Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-27 CC Minutes - Joint PlanningMINUTES UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 CITY COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT Benj Thomas Mary Anne Landis Mari Rodin, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Whetzel Linda Helland Jason Brenner Linda Sanders STAFF PRESENT Charley Stump, Planning Director Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT Doug Crane Phil Baldwin MEMBERS ABSENT Judy Pruden, Chair OTHERS PRESENT Listed below, Respectively The joint meeting of the Ukiah City Council and Planning Commission was called to order by Mayor Rodin at 6:00 p.m. in the Ukiah Valley Conference Center, 200 South School Street, Ukiah, California. 1. ROLL CALL Roll was taken with the results listed above. Councilmembers Crane and Baldwin were not present because both have a conflict of interest by owing property within a 300 square feet radius of the DZC boundaries and cannot by law participate in the discussion and/or vote on the matter. Mayor Rodin owns property within a 300 square foot radius of the DZC, but since Council needed to have a quorum, one member of the three with the conflict needed to participate, so there was a selection process between these three Council members and Mayor Rodin was selected to participate. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None. 4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION There are no appealable items on this agenda. 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward. 6. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION 6A. Community Workshop for Discussion of the Downtown Zoning Code (DZC). Planning Director Stump gave a staff report and brief overview of the DZC: • The purpose of tonight's joint meeting with City Council and the Planning Commission is to conduct a public workshop to review and discuss the DZC relevant to the foundation that came from the Charrettes and community input, vision of the Code, Code content and major components, how to use the document, discuss Planning Commission `hot topics' identified Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 1 as part of the Planning Commission workshop process, and introduce new topics included in the DZC. • Results of the Charrette are shown on the board in the rear of the room. • Fisher and Hall initially helped the community through the vision and the intent/application of the 'SmartCode' concept. • Planning Commission reviewed the DZC from beginning to end in a workshop setting where the public commented and provided input. • The DZC was reviewed section by section as each section builds on the next providing the necessary foundation for topics included in the final draft. • The Planning Commission's thoroughness and familiarity with the foundation and purposes of the Code together with public input raised issues and concerns during the Planning Commission workshop process that allows the Council and public to review/discuss the final draft of the DZC ask questions and make comments. Senior Planner Jordan provided an introduction to the DZC with a guide on how to generally use the Code, read the tables, commented briefly on some of the Code sections such as building and development standards/level of review/exceptions and then specifically referred to the main components of the Code: • Table of contents (pages 3-4). • Section 1: Purpose statement (page 5). • Section 3: Zoning, Downtown Zoning Code Map (page 9). • Table 3: Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements (pages 13-16) • Section 6: Site and Building Development Standards, Table 4: Site Development Standards (page 27) and Table 5: Building Types (page 28). • Section 7: Architectural Standards, Table 11: Frontage Type and Storefront Standards (page 38) and Table 12: Architectural Elements and Materials (page 39). • Section 10: Tree Preservation and Planting Requirements, Table 21: Required Street Trees for Primary Streets, (page 56) and Table 22: Alternate Street Trees for Primary Streets (page 57). • Section 11: Circulation Map (page 65). • Section 11: Special Designations Map (page 66). List of 'Hot Topics' for discussion included: • Boundaries • Circulation related to Alleys • Circulation related to Pedestrian and Bicycle • Circulation — Street extensions • Circulation related to Gibson Creek • Formula Fast Food Restaurant • Non -conforming Uses • Street Trees PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:47 p.m. Councilmember Landis: • Reviewed the draft DZC from the eyes of a developer. • Given that she has developed a subdivision in the past, expressed concerns with the use table and noted there are 288 uses listed for the three zones of which only 112 are administrative approval. The Code is not offering enough flexibility/certainty for the developer and too much discretionary review. • Size of buildings and uses should be looked at more carefully in the Code. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 2 Planning Commissioner Brenner: • Is a new Planning Commissioner and was not a participant for most of the public workshops concerning the DZC. • The Site Development Permit Procedures section provided for in Table 27 of the DZC document is very good. • Views the UVAP document as more 'lenient' than the DZC in terms of the types of development allowed particularly mixed-use and is concerned the City with regard to the DZC may not be able to adequately 'compete' with the County for development because certain uses are not allowed. • Is of the opinion the use table should be revisited and that more uses should be allowed by right in order to provide a developer with more incentives and/or options. • Supports revisiting the major/minor use requirements and possibly provide for more flexibility. • A flexible zoning code document having the potential to more appropriately attract developers would have a positive effect on the City's economic viability, as well as provide the necessary stimulus for growth inducement. Planning Director Stump: • The proposed DZC offers 'way more options' than the current zoning code. • The DZC provides certain thresholds for standards and uses relative to the three zoning districts. For instance with regard to the thresholds in the use table, the Planning Commission determined a major use permit would be required if the use exceeds 5,000 square feet of floor area on the ground floor. This size was determined to be appropriate for Planning Commission review. • Review of the use table is important. The Planning Commission together with public input closely reviewed and discussed each use in conjunction with all types of development scenarios before determining whether a particular use is allowed by right, allowed as an accessory to a principal use, allowed with a minor or major use permit or prohibited whereby establishing the appropriate threshold for a use where applicable. • The DZC document was created/shaped such that the processes in place for development would refrain from CEQA review. Senior Planner Jordan: • The Planning Commission spent a lot of time reviewing the size of a building for the uses whereby 5,000 square feet is 'quite sizeable, for Ukiah especially with respect to the boundaries of DZC. • Cited an example of a use in the Table 3 with a footnote that 'Studio — art, dance, martial arts, music' is allowed by right with a minor use permit if the use exceeds 5,000 square feet of floor area or 100 lineal feet on the ground floor street level when a storefront frontage type is required according to the Special Designations Map. The Planning Commission was of the opinion the use should be allowed with the thought that going back to the purpose and intent of the DZC is once a building gets to the 5,000 sq. ft. a use of this size could have impacts, such as traffic and should be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for those potential impacts. • Referred to the use table and the footnotes that provide certain thresholds and different levels of review depending on the type of use, location and size. Councilmember Landis: Supports considering whether or not a 5,000 sq. ft. threshold is necessary if a development meets the requirements as to form and design. There are alternatives rather than just 'saying no' to a project. A large building does not necessarily mean there would be more noise and/or other type of impacts. If a 5,000 sq. ft. were to occur in the Downtown and cited the Ukiah Natural Foods building as an example that if such a building was nicely articulated with a nice presentation and design would look nice in the Downtown because this is what form -based code is all about. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 3 Senior Planner Jordan: • When the Planning Commission discussed the standards for specific uses, there was the opportunity to have a thorough understanding of what the potential impact would be related to the neighbors. • The concern by the Planning Commission is when a use gets to 5,000 sq. ft. and the use is not retail and the project does not really create any interest or walkability in a storefront and while the business is viable, it actually presents a 'hole' and/or disconnect in the Downtown. Planning Commissioner Helland: • Addressed the 5,000 sq. ft. threshold, and confirmed a lot of time was spent taking public testimony and discussing the particularities of each use and how the use would be used taking into consideration potential impacts and essentially whether or not the use is appropriate and if so, at what threshold and/or whether a particular level of review would be required. • The review process of the DZC was very thorough and comprehensive with careful consideration given to every section of standards/requirements in the document. Planning Commissioner Brenner: • The 5,000 sq. ft. threshold is just a number. • Found some of uses in the table that would be great in the Downtown area were not allowed and/or require a use permit. • The DZC document is well -thought out in terms of clarity and is easy to understand. Senior Planner Jordan: • Cited a restaurant use with outdoor dining as an example of how the Planning Commission carefully considered each use, potential impacts thereof and whether or not the use is appropriate for a particular zone and whether or not the use would require some level of review. This use requires a Minor Use Permit (MIUP(8) and the associated footnote means the use is allowed if accessory to an allowed or permitted restaurant use. Outdoor dining is essentially an accessory to a restaurant that has a lot of ADA and accessibility requirements associated with it that would need some level of review. Planning Commissioner Whetzel: • Planning Commission's objective has been to provide for a DZC document that would promote/encourage growth and development, walkability, and nicely articulated buildings while providing for incentives to developers by taking considerable measures to make certain the appropriate triggers would be in place to address potential and significant impacts associated with a particular use. Pinky Kushner: • Confirmed the Planning Commission and public spent a lot of time reviewing the use table and supports the use table as presented. • Notes many of the uses are not prohibited and can be allowed with a use permit. • Is of the opinion requiring a minor use permit is not a 'blockage' and/or deterrent for a proposed development. HOT TOPICS: Boundaries: (DZC Map, page 9) Planning Director Stump: • Primary reason boundaries was a hot topic was because preliminary environmental analysis revealed that due to the size of the area, potentially significant impacts could result with built - out in terms of traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, etc. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 4 Staff referred to the DZC Map for the three corresponding districts and discussed the specifics concerning the boundaries and the reasons why they were formulated and further discussed the revisions that include the addition of 262 Smith Street and removal of the railroad right-of-way. Susan Knopf: Asked staff to address the CEQA issue and whether this has to do with not putting Gibson Creek in the DZC boundaries? Planning Director Stump: • No correlation. In terms of the DZC boundaries, the larger the area, the more there is the potential for redevelopment that may have traffic and circulation issues where an EIR would be required. In terms of Gibson Creek, the Code is suggesting the Creek be a creek again. The intent is to avoid the very costly and in-depth CEQA review process. • The boundaries were reduced because with a larger district there may be some difficulty getting through the CEQA process. Senior Planner Jordan: • The intent of how the boundaries were established and eventually expanded upon was to initially concentrate on the areas that came out of the charrettes. No public comments on boundaries. Circulation — Alleys (Circulation Map, page 65) Senior Planner Jordan: • The information shown on the original map Circulation Map did not depict streets and alleys whereby the consultants likely mapped the areas to be block perimeter requirements without giving thought to the existing developments that would likely remain. • There was a lot of discussion regarding alleys and circulation where alleys included in the original Circulation Plan were removed and addressed in the text of the document that talks about that as part of a development in order to meet a block perimeter requirement and/or some other requirement, the project might have to provide an alley. This approach may be more realistic. • The appropriate location for alleys will be reviewed as part of the development review process. No public comments on Circulation —Alleys. Circulation — Pedestrian and Bicycle (Circulation Map, page 65) Senior Planner Jordan: • The pedestrian/bike paths included in the original Circulation Plan were removed. • Specific areas such as the railroad, Gibson Creek, Perkins Street area were identified on the Circulation Map as 'Required Paths' because it makes sense to have this type of circulation/connection in these areas should development occur. • Paths are recommended as a possible method to comply with block perimeter or DZC standard and would require an 'Exception' to deviate from the requirement. A developer may need to provide that path in order to comply with other requirements of the Code. This information is included within the text of the DZC document. No public comments on Circulation — Pedestrian and Bicycle. Circulation — Street Extensions Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 5 Senior Planner Jordan: • Street extensions are identified as 'Required or Recommended.' The street extension is not required unless the parcels are consolidated and redeveloped. • An applicant may request an Exception to the street extension. • New streets in the original Circulation Plan were removed. • Street extensions included in the Circulation Plan were based on the desired block perimeter and consultation with City Public Works to determine the areas where improved circulation is needed is necessary. • It is not known whether a project will come or what it will look like so the street extensions identified as'required or recommended' may never happen. • Referenced the Circulation Map and noted Clay Street extended to Peach Street is included in the General Plan as future road extensions so this aspect is already incorporated as a City document and is not an option. • The Hospital Drive Extension is a very important connection should development occur for this to happen. The Hospital Drive Extension will greatly improve circulation and extend to Leslie Street and possibly interconnect with Peach Street and the Planning Commission/staff was supportive of this concept. There was Planning Commission discussion and public comment about how the Hospital Drive Extension would affect Gibson Creek. • The thought behind the Church Street Extension and Stephensen Street Extension is they would not be required unless all those parcels were acquired and redeveloped. The intent is to let the developer know this is the City's preferred location for street extensions because they provide that connection the development will need to comply with the block perimeter requirements. However, if an extension does not work for the project, there is still language in the circulation section that states if this is not what a developer wants to do, a developer can apply for a major exception for review as part of the development proposal. Linda Malone: • Owns property within the DZC boundaries and this property would be affected by the Stephenson Street Extension of which she is opposed to. • Supports not showing the Stephenson Extension on the Circulation Map. • Is of the opinion there is no justification for this extension. • Recommends the Map be revised and corrected. John Mayfield: • Owns property in the area of the Clay Street Extension and Stephenson Street Extension and is of the opinion that showing the street extensions on the Circulation Map will undermine the value of his property. • Would like to have the street extensions removed from the Map. Councilmember Thomas requested clarification about the intent of the street extensions. Senior Planner Jordan: The way the Code was formulated is if the associated parcels in the areas of the proposed street extensions as shown on the Circulation map are assembled and redeveloped, the street would be required. But if for some reason the applicant or developer did not want to put in the street, he/she could ask for a Major Exception that is not substantially any different than how it is now under the existing Code because if someone wanted to develop the parcels in the area, he/she would be responsible for providing the necessary circulation to accompany/serve the development. Planning Commissioner Brenner: • It is important to think about the Code standards, particularly if a recommended street extension would decrease someone's value of land. • No one really wants to go through the Site Development Permit process so this is a valid concern where consideration should be given on how to better facilitate developments and while a street extension may be a preference, it may actually constrict a development. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 6 Mayor Rodin: • It is not that there is a need for a street, but rather it is the public's preference and/or vision in the charrettes to have a more walkability in the community. Planning Commissioner Helland: • In terms of the vision of having a more pedestrian friendly environment particularly in places where the parcels are smaller, such as on School Street the intent is to provide a connection to encourage walkability to maintain that same 'feel' School Street has. Allowing for increased connections in areas encourages walkability where the rationale is to get people out of vehicles and walk to stores to do their shopping. • It is likely the Downtown area and presentation will shift some to the east with the development of the new courthouse so it becomes important this area look and feel more vibrant that can be accomplished by having street connections to promote walkability that unify these areas in a way that people want to be there to dine, shop, and have an enjoyable experience. Sheridan Malone: • Likes to walk and walk in neighborhoods and downtown areas and along storefronts. • Supports that new development work with what is existing rather than trying to change what is by expanding areas to include what is existing. Why not expand the Downtown area from School Street to Mill Street to include Main Street or even Norton Street. There are architecturally pleasing buildings in all of these areas. It is not necessary to carve up parcels to provide for street extensions. Supports taking a bigger view of where the community wants the town to be and work with what is existing and make these areas more walkable. Ukiah has historical buildings with unique designs having their own style and flavor. • Owns property on Main Street and is opposed to the Stephensen Street Extension as shown on the Circulation Map. Susan Knopf: • Asked for clarification that the document relates to new construction and the street extension would only be required if there was new construction. • The DZC should be viewed as a planning document. Developments that are talked about in the Code may not happen for a very long time or may be never. The document provides a tool to guide/shape development in the future. Senior Planner Jordan: Confirmed with regard to many situations the document guides planning for future new development taking into consideration whether or not the rules apply relative to what is existing and/or non -conforming. Steve Scalmanini: • Addressed the two proposed new courthouse sites and it is his understanding both locations exist or partially exist in the Floodplain of Gibson Creek and in the vicinity of the proposed street extensions as shown on the Circulation Map. The street extensions are not located in the Floodplain of Gibson Creek. • Relocation of the courthouse presents the concern of losing momentum with the close proximity to other things in the Downtown area in which street extensions would provide a connection even though the street extension concept is a long shot. Gibson Creek Senior Planner Jordan: • There was considerable Planning Commission and public discussion about circulation related to Gibson Creek without a clear resolution. Page 63 of the DZC, section 11.080 is specific to Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 7 the Creek in acknowledgment that the Creek exists as an amenity to the City and the habitat it provides. Councilmember Thomas asked about the definition of a Caltrans Class I path as provided for on page 63 of the DZC relative to the 'Required Paths' section. Senior Planner Jordan: • A class I path represents a 10 -foot wide Caltrans standard for a pathway. No public comment on Gibson Street circulation. Formula Fast Food Restaurant Senior Planner Jordan: • In the beginning there was a lot of discussion with Planning Commission and the public whether or not to allow formula fast food restaurants in the Downtown. • The Planning Commission formulated a definition of formula fast food restaurants that is included in the Glossary section of the DZC. Originally, specific to the definition, an alternate approach was considered by the Planning Commission and this was to prohibit formula fast food restaurants with an exception for ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog stands, or other businesses whose primary function is not the sale of full meals. • When the Planning Commission made their final decision with a recommendation to Council concerning fast food on a 3-2 split vote, the exclusions were removed. • Most of the discussions about fast food focused around whether or not corporate fast food establishments were a good idea in terms of health and economically supporting the local business owner. Marvin Trotter: • Supports a ban on fast food with the exemption for some types of businesses. • Given what he has seen in the emergency room over the past 30 years, is of the opinion that a ban on fast food is good. • Supports local business. David Fisher — represents North Valley Bank Company: • Does not favor any restriction on type of uses in the Code. • Questions whether uses should be allowed through a use permit. • Prohibition of some uses is discrimination. Lisa Mammina: • Expressed concern with prohibiting fast food in the Downtown area. • Noted there is a low turnout of people at this meeting given the importance of the topic. Tammy Eangle, local franchise owner: • Is concerned with the proposed exclusion on fast foods. • Is of the opinion corporate fast food establishments would bring more people to the Downtown and the increased traffic would help other businesses. Mary McClan Calvert: • Is of the opinion people should have good choices and supports the ban on fast food. Mo Mulheren • 'Likes burgers' and does not want a ban on fast food. • There are people in the community that do eat fast food. • Is of the opinion formula fast food establishments would bring more people to the Downtown area and create the necessary traffic for other business. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 8 • Refers to the concept of prohibiting fast food as essentially being able 'to step outside the circle of friends' by talking to others to find out their preference. • Would like the decision makers to listen to business owners. Brad Cooperrider: • Does make organic burgers at his restaurant in the Downtown. Would like to see Ukiah stay as unique as possible. • Supports a major exclusion for fast food. Dennis Slota: • Is supportive of fast food exclusion in the Downtown. Steve Scalmanini: • Supports keeping formula fast food establishments out of the Downtown. • Concerned, however, there are too many use restrictions in the Code. For instance, would Danny's Vacuum be allowed under the provisions of the Code? • Are thrift stores allowed in the Downtown? Supports the concept of allowing for Thrift stores in the Downtown area noting it has been his experiences such uses in other cities are a nice fit. Commissioner Helland: • Thrift stores are allowed in the Downtown Core district with approval of a Major Use Permit. Steve Scalmanini: • Referred to the DZC Map and inquired why the different districts in these areas within the blue lines in the Code were not extended to and/or viewed as whole blocks for consistency purposes as opposed to individual parcels. Senior Planner Jordan: In response to question 3, the areas proposed for the DC were actually expanded upon and recommended focusing less on the particular zoning district and more on what is trying to be accomplished in the way of development for compliance with the Code standards. In order to effectively accomplish this task, each area or parcel in this boundary would have to be examined to determine what standards would work best given what development is existing and if there are constraints that must be addressed to comply with the building or use standards for a project. In short, the focus should be less on the 'color' and the name of the zoning district and more about what are the rules and what is trying to be created. In response to question 2 about whether Danny's Vacuum would be an allowed use. Noted an error relative to the use 'maintenance/repair—client site services and `maintenance/repair- equipment, large appliances' in the use table does not match the name of the definitions in the Glossary section for these uses and needs to be corrected. A similar new business would require review as to what the business does and what type of business it is to determine whether or not the use is permitted or allowed in a particular zone. Any existing business of this nature or similar such as Danny's Vacuum would not be impacted with the new regulations because it is an existing and non -conforming use. One of the hot topics is non- conforming uses that talks about how to address uses that would become non -conforming as a result of the DZC. Commissioner Whetzel: • The Planning Commission recommendation to Council was not unanimous on a 3-2 vote regarding whether or not to allow fast food establishments in the Downtown. • While a definition of fast food establishments was formulated by the Planning Commission, he was not supportive of prohibiting fast food in the Downtown because it was his understanding the vision of the Code was to create a vibrant Downtown. If certain businesses Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 9 are excluded that could draw other businesses to the Downtown, what is essentially the purpose of the DZC? • The intent is to encourage development rather than discourage. • Discouraging businesses from coming to the Downtown is like catering to a certain clientele. • Is of the opinion people should have a choice about what they want to eat. Valerie King — Property owner in DZC: • Is part owner of a building in the Downtown. • While Ukiah has improved over the years, would like the decision makers to consider a vehicle free zone in the Downtown area. Kit Elliot — Property owner in the DZC: • Would like to see information options from merchants not just from the property owners about their opinion on fast food establishments. • Would like to see Ukiah continue to be unique and does agree new businesses are needed in the Downtown. Pinky Kushner: • Would not like to see fast food in the Downtown. • Owns a building on Oak Street and supports thrift stores in the Downtown area because they can be a good use. Lisa Mammina: • Likes food the concept of food carts. • Is of the opinion formula stores are typically successful and should be used as a lead to attract other types of businesses. Planning Commissioner Helland: • Provided an overview and accompanying statistics that support a ban on fast food establishments. Councilmember Landis: • Appreciates Commissioner Helland's research. • Has not yet formulated an opinion on formula fast food and would like to hear more on this subject from business owners and merchants. • It may be formula fast food establishments will encourage people to the Downtown area. Councilmember Thomas: • It may have been the Ukiah Main Street Program was urging the exclusion of non -meal providers from formula fast food establishments. It was his understanding the Downtown merchants would accept coffee houses and the like, but not for full fast food meal exclusions. • While fast food is essentially a public health matter is City planning the proper place to address this problem and if not where else? • Has some concern about the statistics concerning fast food provided by Commissioner Helland because correlation is not always causality. Mayor Rodin: • No fast food restaurant sells full meals. • Is undecided whether a bakery or Pete's coffee should be excluded from the Downtown. • Understands that fast food establishments could increase traffic in the Downtown. • Has no opinion at this point about whether or not formula fast food establishments should be prohibited from the Downtown. Non -conforming Uses - No discussion. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 10 Trees — Street Tree List - No discussion PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:32 p.m. There was discussion concerning the next step and about scheduling another joint meeting with City Council and Planning Commission. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Ca by awadly, Recor ing Secretary Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 11