HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_07242013 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 July 24, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair
7 Kevin Doble
8 Linda Sanders
9 Mike Whetzel
10 Laura Christensen
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Pruden at
18 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the April 24, 2013, May 8, 2013, and May 22,
25 2013 meetings are included for review and approval.
26
27 M/S Sanders/Christensen to approve the April 24, 2013 minutes, as submitted with Commissioner poble
28 abstaining. Motion carried (4-0).
29
30 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve the May 8, 2013 minutes, as submitted with Commissioner Christensen
31 abstaining. Motion carried (4-0).
32
33 M/S Sanders/Whetzel to approve the May 22, 2013 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (5-0).
34
35 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
36
37 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
38 final date to appeal is August 5, 2013.
39
40 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
41
42 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
43
44 9. PUBLIC HEARING
45 9A. 199 South State Major Exceptions and Site Development Permit (File No.: 13-16-EXC-UP-
46 PC). Planning commission consideration and possible action on Major Exceptions and a Major
47 Site Development Permit to allow exterior modifications to the building located at 199 South
48 School Street, APN 002-226-07, in the Downtown Zoning Code district.
49
50 Senior Planner Jordan gave a staff report.
51
52 Chair Pruden:
53 • Related to the Project background and historic inventory section of the staff report the 1999
54 Historical and Architectural Inventory survey was never adopted or completed.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 1
1 • The 1985 and 1999 historical inventory surveys use the rating criteria for the National Register
2 of historic buildings.
3 • While the 1989 remodel of the Feibusch building affected the historical architectural
4 character/integrity of the building such that the 1999 Historical and Architectural Inventory survey
5 downgraded the historical rating finding that the property would not qualify and therefore is
6 'ineligible with no potential for any listing' with the historical National Registry, the building still
7 retains its cultural significance. The building is the former Pacific Telephone & Telegraph
8 Company office and as such is an important part of Ukiah's history.
9 • Is of the opinion that even though the architectural characteristics of the building have been
10 substantially degraded, it has not lost its historical designation for the City of Ukiah.
11 • The building is listed in the Historical and Architectural Inventory surveys and nonetheless despite
12 its architectural degradation retains its cultural value as a building of local interest.
13 • Even though the building has lost architectural significance with the remodels, particularly the
14 front fa�ade on School Street, it remains a factor in terms of consideration for the downtown and
15 what we want to occur.
16 • Although the building may not be a part of the National Registry, it does not change how we view
17 our properties.
18 • Noted the 1985 Historical and Architectural Inventory survey of historical buildings in Ukiah
19 indicates the building was constructed in 1905. Is of the opinion this may not be accurate
20 because the document talks about Pacific Telephone and Telegraph purchasing the vacant lot in
21 1916 for construction of a service facility for the company and concluded what likely occurred is
22 the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph business began in 1905 and the building constructed in
23 1916.
24 • Referred to the applicanYs comments regarding the Project dated July 15, 2013 with attached
25 associated historical information about the building, and commented the City maintains historical
26 archival files for its different properties. Thanked the applicant for including this historical
27 information about the Feibusch building.
28
29 Commissioner poble asked if the cultural significance associated with the building changes/affects the
30 draft findings in any way?
31
32 Chair Pruden: It is not likely the draft findings would be affected, but rather serves as justification for how
33 one views the building in association with the building's history. Again, the building may not become part
34 of the National Registry, but is important to the citizens of Ukiah as a building that has been existence
35 since 1916.
36
37 Commissioner poble asked why the building was named the `Feibusch building.'
38
39 Chair Pruden: The building is currently referred to as the `Feibusch building' by the former owner, Ted
40 Feibusch, but will always be known historically as the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company office
41 building. Mr. Feibusch formerly owned several other historical buildings in the Downtown.
42
43 Commissioner Sanders: Asked if the DRB discussed whether the top portions of the windows on the
44 Church Street elevation will open and whether or not this is possible?
45
46 Staff: The DRB did not discuss whether the windows would be operable. Their concern was with the
47 proportion of the windows and that they be weighted to the ground floor windows. DRB also
48 recommended that the ground floor windows be required to have clear glazing and the windows for the
49 upper floor could have tined glazing.
50
51 Chair Pruden commented a member of the DRB talked with her about suggestions made concerning
52 possible fenestration and/or potential proportional changes to the windows on the Church Street side of
53 the building that she would like to further discuss.
54
55 Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 2
1 • Discussion concerning the window symmetry and size on the Church Street elevation as part of
2 the proposed modifications to and relocation of the windows as provided for on pages 1 and 2 of
3 the staff report.
4 • Agrees with the DRB the size of the upper windows compared with the bottom windows, makes
5 the building look top-heavy and supports their recommendation to modify the size of the window
6 openings that was accomplished by increasing the size of the window openings on the lower
7 floor and decreasing the size of the openings on the upper floor.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders inquired about the location for tenant signage as shown on the site rendering
10 and as discussed on page 2 of the staff report.
11
12 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:24 p.m.
13
14 Kevin Brogan, Owner of KPB Properties, Applicant was available to answer questions concerning the
15 proposed Project.
16
17 Commissioner Sanders: Is allowing the upper windows to open an option?
18
19 Commission Doble: Is a bike rack a consideration?
20
21 Chair Pruden:
22 • Is providing for a recessed door an option for the door on Church Street? Such a door would
23 eliminate the `flatness' appearance of the building on this side.
24 • Has no problem dividing the building into two separate tenant spaces and creating a new entry on
25 Church Street allowing for two different addresses.
26 • Related to access and the two entrances on Church Street requested clarification the single door
27 provides access to the upstairs offices and does this entrance have a separate address?
28 • Has no problem with a second entrance added on Church Street. Requested clarification this
29 entrance would be at ground level like the front entrance door? The site rendering looks as if the
30 door would be at grade level.
31 • Inquired about the thickness of the walls for the building.
32 • Would the applicant consider recessing the new door on Church Street eight or 12 inches to
33 provide for some dimensionality and get away from the `flatness' of the building on this side?
34 • The archway on the building is original to the 1929 design and inquired whether there is any
35 particular reason for the arch being removed for the single door?
36 • Does not support the fenestration proposed for the windows with plain glass and is
37 'contemporary' in appearance on a building that has some nice traditional elements. Preference
38 would be 1920s style windows with dividers. Would the applicant consider a different style for the
39 windows? In the 1920s common was a two-thirds/one-third window where the top third had
40 dividers. Accordingly, the top portion of this window type had smaller panes and provided an
41 example of the design to the applicant and Commission. Recommended the applicant look at the
42 front windows on another building on School Street (building next to the David Scott Studios) that
43 has a window design she would like to see on the Feibusch building.
44 • Other than modifying the fenestration on the window to include a divider and small panes at the
45 top likes the modifications made to the windows as proposed and as provided for on pages 1 and
46 2 of the staff report.
47
48 Kevin Brogan:
49 • Would consider allowing the upper windows to open, but preference is not to do so because the
50 second floor will be used for office space. Would like these windows to consist of 1-inch insulated
51 tempered glass for safety reasons.
52 • Prefers all the windows to be one pane and/or one piece.
53 • The Feibusch building served as County offices for many years. As such, any person working in
54 these offices had no view of anything. The intent is for these professional offices to have windows
55 people can see out of.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 3
1 • A bike rack is a possibility. Is working with the owner of SchaYs bakery about the installation of a
2 bike rack located on the eastern side of the building by Enoteca or possibly in the arcade area.
3 • The new access entrance on Church will be 180 W. Church, which is the same address it was
4 before for the restaurant business.
5 • Confirmed the single access door to the upstairs currently functions as 170 W. Church Street.
6 This access door operates as an emergency or fire exit for the upper floor.
7 • Confirmed the entrance will be at ground level and/or the same level as the sidewalk. It was not
8 at ground level when the restaurant was in operation.
9 • Explained the structural aspects of the wall including the materials used on the Church Street
10 side and how they were constructed.
11 • Preference would be not to provide for a recessed entrance for the new door on W. Church Street
12 and explained that it could create problems structurally.
13 • Related to the archway, is of the opinion to have a single arch on the building looks architecturally
14 `odd/unnatural' and does not really fit with the other architectural features and windows on the
15 building.
16 • Has not considered a different style for the windows. Is of the opinion the front of the building
17 looks contemporary and the Church Street side does not. Likes the design and corresponding
18 look of the windows as proposed.
19
20 Commission:
21 • Discussed the archway.
22 • While the design of the archway is appreciated generally likes the proposed design for this
23 entrance. When the front of the building was dramatically changed for the remodel, this affected
24 the other architectural features on the building. Modification to the door at 170 W. Church would
25 more appropriately match the design on the rest of the building. Understands that this doorway
26 once matched the doorway at 180 W. Church, but when that entrance was eliminated and added
27 the outside arcade at the front of the building, all of the other doors were squared leaving the
28 entrance to 170 W. Church rounded. It makes sense architecturally to make this entrance
29 squared so it matches the openings and keystones on the rest of the building.
30
31 Commissioner Sanders:
32 • Will miss the archway on the building.
33 • Is of the opinion the School Street remodel `sabotaged' the design of the building. As proposed,
34 the proposed upgrade and remodel provides for a balanced design.
35 • Likes the design elements; the awnings are fine and will provide for a nice touch.
36 • Is pleased some of the design features over the doorway will be maintained.
37 • The DRB made comments and the applicant responded to those comments and came up with a
38 design that is architecturally pleasing and a nice fit for the building.
39 • Staff and applicant did a good job making the modifications and providing for a nice project.
40 • Would like to know how the DZC worked for the applicant in shaping the project.
41
42 Kevin Brogan:
43 • The DZC was helpful with shaping and streamlining the Project.
44
45 Commissioner Christensen:
46 • Likes the Project, as designed.
47 • The DRB made comments and the applicant responded to those changes so is of the opinion the
48 process worked as it should and the end product is a good project.
49
50 Commissioner poble:
51 • Likes the changes made to the building as shown on the color renderings.
52 • Has no opinion about being able to open or close the windows.
53 • Related to possible modifying the fenestration on windows as suggested by Chair Pruden, not
54 comfortable approving an alternative design he cannot see. Looking at the DRB
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 4
1 comments/recommendations regarding project, it did not come up in the DRB review of the
2 Project to change the fenestration of the windows as suggested by Chair Pruden.
3 • Is impressed with the look of the building and likes the Project, as proposed.
4
5 Commissioner Whetzel:
6 • Is pleased with the building design, as presented and with the input from the DRB.
7
8 Staff: Modifying the design of the windows as suggested by Chair Pruden would essentially change the
9 project in a manner that was not analyzed by staff and not considered as part of the environmental
10 review. The Project, including the windows, was reviewed by the DRB. The DRB has only one comment
11 related to the windows which has been addressed by the applicant. The modification could substantially
12 change the appearance of the building in a manner that should be reviewed by the DRB.
13
14 Commissioners Whetzel, Doble, Christensen, and Sanders preference was not to change the window
15 fenestration as proposed by Chair Pruden and likes the windows as designed.
16
17 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:38 p.m.
18
19 M/S Whetzel/Doble to approve 199 South State Street Major Exceptions and Site Development Permit
20 File No.: 13-16-EXC-UP-PC with Findings 1-7 and Conditions of Approval 1-21. Motion carried (5-0).
21
22 Findings for Approval of Major Exceptions and Site Development Permit
23 199 South School Street, APN 002-226-07
24 File No.: 13-16-EXC-SDP-PC
25
26 1. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan as described in the staff report,
27 induding Table 1.
28
29 2. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements for zone C (Common Traffic
30 Patten)of Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan as described below:
31
32 A. The building is currently vacant. Retail and office uses are Normally Acceptable Uses in the
33 C zone and are the uses of the building anticipated by the property owner. Any future use(s)
34 would be required to comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for uses and the airport
35 compatibility criteria allowed uses.
36
37 B. Based on the size of the parcel (4,780 sf), 15 people would be allowed at any one time. The
38 building is currently vacant. The density requirement is applied to the entire C zone and
39 developed parcels are allowed to continue with uses similar to past uses of the building.
40 Future uses of the building are required to be consistent with past uses and densities of the
41 building. The office and retail uses anticipated for this building and allowed by the zoning are
42 consistent with this requirement.
43
44 C. The lot coverage is almost 100% since only a small portion of the Church Street side of the
45 parcel is landscaping and there is no onsite parking. The site was developed prior to the
46 adoption of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Compatibility Criteria. Including 'h street width with
47 the parcel size would comply with this recommendation and the Project would not modify or
48 increase the existing amount of open land on the parcel or in the C zone.
49
50 3. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Ukiah City
51 Code, as described in Table 3 of the staff report. Where the Project is not consistent with the
52 Downtown Zoning Code, the required Exceptions to the standard has been applied for and
53 approved (see Exception findings below).
54
55 4. The Project is consistent with the findings required for approval of Exceptions from the
56 requirements of the Downtown Zoning Code as described in Table 4 of the staff report and below.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 5
1
2 5. The Project is consistent with findings required for approval of a Major Site Development Permit
3 as described in Table 5 of the staff report and below:
4
5 A. Design. The Project would modify window openings to create separate upper and lower floor
6 windows with a fenestration similar to the fenestration of the original building. The space
7 between the upper and lower windows would be in-filled with stucco to match the exterior of the
8 existing building. The new entry door with sidelights would replace one of the window openings,
9 maintaining the symmetry of the building openings. In order to make the space attractive to a
10 retail tenant and to enhance the pedestrian orientation, the new entry storefront includes
11 sidelights and an awning. The entry and sidelights maintain the original symmetry of window
12 placement and incorporate an awning over the entry to help identify and define the tenant space.
13 This helps breakup the long building fa�ade into smaller shopfronts. The smaller shopfront, use
14 of the awnings, and design of the storefront is consistent with many downtown shopfronts and
15 results in an enhanced design aesthetic, makes the building pleasant for users by providing view
16 and natural light, and creates a pedestrian-oriented fa�ade in the heart of the downtown.
17
18 B. Landscaping. A small section of landscaping with a small tree/large shrub would be removed to
19 accommodate the new entry door on Church Street; however, most of the existing landscaping
20 along the Church Street elevation would remain. Since the existing landscaping is likely to be
21 damaged during construction of the Project, the DRB recommended that a condition be applied to
22 the Project requiring any landscaping damaged or removed for Project construction to be
23 replaced. Staff has included this as a draft condition.
24
25 C. Resource Protection. One large shrub/small tree would be removed to install the entry. This
26 tree/shrub is not on the CDZC Protected Tree List and the removal was reviewed by the DRB.
27 Loss of this shrub/tree was not considered to be the loss of a resource. The building does not
28 have the potential to be a historic or cultural resource due to the significant modifications that
29 have occurred to the building. The Project site does not include any water bodies, the grade of
30 the site would not be changed, and any existing landscaping damaged or removed in order to
31 construct the Project is required to the replaced.
32
33 D. Health, Safety, Welfare.
34
35 ■ The Project would upgrade an existing commercial building by removing modifications to the
36 building that are not consistent with the Downtown Zoning Code in that they are not
37 pedestrian oriented.
38
39 ■ The Project would create two tenant spaces of a size that are more marketable to the types
40 of small businesses that typically prefer to locate downtown. The proposed exterior
41 modifications would upgrade an existing commercial building, allow for two smaller more
42 leasable tenant spaces and create a more pedestrian oriented street frontage by providing
43 vertically oriented, clear glazed windows at a level visible to pedestrians.
44
45 ■ The Project has been reviewed by the Building Official, Public Works, Police Department and
46 Fire Department. All recommended conditions of approval have been applied to the Project.
47
48 ■ The Project is required to comply with all applicable local, state and federal requirements.
49
50 6. The proposed project, as conditioned, is exempt from the provisions of the California
51 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1, which allows exterior
52 modifications to existing structures based on the following:
53
54 A. The 1985 Historic and Architectural Inventory rated the building 5, ineligible but still of local
55 interest. The 1999 Historic and Architectural Inventory rated the building 6Z1, found ineligible
56 with no potential for any listing, due to the extensive modifications that had been done to the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 6
1 building. Therefore, the Project would have no effect on a historic resource or on a resource
2 that has the potential to be historic.
3
4 B. The location of the Project is not environmentally sensitive; there are no drainage courses or
5 bodies of water(such as creeks or streams)on the site.
6
7 C. The site is developed with an existing building and a small amount of landscaping. Utilities
8 and services already are available at the site. No expansion of the existing building would
9 occur as part of the Project.
10
11 7. A notice of the Project was provided in the following manner as required by the Ukiah City Code:
12
13 A. posted in three (3) places on the Project site on July 10, 2013;
14 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on July 10, 2013; and
15 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 14, 2013.
16
17 Exception and Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
18 199 South School Street, APN 002-226-07
19 File No.: 13-16-EXC-SDP-PC
20
21 1. Approval is granted for the exterior modifications to the building located at 199 South School
22 Street, APN 002-226-07, as described in the Project Description and as shown on the plans
23 submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department and date stamped July 16,
24 2013, except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
25
26 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall apply for and receive the assignment of
27 an address for the new tenant space on Church Street from the Planning and Community
28 Development Department.
29
30 3. Tenant signage for the new tenant space on Church Street shall be limited to the locations shown
31 on the approved plans submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department and
32 date stamped July 16, 2013.
33
34 4. Construction hours shall comply with the City of Ukiah Noise Ordinance.
35
36 5. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance with the plans approved
37 by Planning Commission and these conditions of approval and are subject to staff review and
38 approval.
39
40 From the Desiqn Review Board
41
42 6. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Downtown Zoning Code, the glazing for the
43 ground floor windows shall be clear. The windows on the second floor may be tinted. Opaque
44 and mirrored glazing is prohibited.
45
46 7. Prior to building permit final, any damaged or removed landscaping, except landscaping removed
47 to install the new entry on Church Street, shall be replaced in-kind. In-kind replacement
48 landscaping is subject to Planning staff inspection and acceptance prior to building permit final
49
50 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv)
51
52 8. Work required a building permit with plans designed by a licensed architect or engineer with
53 structural calculations addressing the vertical and horizontal loads.
54
55 From the Public Works Department(Ben Kaqevama)
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 7
1 9. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
2 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or
3 otherwise affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated
4 construction costs.
5 10. If the building permit value of work exceeds $110,519 or the proposed improvements create the
6 net addition of two or more plumbing fixture units to the building, the existing sanitary sewer
7 lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. 1105, and repaired or
8 replaced if required.
9 11. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the value of the existing
10 structure, the construction, repair or upgrade of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and addition of street
11 trees, along the subject property street frontages, may be required, pursuant to Section 9181 of
12 the Ukiah City Code.
13
14 From the Fire Department (Kevin Jennings, Division Chief/Prevention Officer)
15
16 12. Depending on the use of the tenant spaces generated by the Project, additional exits may be
17 required. Two exits shall be provided from buildings when the building has more than one story
18 above grade plane, when the number of occupants per floor exceeds 49, or when the travel
19 distance of the building exceeds 75 feet. CFC Section 1021.1-1021.2
20
21 Standard Requirements
22
23 13. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
24 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
25 applied for and issued/finaled.
26
27 14. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
28 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
29
30 15. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
31 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
32 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
33 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
34 and issued.
35
36 16. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any
37 future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
38
39 17. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior
40 to building permit final.
41
42 18. This Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project
43 related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions
44 of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this
45 approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been
46 suspended for 24 consecutive months.
47
48 19. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their
49 agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its
50 agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or
51 proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to
52 attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include,
53 but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be
54 asserted by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 8
1 City's action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence
2 on the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to
3 be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement
4 shall remain in full force and effect.
5
6 20. All landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of the
7 plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following:
8
9 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate
10 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
11
12 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and
13 reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
14
15 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer
16 according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
17
18 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
19
20 Failure to comply with the requirements listed above could result in revocation of this Permit.
21
22 21. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
23 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
24 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
25 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
26 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
27 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
28 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
29 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
30 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
31 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
32 remain in full force and effect.
33
34 9B. Crush Live Entertainment, Outdoor Barbeque, and Off-Site Parking Use Permit, 1180
35 Airport Park Boulevard (File No.: 13-17-UP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and
36 possible action on a Major Use Permit to allow live entertainment and an outdoor barbeque at
37 Crush restaurant located at 1180 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-24, and to allow off-site
38 parking for the live entertainment on the parcel located adjacent to and west of Crush on the
39 northeast corner of Commerce Drive/Airport Road, APN 180-070-03.
40
41 M/S Sanders/Whetzel to continue Crush Live Entertainment, Outdoor Barbeque, and Off-Site Parking
42 Use Permit, File No.: 13-17-UP-PC to a date certain of August 14, 2013. Motion carried (5-0).
43
44 10. NEW BUSINESS
45
46 10A. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
47 M/S Sanders/Christensen to nominate and elect Mike Whetzel as Chair and Kevin Doble as Vice-Chair
48 of the Ukiah Planning Commission. Motion carried (5-0).
49
50 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
51
52 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
53 Commissioner poble inquired about the status of the former Post Office building located on Oak Street.
54
55 The Commission had no knowledge about the status of the building and discussed what had occurred
56 regarding the construction fence.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 9
1 13. ADJOURNMENT
2 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
3
4
5 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2013
Page 10