Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpcm_08142013 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION 2 August 14, 2013 3 Minutes 4 5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT 6 Mike Whetzel, Chair 7 Kevin Doble 8 Linda Sanders 9 Judy Pruden 10 Laura Christensen 11 12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT 13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively 14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner 15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 16 17 1. CALL TO ORDER 18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at 19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. 20 21 2. ROLL CALL 22 23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited. 24 25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—The minutes from the July 24, 2013 meeting are included for review 26 and approval. 27 28 The Commission made the following corrections: 29 30 Page 2, line 31, sentence to read, `Chair Pruden: It is not likely the draft findings would be affected, but 31 rather serves as justification for how one views the building in association with the building's history.' 32 33 Page 2, line 19, sentence to read, `Is of the opinion this may not be accurate because the document talks 34 about Pacific Telephone and Telegraph purchasing the vacant lot in 1916 for construction of a service 35 facility for the company and concluded what likely occurred is the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph 36 business began in 1905 and the building constructed in 1916.' 37 38 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve the July 24, 2013 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0). 39 40 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 41 42 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the 43 final date to appeal is August 26, 2013. 44 45 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission. 46 47 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff. 48 49 9. PUBLIC HEARING 50 9A. Crush Restaurant Live Entertainment, Outdoor Barbecue, and Off-Site Parking Use Permit, 51 1180 Airport Park Blvd. (File No.: 13-17-UP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and 52 possible action on a Major Use Permit to allow live entertainment and an outdoor barbecue at 53 Crush restaurant located at 1180 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-24, and to allow off-site 54 parking for the live entertainment on the parcel located adjacent to and west of Crush on the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 1 1 northeast corner of Commerce Drive/Airport Road, APN 180-070-03. Continued from the July 24, 2 2013 meeting. 3 4 Senior Planner Jordan: 5 • Gave the staff report. 6 • Staff is requesting Planning Commission direction concerning the Airport Compatibility Zone 7 analysis, and vehicle and bike parking considerations, and the Management Plan. 8 9 Commissioner Sanders: 10 • Related to the issue of maximum occupancy and compliance with density requirements, noted 11 the Use Permit for the former Red Hawk restaurant allowed 174 seats plus up to 25 employees 12 on the maximum shift. Asked staff to clarify how the Fire Marshal determined the maximum 13 occupancy of 251 persons. 14 15 Staff: 16 • When Crush remodeled the restaurant, the meat counter and bakery removed and the seating for 17 the restaurant changed. It is my understanding that occupancy is a mathematical equation based 18 on square footage of the building. Based on the changes to the building and square footage, the 19 Fire Marshal determined the occupancy for the remodeled restaurant was 251, which is what is 20 currently posted. The Fire Marshal visited the restaurant several times and was okay with the live 21 entertainment consistent with the posted occupancy limit of 251. 22 • Maximum building occupancy is a fire code requirement. Airport Compatibility Zone requirements 23 are separate from the fire code requirements. 24 25 Commissioner poble: 26 • Noted the off-site parking portion of the property was factored into the mathematical equation 27 concerning the density calculation and questioned in arriving at the 268 persons allowed as 28 provided for on page 6 of the staff report. What would occur if the off-site parking was no longer 29 available? How would this affect a project proposed on the adjacent site? Would the occupancy 30 of the restaurant/live entertainment have to change or would the new project be affected? 31 • Does not want to approve a Project that might encumber another property and/or limit that 32 property's potential for development. 33 34 Staff: 35 • The aforementioned depends upon how the Planning Commission wants to handle 36 occupancy/density. 37 • The Planning Commission previously approved 174 persons plus 25 employees as part of the 38 Use Permit for Red Hawk 39 • If the off-site parking opportunity goes away in association with the density calculations, a new 40 condition can be formulated that states because of the Airport Compatibility zone requirements, 41 the Project is required to be reviewed by staff to see if a similar analysis and finding can be made 42 for the new parking location. Another approach would be to limit live entertainment to the 174 43 people approved by the Red Hawk use permit. Since the live entertainment requires a cover, the 44 number of people attending could be easily controlled by the applicant. Would suggest 45 discussing this with the applicant. 46 47 Commissioner Pruden: Asked about the hours of operation for the bar that is currently operating. 48 49 Staff: This would be a question for the applicant. 50 51 Chair Wetzel: 52 • Asked if there were comments from other neighborhood property owners regarding the Project 53 other than Mark and Debbie Watson who own the Hampton Inn and Crush. Is there a lease 54 agreement or some other document necessary for the Project? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 2 1 • Will there be some clean-up of the off-site parking area? Will the parking spaces be marked? 2 There are areas where pipes are sticking up through the pavement. 3 4 Staff: Clean-up is not required as a project condition. 5 6 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m. 7 8 Staff: 9 • The property owner has to sign the Use Permit application. So the application was signed by the 10 Watsons and the owner of property where offsite parking would occur. In addition, condition #22 11 requires the applicant to provide a copy of the agreement that allows the use of the parcel for 12 parking. 13 • Since the parking is valet, no marking is necessary. This should be clarified with the applicant. 14 15 16 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m. 17 18 Doug Guillon: 19 • Music does not typically commence until dinner is no longer being served so as not to impact 20 dining customers. Speaking from experience in the restaurant business, it is best to commence 21 live entertainment at 9:30 p.m., or later. 22 • Those private guests still dining later will be seated in the private dining room area and located far 23 enough away from the live entertainment area. 24 • Does not anticipate there will be diners and live music occurring at the same time. 25 • Considers the business to be successful if there are 150 or so people attending a music event. 26 • The music venue will be small bands consisting of four members that will likely be limited to 27 acoustical guitar and piano,jazz, light rock and disc jockey. 28 • Is not really pursuing bands that draw big crowds. 29 • Live entertainment will be in the `North Beach Bar' with overflow into `Mason Street Bar.' 30 • Customers desiring a quieter atmosphere can utilize the `Mason Street Bar.' 31 • Related to the off-site parking accommodations, it is likely only a small portion of this site will be 32 used. Is of the opinion there should be sufficient on-site parking to handle the music venue. 33 34 Chair Whetzel: Will valet parking begin after the dining experience ends? 35 36 Commission Sanders: 37 • Will the restaurant venue include wedding and other special events? 38 • Would like the bike rack to be restored and noted it is not anchored and/or positioned in an area 39 that functions properly for the public and/or employees. 40 41 Chair Pruden: 42 • Asked about the current bar hours? 43 • Asked if the applicant was aware there was a cap on the maximum number of persons allowed in 44 the restaurant facility when he took over the operations? The restaurant building is located next to 45 an airport and subject to compliance with the Airport Compatibility Zone regulations that controls 46 the density allowance and this is the reason for the 174 occupancy cap should there be an 47 accident. 48 49 Doug Guillon: 50 • Valet parking will likely commence at 9:00 p.m. until closing time. It may be that valet parking is 51 not necessary. 52 • Has plans to expand and/or market the business to include wedding events and/or other types of 53 special events that would draw clientele from out of the area, particularly San Francisco. Is of the 54 opinion Ukiah offers a great designation for weddings since there are many wineries other venues MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 3 1 in the area. Would like to host receptions, bridal showers, rehearsal dinners and similar events at 2 Crush. 3 • The bar closes at 1:30 a.m. on weekends. However, this has not been the case because the bar 4 has not been that busy. When the bar is not busy, it may close at midnight. 5 • The intent is for live entertainment to stop at 1:00 a.m. on weekends and explained how the 6 process would work. 7 • Was not aware of the 174 person density limit related to the airport. Based on the size of the 8 restaurant, more than 174 seats are needed to make the restaurant a successful venture. 9 10 There was Commission discussion concerning the installation, appropriate location and possible need for 11 a bicycle rack(s) for patrons and employees of the restaurant acknowledging that three parking spaces 12 exist and supports providing for a minimum of six bicycle spaces. 13 14 Doug Guillon: Would be amenable to having bicycle facilities and is open to the Planning Commission's 15 recommendation in this regard. 16 17 The Planning Commission recommended providing for 3 bicycle parking spaces for the live entertainment 18 in addition to the 3 required for the restaurant and for the applicant to work with staff regarding the 19 location. 20 21 Chair Pruden: 22 • Related to occupancy/density and compliance with the Airport Compatibility Zone criteria 23 expressed concern regarding the density calculations provided for in staff's analysis. Is of the 24 opinion 251 persons exceeds the density requirement for the area, jeopardizes operations at the 25 Airport, and creates a potential safety problem. 26 • Does not agree with the analysis that by taking off-site parking adds more area to the parcel, 27 especially when this particular area is prime for development. 28 • Supports the maximum density for the building is 174 persons and that 251 persons is over what 29 the density should be for that area. 30 • Does not want to create a density conflict for the Airport that could eventually shut the airport 31 down permanently. 32 33 Commissioner poble: 34 • Is `uneasy' with the density calculation that allows for a maximum of 268 people that would be 35 allowed on the Crush parcel and on the portion of the parcel used for parking that essentially 36 exceeds the occupancy requested by the applicant and the maximum allowed by the Fire Code. 37 Related to the calculations, it appears 'convenienY to count '/4 of the valet/off-site parking area of 38 2.53 acres that is located in Airport Compatibility Zone C and apply it to the Project Area taking 39 into consideration the maximum density allowed for this compatibility zone of 150 persons for a 40 total of 268 persons. It appears the numbers were made to fit the request. 41 • Has concern about what would occur if the valeUoff-site parking was to go away and the 42 aforementioned approach to the density calculation was accepted. What if the off-site parking 43 area develops and the acreage goes away? What happens to the `accepted' density and how 44 would it get reversed? There may be no way to reverse the density. We could be faced with a 45 difficult situation in this regard. 46 47 Chair Whetzel: 48 • The Project would have to be conditioned accordingly. If the off-site acreage goes away, the 49 applicant would have to go back to the original maximum occupancy calculation of 174 persons 50 that was approved for Use Permit 06-42 for the Red Hawk Restaurant. 51 • The Fire Marshal appears to be okay with the density increase to 251 persons. The focus now is 52 whether or not the Project meets the Airport Compatibility Zone density requirements. 53 • Also has some concern how the density calculations were substantiated to get the maximum 54 occupancy of 251 seats. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 4 1 • Take-offs and landings are not allowed after 10:00 p.m., so this would not be occurring when the 2 density would be 251 people for live entertainment. Aircraft following the correct flight 3 path/procedures should be nowhere near the area even though the Project is located in the 4 Airport Compatibility Zones B1 and C. 5 6 Staff: 7 • There are two issues occurring related to different requirements- the fire code and airport 8 compatibility: 1) The Fire Marshal was fine with the increase in occupancy that resulted from the 9 remodel and resulted in a maximum occupancy of 251 people; and 2) the airport compatibility 10 considerations which are separate and different from Fire Code requirements. 11 • The use permit for the restaurant allowed 174 maximum persons occupancy plus 25 employees 12 based on the analysis prepared by staff and accepted by the Planning Commission related to 13 airport compatibility. Now that the applicant has asked for a use permit for live entertainment, the 14 issue of occupancy/density must again be revisited as it relates to the proposed live 15 entertainment. 16 • Related to the density analysis, the property located to the west of the Project intended for 17 valeUoff-site parking area was not a factor and/or consideration for the original use permit for the 18 Red Hawk Restaurant. 19 • The Commission must decide how best to handle the density issue. 20 21 Commissioner poble: 22 • Requested clarification the maximum occupancy for the original use permit was calculated at 174 23 seats plus a maximum of 25 employees and inquired as to the current occupancy based on the 24 remodel. 25 • Is of the opinion `we are stretching it,' by using the parcel located to the west for valet/off-site 26 parking because this sets an opportunity for other projects to do the same and that is to go to a 27 nearby parcel and request the use of the parcel to park equipment and/or somehow claim a zone 28 for this use to make the numbers work out. This may be a `road we should not likely go down.' 29 30 Staff: Per the Fire Code, the posted occupancy is 251 seats. 31 32 Commissioner Sanders: 33 • Is fine with a maximum occupancy of 251 seats except if this could disadvantage other parcels 34 within the Airport Compatibility Zone noting the parcel developed with Crush and the portion of 35 the parcel that would be used for valeUoff-site parking is located in Airport Compatibility Zone C 36 and the parcel located on the northeast corner of Commerce Drive/Airport Road has two 37 compatibility zones i.e., the eastern half is located in compatibility zone C and the western half of 38 the parcel is located in compatibility zone B1. 39 • Crush has plans to expand the business to include clientele from the Bay Area such that it would 40 become a destination. The concern is how to make this expansion work and comply with the 41 Airport Compatibility Zone requirements. 42 43 Commissioner Christensen: 44 • Is supportive of Crush expanding its business and having a larger occupancy that will allow Crush 45 to do this. Does understand, however, how the density calculation would be affected without the 46 use of the parcel to the west for parking. 47 • Requested clarification if Crush no longer has a lease agreement with the adjacent parcel, does 48 Crush have to revert back to the original maximum occupancy of 174 seats? 49 50 Doug Guillon: 51 • The owners of the Crush building also own the Hampton Inn and the Comfort Inn so the 52 opportunity to expand the restaurant would be highly beneficial to the owners and could likely use 53 parking located on these parcels to serve the live entertainment. 54 • Does not see parking as a problem for the restaurant or for the live entertainment. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 5 1 • Crush is a large building of approximately 10,000 sq. ft. Would like the business to include live 2 entertainment in addition to the restaurant. Would like to resolve any occupancy issue that 3 involves the building having a restaurant use and a live entertainment use. It is his understanding 4 the occupancy discussion pertains only to the live entertainment use. 5 6 Staff: 7 • Staff is not addressing the restaurant but rather the live entertainment which is the subject of this 8 use permit. 9 • The applicant has indicated that the restaurant does not currently serve more than the 174 10 person limit included in the use permit for the restaurant. 11 12 Commissioner Pruden: The density numbers need to be justified. 13 14 Chair Whetzel: Commented 251 persons would be allowed for meals. 15 16 Staff: Rarely is every seat filled in a restaurant. 17 18 Doug Guillon: 19 • Has observed typical seating on a Saturday night is approximately 95 people in the dining room 20 and 60 or so persons in the pub. 21 • The intent is to make Crush a $3 million a year restaurant by creating a destination for people 22 from out of town. A 10,000 sq. ft. building provides that opportunity. 23 24 The Commission discussed what occupancy number would be appropriate. 25 26 Commissioner Pruden supports the 174 occupancy number plus a maximum of 25 employees and 27 noted the property owners were fully aware of the density requirements when the building of that size was 28 constructed. Moreover, the Planning Commission had originally requested the applicants move the 29 building to the front of the lot, but they wanted it situated more to the back of the lot to better serve their 30 hotel and its clientele. Crush is now the third restaurant operating at that facility and again, the owners 31 were fully cognizant what density numbers they had for Airport compatibility. As proposed, the potential to 32 have 251 inside the restaurant building is too many at any one given time. As it is, 174 persons is also a 33 substantial number of persons to have in that building at any one given time. 34 35 Commissioner poble requested clarification as to what the Planning Commission is deciding upon 36 tonight. We are not looking at enforcement or revisiting the use permit for the restaurant. 37 38 Staff commented page 6 of the staff report is the analysis related to how many persons the applicant is 39 requesting for live entertainment. Tonight the Commission is reviewing the requested use permit to allow 40 live entertainment. The Commission is not reviewing or revisiting the previous use permit that approved 41 the restaurant. 42 43 Chair Whetzel commented the Commission is looking at a new use permit. 44 45 The Commission noted page 6 of the staff report indicates the applicant is requesting approval of live 46 entertainment for up to 251 people, and the seating/floor plan submitted as part of this Use Permit 47 application shows seating/occupancy for 251 people (attachment 2). The document further states `This 48 exceeds the maximum density for the site by 77 people. ' 49 50 Commissioner poble: Given the aforementioned information, his position is to limit the density for live 51 entertainment to 174 people in addition to the 25 employees on the maximum shift. This would be in 52 conformance with the Airport Compatibility Zone requirements. 53 54 Commissioner Sanders: The applicant is concerned about the viability of the business if he has to work 55 within the restrictions of the 174 maximum persons allowed for airport compatibility. 56 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 6 1 Doug Guillon: Does not anticipate that there will ever by 251 people for live entertainment and is okay 2 with reducing the number to 174 persons, in order to address the concerns of the Commission. 3 4 Commission consensus: 5 • In order to address and be consistent with airport compatibility requirement, modify Condition of 6 Approval No. 7 to reduce the maximum number of persons for live entertainment to 174 plus 25 7 staff people. 8 • Modify condition #2 related to bike parking. Require a total of 6 bike parking spaces be installed: 9 the three bike parking spaces required for Red Hawk use permit 06-42 plus an additional three 10 bike parking spaces for the live entertainment included in this use permit with the applicant to 11 work with staff to determine the location. 12 • Delete Condition of Approval 13 requiring employees to park on the valet parking parcel (APN 13 180-070-03)spaces since this may trigger ADA path of travel or other requirements. 14 15 Commissioner Pruden is of the opinion live entertainment will be well-received at Crush. 16 17 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:47 p.m. 18 19 M/S Pruden/Doble to approve Crush Restaurant Live Entertainment, Outdoor Barbecue, and Off-Site 20 Parking Use Permit (File No.: 13-17-UP-PC) with Findings 1-6 and Conditions of Approval 1-45 with 21 modifications to conditions of approval as discussed above. Motion carried (5-0). 22 23 Use Permit Findings for Approval 24 Crush Italian Steakhouse 25 Outdoor Barbecue, Live Entertainment, and Valet/Offsite Parking 26 1180 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-24 27 Northeast Corner Commerce Drive/Airport Road (APN 180-070-03) 28 File No. 13-17-UP-PC 29 30 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan based on the following: 31 32 A. The general plan land use designation is Master Plan Area (MPA)which is intended for larger 33 land areas where a specific plan is developed in order to provide for a mix of uses and/or 34 development standards in order to address the precise planning needs of the area. This MPA is 35 implemented through the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development(AIP-PD)which includes 36 the development standards and uses allowed within AIP-PD. 37 38 B. The proposed uses are ancillary to the primary restaurant use of the parcel. Restaurants are an 39 allowed use in the Professional Office areas of the AIP-PD; therefore, the proposed uses are also 40 consistent with this designation. 41 42 C. The Project would support a strong local economy(goal ED-1) by adding live entertainment which 43 would provide an entertainment opportunity that is currently limited in the Ukiah Valley in terms of 44 venues and events and would provide additional revenue to the restaurant which would result in 45 an increase in sales tax and business license revenue to the City. The outdoor barbecue would 46 allow the restaurant to provide additional take-out or dine-in options to customers which could 47 provide additional revenue to the business and to the City. The valet parking allows additional 48 parking to be provided to serve additional parking needs related to live entertainment and the 49 restaurant. 50 51 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with requirements of the applicable Airport 52 Compatibility zones based on the following: 53 54 ■ Normally Acceptable Uses: The uses are considered accessory to the restaurant use. 55 Intensive retail is a normally acceptable use in the C zone and the existing restaurant use is MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 7 1 consistent with this use. Live entertainment is similar to parks and playgrounds. The barbecue is 2 similar to extending the restaurant kitchen outdoors. The valet/offsite parking would locate 3 vehicles on the adjacent site to the west, which is located in compatibility zone B1 and C. 4 Automobile parking is allowed in both the B1 and C zones. 5 6 • Maximum Density: Based on a 1.02 acre parcel, 153 people are allowed on the site at any time. 7 The restaurant includes seating for 174 people which exceed the maximum density allowed. Use 8 Permit 06-42 which approved the restaurant use of the site approved 174 seats plus a maximum 9 of 25 employees at any one time. Use Permit 06-42 included analysis in support of the 174 seats 10 and a maximum of 25 employees at any one time. Planning Commission has included a 11 condition of approval limiting the number of persons for live entertainment to 174 to be consistent 12 with the Use Permit 06-42 and to be consistent with the airport compatibility analysis conducted 13 for that use permit. 14 15 ■ Open Land: The footprint of the building comprises 20% of 1180 Airport Park Boulevard, leaving 16 80% of the parcel as "open land"which exceeds the minimum recommended for the C zone. 17 Parcel APN 180-070-03 which would be used for valet/offsite parking is mostly vacant and 18 undeveloped and currently provides more than 30% open land as required. Parking lots are 19 considered "open land." Since the area that would be used for parking is located in the B1 and C 20 zones and parking lots are considered "open land,"the Project is consistent with this requirement. 21 22 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the applicable requirements of Airport 23 Industrial Park Ordinance 1098 for parcels identified as Professional Office as described in the staff 24 report, including the following: 25 26 A. The proposed uses are not listed as allowed or permitted uses in the AIP-PD. As allowed by AIP- 27 PD section 12, a Determination of Appropriate Use was made by the Planning Director allowing 28 the applicant to request Planning Commission approval of a Major Use Permit for the proposed 29 uses. 30 31 B. The proposed uses are considered ancillary uses to the restaurant located at 1180 Airport Park 32 Boulevard. The off-site parking for the live entertainment and restaurant on APN 180-070-03 is 33 the only use of this parcel and is allowed pursuant to the Determination of Appropriate Use. 34 35 C. The Project includes providing valet parking on a parcel located to the west of Crush Restaurant 36 (APN 180-070-03). The additional parking provided on this site would provide adequate parking 37 for live entertainment and overflow parking for the restaurant. A condition of approval has been 38 applied to the Project requiring alternative off-site parking be provided in the event that APN 180- 39 070-03 is no longer available for parking. 40 41 D. The bike parking required by Use Permit 06-42 is currently non-functional due to location and 42 inadequate anchoring of the rack. A condition of approval has been applied to this Use Permit 43 requiring this rack to be installed at the front of the building and properly anchored. 44 45 E. Use Permit 06-42 required bike parking for the restaurant. As part of its review of this Use 46 Permit, Planning Commission included conditions of approval requiring: 1)the applicant to 47 permanently install the three bike parking spaces required for Use Permit 06-42 (Red Hawk 48 Restaurant)and 2)three additional bike parking spaces to be provided for the live entertainment 49 use included in this use permit. 50 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 8 1 F. There is adequate parking for the outdoor barbecue (outdoor sales establishment), there are 2 utilities and sanitary facilities to serve the outdoor barbecue use, no signs are proposed as part of 3 the project and Crush restaurant has a current business license application. A condition of 4 approval has been added that prohibits the valet parking and barbecue from occurring at the 5 same time in order to ensure adequate parking is provided. 6 7 G. The Crush parcel is currently landscaping, including parking lot and street trees. There is no 8 opportunity to provide additional landscaping on the site, no additional landscaping has been 9 proposed by the applicant, and due to the nature, size and scope of the Project no additional 10 landscaping is required. 11 12 H. No signs are proposed as part of this Project. The only signage that may be associated with the 13 Project may be directional signage related to the valet parking. Directional signage is allowed by 14 the Sign Ordinance without the need for a sign permit. 15 16 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding land uses and shall not be 17 detrimental to the public's health, safety and general welfare as described in Table 4 of the staff 18 report. 19 20 5. The proposed project, as conditioned, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental 21 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3, conversion of small structures and Section 22 15301 Class 1, Existing Facilities based on the following: 23 24 A. The proposed uses are ancillary to the existing restaurant use of the building and site located at 25 1180 Airport Park Boulevard. The Project would allow live entertainment within the existing 26 building, an outdoor barbecue in the parking lot during off-peak hours, and valet and/or offsite 27 self-parking on the parcel located to the west of the Crush to serve additional parking demand 28 that may result during dinner hours or live entertainment. 29 30 B. The valet parking and /or offsite self-park would occur on the parcel located on the northeast 31 corner of Commerce Drive/Airport Road. This site was previously used as a lumber yard and 32 had paved areas for the outside storage of materials and parking/loading. The site has also 33 previously been used for the display of vehicles for sale. The area to be used for vehicle parking 34 is currently paved and lighted. 35 36 C. Both parcels are currently developed and no construction or development is required to serve the 37 proposed uses. 38 39 D. Both parcels are developed and located in an area where utilities and services are available to 40 serve the proposed uses. 41 42 E. The location of both parcels is not environmentally sensitive and does not include any drainage 43 courses or bodies of water. Commercial landscaping, including trees planted as part of 44 development of the restaurant, would not be affected by the proposed uses. 45 46 6. A notice of public hearing for the proposed project was provided in the following manner: 47 ■ posted in three places on the project site on July 11, 2013 ; 48 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on July 11, 2013; and 49 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 14, 2013. 50 51 One comment was received in support of the Project. 52 53 Use Permit Conditions of Approval 54 Crush Italian Steakhouse MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 9 1 Outdoor Barbecue, Live Entertainment, and Valet/Offsite Parking 2 1180 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-24 3 Northeast Corner Commerce Drive/Airport Road (APN 180-070-03) 4 File No. 13-17-UP-PC 5 6 1. Approval is granted for an outdoor barbecue, live entertainment, and valet parking as ancillary uses to 7 Crush Italian Steakhouse located at 1180 Airport Park Boulevard with the valet parked vehicles/offsite 8 parking located on the northeast corner of Commerce Drive / Airport Road (APN 180-070-03) as 9 described in the Project Description date stamped August 8, 2013 and as shown on the plans date 10 stamped August 8, 2013, except as modified by the following conditions of approval. 11 12 2. Prior to commencement of any uses allowed by this Use Permit, the applicant shall install any 13 additional bike parking required by Planning Commission in the location required by the Planning 14 Commission. 15 16 3. The outdoor barbecue, live entertainment, and valet / offsite parking are allowed only as uses 17 ancillary to the primary restaurant use of the site and building. 18 19 4. The Outdoor Barbecue is allowed subject to the following conditions: 20 21 A. Hours for the outdoor barbecue are limited to 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily in the location shown 22 on the approved plans date stamped August 8, 2013. 23 24 B. In order to ensure adequate parking is available for the restaurant, the outdoor barbecue shall be 25 removed from the parking area no later than 5:30 p.m. each day. 26 27 C. In order to ensure there is adequate parking during the hours the outdoor barbecue is 28 operational, the outdoor barbecue shall utilize no more than three parking spaces as shown on 29 the approved plans. 30 31 D. In order to ensure compliance with the required parking for the uses of the site, the outdoor 32 barbecue shall not be stored in the parking area. 33 34 E. The outdoor barbecue shall not commence until all applicable approvals/permits have been 35 acquired (such as Mendocino County Air Quality Management District, Environmental Health, 36 etc.). 37 38 F. Due to site constraints and to ensure adequate parking, outdoor tables and chairs, benches, etc. 39 are prohibited in the parking lot. Outdoor seating may be considered through an amendment to 40 this Use Permit. 41 42 5. The valet parking on the parcel located on the northeast corner of Commerce Drive / Airport Road 43 (APN 180-070-03) is permitted subject to the following: 44 45 A. The approved location of the valet parking on the Crush parcel is approved in the location shown 46 in attachment 3, site plan. A revised location may be approved by the Planning Director. A 47 request for a different location shall be submitted to the Planning Director in writing with the 48 reason for the relocation and a revised site plan showing the proposed location. The revised 49 location is subject to staff review Planning Director approval. 50 51 B. Prior to commencement of live entertainment, the applicant shall provide a copy of the agreement 52 for the use of the parcel on the northeast corner of Airport Road/Commerce Drive for parking. 53 54 C. Valet parking is permitted as needed to serve live entertainment and Crush dinner patrons. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 10 1 D. In order to ensure adequate onsite parking and site circulation, valet parking is prohibited when 2 the outdoor barbecue is operational. 3 4 E. In the event that the applicant would like to allow patrons of the live entertainment and restaurant 5 to self-park offsite on APN 180-070-03 or to provide a combination of valet parking and self-park 6 on this parcel, the applicant shall submit a written request to the Planning Director. The request 7 shall include the reason for the request, the operating characteristics for the offsite parking, and 8 revised plans. The request is subject to staff review and Planning Director approval. 9 10 From the Planning Commission 11 12 6. In order to comply with airport compatibility requirements, ensure adequate parking, and compatibility 13 with surrounding uses, the maximum number of persons allowed for live entertainment, including 14 customers dining at the restaurant, is 174 plus a maximum of 25 employees. These numbers are 15 consistent with Use Permit 06-42 (Red Hawk Restaurant). 16 17 7. Prior to commencement of any uses allowed by this Use Permit, the applicant shall install three bike 18 parking spaces in order to comply with the bike parking required by Use Permit 06-42 (use permit for 19 the restaurant). Three additional bike parking spaces are required for the live entertainment use 20 approved as part of this use permit (Use Permit 13-0-17-UP-PC), resulting in a total of six (6) bike 21 parking spaces for the restaurant and live entertainment uses. The applicant shall work with 22 Planning staff to determine the appropriate location for the bike racks. 23 24 From the Police Department and Planninq Department 25 26 8. Live entertainment is limited to groups of our or fewer. Larger groups may be authorized via prior 27 approval from the Planning Director. The request for a larger group shall be submitted to the 28 Planning Director in writing a minimum of 30 days prior to the proposed date for the live entertainment 29 and is subject to Planning Director and Police Department review and approval. 30 31 9. Live entertainment is limited to jazz, acoustical guitar and piano, light rock, and folk, disc jockey as 32 described in the Project Description date stamped August 8, 2013. 33 34 10. Live entertainment may be amplified or non-amplified. 35 11. Hours of the live entertainment are limited to the following: 36 37 A. Live entertainment beginning on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday shall end no later than 1:00 a.m. 38 39 B. Live entertainment on Sunday through Wednesday shall end no later than 10:00 p.m. 40 41 C. Extended hours for an individual live entertainment event on a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or 42 Wednesday may approved by the Planning Director for special occurrences and/or holidays (such 43 as Valentine's Day, Memorial Day, July 4�h, graduation, St. Patrick's Day, Super Bowl, etc.). The 44 extended hours shall not extend beyond 1:00 a.m. A request for the extended hours shall be 45 submitted to the Planning Director in writing a minimum of 30 days prior to the proposed date of 46 the extended hours and is subject to Planning Director and Police Department review and 47 approval. 48 49 50 12. Live entertainment shall only be promoted by Crush management and staff as described in the 51 approved Project Description. Private, outside promotion of live entertainment is prohibited. 52 53 13. In order to eliminate or reduce noise impacts, live entertainment is prohibited outdoors. 54 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 11 1 14. In order to eliminate noise impacts to adjacent hotel patrons and businesses, exterior doors and 2 windows shall remain closed during live entertainment. 3 4 15. In order to reduce noise and prevent loitering in the parking lot and on the site, at the close of 5 business each night, Crush staff shall ensure that patrons have left the site within 15 minutes of 6 closing. 7 8 16. Prior to commencement of live entertainment, the applicant shall prepare a Management Plan that 9 addresses: safety, security, noise, loitering, littering, lighting, and alcohol consumption, provides the 10 name and contact information of the person(s)with the authority to enforce the management plan and 11 conditions of approval, and incorporates the applicable conditions of approval from this Use Permit. 12 The Management Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department and is subject to review and 13 approval by the Planning Department and Police Department. 14 15 17. At least one manager of the business with the authority to enforce the approved Management Plan 16 and the conditions of approval for this Use Permit shall be onsite whenever live entertainment occurs. 17 18 18. All employees of the business shall be provided a copy of the Management Plan and the conditions of 19 approval for this Use Permit. 20 21 19. All provisions of the Management Plan and the conditions of approval for the Use Permit shall be 22 adhered to at all times. 23 24 20. A calendar of events shall be submitted to the Planning Department once per month that identify the 25 days and hours of the live entertainment occurring the following month. This notification may be sent 26 via email. 27 21. Prior to commencement of live entertainment, the applicant shall provide a copy of the agreement for 28 the use of the parcel on the northeast corner of Airport Road/Commerce Drive for parking. 29 30 22. In the event that the offsite parking located on the northeast corner of Airport Road /Commerce Drive 31 (APN 180-070-03) is no longer available, alternative offsite parking shall be provided. A written 32 request for approval of an alternative location shall be submitted to the Planning Department. The 33 Planning Department shall review the request and determine if the alternative offsite parking is 34 subject to administrative review, requires an amendment to this Use Permit, and/or is subject to other 35 permitting requirements. All required approvals shall be obtained prior to use of the alternative site. 36 No live entertainment shall occur until the alternative offsite parking has been provided and approved 37 by the City. 38 39 23. Activities approved as part of this Use Permit are subject to compliance with the requirements of 40 Ukiah City Code Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 6 (Noise Ordinance). 41 42 24. This Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director within 12 months of the date of approval 43 by the Planning Commission in order to determine compliance with the conditions of approval, the 44 number of Police calls, and the amount of Police staff time associated with this Use Permit, and any 45 complaints received. If the Planning Director determines that the use is not in compliance with the 46 conditions of approval and/or that the use requires additional review, the Use Permit shall be 47 scheduled for review by the Planning Commission. Review of the Use Permit by the Planning 48 Commission shall include a public notice. The applicant is responsible for paying all costs associated 49 with Planning Commission review of the Use Permit (City of Ukiah cost recovery procedures, 50 including deposit). If complaints are received during the first 12 months, this Use Permit shall be 51 reviewed annually by the Planning Director as described above. The Planning Director shall 52 determine if Planning Commission review of the Use Permit is required. All review of this Use Permit MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 12 1 by Planning Commission is subject to the City of Ukiah's cost recovery procedures, including the 2 payment of deposit. 3 4 25. In the event of a change of ownership or management of the restaurant associated with the live 5 entertainment, the City shall be notified on the change in ownership/management. The new 6 owner/manager shall meet with the Planning Department and Police Department to review this Use 7 Permit and Management Plan. The new owner/manager shall indicate in writing if any modifications 8 to the uses allowed by this Use Permit are proposed and shall identify the proposed modifications. 9 Any proposed modifications shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and Police Department. 10 The Planning Director shall determine if the proposed modifications are consistent with this Use 11 Permit or require approval of an amendment to this Use Permit and shall determine if the amendment 12 is minor(Zoning Administrator)or major(Planning Commission). 13 14 From the Police Department 15 16 26. Promotion of live entertainment is limited to the types of promotion identified in the approved Project 17 Description date stamped August 8, 2013. Use of a private outside promoter is prohibited. 18 19 27. The live entertainment is allowed only as a use ancillary to the restaurant. Live entertainment is not 20 allowed as the primary use of the site. Use or operation as a nightclub as defined by UCC section 21 9232.3 is prohibited. 22 23 28. If the live entertainment or cover charge events cause the need for a Police Response more than two 24 (2) times in a calendar year, the permit holder will be required to thereafter submit a security plan to 25 the Ukiah Police Department for approval a minimum of 45 days prior to any future events. The plan 26 will articulate in detail the event planned and clearly describe how security will be staffed to minimize 27 the need for police responses. In such cases, approval or denial will be provided to the applicant no 28 less than 30 days prior to the proposed event. 29 30 29. The facility will be open to inspection during live entertainment and coverage events and the Ukiah 31 Police Department will not be denied access. 32 33 From the Fire Department(Kevin Jenninqs) 34 35 30. Posted occupancy/capacity per dining area is already present and shall be maintained and enforced 36 by Crush. 37 38 31. Signage required for all fire extinguishers. Owner has discretion on style. 39 40 32. No flammable wall coverings shall be used during entertainment for live, interior presentations. 41 42 33. Exit ways shall be maintained in a clear, open condition. No additional seating shall be allowed during 43 live or other presentations. 44 45 34. No extension, lighting or other cords shall be allowed to cross isles or exit ways. 46 47 35. No pyrotechnics shall be allowed at any time. 48 49 36. Fire extinguisher required for outdoor, trailer mounted, BBQ. 50 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 13 1 37. Fire lanes to be maintained clear at all times. 2 3 Standard Conditions of Approval 4 5 38. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including but 6 not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been applied for and 7 issued/finaled. 8 9 39. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable 10 to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full. 11 12 40. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation, 13 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as 14 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and 15 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and 16 issued. 17 18 41. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any future 19 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest. 20 21 42. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to 22 building permit final. 23 24 43. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project 25 related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions of 26 approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this approval; or if 27 the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for 24 28 consecutive months. 29 30 44. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents, 31 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, 32 attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against 33 any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul 34 the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, 35 costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity, 36 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this application, 37 whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any 38 reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of 39 competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 40 41 9B. Held-Poage Museum Annex Building Use Permit and Site Development Permit, 603 West 42 Perkins Street (File No.: 13-07-UP-SDP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and possible 43 action on a Major Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow the construction of an annex 44 building for the Held-Poage Museum and to allow the construction of an annex building for the 45 Held-Poage Museum and to allow parking in the front setback at 603 West Perkins Street, APN 46 001-229-03. 47 48 Associate Planner Faso: 49 • Gave the staff report. 50 • Noted that an additional condition for protective tree fencing has been provided at places. `On 51 plans submitted for building permit the location of protective tree fencing for the existing trees 52 shall be shown. The fencing is to ensure that construction of the project does not result in 53 damage to the existing trees. Protective fencing shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in height, and 54 secured with in-ground posts and located 5 feet outside of the dripline of the trees to be 55 protected. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 14 1 2 Required protective tree fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of grading/building permit and 3 shall remain in place for the duration of the project.' 4 5 Commissioner Pruden recused herself from participating as a Commissioner for this project. 6 7 Commissioner Christensen: Is the westside of the existing building on the property line or is there a 8 five-foot setback? 9 10 Staff: Requested the aforementioned question be deferred to the applicant. 11 12 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:53 p.m. 13 14 Richard Ruff, Project Architect: 15 • Confirmed there is a five-foot setback on the westside of the existing building. 16 • The Project has been redesigned at the recommendation of the DRB. 17 • Elaborated on some of the design changes. 18 • The proposed new building is intended to be a surrogate to the primary historic museum building 19 and also to assume the characteristics/appearance of a carriage house. 20 • The building has two doors and no windows, providing for appropriate security is the primary 21 objective. 22 • The proposed detached accessory structure will be used for storage and to 23 process/handle/preserve historical documents for future generations in a secure and protected 24 setting. 25 • The building was designed architecturally and moved back so as not to detract/draw from the 26 existing museum building. 27 • Significant measures will be taken to protect and preserve the dripline of the existing trees and 28 vegetation. 29 • The roof has a steeper roof pitch than the original design and elaborated on the design on the 30 building, including the materials and trim for the building. 31 • The colors for the building are dark earth tone and the roof is dark brown. The color palates were 32 selected to complement and blend in with the historic existing building. 33 34 Commissioner Sanders thanked Architecture Ruff for his good work on the Project and for the nice 35 design. 36 37 Commissioner Christensen: 38 • Related to the 4 inch siding for the new building, how much different is this than what is on the 39 existing museum building? Asked if was intentional for the 4 inch siding on the new building not 40 to match with the museum building. 41 • Inquired about the brackets types under the eaves. Will the ends of the eaves be beveled? 42 43 Architect Ruff: 44 • Explained the material type and size for the museum building. 45 • Since the accessory structure has no windows, it was important for this building not to look and or 46 in any way detract architecturally from the museum building. 47 • The brackets act as support for the beams and commented on the size. 48 • The beams will extend outward and will be beveled on the ends. 49 50 Chair Whetzel is pleased with the project and looks very nice. His only concern is the Cedar tree that has 51 to be removed. 52 53 Architect Ruff: All the other trees will be salvaged. The Cedar was essentially poorly placed and it is 54 unfortunate the tree has to be removed. The Cedar is not a mature tree. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 15 1 Judy Pruden, Citizen: 2 • Has completed 3 of the 5 National Registry applications in Ukiah and the Held-Poage Museum is 3 one of those applications. 4 • Is familiar with the Project and the property. 5 • Likes the design of the new accessory structure for the most part, but has concerns about some 6 of the design features. 7 • Owns a magnificent carriage house and there is only one other existing in Ukiah. Is of the 8 opinion, the new building needs more `finesse' along the roofline. The knee braces are not 9 appropriate for this building. Recommends modifying this aspect by putting a facing board under 10 the eave. If structural support is necessary can extend the roof rafters and put a large plain board 11 on top and to finish the two-story gable to look appropriate put on returns on both of the corners. 12 This is the appropriate style for the building and is what occurs on other two-story buildings in the 13 area. If money is not an issue would suggest bringing the returns all the way across like what 14 was done for the kitchen addition that was completed in the 1920s and have a small roofed apron 15 on the front. 16 • Is of the opinion the knee braces are inappropriate for the building and should not occur. A 17 plainer rendition/appearance is more apropos for a carriage house. Her carriage house is an 18 excellent example of a 'plainer rendition' and has a one inch by twelve foot board located 19 underneath the eave with crown molding between the board trim and underneath the eave. This 20 type of architecture is what one would see on a carriage house. 21 • Requests the knee braces be removed. 22 • Understands the need for security and the reason for having no windows, but it would be nice to 23 have some light on the second story. Light on the other hand is not good for archival of historic 24 documents. 25 • Noted the alarm system in the building does not function properly. 26 • Asked about what will happen to the Carnegie library doors that are currently on the single-story 27 addition. 28 29 Paul Poulos, Museum Director: 30 • The library doors would have to be rebuilt because they have been seriously damaged over the 31 years from basic wear and tear. The doors are not salvageable as is but rather would have to be 32 rebuilt. These historic doors would essentially be items more suitable for viewing rather than 33 function because they cannot meet the necessary security standards. 34 • The alarm system has been repaired. The sensors now function properly. 35 • Related to the architectural changes suggested by Judy Pruden, noted the original design was 36 that of an actual carriage house. The DRB did not like the original design and was of the opinion 37 the design was too plain. As such, the building was redesigned to include more detail, more 38 peaking of the roof and other design features. 39 40 Richard Ruff: 41 • Would be willing to work with Judy Pruden on refining whatever design she is proposing. 42 • The intent is to design a building the community likes and approves of. 43 44 Commissioner Sanders: 45 • Mr. Ruff has presented a very generous offer to consider design modifications. 46 • Likes the design of the accessory building as it is, particularly its simplicity. 47 • The Queen Anne museum house is beautiful and should be considered the focal point. 48 • Views Judy Pruden's request to further modify the design at this point to be unusual and is not 49 certain how this takes precedence. 50 51 Richard Ruff: The request for design changes can be considered voluntary and worked out in this 52 manner. 53 54 Chair Whetzel: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 16 1 • Likes the design of the building as is. The intent of the design was to make certain the building 2 would not detract from the existing museum building. 3 • Is concerned that a design change after the Project has been considered and approved by the 4 Planning Commission could be significant enough and/or greatly differ than what was approved 5 and would this trigger another type of review? 6 7 Staff: 8 • The DRB looked at the Project very closely and made certain design change recommendations 9 that the applicant made. The DRB and the applicant worked really diligently to get this project to 10 a proper place where the design issues have been addressed. 11 • If the Commission is interested in further design changes, staff should be involved to honor the 12 design work that has already been done and to make sure the project is consistent with the 13 findings for approval of the project. 14 • Further changes to the design should involve staff, the applicant and Judy Pruden and not just 15 the applicant working with Ms. Pruden. Staff needs to ensure that outcome is consistent with 16 direction provided by the Commission and the findings for project approval. 17 18 Commissioner Sanders: If design modifications were made, would it be proper then for the changes to 19 go to the DRB one last time or is there some other procedure that is necessary? 20 21 Staff: The Project would be finished by the Planning Department should an agreement be reached that 22 the modified design is close enough to what is being seen here tonight, incorporates what Ms. Pruden is 23 asking for and is consistent with the design direction that the DRB has asked for and the findings. 24 25 Commissioner poble: There is a condition requiring the Project to come back to the DRB for the roof. Is 26 it possible for the Project to come back to the DRB for a final review to include the features being 27 modified since there is already a condition in place to come back for the roof and allow the Planning 28 Commission to make a decision tonight without having to necessarily come back to the Commission? 29 30 Staff: The intent would be not to bring the Project back to the Commission, but rather review of the 31 proposed new modification be conducted by Planning staff, the applicant and Ms. Pruden and would not 32 return to the Commission unless the Commission asked to review the design. The Commission can 33 request the Project to go back to the DRB for review. The roof color was the only feature the DRB wanted 34 to see back and this needs to return to the DRB before the roof is installed. 35 36 Commissioner poble: Would like to see a statement made about any further design modifications. 37 38 Staff: The only concern the applicant might have is the timing of these modifications related to issuance 39 of the Building Permit. 40 41 Commissioner poble: 42 • Likes the Project as designed and as presented. 43 • Is concerned with changing the design and not having the final approval whether it is the 44 Planning Commission or the DRB. 45 46 Commissioner Christensen: 47 • It is important for her to understand what Ms. Pruden is suggesting in the way of further design 48 modifications. 49 • Related to the knee braces and while she is not an expert on historical architecture, did drive 50 around and look at carriage houses. As such, noticed the carriage houses did not look like the 51 design being proposed. 52 • Does not have a problem with the appearance of the building, but emphasized the importance 53 that the design be right since this is a historical site. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 17 1 • Is of the opinion what we do not want to do is approve a design that does not fit with the time 2 period. The Project should not look like an afterthought, but rather look like it fits with the existing 3 museum building during the time period when this building was constructed. 4 • It appears the proposed design modifications are `pretty simple details' to fix and if there is a way 5 to do this and the applicant agrees, we should attempt to make this happen. 6 7 Leonard Winter, Museum Board Member: 8 • The Historical Society Museum Board Members worked very hard on this project and the DRB 9 did not like the design being proposed.We have come back with a design the DRB approves of. 10 • We have been to the DRB three times for the Project. 11 • Does not want to go back to the DRB. 12 • Is of the opinion the design is fine. 13 • The intent was not to design an accessory structure with the same style as the primary museum 14 building because the new building is a different type of building where the goal was not to 15 construct an accessory building that would detract from the museum building. 16 • Is of the opinion no one will notice any design discrepancy except Ms. Pruden. 17 • We have a design that works and we do not want to go with any added expenses. The building 18 will be constructed with grant funding. 19 • Would like to move forward with the Project, as designed and as presented. 20 Judy Pruden: 21 • Is talking about some minor fine tuning of the Project. 22 • Explained her design modifications in detail: 23 1. The knee braces would go away because they do not fit the architecture in Ukiah. 24 2. In place of the knee braces, put a trim board underneath the eave with a piece of crown 25 molding and if there is money in the budget, put some returns on the roof ends. If there is no 26 money, this is okay. 27 • While the DRB has some professional members in the way of architecture and design, none of 28 the members have an expertise in historical architecture. DRB members do consult with her 29 about historical architectural matters. 30 • Her design proposal is a chance to get the Project exactly right. There should be no time delays 31 and/or cost increase. 32 33 Staff: 34 • Referred to attachment 6 of the staff report, standards for rehabilitation, item 9, and noted one of 35 the issues that comes up for rehabilitation of historic properties is that while projects need to be 36 compatible with what design aspect is being accomplished to be careful not to incorporate details 37 from one design aspect and put it on another. To this end, for this project there was a lot of 38 sensitivity to this element as the building was being modified. Item 9 says, `New additions, 39 exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and 40 spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the 41 old and will be compatible with historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and 42 massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.' 43 • What staff and the DRB was looking at in terms of design is that the size, scale and proportion, 44 and massing of the new building was right rather than focusing specific attention on individual 45 design features. 46 • Planning staff and the DRB were of the opinion the original design completely overwhelmed the 47 National Registry building on the site. 48 • Agrees with the architect and applicant that a lot of work was done to redesign the Project as it is 49 now being presented. 50 • Wanted to point out, there is a bit of a timeframe we are working within particularly about not 51 picking up design details from one building to add to another just because the buildings will be 52 next to one another and/or exist on the same site. 53 54 Commissioner poble: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 18 1 • If it is true, the details are minor in nature and the applicant is willing to `tweak' a few things, why 2 not recommend approval the way it shows today and if it is minor, it is minor. Why is there a need 3 to go any further than this? 4 5 Chair Whetzel: 6 • Staff is only requiring that Planning staff, the applicant and Judy Pruden meet. 7 8 Commissioner poble: 9 • Does the Commission have to provide direction in order for Planning staff, the applicant and Judy 10 Prudent to meet or can this just happen anyway? 11 12 Chair Whetzel: The Planning Commission must provide direction in the regard. 13 14 Staff: Clarified if there is no condition of approval requiring Planning staff, the applicant and Judy Pruden 15 to meet, the meeting does not have to happen. If the Commission would like the meeting to occur and 16 want the change to be required of the applicant, a condition of approval is necessary. A condition of 17 approval that simply says staff, the applicant and Ms. Pruden need to meet just means there has to be a 18 meeting. If the intention is that a meeting is to be held and whatever the outcome of that meeting is 19 required of the applicant, this is what has to be a condition of approval. 20 21 Commissioner poble: 22 • Is of the opinion a condition of approval is not necessary. If the three parties choose to meet and 23 it appears they are going to agree to meet and makes a few changes to the design, this should be 24 an acceptable approach. 25 26 Staff: If the three parties choose not to meet and no design changes are made, no changes can be 27 required and if the Commission is okay with this, this is perfectly acceptable. If the Commission wants the 28 changes to occur and make sure they happen, there must a condition of approval. 29 30 Commissioner Sanders: 31 • Asked what would occur if there is no agreement at the meeting? 32 33 Chair Whetzel: 34 • Likes the plans as discussed and submitted. 35 • Likes the fact the new building does not over-shadow the museum building. 36 • The new building will function as a work and storage area and is not meant to over-shadow the 37 museum building. 38 • The new building will function as an accessory building to the museum. 39 40 Leonard Winter requested a recess to have the opportunity to speak with Judy Pruden. 41 42 Commissioner poble: 43 • Does not want to require that the three parties meet. 44 • Appreciates Ms. Pruden's comments and is of the opinion the parties will work out any design 45 discrepancies and/or differences in opinion concerning some of the design features. 46 47 Chair Whetzel: Staff has expressed that Planning staff needs to be in on the design changes related to 48 Project approval. 49 50 Staff: The way approvals are written is that whatever plans come in for a building permit must be in 51 substantial conformance with what was approved at the Planning Commission. If the applicant chooses to 52 make a change this is fine and if not this is fine too, but the Commission would to have a very clear 53 understanding of what the design changes would look like. What has typically occurred for projects are 54 changes to the landscaping not changing of details on a particular design for a project. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 19 1 If the Commission understands what the architectural details are and/or have an understanding of what 2 the proposed change in details look like it and are comfortable with those changes it may make sense for 3 the applicant and Ms. Pruden to talk right now so that we know what will be coming back and a condition 4 can be properly drafted so staff knows when they have the leeway to approve a building permit. 5 6 Commissioner Sanders: 7 • Would be comfortable with the aforementioned approach. 8 9 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:20 p.m. 10 11 PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED: 7:25 p.m. 12 13 Judy Pruden commented her meeting with the applicant was valuable/worthwhile and everyone is in 14 agreement with the proposed revised design. 15 16 Chair Whetzel: 17 • Is disappointed with Ms. Pruden's approach to how she proceeded with proposing a change to 18 the design. She waited until the last minute to make her comments. Is of the opinion Ms. Pruden 19 had plenty of time to attend the DRB meetings for the Project and submit her comments 20 regarding a change to the design. This places the Planning Commission in a difficult position to 21 decide how best to proceed. 22 23 Judy Pruden: The Historical Society did not give her site plans to comment on or she would have 24 sooner. The changes she proposes are minor and if accepted would make for a nicer project. 25 26 The Commission approved of the landscaping plan and had no changes and/or comments. 27 28 Commissioner Sanders: 29 • Would like to hear comments from the Commissioners regarding the suggestions. 30 31 Commissioner poble: 32 • Is able to visualize what the building will look like without the knee braces and as such does not 33 necessarily have a problem with this change. The manner in which the changes have been 34 described with the light trim board at the base of the eave can also be visualized. Is not sure 35 procedurally how to memorialize the changes for approval. Do we simply describe the removal of 36 the knee braces or does the Commission have to see something sketched out. 37 38 Staff: If the Commissioners understand what the changes look like, a condition of approval can be 39 drafted that indicates the plans have been submitted for the building permit and these plans can either be 40 the design presented in the staff report or the revised design suggested by Ms. Pruden to include a 41 statement if money allows to complete the corner returns. 42 43 Chair Whetzel: Do the Commissioners agree with the proposed changes? 44 45 Commissioners Doble and Christensen answered affirmatively. 46 47 Commissioner Sanders: 48 • Likes the Project as proposed, but is inclined to consider the proposed changes. 49 • Does not approve of how the changes were proposed. 50 51 Chair Whetzel: 52 • Does not want to hold up the Project. 53 • Likes the Project as proposed. 54 • It appears the vote would be 2:2 at this juncture. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 20 1 Commissioner poble noted staff recommended the Commission draft a condition of approval that has 2 either/or in it. 3 4 Staff: The aforementioned approach is one of the choices. 5 6 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:29 p.m. 7 8 Chair Whetzel: Supports drafting a condition giving the applicant the option of either going with the plans 9 as submitted tonight or the modified plans. Does not want the applicant to incur any unnecessary costs 10 associated with the revised plans. 11 12 Commissioner poble: Can support the plan the way it has currently been proposed without the 13 changes, but if the applicant and Ms. Pruden have worked out the changes and can be easily described 14 could also support this approach. 15 16 Commissioner Sanders: 17 • Related to landscaping, is fine with the changes to accommodate the Oak trees. Likes the 18 landscaping plan. Is concerned about the location of the heavy equipment in relation to the trees 19 during construction because there is not a lot of room for the equipment to move with all the trees 20 on the property. Is pleased with the condition of approval added by staff that addresses protection 21 of the trees during construction. 22 • The applicant attended three DRB meetings and as such if in the future for historical properties 23 that are going to be reviewed have controversial design issues, that a historical architect needs to 24 weigh in on the DRB meeting. 25 • If one of the Commissioners wants to create a condition of approval that seems to work with what 26 we have already spent a lot of time talking about this is a prerogative. 27 28 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:40 p.m. 29 30 Richard Ruff: Confirmed protection of the trees during construction and the measures to be taken to 31 ensure protection. 32 33 The Planning Commission further discussed the options in connection with how best to proceed with a 34 design change. 35 36 Staff proposed the following condition of approval: 37 38 'Plans submitted for building permit shall include removal of knee braces, installation of trim board and 39 are subject to staff review and approval. If budget permits, plans shall also be revised to include corner 40 returns.' 41 42 The Commission was supportive of the aforementioned condition. 43 44 Leonard Winter commented Judy Pruden should pay for the corner returns on the beams. 45 46 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:42 p.m. 47 48 Commissioner poble thanked the project proponents for being agreeable to the design changes. 49 50 M/S Doble/Christensen to approve Held-Poage Museum Annex Building Use Permit and Site 51 Development (File No.: 13-07-UP-SDP-PC) with Findings 1-11 and Conditions of Approval 1-26 with the 52 added condition from the Commission regarding the design modification to the building and condition 53 from staff regarding protection of the dripline for the trees on the site. Motion carried (4-0) with 54 Commissioner Pruden recusing herself. 55 56 MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 21 1 HELD-POAGE MEMORIAL HOME AND LIBRARY TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ANNEX 2 BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT 3 603 WEST STANDLEY STREET, APN 001-229-03 4 FILE NO.: 13-07-UP-SDP-PC 5 6 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the 7 application materials and documentation, and the public record. 8 9 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General 10 Plan as described in the staff report and Table 1. 11 12 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in 13 Table 2 of the staff report. 14 15 3. The location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or 16 inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern based on the following: 17 18 A. The proposed project involves the construction of a 3,560 square foot annex building. 19 B. The project site contains a former single family home and detached accessory structure 20 that are currently used as library and museum. The proposed located for the annex 21 would not change the current vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the site. However it would 22 be necessary for vehicles to back up over the sidewalk but given the low use of the 23 parking area the backup situation would be similar to a residential driveway and 24 therefore no more hazardous them the existing conditions in the neighborhood. 25 26 4. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic 27 on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or 28 surrounding uses based on the following: 29 30 A. The proposed project would create three parking spaces that would be located on the 31 West Church Street frontage. The cars would park front in and would back out onto West 32 Church Street. The proposed parking would be similar to a residential driveway in terms 33 of frequency of use given the low number of visitors and volunteers that are at the project 34 site at one time. 35 B. The Design Review Board was supportive of this parking configuration and felt that since 36 West Church Street is not a very busy street it would not be a hazard to the adjacent 37 streets nor would it create an inconvenient condition for the adjacent neighborhood. 38 39 5. Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the 40 proposed structure(s)from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up and screening 41 large expanses of paved areas based on the following: 42 43 A. The proposed project would include the installation of new landscaping that would be 44 compatible with the site and the neighborhood. 45 B. The location of the proposed annex building would be such that the existing trees 46 would screen the new building from the street. 47 C. Because the Project site has three fronts the only immediate neighbors are to the 48 west. The new annex building would not be any located any closer than the existing 49 setbacks. Given the design of the proposed annex building it would be wrapped MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 22 1 around the existing detached storage building therefore the new structure would not 2 change the setback on the west side and the existing setback would be maintained. 3 4 6. The proposed project would not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on the property 5 in the neighborhood; nor would it hinder the development or use of the buildings in the 6 neighborhood , or impair the value based on the following: 7 8 A. The surrounding properties are already developed. The proposed annex building 9 would be in a location that would maintain separation between the new building and 10 the existing development on adjacent properties. 11 B. Based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standard for Rehabilitation of historic 12 properties standards and an analysis of the project it appears that the Project is 13 appropriately designed to fit the historic character of the site and the surrounding 14 neighborhood. The Design Review Board reviewed the project and the applicant 15 revised the project based on their comments. This process ensures a quality project 16 that would not impair the value to properties or development. No windows are 17 proposed on the annex building therefore providing privacy for the neighboring 18 properties. 19 20 7. The proposed project site is located within a residential neighborhood. However given that the 21 subject parcels is located on two corners only the west side of the parcel is adjacent to 22 residential. The project has been designed to maintain the existing setback on the west side of 23 the parcel. The closest structure on the adjacent parcel is a detached garage. This garage 24 would separate the new annex building from the neighboring residence. 25 26 8. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including 27 trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site based on the following: 28 29 A. The project site is located within an existing neighborhood and is developed with an 30 existing main structure and a detached accessory structure. The site contains several 31 mature trees however the project has been designed to keep the new annex building out 32 of the drip line of the trees. 33 B. As noted in the project description one tree would be removed as a result of this project. 34 The tree to be removed is a 10 inch Cedar located on the West Church Street frontage 35 and shown on the plans. 36 C. No water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat, floodway or flood plain or other environmental 37 sensitive areas are present. 38 39 9. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the 40 structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external appearance 41 based on the following: 42 43 A. The proposed project was reviewed by the Design Review Board and the comments 44 from the Board were incorporated into the project by the application creating a project 45 that would complement the existing site and the surrounding neighborhood. 46 B. The project was also analysis in terms of consistency with the Secretary of the 47 interior Standards for Historic Properties. The new building would be setback from 48 the Held-Poage Home/Library and architectural features that are consistent with the 49 recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior have been added. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 23 1 C. See Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 2 discussion in staff report. 3 4 10. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning 5 Ordinance: 6 7 A. posted in three places on the project site on August 2, 2013; 8 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on August 2, 2013; and 9 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 4, 2013. 10 11 11. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act 12 (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction, which allows new construction 13 that does not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, does not exceed 14 10,000 square feet in floor area and is in an area where all necessary public services and 15 facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive based on the 16 following: 17 18 A. The total square footage of the annex is 3,560 square feet. 19 B. The location has no drainage courses or bodies of water (such as creeks or streams) are 20 present. 21 C. The existing main structure on the subject property is listed on the National Register of 22 Historic Places however no changes to this structure are proposed as part of the project. 23 D. The project has been analyses in terms of consistence with the Secretary of the Interior 24 Historic Standards. The project includes design features that would make the new 25 building less dominate on the site while still being compatible the existing historic 26 structure and thus maintaining the historic character of the site. 27 E. The site is developed with an existing building and accessory structure, utilities and 28 services already are available at the site. 29 MAJOR USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 30 TO ALLOW THE HELD-POAGE MEMORIAL HOME AND LIBRARY 31 TO EXPAND INTO A NEW ANNEX BUILDING 32 AND TO ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE SETBACK AND 33 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THE ANNEX 34 BUILDING AT 603 WEST STANDLEY STREET, APN 001-229-03 35 FILE NO.: 13-07-UP-SDP-PC 36 37 1. Use Permit approval is granted to allow the expansion of the Held-Poage Memorial Home and 38 Library to expand into a new annex building and to allow parking within the front setback. Site 39 Development Permit approval is granted to allow the construction of the new annex building and 40 associated site improvements as shown on the plans date stamped May 29, 2013 and as 41 described in the project description submitted to the Planning and Community Development 42 Department date stamped May 29, 2013 43 44 2. Prior to building permit approval a sample of the proposed roof to be used for the annex building 45 shall be provided by the applicant and returned to the Design Review Board for review and 46 approval. 47 48 3. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the location of the required bike rack and 49 specifications of proposed bike rack. Inverted "u" preferred. 50 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 24 1 4. Prior to building permit final a bicycle rack shall be installed, subject to staff review and approval, 2 Inverted "u" preferred. 3 4 5. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 5 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah. 6 Interior construction is exempt from these hours provided that construction noise is not audible at 7 the project property lines. 8 9 6. On plans submitted for building permit the location of protective tree fencing for the existing trees 10 shall be shown. The fencing is to ensure that construction of the project does not result in 11 damage to the existing trees. Protective fencing shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in height, and 12 secured with in-ground posts and located 5 feet outside of the drip line of the trees to be 13 protected. 14 15 7. Protective fencing required in condition of approval 6 shall be installed prior to issuance of 16 grading/building permit and shall remain in place for the duration of the project. 17 18 8. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on 19 the first sheet. 20 21 From the Planninq Commission 22 9. Plans submitted for building permit shall include removal of knee braces, installation of trim board 23 and are subject to staff review and approval. If budget permits, plans shall also be revised to 24 include corner returns. 25 26 27 From the Public Works Department 28 29 10. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the existing structure, curb, 30 gutter, sidewalk and street trees shall be provided along the subject property frontages (West 31 Perkins Street, South Dora Street, and West Church Street) pursuant to Section 9181 of the 32 Ukiah City Code. This shall include the repair or upgrade of existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, 33 driveway approaches and/or curb ramps to meet current ADA standards, and the planting of 34 additional street trees as required. 35 36 11. The proposed structure shall be separately connected to the sewer main, unless this requirement 37 is waived by the City Engineer. Existing sewer laterals shall be cleaned and tested in accordance 38 with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. 1105 and replaced if required. 39 40 12. The proposed development is located within the City of Ukiah sanitary sewer service area and 41 subject to applicable sewer connection fees. 42 43 13. All areas of circulation shall be paved with a minimum of 2" of AC on 6" of aggregate base or 44 other suitable surface approved by the City Engineer, pursuant to Section 9184 of the Ukiah City 45 Code. This includes all driveway and parking areas. 46 47 From the Buildinq Official 48 49 14. The main use of the proposed building appears to be storage and work rooms. The occupancy for 50 the building would be S-1 and F-1 with perhaps a small assembly area as an accessory use. The MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 25 1 2010 California Building Code only allows a single story for this type of building. The installation 2 of an automatic sprinkler system allows the maximum number of stories to be increased by one. 3 4 15. As long as the stairway serves less than 10 occupants it is not required to be enclosed. 5 6 16. The drinking fountain in the hallway is required to be a high-low drinking fountain. 7 8 17. A sewer lateral testing permit and final is required for this project. 9 10 18. The door swing into the bathroom appears to be encroaching into the required clear floor space 11 for the lavatory. 12 13 19. The storage area under the stair is required to be 1 hour rated. 14 15 From the Fire Marshal 16 17 20. Occupancy inspection for fire extinguisher placement and coverage will be performed during site 18 visiUinspection, and listed during plan check process. 19 20 Standard Conditions 21 22 21. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including 23 but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been applied for 24 and issued/finaled. 25 26 22. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges 27 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full. 28 29 23. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, 30 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal 31 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, 32 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building 33 Permit is approved and issued. 34 35 24. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any future 36 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest. 37 38 25. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior 39 to building permit final. 40 41 26. This Use Permit and Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation 42 process if the approved project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with 43 these stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years 44 of the effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted 45 has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months. 46 47 27. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Use Permit and Site Development Permit shall be 48 granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Use Permit and Site 49 Development Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or 50 zone requirements except to such specific purposes. 51 52 28. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of 53 the plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following: 54 55 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate 56 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 26 1 2 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and 3 reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather. 4 5 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic 6 fertilizer according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional. 7 8 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees. 9 10 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not 11 constrict the trunks and damage the trees. 12 13 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage 14 the trunk of the tree and its overall growth. 15 16 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including 17 vandalism, shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative 18 species approved by the department of Planning and Community Development. 19 20 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All 21 pruning shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and 22 vitality of the tree. 23 24 • This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents, 25 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, 26 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding 27 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set 28 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be 29 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted 30 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's 31 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the 32 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void 33 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall 34 remain in full force and effect. 35 36 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT 37 38 Senior Planner Jordan: 39 • There will be no regular Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 2013. The next regular 40 meeting will be September 11, 2013. 41 42 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT 43 Commissioner Pruden commented the process was somewhat awkward tonight regarding the museum 44 project noting there are times when a public official has to step back to address a project issue. 45 46 12. ADJOURNMENT 47 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. 48 49 50 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013 Page 27