Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-24 PacketCITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Downtown Zoning Code Workshop Ukiah Valley Conference Center Chenin Blanc Room 200 School Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:00-8:00 mm. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop of 4/27/11 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 7. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION a. Community Workshop For Discussion Of The Proposed Downtown Zoning Code (DZC) 8. ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the front counter at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 13th day of May, 2011. JoAnne M. Currie, City Clerk CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Downtown Zoning Code Workshop MINUTES Ukiah Valley Conference Center, Cabernet 1 Room 200 School Street, Ukiah, CA 95482 Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:00-8:00 p.m. 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 Ukiah City Council and Planning Commis: for which being legally noticed on April 22, 1. ROLL CALL Roll was taken with tl 2. 3. 4. RIGHT TO APPI There are no appealable were not'r idius of the 4a COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT Doug Crane Phil. Baldwin BERS ABSENT Pruden, Chair below, Respectively Joint Special Meeting on April 27, 2011, the notice Rodin called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. sent because both have a conflict of interest by ZC boundaries and cannot by law participate in the square foot radius of the DZC, but since Council needed to ith the conflict needed to participate, so there was a selection ers and Mayor Rodin was selected to participate. agenda. - None. 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 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 charrette and community input, vision of the Code, Code content and major components, Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 1 4a how to use the document, discuss Planning Commission 'hot topics' identified as part of the Planning Commission workshop process, and introduce new topics included in the DZC. • Results of the charrette are shown on the boards in the rear of the room. • Consultants Fisher and Hall 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 wit Code, read the tables, commented briefly on some of the development standards/level of review/exceptions and then spec 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,' • Section 6: Site and Building Development Standards; Tab (page 27) and Table 5: Building Types (page 28). • Section 7: Architectural Standards,`.Tabfe 11: -..Frontage Ty and Table 12: Architectural Elements.and Materials (page • Section 10: Tree Preservation and Planting Requirements Primary Streets, (page 56) and Table 22:1,Alternate Street • Section 11: Circulation Map (page 65). • Section 11: Special, Designations Map (page 66) List of 'Hot Topics' for d PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.: 6.47;p.m. uide on how to generally use the sections such as building and referred to the main components .16) 4: Site ndards nd Storefront Standards (page 38) 1: Required Street Trees for Primary Streets (page 57). 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. Planning Commissioner Brenner: • Is a new Planning Commissioner and was not a participant for most of the public workshops concerning the DZC. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 2 M • 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 more options than the current zoning code. • The DZC provides certain threshold for standards and uses relative to the three existing 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. • 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 accessory to a principal use, allowed with a minor or major use permit or prohibited and established the appropriate threshold for a use where applicable. Senior Planner Jordan: • The Planning Commission spent a lot of time'reviewing the,;size of the use. 5,000 sq. ft. is quite sizeable for Ukiah especially with respect to buildings located within the boundaries of DZC. • Cited an example of a use in Table 3 with a footnote that `Studio —`art, dance, martial arts, music' is allowed by right. A minor use permit:is required if the Use exceeds 5,000 square feet of floor area or 100 lineal feet on the ground floor steee't 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 based on purpose and intent.of the DZC. Once the use exceeds 5,000 sq. ft, impacts such, as traffic-and`parkirtg'�thould be -reviewed by the Zoning Administrator as a part of minor use permit. • . Whenever Planning Commission recommended muse permit, they discussed the use and what impacts may be associated with the use that makes the use permit necessary. The Commission also discussed at whatsize/threshold a use permit should be required. • The footnotes in the usetables refer different thresholds for review depending on the type of use, location, and square footage, Councilmember Landes: • Supports considering whether or not a 5,000 sq. ft. threshold is necessary if a project meets the requirements as to'f6m1 ado 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. Senior Planner Jordan: • Each time the Planning Commission considered a use permit, it identified potential impacts of the use, discussed compatibility with existing uses, and how the use could impact 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 Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 3 4a business is viable, it actually presents a 'hole' and would not be consistent with the vision of the charrette or the purpose statements. Planning Commissioner Helland: • Addressed the 5,000 sq. ft. threshold, and confirmed a lot of time was spent taking public testimony and discussing the particulars of each use, how the use would operate, consideration potential impacts, and whether or not the use is appropriate. And, if appropriate, what 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, such as cannot have outdoor dining without a minor use permit. • The DZC document is well -thought out in terms of clarity and is easy to understand. Senior Planner Jordan: • The 5,000 sq. ft. threshold came out of .the first draft of the Code. The intent is that the use is pedestrian oriented and has a storefront that;, provides some interest at the street level. This threshold prevents a use from creating a large hole on the ground floor within the boundaries of the Code which would be contrary to the vision from the charrette and the purpose statements. • Outdoor dining is a use that is Iallowed with a mirror use permit accessory use to a restaurant which is indicated by footnote (8). Outdoor dining requires a Minor Use Permit MIUP(8). The use permit allows potential impacts to be evaluated, such as! accessibility requirements, walkability, need for additional parking due to additional'seating. Planning Commissioner Whetzel: • Planning Commissions o promote/encourage growth providing for iricentives to appropriate thresholds.wou use. Pinky ✓e has,been to;. provide for a DZC document that would development, walkability, anis nicely articulated buildings while dopers by taking considerable measures to make certain the in place to address potential impacts associated with a particular • 'Confirmed the Planning Commission and supports the use table as;presented.. • Notes many of the uses are not prohibited • Is of the opinion requiring a;minor use pe development. HOT TOPICS: Boundaries: (DZC Map, spent a lot of time reviewing the use table and and can be allowed with a use permit. rmit is not a 'blockage' and/or deterrent for a proposed 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. • 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. • Planning Commission is recommending that 262 Smith Street be included in the boundaries and one parcel of railroad right-of-way is proposed to be removed. Including the railroad parcel in the original boundaries was likely a mapping error. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 4 4a 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 likely the potential that development 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 the boundaries is also to focus on a smal public process. Once the Code is adopted and we decision makers can see how it works and choose tc needed, etc. No public comments on boundaries. Circulation — Alleys (Circulation Map, page 65 Senior Planner Jordan: The information shown on the original map Circulatic did reflect development. Many of these went throug alleys were likely included on the Circulation, Map in o requirements included in the Code, There was a lot of comment received on the first do map. Since we do n6t,know where development wil alleys were removed from ..the Circulation Mab., perimeter, access, or other the text of the Code. • The appropriate location for No public comments on Circulatk Circulation — Pedestrian and; Bi circulation/connection in Paths are recommende( may be necessary to„cz 'Exception' is required: 1 requi and develop a Code through this <ing with it, the community and it into other areas, modify it as included new streets and alleys that ing buildings. The new streets and meet the block perimeter and access Code regarding the alleys shown on the ;cur or what the project will look like, the ay be that in order to meet the block y will be require and this is discussed in will be reviewed as part of the development review process. rculation'Map, page 65) included in the original Circulation Plan were removed. the, railroad right-of-way, Gibson Creek, Perkins Street area were on Map as `Required Paths' because it makes sense to provide this nese areas should development occur. is a possible method to comply with the block perimeter requirement or 1ply with a DZC standard. In order to deviate from the requirement an is information is included in the text of the Code. No public comments on Circulation — Pedestrian and Bicycle. Circulation — Street Extensions Senior Planner Jordan: • New streets in the original Circulation Plan were removed. • 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 requirement for the street extension. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 5 4a • Street extensions included in the Circulation Plan were based on the desired block perimeter and consultation with City Public Works Department based on the locations where improved circulation is needed. • 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 a "future road extension" so this aspect is already incorporated as a City document and needs to be included. • The Hospital Drive Extension is an important connection that would greatly improve circulation. Hospital Drive would connect to the extension of Clay Street which would align with Peach Street at Leslie Street. 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 the connection the development will need to help 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 allows a developer to request an Exception from the requirement for the street extension. Linda Malone: • Owns property within the DZC boundaries and Street Extension of which she is ooposed. • Supports not showing the Stephenson Extensii • Is of the opinion there is no justification for this • Recommends the Map be revised and correc- Street. John Mayfield: • Owns property in the area of the opinion that showinc of his property. the Councilember Thom Senior Planner Jordan: The proposed street ee ensions as would be required.",But if for he/she could ask fora Major I the existing Code because if responsible for providing the' m Clay would be affected by the Stephenson on the Circulation Map. on. ow the location of Stephenson �nsion and Stephenson Street Extension and is on the Circulation Map will undermine the value the Map. the intent of the street extensions. Code was formulated is if the associated parcels in the areas of the on the `Circulation map are assembled and redeveloped, the street Cason the applicant or developer did not want to put in the street, ,n. This is not substantially any different than how it is now under ge wanted to develop the parcels in the area, he/she would be / access and 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. 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. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 6 4a 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 and 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. Sheraton Malone: • Likes to walk and walk in neighborhoods and downtown areas ai • Supports that new development work with what is existing rathe expanding areas to include what is existing. Why not expand Street to Mill Street to include Main Street or even 'Norton pleasing buildings in all of these areas. It is not necessary to car extensions. Supports taking a bigger view of, where the commun with what is existing and make these areas more walkable. U unique designs having their own style and flavor. • Owns property on Main Street and is opposed to the S the Circulation Map. id along storefronts. r than trying to change what is by the Downtown area from School Street. There are architecturally ve up parcels to provide for street ity wants the town to be and work kiah has historical buildings with sen Street Extension as shown on Steve Scalmanini: Addressed the two proposed neva 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'he Circulation Map. The street extensions are not located in the Floodplain of Gibson Creek.: Relocation. ofthe 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 provides specific direction as to how Gibson Creek should be treated should the area be developed and acknowledges the creek as an amenity to the City and for 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. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 7 4a 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, hotdog 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 and the exclusions:,were not included. • Most of the discussions about fast food focusedaround whether or not corporate fast food establishments were a good idea in terms of heaith and economically supporting the local economy. Marvin Trotter: • Supports a ban on fast food with the excer • Given what he has seen in the emergency ban on fast food is good. • Supports local business. David Fisher — represents North Valley Ba • Does not favor any restriction on usE • Questions whether uses should be a • Prohibition of some uses is::discrimin Lisa Mammina: • Expressed concern 1,with prohibiting fast food • Noted there is a low turnout of people at this Tammy r some types of busine )ver the past 30 years, ny: use opinion that a Downtown area. ng given the importance of the topic. icerned with the, proposed,exclusion on tast toods. the opinion corporate fast food establishments would bring more people to the Downtown �e 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' acrd 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. • Asks that when considering prohibiting fast food "step outside your circle of friends" by talking to others to find out their preference regarding allowing formula fast food businesses. • Would like the decision makers to listen to business owners. Brad Copper Ryder: • Makes 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. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 8 4a 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 Steve Scalmanini: • Referred to the DZC Map and inquired why the different lines in the Code were not extended to and/or viewed as as opposed to individual parcels. Senior Planner Jordan: In response to expanding the districts, Planning ,Commi area proposed for the Downtown Core. Recommend district and more on what is trying to be accomplished-[ development and the standards'in the Code.` and the name of the zoning district and. more about wh created. The concern with thrift stores is that they can have a bligl number and type of thr'[ft store. I of a Major Use Permit. in these areas within the blue Vicks for consistency purposes m has recommended expanding the :using less on the ;,particular zoning hat zoning districtin the way type of e focus should be less on the 'color' re the rules and what is trying to be on an area depending on the Noted an error -relative to use,'maintenance/repair-equipment, large appliances.' The name of the use the table does not match the name in the; glossary and,,needs to be corrected. Any existing business of this'natore or sib iler 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 a 600 how to address. uses that would become non -conforming as a nmissioner 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 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. Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 9 4a • 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 and are a form of reuse/recycling. Lisa Mammina: • Likes food the concept of food carts. • Is of the opinion formula stores are typically successful and could be used as a model of how to attract other types of businesses. Planning Commissioner Helland: Provided an overview ban on fast food establishments. Councilmember Landis: • Appreciates Commissioner Helland's resea • Has not yet formulated an opinion on foi subject from business owners and merchar • It may be formula fast food establishments Councilmember Thomas: • It may have been the Ukiah Mafti�Street Pr from formula fast food establishments. It w accept coffee houses and the like, but not f • While fast food is essentially a public heal this problem and if not where else? • Has some concern about Ithestatistics cot because correlation is not always causatior Mayor Rodin: • No fast food restaurant sells full`it • Is undecided whether a bakery or • Understands thatfast,food establi • Has no opinion at thispoint abb prohibited from the Downtown. Non -conforming Uses - No d Trees — Street Tree List:- No discussion PUBLIC HEARING fast food and panying statistics that support a to hear more on this to the Downtown area. am was urging the exclusion of non -meal providers his understanding the Downtown merchants would ull fast food "meal exclusions. natter is City planning the proper place to address ided by Commissioner Helland rte's coffee should be excluded from the Downtown. ments could increase traffic in the Downtown. whether or not formula fast food establishments should be 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. Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011 Page 10 ITEM NO.: 7a MEETING DATE: AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT May 24, 2011 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FOR DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN ZONING CODE (DZC) Background: On April 6, 2011, the City Council received an introductory presentation on the Downtown Zoning Code (DZC). On April 27, 2011, a joint City Council and Planning Commission community workshop was held to review the draft DZC and receive public input (see approval of minutes for this agenda). Discussion: The intent of this meeting is to: complete the review of the "hot topics" identified as part of the Planning Commission workshop process; become familiar with the DZC by completing two development scenario exercises; receive public comment; and, time permitting, introduce the new topics included in the DZC (attachment 2). At the April 27th meeting, all of the "hot topics" were discussed, except for the street trees list and non- conforming uses. Below is a summary of each of these topics. Trees. After the first draft Code was released, RELEAF was tasked with developing the required street trees list (DZC, page 56, table 21) and required parking lot trees list (DZC, page 59, table 24). Subsequently, staff also requested that RELEAF develop an alternate street trees list (DZC, page 57, table 22), required street trees for non -primary street list (DZC, page 58, table 23), alternate parking lot tree list (DZC, page 60, table 25), and riparian tree list (DZC, page 60, table 61). The purpose of requiring specific trees is to ensure that the trees planted are appropriate for the setting (street tree, parking lot tree, riparian tree) and will grow well in Ukiah's climate thereby ensuring the long-term health and viability of the tree. As part of the Planning Commission workshop process, all of the tree lists were reviewed. The street tree list received the most public comment. The street tree list included in the DZC would replace the existing City of Ukiah Master Street Tree List for properties located within the boundaries of the DZC. Non -Conforming Uses. The Planning Commission discussed how best to address uses that would be made non -conforming as a result of the DZC. As part of the workshop process, public comment was also received on this topic. Planning Commission determined allowing the expansion of a non - Continued on Page 2 Recommended Action(s): Conduct a City Council workshop on the draft Downtown Zoning Code and take public comment. Alternative Council Option(s): Do not conduct the City Council workshop on the draft Downtown Zoning Code and provide direction to staff on how to proceed. Citizens advised: All Property Owners within the Proposed DZC Boundaries, Downtown Zoning Code email list, Planning Commission and Design Review Board Requested by: Charley Stump, Planning and Community Development Director Prepared by: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner and Charley Stump, Planning and Community Development Director Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager Attachments: 1. Development Scenario Exercise Tables 1 and 2 2. New Topics Table Approved: J n Chambers, City Manager conforming use on a case-by-case basis with approval of a Major Use Permit would be consistent with the purpose of the DZC if: the use complied with the form requirements of the Code; was compatible with surrounding uses; any impacts related to the use could be addressed; and there was an opportunity for the public to comment and participate in the process. Development Scenario Exercises. The best way to understand the content of the DZC and how it would apply to a development project is to apply the DZC to a project. As part of Planning Commission review of the DZC, two practice exercises were used to demonstrate how the DZC would apply to a project. Planning Commission and the public in attendance at this workshop found the exercises helpful. Based on the comments provided at the April 27th joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop, staff has prepared two practice exercises (attachment 1). Staff will conduct the scenarios as part of the workshop. New Topics. At the April 27th joint City Council Planning Commission workshop, time did not allow a discussion of the new topics included in the DZC. In addition to form -based requirements, the DZC includes other requirements intended to streamline and provide certainty in the permitting process. Staff has prepared the New Topics Table (attachment 2) to facilitate the review and discussion of these items. Fiscal Impact: HBudgeted FY 10/11 F] New Appropriation ❑X Not Applicable ❑ Budget Amendment Required Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addit. Appropriation Requested Next Steps: ■ Continued City Council Review: Consider scheduling a workshop with staff to discuss implementation and policy decisions regarding the DZC. Possible City Council workshop dates are June 14th or 21St or another date that works for council members. ■ Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The Draft DZC will be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission as required by the Public Utilities Code. ■ California Environmental Quality Act: Staff is also continuing to work on the required Initial Environmental Study required for the project by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ■ Design Guidelines: Design/Architectural Guidelines are being developed in conjunction with the Design Review Board and would be included as an appendix to the DZC. Development Scenario ■ Location: ■ Use: ■ Size: ■ Modifications: ATTACHMENT 1A 247 East Perkins Street Fitness Center Less than 5,000 sf Paint building, no addition to building, no changes to parking lot Scenario 1: Fitness Center DZC Category DZC Requirement Page/Table Zoning District Urban General (GU) Page 9, Figure 1 Permit Required - fitness/health Minor Use Permit Page 13, Table 3 facility (Zoning Administrator) Page 89, definitions Block Perimeter N/A Page 27, Table 4 Lot Standards Existing parcel Building Type Building setbacks N/A Page 29, Table 6 Frontage building Existing building not proposing an addition Frontage type Existing building Services areas All new or modifications to existing need to Page 33, Table 9 Outdoor storage areas comply with the requirements of the DZC Fencing Site Screening All new or modifications to existing need to Page 34, Table 9 Rooftop Equipment comply with the requirement of the DZC. Outdoor Lighting Parking: Number of Parking Determined by Major Exception. Page 42, Table 14 Spaces Required Staff Recommendation: Change this table to include a footnote for all use categories that says or if a use permit is required as determined by use permit. Open Parking Existing parking facility with no expansion Page 46, Table 17 or modification are not required to comply with the requirements of the code. ATTACHMENT 1 B Development Scenario Exercise 2 ■ Location: 308 East Perkins Street ■ Use: Retail sales with pharmacy and drive-thru ■ Parcel Size: 1.5 acres ■ Building Size: 14,000 sq. ft. ■ Project includes: Demolish existing building, tree removal, site improvements (parking lot, landscaping, etc.) Scenario 2: Retail Sales with Pharmacy and Drive-Thru Question DZC Requirement Page/Table What is the zoning? Urban Center (UC) Page 9, Figure 1 Are the uses allowed? Retail and pharmacy are allowed as General Retail Page 14, Table 3 Pages 89-90 Is a drive-thru allowed? Drive-thru pharmacy is allowed with Planning Page 16, Table 3 Commission approval of a Site Development Page 81, Table 27 Permit Do the lot standards apply? No. The parcel is existing. Page 27, Table 4 Does the block perimeter apply? No the block pattern is existing and the project will Page 27, Table 4 not change the block perimeter. What type of building is allowed? Rear yard, side yard, and courtyard Page 27, Table 4 Page 28, Table 5 Where is the frontage line of the The parcel has two frontage lines — Perkins Street Page 89 parcel? and Hospital Drive. Definitions Where does the building have to be At the property line. The building siting Page 29, Table 6 located? requirement (setback) is 0 feet. How much of the frontage has to be Frontage build -out is determined by building type. Page 29, Table 6 built -out? 40% minimum for a side yard building 70% minimum for a rear yard building 70% minimum for a courtyard building What frontage types are allowed? Terrace/Light Court, Forecourt, Stoop, Page 29, Table 6 Shopfront/Awning, Gallery, and Arcade Page 32, Table 8 Is a storefront required? A "storefront" frontage type is required on Perkins Page 66, Figure 9 Street per the Special Designations Map. Page 32, Table 8 This allows a Shopfront/Awning, Gallery, and Page 96, Definitions Arcade Is a one story building allowed? The minimum building height is 2 stories. Page 29, Table 6 A one story building is allowed with Planning Commission approval of a Major Exception. Where does the primary entrance The principal pedestrian entrance is required to be Page 38, Table 11 have to be located? located at the corner (see footnote 4). How much of the ground floor 70% of the ground level fagade(s). Page 38, Table 11 fagade is required to be glazing? What building materials are The primary materials allowed are brick, wood, Page 39, Table 12 allowed? fiber cement siding, stucco. Also need to add stone to the table — left out as typo. ATTACHMENT 1 B What is the required window Vertical or square. Page 39, Table 12 orientation? Where does the drive-thru have to The drive-thru is prohibited on frontages. In this Page 33, Table 9 be located? case on Perkins Street and Hospital Drive. Where does the parking have to be The location of parking is determined by the Page 46, Table 17 located? building type. Page 35, Layers Side yard and Rear yard buildings: 3rd Layer Courtyard Building: 4th Layer How many parking spaces are 1 space for every 300 gross square feet (48). Page 42, Table 14 required? On -street parking located along the frontage line may be counted toward fulfilling the parking requirement. Is excess parking allowed? Parking that exceeds the parking required by Table Page 44, Section 14: Number of Parking Spaces Required by Zone is 9.040 allowed with Planning Commission approval of a Major Exception. Are the trees on the site protected? The Code includes a Protected Trees list and a Page 54, Table 19 Landmark Trees list. Page 55, Table 20 Do trees removed have to be Healthy trees on the protected tree list are Page 51, Section replaced? required to be replaced. The replacement ratio is 10.030 (E) determined as part of the conditions of approval or mitigation measures for the project. What species of street trees are Table 21: Required Street Trees for Primary Streets Page 56, Table 21 required? determines the required species for Perkins Street. Page 58, Table 23 Table 23: Required Street Trees for Non -Primary Streets determines the species for Hospital Drive. What species of parking lot trees Table 24: Required Parking Lot Trees determines Page 59, Table 59 are required? the required species. Can different species of street trees With Zoning Administrator approval of a Minor Page 57, Table 22 or parking lot trees be planted? Exception, a species from Table 22: Alternate Page 60, Table 25 Street Trees for Primary Streets can be planted on Perkins Street. Due to the wide variety of trees included in Table 23: Required Street Trees for Non -Primary Streets there is no alternate tree table. With Zoning Administrator approval of a Minor Exception, a species from Table 25: Alternate Parking Lot Trees can be planted. What entitlements are required for Site Development Permit - Tier 2 for project size Page 81, Table 27 this project as proposed? Site Development Permit — Tier 3 for Drive-Thru Who is the approval authority for Planning Commission Page 75, Section this project as proposed? 12.100 ATTACHMENT 2 New Code Topics Topic Description 7 Page #/Table/Section Uses New/Updated Uses (examples, not all New uses added that are consistent with the vision from the charrette. Pages 13-16, Table 3 inclusive) Uses included that would meet the needs of the residential uses, as well as the Artisan shop, artisan craft product existing and envisioned commercial uses. manufacturing, small product manufacturing, Uses included that reflect the artistic and handicraft products and skills of the clothing and product manufacturing, personal Ukiah area. services, personal services restricted, vehicle Terminology for some existing uses updated. services, equipment rental, maintenance/repair services, studio —art, dance, martial arts, music, tasting room Community Gardens Standards for Community Gardens developed with the Gardens Project. Page 13, Table 3 See standards for Specific Land Uses below The Gardens Project has requested that they be adopted City wide. Page 17, Section 5.030 Home Occupations Included standards for this use to address impacts and neighborhood concerns Page 13, Table 3 See standards for Specific Land Uses below normally associated with this use and removed the requirement for a use permit. Pages 18-19, Section 5.040 Large Family Daycare Included standards for this use to address impacts and neighborhood concerns Page 15, Table 3 See standards for Specific Land Uses below normally associated with this use and removed the requirement for a use permit. Page 19-20, Section 5.050 Residential Implements provisions of the Updated General Plan Housing Element. Page 13, Table 3 Dwelling — Condominium Need to create standards for condos in DZC boundaries since existing condo standards are inconsistent with DZC. Residential Implements provisions of the Updated General Plan Housing Element. Page 13, Table 3 Second Unit Revised standards from zoning ordinance to be consistent with DZC standards. Pages 23-24, Section 5.080 Residential New use. Page 13, Table 3 Single Room Occupancy Implements provisions of the Updated General Plan Housing Element. Pages 24-25, Section See standards for Specific Land Uses below 5.090 Residential New Use. Page 13, Table 3 Live/Work Implements provisions of the Updated General Plan Housing Element. Page 20, Section 5.060 See standards for Specific Land Uses below Residential Implements provisions of the Updated General Plan Housing Element. Page 13, Table 3 ATTACHMENT 2 New Code Topics Topic Description Page #/Table/Section Mixed Use Page 22-23, Section See standards for Specific Land Uses below 5.070 Tasting Rooms New use. Page 14, Table 3 In the Standards for Specific Use Land Uses section, included information on the Pages 25-26, Section considerations that will be used to evaluate this type of use to provide clarity and 5.100 help design the project. Standards for Specific Land Uses Added standards for specific land uses in order to address the impacts and Pages 17-26 Community Garden, Large Family Daycare, neighborhood issues typically associated with these specific uses and eliminated Live/Work Units, Mixed -Use Projects, Single- the requirement for a use permit. Room Occupancy Parkin Required parking On -street parking located along the frontage line can be counted towards fulfilling Page 42, Section 9.020 the parking requirements. (C) Reduced Vehicle Parking — shared parking When the use of a building is shared by different uses the parking required may be Page 42-43, Table 15 reduced by a "shared parking factor." Reduced Vehicle Parking — offsite parking Allows parking to be provided off site with approval of a Minor Exception w/in % Page 43, Section 9.030 mile or Major Exception w/in more than % mile. (F) Reduced Vehicle Parking — reduction of Allows reduced vehicle parking when permeable parking areas are provided. The Page 43, Section 9.030 water pollution and stormwater run -Off maximum reduction is 20%. (G) Excess Parking - prohibited Parking that exceeds the number of parking spaces required by Table 14: Number Page 44, Section 9.040 of Parking Spaces Required by Zone is only allowed with Planning Commission approval of a Major Exception. Trees Trees — Landmark Tree List Landmark Tree List was created. Page 50, Section 10.030(B) Page 54, Table 19 Trees — Protected Tree List Protected Tree List was created. Page 50, Section 10.030(A) Page 55, Table 20 Trees — Protection Requirements Included standards for tree protection during construction. Page 51, Section 10.030(D) Tree Preservation — development projects The Code includes tree preservation requirements to provide certainty as to the Page 50, Section 10.030 and exceptions trees that are protected. The Code also addresses how these trees will be (C) addressed as part of a development project, emergency situations, traffic visibility Page 52, Section 10.030 ATTACHMENT 2 New Code Topics " Topic Description Page #/Table/Section obstructions, public utility damage, and damage to building foundations. (F) Street Trees — planting requirements In order to ensure newly planted street trees are able to become established and Page 52, Section 10.040 their long-term health and viability, and prevent damage to sidewalks and utilities these requirements have been included. Site Development Permits Design Criteria In order to provide direction for project design and review, design criteria have Pages 73-74, Section been established. They are intended as a summary of the items included in the 12.030 (B) Code that will be considered as part of the review of a Site Development Permit and should be considered y a project applicant/developed when designing a project. Revised Findings Since the findings included in the zoning ordinance are not consistent with the Pages 74-75, Section purpose or requirements of the form -based code, new findings for site 12.030 (C) development permits have been developed. Boundary Line Adjustments and Subdivisions Boundary Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger Recommend amending the Subdivision Ordinance to clarify and simplify the N/A process for Boundary Line Adjustments and Parcel Mergers to apply city wide in order to make administrative rather than discretionary. The Planning Commission and Public Works have reviewed a draft process and support this approach. Small Lot Subdivisions No minimum lot size or dimensions is required when development is proposed as Page 27, Table 4, part of the project. footnotes 5 and 6 Implements provisions of the Updated General Plan Housing Element. Subdivision Ordinance Recommend amending the subdivision ordinance as needed in order to implement N/A the DZC. Public Works and Planning have reviewed the current ordinance and identified the necessary revisions. B ilding Over 50 Years Old/Historical Building Standards Historical Building Standards/Buildings Over Based on the Secretary of Interior's Standards. Pages 40-41, Table 13 50 Years Old Required as part of discretionary review for environmental (CEQA) compliance. Intended to provide guidance as to the type of modifications that are consistent with the SI Standards and most likely required in order to comply with CEQA. Other Minimum Density The Code includes a minimum density requirement. The minimum density is Page 27, Table 4 important in order to encourage the development of residential units in the DZC, utilize limited land resources efficiently, and encourage infill development. Residential uses support a walkable, mixed use, day/night environment. ATTACHMENT 2 New Code Topics Topic Description " Page #/Table/Section The DZC has been revised to allow deviation from the minimum density requirement with Planning Commission approval of a Major Exception. 0 m 0 �HENRY-ST� E I U) � Y Y —I Q m�o WCHURCH$T. ENSON, ST'. STEP CLAY ST. SEMINAfRY'P,VE'� Planning Commission Recommendation: Add to Boundaries 262 Smith Street, 002-191-23 STANDLEY ST.• Downtown Zoning Code Zoning Ma FIGURE 1 ~ Wu I I �o o Planning Commission Recommendation: Q [� Q Remove from Boundaries < UD U�] Railroad Right -of -Way, APN 002-193-44 ' Sol •• Iii ,� -• '-L riammng %.ommssion necommenaea expansion of uowntown core zoning District Boundaries DZC Boundary Special Designations Hydrology Zoning Districts Civic Existing �.,—� Gibson Creek GU Urban General Y/ j Civic Preferred ® fl 100 Year Flood o 125 250 sao UC Urban Center Parking Structure/AnchorTenantPreferred Feet DC n = Public Parking Existing owntown Core Map Updated bCO y Ukiah GIS Dept --June, 2009 0 O CL Development Scenario ■ Location: ■ Use: ■ Size: ■ Modifications: ATTACHMENT 1A 247 East Perkins Street Fitness Center Less than 5,000 sf Paint building, no addition to building, no changes to parking lot Scenario 1: Fitness Center DZC Category DZC Requirement Page/Table Zoning District Urban Center (UC) Page 9, Figure 1 Permit Required - fitness/health Minor Use Permit Page 13, Table 3 facility (Zoning Administrator) Page 89, definitions Block Perimeter N/A Page 27, Table 4 Lot Standards Existing parcel Building Type Building setbacks N/A Page 29, Table 6 Frontage building Existing building not proposing an addition Frontage type Existing building Services areas All new or modifications to existing need to Page 33, Table 9 Outdoor storage areas comply with the requirements of the DZC Fencing Site Screening All new or modifications to existing need to Page 34, Table 9 Rooftop Equipment comply with the requirement of the DZC. Outdoor Lighting Parking: Number of Parking Determined by Major Exception. Page 42, Table 14 Spaces Required Staff Recommendation: Change this table to include a footnote for all use categories that says or if a use permit is required as determined by use permit. Open Parking Existing parking facility with no expansion Page 46, Table 17 or modification are not required to comply with the requirements of the code.