HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_05252011 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 May 25, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Mike Whetzel
8 Jason Brenner
9 Linda Helland
10 Linda Sanders
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
19 Chair Pruden at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23
24 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
25
26 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 13, 2011 �April 27, 2011
27
28 Commissioner Helland made the following changes to the April 13 minutes:
29
30 Page 5, Line 22, sentence modified to read, `While some development is necessary to address growth,
31 that growth must be directed to already developed areas.'
32
33 Page 5, Line 25, sentence modified to read, `It is important with good planning that resources are
34 conserved, that economics are best served by using infill areas when possible and/or existing developed
35 areas, and that consideration be given to density, which can have direct environmental benefits.'
36
37 Page 10, Line 39, sentence modified to read, `While 25% of designated area for circulation and rights-of-
38 way is standard, consider a breakdown of these components specifying a certain percentage for non-
39 motorized circulation.'
40
41 Commissioner Whetzel requested all references to `EDR' be modified to read, `DDR.'
42
43 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve April 13, 2011 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0) with Chair
44 Pruden abstaining.
45
46 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve April 27, 2011 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (4-0) with Chair
47 Pruden abstaining
48
49 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
50
51 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
52 the final date to appeal is June 6, 2011.
53
54 7. OLD BUSINESS
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 1
1 7A. Guillon Sign Program: 09-31-UP-PC. Conduct a public hearing for the request for approval of
2 the sign program required as part of the Guillon Use Permit for new commercial development at
3 1230 Airport Park Blvd., APN 180-080-78.
4
5 Site visit agenda item 7A was verified.
6 Agenda item 7A was properly noticed in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
7
8 Senior Planner Jordan presented a staff report concerning the Sign Program prepared for 1230 Airport
9 Park Boulevard and asked the Commission to consider:
10
11 Citv Siqn Ordinance and AIP PD for siqnaqe
12 • Approval of the Sign Program for the project is required as a Condition of Approval of the Use
13 Permit approved last year.
14 • The subject parcel for the project is located in the Airport Industrial Park (AIP) that is zoned
15 Planned Development(PD)whereby the sign programs are required for projects.
16 • Since the project is zoned AIP PD, the AIP Ordinance regulations apply to this sign program. The
17 AIP Ordinance states that the size and amount of signs shall generally comply with the
18 requirements of the City Sign Ordinance.
19 • The AIP Ordinance allows the Commission through discretion review to increase or reduce the
20 size and amount of signs to something other than permitted by the UMC if they make a finding
21 that the proposed size and amount of signage is not out of scale with the building and/or too
22 dominate for the site.
23 • Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report is staff's analysis of the proposed `Sign Program' for the project
24 as it relates to the applicable sign regulations of the City Sign Ordinance and the AIP PD
25 ordinance.
26 • Based on the linear parcel frontage, the site is allowed 300 sf of sign area by the Sign Ordinance.
27 The proposed building mounted signs plus the monument sign exceed this square footage.
28 • In staff's opinion, it is unlikely that any tenant would utilize all of the sign area allotted by the `sign
29 band' identified on page 4.0 in the sign program and supports focusing on the location and quality
30 of signage rather than sign area. This appears to have been the approach taken for the sign
31 program for Park Falls Plaza to the south and for the project immediately to the north.
32 • Also, at some future time the front portion (phase 2) of the site will be developed and since the
33 building elevations and orientation are not yet known, it is not possible to know the amount of sign
34 area or location of the signage, this issue is addressed in Condition of Approval No. 5. The Sign
35 Program will have to be amended with the development of phase 2.
36
37 Other Sianaae issues
38 • Window signs are proposed as part of the sign program. The City Sign Ordinance allows for no
39 more than 25% of the sign area to be covered by window signs. Staff recommends the Sign
40 Program use the same percentage or another percentage if Planning Commission wishes and
41 treat window signs the same as they are treated in other areas.
42 • Window graphics are also proposed which are considered `temporary signs' and require City
43 approval of a banner permit. Staff is recommending the Sign Program be amended to indicate
44 that if one of the tenants wants to have a temporary sign, he/she must apply for a banner permit.
45 • Staff recommends that section of the Sign Program related to `Prohibited Signs' on page 1.0 of
46 the Sign Program be amended to reference the City's Sign Ordinance so that tenants are clear
47 what types of signs are prohibited.
48 • Staff recommends the section of the Sign Program related to `City of Ukiah Approval' on page 1.1
49 of the Sign Program be revised to also refer to the requirement for a Sign Permit from the City.
50 • Staff recommends to removal of `Substitution/Variance on page 1.1 of the Sign Program because
51 it is too subjective and open to interpretation. This has been includes as Condition of Approval
52 3(d).
53 • The Sign Program does not address `Trademark logos' and staff supports this provision be
54 added.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 2
1 Commissioner Sanders: Asked for clarification about sign programs because it appears a new sign
2 program has to be formulated for each development in the AIP PD.
3
4 Staff: The purpose of a Sign Program for a site is to design a program that is appropriate for that
5 particular site and the buildings that are developed on the site including the allowable signs and sign area
6 related to that site. Information includes materials, location and design of the allowed signs. As tenants
7 change over time the same rules will apply. A sign program provides that better look and feel over time.
8
9 Commissioner Helland: Noted an error on page 10, line 7 of the staff report pertains to `Condition of
10 Approval' rather than `Findings'for the project.
11
12 Chair Pruden:
13 Q1. Requested clarification as to the number of tenants for phase 1. The monument sign on page 3.0
14 of the Sign Programs shows Sears plus 4 tenants.
15 Q2. Requested clarification the 300 sf of allowed sign area is at buildout or just for phase I.
16
17 Staff:
18 Q1. The sign contractor for the project should respond to this question. Not every tenant can be listed
19 on the monument sign.
20 Q2. The 300 sf of sing area is for all signs on the site and would include phases 1 and 2.
21
22 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:20 p.m.
23
24 Butch Bainbridge— Paramount Signs, Contractor for Sign Program:
25 • Referred to pages 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 of Sign Program document and noted these pages address
26 what is allowed.
27 • The Sign Program for the site is a way to keep tenants informed about signage as tenants
28 change.
29 • Addressed the issue for compliance of square footage allowed for signage on the site, and noted
30 the verbage associated with 55 sf for the monument sign is not accurate as originally presented
31 to staff for the purpose of the sign regulations analysis.
32 • When calculating the sf for the monument sign worked from the Sign Ordinance that sets the
33 standards for compliance how sign area is calculated. Based on this, the sign area is 21 sf as
34 opposed to 55 sf.
35 • The revised monument square footage puts the project in compliance with the 300 sf of sign area
36 based on the linear parcel frontage.
37 • The intent was to keep the monument at an 8-foot height which the Planning Commission has
38 established as the standard height for monument signs in the AIP.
39 • The number of tenants displayed on the monument sign will likely be no more than six. It is
40 essentially the landlord's decision how many tenants will be listed on the monument sign and is
41 typically not a `tenant right.'
42 • Regarding the sign regulation standard of 1'/z sf of sign area per linear foot of parcel frontage, the
43 property located to the north allows for 1'/z sf per tenant on both elevations and not split the 1'/�
44 per elevation.
45 • In terms of sign area and compliance with the Sign Ordinance regulations, it is not uncommon for
46 visibility of the signage to play a role. For instance, regarding the property to the north, the
47 elevation facing west is only visible from the parking lot and not the street so the scale of sign
48 area is really more proportional to the building frontage rather than to street frontage.
49 • The magic of signage is really about the scale of sign area such that the end result is
50 proportionately appropriate for the building.
51 • Referenced page 4.0 of the Sign Program for the east elevation and noted the approach for this
52 building was to design the signage according to what looks `righY on the building and still
53 generally complies with the Sign Ordinance regulations. The intent for the Guillon sign project
54 was to design the tenant signs so that the size and shape to fit the building to have an
55 architecturally pleasing look and feel while generally complying with the Sign Ordinance.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 3
1 Commissioner Brenner: Inquired about the procedure concerning future signage for the site.
2
3 Staff: Any sign proposed for the building must conform to the approved Sign Program.
4
5 Lisa Mammina: Supports the City Sign Ordinance be revised to more effectively work with the Sign
6 Programs for projects as there appears to be loopholes making the process easier for staff and the
7 applicant by allowing applicants and staff the ability to effectively process Sign Program applications for
8 buildings without having to address exceptions and/or other issues so that the final product complies with
9 the Sign Ordinance, is of quality design and aesthetically complements the building.
10
11 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:33 p.m.
12
13 Chair Pruden:
14 • The AIP PD has some of the best looking signs in Ukiah.
15 • The monument signs for projects in the AIP were `kept low to the ground' are well designed and
16 are clearly visible from a vehicle.
17 • The developments on the east side of the AIP do not have monument signs. Is of the opinion the
18 signage on the buildings are too large. It is not necessary to have large lettering for signage on
19 buildings particularly for business establishments that are well known because everyone knows
20 where the business is located.
21 • The Planning Commission essentially established a minimum 8-foot height standard for
22 monument signs in the AIP that has been effective and works for the businesses. Examples of
23 the different monument signs for projects were cited for comparison purposes.
24 • The best approach is to address the signage for developments case-by-case.
25
26 There was discussion that the project is within the sf of sign area allowed with the recalculation of sign
27 area so this is no longer an issue.
28
29 Staff:
30 • The signage as presented on page. 4.0 of the Sign Program is within the sf allowed but may not
31 be with window graphic signs because it is not known how much sf they could take over.
32 • It is necessary to determine what type of signage would be allowed in terms of window graphic
33 signs.
34
35 Commissioner Brenner:
36 • With regard to the popular application of graphic designs for signs, such signs have become so
37 much more than just signs, but rather part of the graphic art of the building and supports allowing
38 for some flexibility in this regard, which could be extended to include window signage.
39 • Supports having a Sign Program in place for projects in the AIP PD so that the process of
40 reviewing signage can be expedited without having to be evaluated each time by the Planning
41 Commission.
42 • Is of the opinion that requiring a banner permit for `window graphic' signage is too restrictive and
43 they should be exempt from review or permit. Window graphic signs can be creatively designed
44 and architecturally pleasing.
45 • Supports allowing for more graphic flexibility/freedom with regard to graphic signage.
46
47 Staff:
48 • From a planning perspective, a sign is either permanent or temporary.
49 • Staff receives more complaints about signage than any other code compliance matter.
50 • Asked for clarification about potentially reducing the restrictions for temporary signs and whether
51 the recommendation is for this project or projects in general.
52 • How should signage for sales and promotions be handled? Does the Commission agree with the
53 proposed Sign Program for the project?
54
55 Commissioner Brenner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 4
1 • Temporary signs for windows should be less restrictive in general.
2 • Does not favor having a 30-day maximum for temporary signs or requiring 25% coverage
3 maximum for window signs because business owners are `smart' enough to tell what is or is not
4 going to work in terms of such signage.
5 • Likes the concept of graphic signs.
6
7 There was Commission discussion about temporary window signage for sales and promotional purposes
8 versus permanent graphic signs.
9
10 Commissioner Sanders:
11 • Is not supportive of having signs 'everywhere' but on the other hand does not want to restrict the
12 business from making money.
13 • Favors having some sort of guidelines/restrictions for signage that includes window signage.
14
15 Commissioner Whetzel: Favors allowing for some flexibility with regard to window signage and/or
16 permanent window graphic signs. Signage for businesses should be self-regulating.
17
18 Chair Pruden:
19 • Some businesses overcompensate with window signage and therefore, some regulation is
20 necessary.
21 • Does not have a problem with window signs for advertisement of sales and promotional items in
22 place of the more permanent graphic signs as most sales/promotionals do not last longer than 30
23 days.
24 • Supports maintaining 75% window space by requiring a 25% maximum coverage and 30-day
25 maximum for temporary signs.
26
27 Commissioner Whetzel: The Sears project is not a restaurant that typically tends to over-compensate
28 with window signage, but rather is a retail establishment that understands what is or is not necessary
29 and/or appropriate with regard to window signage.
30
31 Commissioner Helland:
32 • The applicants clearly know what they are doing for signage and would use window signs that are
33 tasteful and comply with the Sign Ordinance requirements.
34 • Does support maintaining the provisions of the Sign Ordinance requiring 25% coverage maximum
35 for window signs and the 30-day maximum for temporary signs.
36
37 Commission consensus:
38 • Sign Program is appropriate for the site.
39 • Signs are of quality and in appropriate size and proportion with the building.
40 • Supports allowing for neon `open' signs.
41 • Supports allowing `trademarked corporate logos as part of the Sign Program.
42 • Supports the Sign Program as proposed.
43
44 M/S Whetzel/Helland to approve Guillon Sign Program: 09-31-UP-PC with Findings 1-4 and Conditions
45 of Approval 1-10 with the addition of subsections `g' and 'h' for Condition of Approval No 3 allowing for
46 Neon open sign and trademark logo to the Sign Program for the project. Motion carried (5-0).
47
48 SITE DEVELOPEMNT PERMIT FINDINGS TO APPROVE A SIGN PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY THE
49 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
50 1230 AIPRORT PARK BOULEVARD, APN 180-080-78
51
52 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
53 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
54
55 1. See"General Plan" under staff analysis above.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 5
1
2 2. The proposed sign program will be ancillary to a commercial/retail use that is consistent with the
3 uses allowed in the Airport Park Industrial Planning Development.
4
5 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the following specific findings required
6 pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9263(E) in order to approve a site development permit.
7
8 a. A new commercial building is currently being constructed at the project site. The new wall
9 signs would be located on the north, south and east elevations of 1230 Airport Park Blvd.
10 The proposed sign program would not change the approved footprint of the building.
11 Therefore the project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian
12 traffic pattern. The sign program would identify the tenants resulting in convenience for
13 vehicles and pedestrians looking for the store.
14 b. The approved landscaping plan would not be changed as a result of the sign program.
15 The monument sign would be located within the landscaping area located at the front of
16 the site (northeast) resulting in the removal in a small amount of ground cover. However,
17 the project is still required to comply with the approved landscaping plan and landscaping
18 requirements, including the lot coverage requirement.
19 c. The proposed signs would be attached to the east, north and south buildings elevations
20 and the monument sign is located at the front of the site and limited is size and height. As
21 such, there would be no change to the approved architecture/footprint of the building and
22 the sigs would not restrict or cut out light and air on the property or on adjacent properties
23 nor hinder the development or future use of commercial buildings in the neighborhood.
24 d. The site is not located in or adjacent to a residential zoning district.
25 e. The site is located in a commercial /retail area developed with a commercial building,
26 landscaping and parking area. No water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat, floodway or
27 flood plain or other environmentally sensitive areas are present.
28 f. The proposed sign program would be compatible in design, scale, and proportion to the
29 building, materials and architecture.
30
31 4. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
32 Section 15311, Class 11 Accessory Structures, which allows the construction of minor structure
33 accessory to existing commercial facilities this includes on-premise signs based on the following
34 a. The proposed Sign Program is related to a new signs on the site and will not change the
35 approved land use of the property.
36 b. The proposed Sign Program is ancillary to the commercial/retail use of the building.
37 c. The location is not environmentally sensitive and there is no habitat on the site, no trees,
38 and no drainage courses or bodies of water(such as creeks or streams).
39
40 SITE DEVELOPEMNT PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO APPROVE A SIGN PROGRAM AS
41 REQUIRED BY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
42 1230 AIPRORT PARK BOULEVARD, APN 180-080-78
43
44 1. Approval is granted to approve a Sign Program for 1230 Airport Park Boulevard Ukiah as shown
45 on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 26, 2011, except as
46 modified by the following condition of approval.
47
48 From the Planninq Department
49
50 2. Prior to installation of any sign (wall and/or window sign), application for and approval of a
51 sign permit from the Planning and Community Development Department is required.
52
53 3. The sign program shall be revised as follows and is subject to staff review and approval:
54
55 a. Include a reference to the City of Ukiah Sign Ordinance section on prohibited signs.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 6
1 b. Include a separate section on Temporary Signs and the requirement to obtain a banner
2 permit from the City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development department.
3 c. Include a reference to the requirement for a Sign Permit from the Planning and Community
4 Development Department.
5 d. Delete the Substitution/Variance section.
6 e. Revise sign program to include landlord approval prior to city review of sign permit.
7 f. Include examples of the various letters and lighting types that are allowed by the sign
8 program. This will provide clarity to tenants and staff.
9 g. Trademarked corporate logos are allowed as part of the sign program.
10 h. Neon open signs are allowed as part of the sign program.
11
12 4. The Use Permit/Site Development Permit required for the development of Phase 2 of the site
13 shall include a revision to this sign program. The revised sign program shall include the signs for
14 phase 2 of the project.
15
16 5. The signs for phase 2 shall be compatible and consistent with the signage established as part of
17 this sign program (including but not limited to the amount of sign area, the design of signs, etc.).
18 The revised sign program is subject to Planning Commission review and approval.
19
20 From the Building Official (David Willouqhby)
21
22 6. Sign Permit and Building Permit approval is required prior to sign installation.
23
24 Standard Requirements
25 7. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
26 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
27 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
28 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
29 and issued.
30
31 8. The approved Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if
32 the approved project related to the Site Development Permit is not being conducted in
33 compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established
34 within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established land use for which the
35 permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty four(24) consecutive months.
36
37 9. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
38 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
39
40 10. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their
41 agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its
42 agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or
43 proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to
44 attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include,
45 but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may
46 be asserted by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with
47 the City's action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active
48 negligence on the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification
49 agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
50 remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
51
52 8. NEW BUSINESS
53 8A. Tasting Room Use Permit: 11-03-UP-PC. Conduct a public hearing for a request for Planning
54 Commission approval of a Major Use Permit for a Wine Tasting Room at 106 West Church
55 Street, APN 002-226-08.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 7
1 Site visit for agenda item 8A was verified.
2
3 Agenda item 8A was properly noticed in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
4
5 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report.
6 • Clarified the project is a Wine Tasting Room where there would be the sale of wines and other
7 locally made products. The wine tasting room will not function as a bar.
8 • Outdoor seating can be allowed as part of this use permit and will require an application for and
9 approval of encroachment permit from the City Public Works Department.
10 • Staff including the Police Department has some concerns as to the proposed location of the
11 outdoor seating area since it is not located in an area that can be viewed from the tasting room
12 and there may not be adequate space to provide the seating envisioned by the applicant and
13 meet the ADA access requirements.
14 • The Police Department has reviewed the project and draft conditions of approval have been
15 included to address their concerns:
16 ➢ Outdoor seating —No alcohol consumption shall be permitted outside the tasting room.
17 ➢ Special Events/Live Entertainment — No live entertainment. Concern special events will
18 lead to the space being used for special events will function as an open bar to the public.
19
20 Commission: Clarified that no matter what the Commission approves, the applicant must be able to
21 make the outdoor seating area ADA compliant.
22
23 Staff: The rule is there must be five feet of sidewalk clearance.
24
25 Commissioner Whetzel: Inquired whether the rule applies if the sidewalk does not comply with the
26 current standard width for sidewalks.
27
28 Staff: Yes, this was planning staff's understanding.
29
30 It was noted outdoor seating is proposed on the sidewalk to the east of the tasting room.
31
32 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:52 p.m.
33
34 Darcie Antle:
35 • Provided an overview of her project and welcomes questions/comments from the Commission
36 and public.
37 • Explained the tasting room would be open daily from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. with the exception of
38 being closed Tuesday and Wednesday.
39 • No live entertainment is allowed and while no proposal for live entertainment was included on the
40 use permit, applicant is hopeful an occasional person playing the flute is acceptable.
41
42 Commission:
43 • Appreciates the layout of the wine tasting room.
44 • Expressed concerned about the ADA compliance requirement on Church Street.
45 • Suggested the applicant contact the property owner of the McKinley building across the street to
46 see if there is a possibility of having outdoor seating in the open courtyard area.
47
48 Lisa Mammina:
49 • Likes the project.
50 • Would be an amenity to the Downtown.
51 • It was her observation that the sidewalk width at 106 West Church was same as across the street
52 where Oco Time is located.
53 • Would like to be able to consume wine outdoors and inquired why Patrona's patrons are allowed
54 to consume alcohol outdoors.
55 • Would like to see low impact live entertainment allowed for the project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 8
1
2 Chair Pruden: Regardless of the sidewalk width, if the applicant can make the sidewalk clearance this is
3 not an issue.
4
5 Staff:
6 • Regarding compliance with ADA access regulations, Condition of Approval No. 15 allows for
7 outdoor seating provided the applicant submits an application for an encroachment permit and it
8 is approved.
9 • Regarding allowing the consumption of alcohol outdoors, this was a Police Department concern.
10 The project is a tasting room and unlike Patrona's is not a bar in conjunction with a restaurant.
11 The difference has to do with the type of licensing from ABC and this is the reason the Police
12 Department looks at the functions of the two establishments differently.
13
14 Katherine Elliott:
15 • Is the owner of the building
16 • Supports the project.
17 • Business would a good draw for the Downtown.
18 • Suggested other possible outdoor seating areas located near the wine tasting room.
19
20 Les Marston:
21 • Is a property owner in the vicinity of the project.
22 • Is highly supportive of having a wine tasting room in the Downtown.
23 • The property owner and applicant are the kind of person who would go out of their way to do a
24 nice project and is hopeful the Commission will support approval.
25 • Noted the City Zoning Administrator approved a similar use for `Tierra' a few years ago in the
26 Downtown that is close in proximity to residential areas and within two blocks of a child daycare
27 facility unlike the proposed project.
28 • The way in which staff has presented the project, outdoor seating is allowed provided the
29 applicant can comply with ADA requirements.
30 • Would like to be able to sit outside with a class of wine from an establishment that is not a
31 restaurant in an atmosphere where people or friends meet and have a good time.
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:08 p.m.
34
35 Staff:
36 • Applicant did not express an interest in having live entertainment.
37 • The Police Department has had problems in the past with local establishments having live
38 entertainment and eventually became an enforcement issue.
39 • Should discuss the matter of allowing live entertainment if the applicant has expressed an
40 interest. Need to keep that the use permit runs with the land and that someone else could inherit
41 the use permit and would be allowed to have live entertainment.
42 • Noted purchasing wine by the bottle for off-site consumption is allowed and should be included in
43 the project conditions.
44 • The Police Department indicated that alcohol consumption outdoors is prohibited by City
45 Ordinance.
46
47 Commission:
48 • It is likely the applicant would be involved in such special events as `The Taste of the Downtown,'
49 `Pumpkinfest,'the 'annual car show,' and other events that occur throughout the year.
50 • There was discussion concerning whether or not some type of live music should be a
51 consideration.
52 • There were questions about special events, what they involve, and how many times a month they
53 should be limited to.
54 • There were questions about hours of operation when the wine tasting room would be open to the
55 public.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 9
1 • There were questions about when the tasting room is closed and the business owner having the
2 discretion/opportunity to conduct wine classes or other private educational meetings/classes and
3 what the hours should be.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 7:15 p.m.
6
7 Darcie Antle:
8 • Some of the special events would be community oriented. The `other three times a month' special
9 events could include a private educational wine tasting event in the evening when the business is
10 closed.
11 • There is really no space for live music entertainment. At best, having an occasional person play
12 the flute would suffice and would propose allowing for one or two performers that would play
13 instruments that are non-amplified.
14
15 Commission:
16 • Discussed hours of operation when the business would be open and noted if the applicant is
17 hosting a special event for the public, the hours of operation could be extended by obtaining a
18 Special Events Permit as provided for in Condition of Approval No. 5.
19 • Understands the Use Permit runs with the property and not the business so if the business does
20 not make it, it is unlikely the business could not replaced by a bar.
21 • Recommended the number of events be increased from three to four.
22
23 Darcie Antle:
24 • Supports having non-amplified live music with no more than three performers.
25 • Open to increasing the number of special events from three to four that could include private
26 educational wine classes or other similar activity, but any more than this would be too many.
27
28 There was Commission discussion about the applicant being able to meet ADA requirements with regard
29 to the outdoor seating.
30
31 Staff: If the applicant can design a seating arrangement that meets ADA requirements there is no issue
32 and she is `good to go.'
33
34 There was Commission discussion whether Condition of Approval No. 6 should read, `Special events or
35 classes' ............' such that special events are considered separate from classes wherein special events
36 are limited to four times a month and classes are unlimited as to number.
37
38 Commissioner Brenner: Supports the concept that special events should be viewed as such and that
39 classes are not viewed as special events.
40
41 Staff:
42 • Agreed classes and special events are different.
43 • The Police DepartmenYs concern would be with special events and not classes.
44 • The conditions of approval allow the business to be open on Tuesday and Wednesday. This
45 would include classes and special events as allowed by the Commission.
46
47 There was continued discussion about ABC liquor licensing noting the licensing for Bars and restaurants
48 and tasting rooms differ.
49
50 Commissioner Helland: While she likes the project noting it to be tastefully done, commented from a
51 health-person perspective it is a fact that alcohol consumption and sales are statistically associated with
52 crime, violence, child abuse, DUIs, etc. The studies conducted in this regard do not necessarily
53 categorize as to whether `on' or 'off' sale of alcohol is more detrimental than the other in terms of
54 compromising health.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 10
1 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:23 p.m.
2
3 Commission consensus:
4 • Agrees with the `Determination of Appropriate Use' made by the Planning Director.
5 • Comments/changes to the project conditions:
6 - The hours of operation for the tasting room shall remain the same as conditioned.
7 - Special events will be limited to four times per month rather than three times per month.
8 - Classes should not be viewed as special events.
9 - Strike 'entertainment is not allowed' in Condition of Approval No. 6.
10 - Add a condition that music shall be limited to no more than a trio of musicians with non-
11 amplified music and strike live entertainment is not allowed.
12 - Modify the condition that states, `Wine by the bottle may be purchased for onsite
13 consumption in conjunction with a wine pairing class or similar evenY and add the language,
14 `or for off-site consumption.'
15 • Supports approval of the project.
16
17 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve Tasting Room Use Permit 11-03-UP-PC with Findings 1-9 and
18 Conditions of Approval 1-26 as modified above. Motion carried (5-0).
19
20 USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
21 A WINE TASTING ROOM
22 106 WEST CHURCH STREET, APN 002-226-08
23 FILE NO: 11-03-UP-PC
24
25 1. The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
26 the application materials and documentation, and the public record.
27 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
28 Plan as described in the staff report and Table 1.
29 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in
30 Table 2 of the staff report.
31 4. The proposed use is allowed with a use permit based on the Determination of Appropriate Use
32 made by the Planning Director as allowed by zoning ordinance section 9088.
33 5. The subject parcel is located within the Downtown Parking District No. 1 therefore is not subject
34 to the C-1 zoning district parking standards.
35 6. The project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding uses based on the following:
36 A. The proposed tasting room is surrounded by other commercial uses that include
37 restaurant and retail uses.
38 B. The hours or operation and level of activity for restaurants and retail stores are similar to
39 the hours of operation and activity level for tasting rooms.
40 C. The tasting room will provide an attraction to the downtown and promote local business.
41
42 7. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general
43 welfare based on the following:
44
45 A. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building Official,
46 and Public Works any comments received have been included as conditions of approval.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 11
1 B. The project is required to comply with all federal, state and local laws. The applicant has
2 provided information as to compliance with applicable requirements.
3 C. Applicant has applied for and is working with California ABC for an alcohol license.
4
5 8. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
6 (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c), New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures,
7 which allows structures up to 10,000 square feet in urbanized areas when the use does not
8 involve significant amounts of hazardous materials, where all necessary public services and
9 facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive based on the
10 following:
11
12 A. The total building square footage is 582 square feet.
13 B. The business does not use large amounts of hazardous materials.
14 C. The location is not environmentally sensitive and no drainage courses or bodies of water
15 (such as creeks or streams).
16 D. The site is developed with an existing building which will be used as a wine tasting room
17 utilities and services already are available at the site and no expansion of the existing
18 buildings are proposed as part of the project.
19
20 9. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning
21 Ordinance:
22
23 A. posted in three places on the project site on May 13, 2011;
24 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on May 13, 2011;
25 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on May 15, 2011;
26
27 USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
28 A WINE TASTING ROOM
29 106 WEST CHURCH STREET, APN 002-226-08
30 FILE NO: 11-03-UP-PC
31
32 1. Approval is granted for operation of a Wine Tasting Room at 106 West Church Street as
33 described in the project description and shown on the plans submitted to the Community
34 Development and Planning Department and date stamped March 25, 2011, except as modified
35 by the following conditions of approval.
36
37 2. This use permit is granted for the approval of a wine tasting room and at no time shall it operate
38 as a bar.
39
40 3. The hours of operation for the tasting room shall be Sunday through Thursday from 11:00 a.m. to
41 9:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
42 4. The Planning Director may approve extended hours to coincide with special events that occur in
43 the downtown when requested in writing by the applicant at least 30 days prior to the event. The
44 Planning Director and Police Department have the authority to require condition of approval for
45 the extended hours if needed.
46 5. Prior to installation of any sign, application for and approval of a sign permit from the
47 Planning and Community Development Department is required.
48 From the Planninq Commission
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 12
1 6. Music shall be limited to no more than a trio of musicians with non-amplified music.
2
3 7. Special events shall be limited to four times per month. Occupancy load shall not exceed 49
4 people as required by the Building Department.
5 From the Police Department(Captain Trent Tavlor)
6
7 8. Consumption of alcohol outside of the tasting room is not permitted.
8 9. All ABC licenses must be applied for directly with ABC and issued and valid prior to a
9 business license being issued.
10 10. No business may be conducted until a valid business license is issued and no alcohol
11 served until the ABC license is in place.
12 11. Tasting shall be limited to 3oz. or 6 oz. as described in the project description dated
13 March 25, 2011. Bottles of wine shall not be sold for tasting or onsite consumption.
14
15 12. Wine by the bottle may be purchased for onsite consumption in conjunction with a wine
16 pairing class or similar event or for off-site consumption.
17
18 From the Department of Public Works (Ben Kaqeyama)
19
20 13. Applicable Ukiah Valley Sanitation District sewer connection fees shall be paid at the time of
21 building permit issuance.
22
23 14. The existing sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with the City of Ukiah Ordinance
24 No. 1105 and repaired or replaced if necessary.
25
26 15. Outdoor seating will require application for and approval of an encroachment permit for
27 Temporary Accessory Objects from the Public Works Department.
28
29 From the Buildinq Official ( David Willouqhbv)
30
31 16. Building permits are required for tenant improvements and signs.
32
33 17. A grease interceptor is required for this alteration.
34
35 18. Since there in only one exit to the proposed wine tasting room, the occupant load of the
36 space is limited to 49 people. This includes business hours and special events that occur here.
37
38 19. When the total construction costs of the alteration does not exceed $132,536.28 then the
39 minimum of 20°/a of the cost of the construction shall be applied toward removing barriers and
40 increasing accessibility to the existing building and the removing of barriers and increasing
41 accessibility to the existing building and the facility. The order of improvements to be made is as
42 follows.
43
44 A. Accessible entrance
45 B. Accessible route to the altered area
46 C. Accessible restroom
47 D. Accessible telephones
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 13
1 E. Accessible drinking fountains
2 F. Accessible parking.
3 If the total construction cost of alterations exceeds the above thresholds then all requirements of
4 accessibility shall comply with the requirements of Division 1 for new buildings.
5
6 Standard Citv Conditions of Approval
7
8 20. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
9 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
10 applied for and issued/finaled.
11
12 21. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
13 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
14
15 22 The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
16 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
17 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
18 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
19 Permit is approved and issued.
20
21 23. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any future
22 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
23
24 24. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior
25 to building permit final.
26
27 25. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project
28 related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions
29 of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this
30 approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been
31 suspended for 24 consecutive months.
32
33 26. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
34 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
35 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
36 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
37 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
38 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
39 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
40 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
41 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
42 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
43 remain in full force and effect.
44
45 Meeting break: 7:30 p.m.
46
47 Reconvene: 7:45 p.m.
48
49 8B. Ukiah Valley Medical Center Preliminary Review: 11-05-PRE-PC. Conduct a preliminary
50 review for an expansion to the Ukiah Valley Medical Center at 275 Hospital Drive, APN 002-193-23 and
51 002-160-08.
52
53 Senior Planner Jordan provided a staff report and explained the intent tonight is to conduct a preliminary
54 review of the project as presented by the applicant in the project description that involves a proposed
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 14
1 addition to the existing hospital. Staff's analysis does address parking and landscaping requirements for
2 the project, noting the property is located in the B-2 infill zone that is subject to the requirements of the
3 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan.
4
5 Commission:
6 • The addition would benefit the community relative to being able to provide increased medical
7 services.
8 • Would like the applicant to consider permeable surfacing where feasible for environmental
9 purposes and the protection of Gibson Creek and ultimately the Russian River.
10 • In terms of landscaping, consider providing for a `rain garden' and/or some other type of Low
11 Impact Development (LID) design for the purpose of trapping/controlling pollutants generated
12 from the parking lot and look at examples provided by staff of LID designs that would protect
13 water quality by filtrating rainwater/groundwater as the facility is built-out even though the
14 application of LID design is preliminary at this point and not codified.
15 • While the site is landscaped, has some nice tree species, consider more landscaping to include
16 trees where feasible given the constraints of the site and limited space available for this purpose.
17 • Tie-in architecturally the new buildings with the older buildings to provide for a more uniform look
18 and cohesiveness between buildings.
19 • Consider ways/materials to mitigate impacts from hot summer sun for windows on western
20 elevation.
21 • Has some concerns about the potential noise impacts from the helipad located on the rooftop to
22 the neighborhood as well as emphasize the importance that pilots routinely/consistently comply
23 with the flight patterns established for approach and departure of aircraft.
24 • Provide for adequate screening for HVAC facilities and/or other rooftop units and emergency
25 generators.
26 • With the project as designed, it may be maintaining the `red zone' is no longer necessary.
27 • Should meet with the Wagonseller Neighborhood to discuss the project since they will be a
28 affected.
29
30 Mark Schuette, Hospital Designers, Inc.
31 • Will work to tie-in the addition with the other buildings on the hospital campus as much as is
32 possible to provide for a more aesthetic pleasing and uniform appearance.
33 • Will look into techniques/material/treatments to reduce heat impacts on western face.
34 • All UVAC/operating equipment will be screened to address visual and noise impacts.
35 • Not able to comment on the `red zone.'
36
37 Rick Henderson, Engineer, Hospital Designers, Inc.
38 • Is concerned about drainage and runoff and will look at LID designs to address water quality.
39 Filters will be used to capture pollutants from parking lot and sediment from going into City storm
40 drain system.
41 • Landscaping, including the planting of additional trees are planned for the site.
42
43 Terry Burns, President of UVMC:
44 • Is not familiar with flight patterns for the helicopter medivac/rescue service and will look into the
45 matter to ensure compliance thereof.
46 • Hospital wants to function as a good neighbor and meets with the Wagonseller Neighborhood to
47 address potential impacts to the neighborhood.
48 • Commented on the project objectives provided for in the staff report and explained the addition
49 will significantly increase the service and care to patients so people do not have to travel to other
50 cities for treatment and commented particularly on the badly needed improvements/expansion of
51 the emergency room so it can become a trauma center as well.
52
53 Staff: This project is not required to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Does the Commission
54 want to recommend that the applicants voluntarily meet with the Design Review Board?
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 15
1 Commission: Applicant does not need to do to the Design Review Board. They may want to meet with
2 Commissioner Brenner to discuss this project since he is an architect.
3
4 9. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT None.
5
6 10. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
7 Commissioner Whetzel inquired whether Branches intends to complete the signage for the site.
8
9 Commissioner Helland noted the City of Fort Bragg has some very attractive signs for businesses and
10 suggested the Commissioners view for themselves.
11
12 Commissioner Sanders attended a scoping session concerning the new Courthouse project.
13
14 Chair Pruden did attend the City Council meeting concerning discussion and review of the DZC.
15
16 11. ADJOURNMENT
17 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
18
19
20 Judy Pruden, Chair
21
22 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
23
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 25, 2011
Page 16