path on South Jackson Street.

4. Existing above ground utility poles may remain.

5. The proposed building design is acceptable.

6. The proposed flat carport roof design is acceptable.

AYES: Commissioners: Brink, Dale, Christ and Herring

NOES: Commissioner: Winter



Patrick Fox, Building Inspector, reviewed the staff report and gave staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission:

1. Approve the report as written and give direction to City Building Department staff to continue with weekly inspections.

2. Approve the report as written and give direction to City Building Department staff to continue enforcement using the adopted City Council fee of $75.00 per first hour and added cost over the $75.00 used in second visits with noncompliance of Code Enforcement, such as stated in this agenda, with the third visit of noncompliance of scheduled repairs issue a citation for court appearance date and fines to be added per Tehama Courts. (see attachment of City Council approved fee)

Mr. Fox stated that J.D. Ellison, Building Official/Director, was unable to attend the meeting due to a family emergency and that if anyone had any questions they could submit them the Mr. Ellison and he would follow up them. Mr. Fox reported that the weekly inspection were being done on Wednesdays and that the new fee schedule that was adopted by the City Council established new code enforcement charges of $75 per hour.

Chairperson Dale opening the hearing to the public at 6:24 p.m.

Matt McGlynn, Attorney for Mr. Hickston, spoke regarding the report of November 22nd and stated that the report was not accurate and did not give a fair representation of what had been done. He spoke to the fact that one of the main issues was that the smoke detectors were broken and/or missing batteries and that the tenants were removing batteries and/or taking the smoke detectors down. He continued by reporting that Mr. Hinkston and his maintenance person had started the repair work on November 7th and that the work had been delayed due to finding a tenant that had passed away in one of the rooms. Mr. McGlynn reported that his requests for information are being ignored and that notices can be delivered to him and Mr. Hinkston. He reported that he was concerned about the Planning Commission approving the report as written, about repairs that are not code violations and about the regulation of fees when they are adopted.

David Smith, Crystal Apartments tenant, stated that the owner has taken steps to fix leaking bedroom windows and that he had seen the damage caused by tenants. He stated that drugs and alcohol are not allowed by the Hinkston’s and spoke of the poor reputation that the Crystal Apartments previously had and that the HInkston’s were trying to clean up the Crystal’s reputation.

Chairperson Dale closed the hearing at 6:30 p.m.

Commissioner Winter questioned why this item was brought to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Herring stated that the Planning Commission had requested staff to bring updates to the Commission.

Chairperson Dale stated that several years ago the Planning Commission was upset with the lack of code enforcement.

Mr. Mullen stated that this process was required under the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance and that the Planning Commission must give direction to the Building Department.

Mr. McGlynn requested two (2) weeks notice prior to this being on a Planning Commission meeting.

M/S/C Winter, Brink to continue the discussion of this item until the first meeting in January 2006.

AYES: Commissioners: Brink, Christ, Dale, Herring and Winter

NOES: None


Mr. Mullen requested that staff be allowed some flexibility with the future meeting date to due to other projects scheduling needs.

Commissioner Herring requested that Mr. McGlynn prompt his client to make criminal complaints when tenants cause damages to his apartments.

Mr. McGlynn stated that it was very difficult to do.


Mr. Mullen reported that item for discuss at the December 13th meeting would be the discussion of the proposed Sphere of Influence and that the meeting would be held at the Red Bluff Community/Senior Center beginning at 6:00 p.m.

There being no further business Chairperson Dale adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m. to December 13, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Charlie Mullen

Planning Director