HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_01122011 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 January 12, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Jason Brenner
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
26
27 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
28
29 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 16, 2010 and December 20, 2010
30 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve December 16, 2010 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0 with
31 Commissioner Brenner abstaining.
32
33 M/S Whetzel/Helland to approve December 20, 2010 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0 with
34 Commissioner Brenner abstaining.
35
36 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
37 None.
38
39 7. APPEAL PROCESS— N/A
40
41 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE— N/A
42
43 9. OLD BUSINESS—WORKSHOP
44 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop Update. Conduct a public workshop to review and discuss
45 the completed draft of the Downtown Zoning Code including review and possible selection of
46 preferred Downtown Zoning Code design examples and practice exercises using the Downtown
47 Zoning Code with possible recommendation to City Council.
48
49 Commission welcomed new Commissioner, Jason Brenner.
50
51 Staff: Asked the Commission to:
52 • Look at written comments from Holly/Scott Catty and Jessica Pearson requesting prohibition of
53 fast food in the Downtown Zoning Code.
54 • Conduct a workshop, review/discuss the DZC complete draft and provide
55 comments/recommendations for possible further modification(s).
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 1
1 • Consider issues, one of which pertains to regulation of formula fast food restaurants within the
2 DZC boundaries and further look at the advantages/disadvantages of formula business related to
3 the discussion of exclusions that 'Formula businesses shall not include ice cream shops, coffee
4 houses, bakeries, hot dog stands or other businesses whose primary function is not the sale of
5 full meals.' (page 102 of the DZC).
6 • Participate in practice exercises using the Code.
7 • Review and discuss photographic design examples and determine the preferred design themes
8 that should be included as a Design Appendix to the DZC.
9 • Possible recommendation to City Council to adopt the DZC.
10
11 Staff:
12 • Will revise the DZC prior to City Council review
13 • Will prepare the required environmental review for the DZC.
14 • Provided the Commission with two practice exercises using the DZC.
15
16 Commission:
17 • DZC pertains to Downtown area and not Citywide.
18 • DZC provides for a `fair system' particularly regarding the discretionary review process.
19 • DZC is straight-forward relative to design standards.
20 • DZC promotes creating a pedestrian friendly environment.
21 • DZC provides for`streamlined process'while allowing for exceptions from the standards.
22
23 Practice Exercise 1:
24 • 308 East Perkins Street, corner of East Perkins Street and Hospital Drive based on the following
25 scenarios:
26
27 Commission:
28 • Questionable whether the intent is to require two stories throughout and this should likely be
29 clarified. The Feibusch Building in the Downtown has a stacked two story on the back of the
30 building that was built later than the original building. This type of architecture is `odd' in nature
31 and the question is whether this is an acceptable design. Is the intent of a second story to have a
32 full volume? It is not uncommon in other communities to have terraces and outdoor structures on
33 roofs which can theoretically create the potential for a second story.
34 • The exception process allows a person the opportunity to have an `upper deck' without it being
35 treated as an outdoor structure, have a second story with a terrace or roof garden as opposed to
36 being restricted to a full volume second story.
37 • The intent of second stories is to allow the opportunity for mixed use by having a residential use
38 component on the second story and a commercial use on the ground floor.
39
40 Staff:
41 • The intention is for infill and to utilize land efficiently. A one-story building would be inconsistent
42 with this. If the Commission feels that creating the two-story volume within the one-story building
43 with the ability that it could be converted to two-stories, the regulations could be revised to allow
44 this.
45 • This would allow the building to be converted over time to various uses which is consistent with
46 the purpose of this Code. The way to look at this is a volume of space that can be converted
47 overtime and functions as a building while also maximizing efficiency of space.
48 • Advised the DZC has a section that addresses accessory structures that would be allowed on a
49 second story. Usable outdoor structures should not be compared with `actual building volume'
50 because they are not the same concept and the definitions differ.
51
52 Comments regarding Practice Exercise No. 1:
53
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 2
1 Jessica Otto:
2 • Does the DZC provide for an exception for western facing windows and store frontages in terms
3 of reducing cooling requirements/costs and encouraging energy conservation? It is very difficult to
4 block the western sun during the summer months.
5 • Alternatively, is it possible to provide for pedestrian comfort to reduce the glazing requirements
6 for buildings?The Walgreens building has a lot of glazing with few shop front windows.
7
8 Staff: A minor exception is required to modify the glazing percentage. The installation of awnings that
9 function properly is also a requirement. The 70% glazing standard came out of the Charrettes for the
10 Smartcode and determined to be the appropriate amount of glazing over a shop front for good pedestrian
11 orientation and interest relative to creating transparency for buildings.
12
13 Don Larsen: DZC does not reflect new energy requirements that are coming out?
14
15 Staff: Compliance with energy requirements must meet Building Code standards as well as design
16 considerations/standards of the DZC. Are the exterior finish materials listed on page 38 of the DZC
17 sufficient?
18
19 Commission:
20 • The new California energy codes would be the lead concerning the standard requirements for
21 energy conservation as opposed to the DZC.
22 • There was discussion about the building material standards in the Code in terms of possible
23 conflict/compliance with the new California energy/green codes and/or other California standards
24 for buildings. It was noted all buildings must comply with the legal requirements of Title 24, which
25 is probably the monitoring agency concerning compliance with the new energy/green standards
26 for buildings.
27 • The glazing percentage in the Code likely suffices for energy requirements.
28
29 Staff: Does the Commission want to consider a different standard for western facing store fronts? The
30 current requirement is a minimum 70% glazing for store fronts where a minor exception is required to
31 change the percentage.
32
33 Commission:
34 • Heat can be mitigated with the use of awnings and overheads for buildings facing west.
35 • The Commission could consider an addendum concerning the building materials/architectural
36 elements/design aspects in the Code as another layer to be guided by California decisions
37 regarding energy efficiency/green building.
38
39 Staff: All Projects must comply with both the California Building Code and DZC standards, not one or the
40 other and the building materials must comply with the California Building Code.
41
42 Alan Nicholson:
43 • There are some very strict green building codes that have been adopted.
44 • The minimum 70% glazing could be an issue if required on all four sides of a building and that
45 insulation required for buildings adequately address energy efficiency.
46 • Referred to Table 12, Architectural Elements and Materials in connection with the illustrations in
47 the document and use of stone slab, marble, limestone, tile or granite on buildings. These
48 materials are not included in the DZC and have been used traditionally in urban areas for
49 hundreds of years.
50 • Suggested including some of these more traditional materials in the DZC to more appropriately
51 experience the built environment.
52
53
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 3
1 Commission:
2 • Approves of using such quality materials often referred to as heritage materials even though they
3 are more costly. These materials could comprise the entire exterior of a building or be used for
4 accent purposes.
5 • The entire front fa�ade of the Republican building in the Downtown is made of glazed tile, a
6 superior building material that has successfully withstood the test of time.
7 • There are buildings in Ukiah that are made of rock or rock materials. This type of architectural
8 design is not really used anymore.
9 • Consider general `stone' and `glazed tile' categories that encompass a variety of materials. It was
10 noted these materials are natural or synthetic.
11
12 Staff:
13 • The materials for exterior use listed in the Code are likely intended as the primary materials for a
14 building. There are buildings in Ukiah that use tile for accent purposes. What is the Commission's
15 preference in this regard? If a particular material is not on the list, it is prohibited.
16 • If the material is stone, assume it is natural and if not, default to footnote in the materials section
17 that synthetic stone material must be presented in sample form for review.
18
19 Commission: It may be materials not often used for buildings can be an exception.
20
21 Commission consensus:
22 • Add `stained' to Table 12, Materials, balconies, Stoops to read, `concrete, painted or stained
23 wood, or metal.'
24 • Clarify that accessory structures and/or usable outdoor structures typically allowed on second
25 story buildings should not to be identified with other structures that are partial and/or stacked
26 story structures such as a mezzanine on buildings that would require an exception. Accessory
27 structures do not pertain to actual building volume where the intent is to design a building to be
28 able to accommodate two stories if converted over time in order to maintain effective use of
29 space.
30 • Clarify two-story volume in one-story building is allowed if the second floor can be added within
31 the building.
32 • Clarify the two-stories by allowing one-story buildings that can be converted to two-story buildings
33 if they have adequate building height and construction methods.
34 • Add tile and stone to materials list.
35
36 Practice Exercise Example 2
37 • Rainbow Ag, 235 E. Perkins Street
38
39 Commission consensus:
40 • No changes to DZC resulting from the Rainbow Ag exercise.
41
42 Jim Mayfield owner of Rainbow Agriculture:
43 • Liked the Rainbow Ag examples and inquired how the sample exercise might be different if the
44 site involved the expansion of a Starbucks.
45 • Cautions how the DZC legislates development by placing too many building restrictions and
46 restrictions on formula businesses/formula fast food restaurants building that could have an effect
47 on the growth and vibrancy of the community.
48 • Supports allowing the market and/or developer to drive the features for what might be good for
49 the community in terms of economic growth and stability, vitality and educational processes.
50
51 Design Examples:
52
53 Staff: asked the Commission to talk about the pictures they like and why they could be included as
54 examples of good design and form for the DZC.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 4
1 Commission:
2 • It may be that no photographs should be included in the appendix if they are outside of the DZC
3 area.
4 • Since the Design appendix is a product to be used for reference purposes, why not include
5 photos of buildings that are good visual examples of what might be pleasing architecture for the
6 Downtown.
7 • The Commission discussed buildings on School Street that demonstrate an eclectic mix of design
8 and style of the past. The question is if a building were to be changed or replaced should it look
9 like the buildings on this block wherein the Commission were of the opinion they should not.
10 • Acknowledged Triple S Camera shop has a nice entrance and it is located on South School
11 Street.
12 • There was discussion about the former Bank of Italy building that would not be allowed because
13 the frontage of the building is required to be at zero lot line. Originally the windows on the building
14 were full length and the interior was tall. This window style is an example of what the Commission
15 would like to see in the Downtown. There may have been a mezzanine on the back floor, which is
16 common on old office buildings. The building was formerly a one story building and was
17 converted in the 1970s to a two story. Liked the roofline of the former Bank of Italy building.
18 • In order for the design appendix to be effective and representative of the design features desired,
19 more photos are necessary. While examples of historical photos of buildings would be
20 acceptable, the focus should be on the buildings as they currently exist.
21 • The Beverly Fabrics building is not located in the DZC, but is an example of an architecturally
22 pleasing building that would be a good fit in the Downtown.
23 • There was discussion of the Marx building and whether this building is an example of good
24 architecture for Ukiah.
25
26 Staff:
27 • The Commission should decide whether or not they want to have examples of building designs in
28 an appendix.
29 • Staff is of the opinion that visual design examples are important because they will provide
30 guidance and clarity.
31 • The building examples do not necessarily have to be in the Downtown area, but could be any
32 building in the City or elsewhere that represents what the Commission would like to see in the
33 DZC.
34 • If the Commission generally likes the design of a building, these features can be identified as part
35 of the appendix similar to the text provided with the renderings that have already been revised by
36 the Commission.
37 • While pictures of historical buildings would be appropriate, photo examples of new construction
38 are more important.
39 • A new building would have to comply with the Code or request an exception.
40 • Buildings that have a flat roof are required to have a parapet and the DZC addresses the required
41 parapet height. The detail/design of the parapet is up to the applicant.
42
43 Commission consensus:
44 • Former Medico Druq building (corner of State Street and Standley Street) presently a nail salon
45 on the corner of State and Perkins Street. The building is situated nicely on the block wherein the
46 entry is right and the windows are architecturally pleasing.
47 • Patrona, Shoe Flv and Socks, Boutique 120 (Standley Street). These buildings have great
48 storefront presentation and form.
49 • While the Feibusch buildinq (S. School Street and Church Street) has been retrofitted, it has
50 some architectural features the Commission likes, such as the vertical openings. The
51 Commission also identified features on the building they would not like to see on a building.
52 • Former Bank of Italv buildinq (S. School Street and Church Street) showing full length of
53 windows.
54 • The Odd Fellows buildina ( N.State Street).
55 • Former Joseph Jewelrv buildinq (North State Street).
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 5
1 • There are sinale storv buildinqs alonq State Street that have nice facades.
2 • The Commission will continue to work on submitting photos for the Design Appendix for further
3 review.
4
5 Commission Consensus:
6 • Need to revise Table 20: Landmark Trees. There are trees located in around the Pear Tree
7 Center that are actually outside the DZC boundary. Staff will make the appropriate changes.
8
9 Restaurant—Formula Fast Food
10
11 Jessica Otto: Supports the ban on formula fast food restaurants and supports local businesses
12 operating in the Downtown versus formula franchise businesses that may include cafes/coffee shops.
13 Would like to preserve/promote locally owned cafes/coffee shops operating in the Downtown.
14
15 Alan Nicholson:
16 • A lot of time has been spent looking at the visual character of Ukiah in the discussions about the
17 DZC as to design/form of buildings and how to address formula businesses versus locally owned
18 business.
19 • Likes looking at communities having value with regard to originality and strength of character
20 such as Mill Valley, Carmel, and certain areas in Berkeley where buildings may have been former
21 corporate restaurants and cafe/coffee houses and are now privately owned each having their own
22 style and character.
23 • There has been a resurgence of pride in local businesses/economy in Ukiah. It may be that Ukiah
24 either has to allow formula business in or completely ban. It would not be reasonable to allow
25 some formula businesses and not others.
26 • It is not a good idea for the Downtown area to promote Starbucks and Peets coffee, Crispy
27 Cream Donut Shops and other corporate establishments. It is important to be able to create
28 legislation to make a better community for the people who live in Ukiah and not to `feed
29 stockholders' and out-of-town businesses.
30 • The Downtown is a small area when it comes to trying to make a unique community with a strong
31 local character. If a Starbucks were to come into a Victorian looking building, morally this is not
32 helping the community.
33 • Our community is more than the visual character it presents, but rather having to do with our
34 integrity as business people and consumers wherein it is important to be consistent in our
35 legislation to create a local zone where we can take pride in ourselves and the community that
36 has evolved from this pride and creativity. To preserve this pride and creativity, it would be best to
37 keep chain restaurants and formula businesses out of the DZC district.
38
39 Steve Scalmanini: Requested an 'and' be inserted to the language on page 102, Restaurant — Formula
40 Fast Food, subsection A to read, 'Serves food/meals, that re quickly made, of low nutritional value, and
41 inexpensive; and.'
42
43 Commission: There is only one hot dog stand operating in the Downtown and technically it is not a
44 restaurant even though it meets some of the criteria of a restaurant.
45
46 Staff:
47 • This hot dog stand is actually a mobile food vendor.
48 • They only become formula fast food restaurants if they meet the criteria of the DZC as to the
49 three questions, A, B, and C on page 102 concerning formula fast food restaurants. The `Hot Dog
50 stand' is the only business that does not really meet all of the criteria.
51
52 Commissioner Helland: Ukiah General Plan does state that local businesses and development should
53 be promoted and supported. (Policy GP.2)
54
55 Commission Direction:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 6
1 • Delete the exception language for formula fast food restaurants. (3-2)
2 • Ultimately the Council will decide if formula fast food and/or chain businesses should be restricted
3 in the DZC.
4
5 M/S Helland/Whetzel to recommend Council review and approve the draft DZC document with the
6 modifications made above. Motion carried (5-0).
7
8 Senior Planner Jordan was highly praised for her excellent work on formulating the DZC for Ukiah's
9 Downtown area.
10
11 10. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
12 Planning Director Stump reported as follows:
13 1. The UVAP document is out for public review and comment. A hard copy of this document is
14 available to the Commission.
15 2. The Planning and Building Department has been monitoring its planning and building permit
16 process and the results are favorable with the improvements and modifications being made.
17 3. It may be that the regular January 26, 2011 Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled.
18 4. Is on third review of the Housing Element with the HDC. The document will go to Council once it
19 is certifiable.
20 5. Relocation of the Courthouse project is progressing with various activities occurring in a joint
21 effort with the State and County.
22 6. The City is working closely with LAFCO concerning moving the Municipal Service Review forward
23 in joint partnership with LAFCO in connection with a potential amendment to the Sphere of
24 Influence. The Commission will have the opportunity to participate in the Sphere of Influence
25 discussions.
26 7. Senior Planner Jordan and Associate Planner Faso are working on revisions to the Subdivision
27 Ordinance. The Planning Commission will review the negative declaration for this document when
28 it is complete.
29 8. The Solar Living Institute continues to operate a successful program for students interested in
30 solar voltaic installation.
31 9. The City is addressing and strategizing about the possibility that the State may once again take
32 redevelopment money for this fiscal year.
33
34 Chair Pruden:
35 • Understands the FEMA flood plain map is to be updated in and around the railroad area, noting
36 this certified document dates back to 1983.
37 • Inquired if the update will provide for a new certified document that is legally usable. This could
38 be of assistance to affected property owners by possibly lowering premiums or requiring no flood
39 insurance.
40
41 Staff: The revised document will be usable. The original topography information used to create those
42 early 80s FEMA Flood Plain Maps contains an error wherein these maps will be abandoned. It is
43 important these maps are accurate, particularly if this area becomes the prime site for relocation of the
44 Courthouse.
45
46 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
47 Commission Whetzel: The work and discussions on the DZC have gone well and handled in a very
48 professional manner. Thanked staff for all the work put into making the document a reality.
49
50 Commissioner Helland: The DZC document is excellent. Invited the Commission, staff, and public to
51 attend an early breakfast event on January 21 S� regarding `healthy food retail zoning' to include a menu of
52 egg strata, blueberry coffee cake, fresh fruit, coffee and juice and for those interested she has more
53 information.
54
55 Chair Pruden: Recommended the Tree Group work on revising the City's Master Tree List.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 7
1 Commissioner Brenner is pleased to be serving on the Planning Commission.
2
3 12. ADJOURNMENT
4 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
5
6
7 Judy Pruden, Chair
8
9 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
10
11
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 8
1 308 East Perkins Street
2 Corner of East Perkins Street and Hospital Drive
3
4 Site: Vacant with 2 almond trees, 1 locust tree, and 5 coast redwood trees measuring 6"
5 DBH to 24"DBH along Hospital Drive (see handout)
6 Parcel Size: 1.5 acres
7 Project: Develop site with a one-story 14,500 square foot building and associated site
8 improvements
9 Use: To be determined
10 Parking: Open, surface parking lot
11
# uestion Answer Note
1 What is the zoning? Urban Center Page 9, Zoning Map
2 How are the uses Table 3 Pages 13-15
determined?
3 Select uses for the purposes Include drive-thru?
of th is exercise.
What building types are Courtyard Page 26, Table 4
4 allowed? Side yard Page 27, Table 5
Rear yard
Do the lot standards apply? No - an existing parcel and Page 26
5 no subdivision or BLA is Block perimeter also does
proposed. not apply
6 Where is the frontage line of Hospital Drive and Page 30, Building Setbacks
the parcel? Perkins Street Page 96, Glossary
� Where does the building At the front property line Page 28, Table 6
have to be located? 0 ft. setback
Are the trees on the site Protected- coast redwood Page 61, Table 19
g protected? 12"DBH or greater Building needs to be located
where the trees are location
on Hospital Drive
Can the trees be removed? Tree removal has to be Page 57, Section
approved as part of project 10.030(C1-4)
9 review. Page 57, Section
An arborist report is 10.030(C3)
required.
Do protected trees have to Yes. Page 58, Section 10.030(E1)
be replaced if removed? Number and location
10 determined by conditions of
approval and mitigation
measures.
ll Is a one-story building No Page 28, Table 6
allowed? Major Exception required
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 9
# uestion Answer Note
12 How much of the frontage Depends on building type Page 28, Table 6
has to be "built"?
Is a storefront required? No Page 73
13 Storefront is Recommended Special Designations Map
14 what frontage types are Page 28, Table 6 Page 31, Table 8
allowed?
Where is the primary At the corner Page 37, Tablell
15 entrance required to be
located?
How much of the ground 70%minimum Page 37, Table 11
16 floor fa�ade is required to
be glazing?
1� What is the required Vertical or square Page 38, Table 12
window orientation?
1 g What are the allowed Stucco, brick, wood or fiber Page 38, Table 12
building materials? cement
19 Type of permit required? Site Development Permit Page 88, Table 27
20 Who is the approval Zoning Administrator Page 88, Table 27
authority?
How is the number of Page 49, Table 14 Page 50, Table 15 would
21 parking spaces determined? reduce the number for
mixed use projects
22 Is excess parking allowed? No Page 51, Section 9.050
Major Exception Required
23 Where is parking required to Depends on the building Page 54, Table 18
be located? type
24 What type of street trees can Determined by Table 21 Page 63
be planted? Required Street Trees
25 What type of parking lot Determined by Table 24 Page 66
trees can be planted?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 10
1 Rainbow Ag
2 235 East Perkins
3 APN: 002-231-23
4
5 Existing Development and Uses:
6 ■ Retail building(feed store and farm supply) fronts on East Perkins Street
7 ■ Building to the rear of the retail building used for the repair of agricultural equipment
8 ■ Outdoor sales and rental of agricultural equipment (Use Permit 90-76)
9 ■ Structure for the storage of animal feed products
10 Proposed:
11 ■ Expand the feed store and farm supply by adding onto the existing farm supply and feed
12 store building. Addition would be 5,000 square feet, located at the rear of the building,
13 and be the same height as the existing building.
14 ■ Build a new 3,000 square foot building to house part of the agricultural equipment and
15 increase the overall area of the agricultural sales, rental, and service area.
16
# uestion Answer Note
1 What is the zoning? Urban Center(UC) Page 9, Zoning Map
2 What are the allowed uses? Feed store—A as general Use Permit for farm
Feed store, farm equipment retail equipment repair 90-76
repair, etc. Ag equipment sales, rental—
P
3 Can the feed store and farm Yes Page 14, Table 3
supply use be expanded? An allowed use under Pages 95, 96 Glossary
General Retail
4 Can an addition to the Yes incompliance with code Page 88, Table 27
existing retail building be requirements & a site
constructed for the development permit -ZA
expansion in#3?
5 Can the agricultural Yes with approval of a Page 83, Section
equipment sales and rental Major Use Permit for 12.130(C1) for expansion
use be expanded expansion of a non- w/o building
■ as outdoor conforming use. Page 83, Section
sales/rental? New building requires site 12.130(C2) for expansion
■ w/a building? development permit—ZA. w/building
Page 88, Table 27
6 Who is the approval Planning Commission will Page 82
authority for this project? review all entitlements Section 12.100: Concurrent
Permits
7 What is the block Unknown Exceeds the minimum
perimeter? Does not apply since no the allowed by Table 4, Page 26
project does not include a
street extension or
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 11
# uestion Answer Note
subdivision.
8 What is the building type? Edge yard/other This building type is
due to front setback prohibited
Page 26 and 27
9 What is the frontage type of Gallery Page 31, Table 8
the existing retail building?
10 Is this frontage type Yes Page 28, Table 6
allowed?
11 What building height is 2-3 stories Page 28, Table 6
required for the addition? Or Major Exception
Since over 1,000 sf
12 What setbacks are required As required by Code since Page 28, Table 6
for the addition? the addition exceeds 1,000
sf
13 Where does the parking Not in first or second layer Page 53, Table 17
have to be located? Or Major Exception Page 54, Table 18
14 Does the existing parking No Page 53, Table 17
lot have to comply with
parking lot design
standards?
15 Does the expansion of the Yes Page 53, Table 17
parking lot have to comply
with the parking design
standards?
1
2
3
4
5
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 12, 2011
Page 12