HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_06222011 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 June 22, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Jason Brenner
7 Mike Whetzel
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Greg Owen, Airport Manager
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 — May 25, 2011
27 Chair Pruden noted the correct spelling of Terry Brown is Terry Burns.
28
29 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve May 25, 2011 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0).
30
31 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
32
33 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
34 the final date to appeal is July 5, 2011.
35
36 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9A was verified.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the
39 provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
40
41 9. PUBLIC HEARING
42 9A. Amendment to Site Development Permit No: 07-23. Conduct a public hearing for a request for
43 Planning Commission approval for Amendment to an approved Site Development Permit to allow
44 the freestanding sign to exceed the height of the building at 615 Talmage Road, APN 180-070-
45 10. The building and freestanding sign were originally approved by Planning Commission on
46 December 9, 2009.
47
48 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report:
49 • Applicant is requesting approval to install a taller freestanding sign from what was originally
50 approved.
51 • The new sign would be 25 feet tall and include the company logos for Arco and am/pm signage
52 along with a digital price board.
53 • The City Sign Ordinance allows freestanding signs to exceed the roof height of the main building
54 provided the sign is 30 ft. or less and is subject to SDP approval.
55 • The Sign Ordinance allows for 441 square feet of sign area for the site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 1
1
2 Commission Helland noted an error in the staff report with reference to `restaurant' which was corrected
3 to read, `gas station and mini-mart.'
4
5 Chair Pruden:
6 • The original sign proposal is 17 ft. by 51 inches or 4 feet 3 inches.
7 • Using attachment 3 pertinent to the sign plans in determining how the mathematical calculations
8 were formulated was very difficult because of the small plans.
9 • From her calculations, the original freestanding sign proposal was 72.25 sq. ft. Staff's original
10 calculation was 80 sq. ft.
11 • Questioned staff's calculation of 90 sq. ft. as the total square footage of sign area for the site for
12 the new freestanding sign.
13 • The new proposal is not 90 sq. ft, but rather 25 ft by 6 ft. 9 inches rounded off for a total square
14 footage of sign area of approximately 169 sq. ft, which is a more than a doubling of the mass.
15
16 Associate Planner Faso: Asked Chair Pruden if her calculations included counting the digital price
17 board because that part of the calculation is excluded from the Sign Ordinance City calculations.
18
19 Chair Pruden: Her calculations included the overall size of the sign and that is 25 ft in height by 6 ft. 9
20 inches in width.
21
22 Associate Planner Faso: Staff's calculations do not include the pricing elements on the sign and
23 included the Arco and am/pm portion of the signage and should have included the Arco on the bottom,
24 but did not.
25
26 Chair Pruden: The sign is much larger than the original proposed.
27
28 Senior Planner Jordan: Clarified the only part of the signage that can be counted is the box around
29 am/pm, the Arco logo and the ARCO bp at the bottom. The pricing cannot be counted since it is required
30 by law we are preempted from counting it as sign area.
31
32 Chair Pruden:
33 • The first set of calculations is clear whereby the second set is not because the plans are not
34 drawn to scale making it difficult to determine the total sign area for the site. Regardless, the new
35 freestanding sign is taller and wider than the original sign.
36 • It is difficult to a make a decision about the project without having the exact figures and how the
37 calculations were made.
38
39 Staff:
40 • Asked what information can be provided to the Commission in order to make a decision. The
41 new proposal is well below the allowable sign area for the site.
42 • The majority of the sign is exempt from the sign area calculations.
43 • Should distinguish between the area of the sign which is clearly complies with the sign area
44 allowed for the site and the mass of the structure which is a consideration of the sire
45 development permit.
46
47 Chair Pruden:
48 • Would like to know what the exact square footage for the proposed new sign whereby the
49 drawings for the sign do not adequately provide this information.
50 • Would like to see a breakdown of the signage that is required to be calculated. The drawing does
51 not show the footage for the bottom of the sign below the Arco pb.
52 • Was not aware that the pricing cannot be calculated into the signage for the site. This information
53 should have been provided as part of the staff report.
54 • How is the `massing' calculated for the new proposal? The `massing' for the original proposal
55 provides for a 4-foot width and a 17-foot height.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 2
1 • If the intent is to go to a larger sign, less the center pricing section, this issue still needs to be
2 addressed.
3 • While her concern essentially is not having an accurate measurement of exactly how much larger
4 the proposed new sign is, she does have an accurate sense of the total size.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders:
7 • Attachment 4, is dated November 19, 2008 and inquired why the Planning Commission did not
8 see this document when the project was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission in
9 December 2009.
10 • While aware of the receipt date of this document, it looks as though the applicant intended to
11 have a larger sign all along.
12
13 It was noted the document was revised May 5, 2010.
14
15 Associate Planner Faso:
16 • Staff received the document when the applicant submitted a request for a taller freestanding sign
17 a few weeks ago.
18 • Regardless of the date on the plans, staff received the document June 16, 2011.
19 • Clarified in response to the aforementioned concerns raised, there is 1)the size of the sign and 2)
20 the size of the sign structure and addressed how the zoning code calculates the total square
21 footage less the digital price board area.
22
23 Commissioner Helland: Is of the opinion there is sufficient information to make an informed decision.
24 This brings up a larger issue in that the sign ordinance may have to be revisited at some point,
25 particularly with regard to calculations.
26
27 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:23 p.m.
28
29 Bruni Kobbe:
30 • The applicant has been in violation of the project conditions that were approved for the initial
31 project with regard to the conditions for protection of the Oak tree canopy during construction.
32 Has learned of and observed negligent care of the tree during construction of the building and
33 questioned why the applicant is allowed to bring forth the sign project when he is not in
34 compliance with the original SDP.
35 • The proposed new sign is too tall and too big and is not appropriate.
36 • The applicant intended to have a taller sign all along and the City should not be drawn to this.
37 • Does not support the project.
38
39 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:25 p.m.
40
41 Commission asked staff to comment on the protection of the tree canopy condition.
42
43 Associate Planner Faso:
44 • Has been made aware the fence placed around the canopy of the tree for protection purposes
45 had to be temporarily removed for sidewalk and other types of improvements and was not put
46 back.
47 • Is also aware of equipment being parked and soil being placed under the canopy of the tree.
48 • Staff has made it clear to the applicant that he is in violation of the project conditions and must
49 comply with the project conditions concerning protection of the root area for the tree during
50 construction.
51
52 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 6:27 p.m.
53
54 Haji Alam, applicant:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 3
1 • Explained the fence around the canopy of the tree had to be removed to put in sidewalk curb and
2 gutter.
3 • Eventually when construction is completed the fence will have to be permanently removed.
4 • Is of the opinion the tree has been appropriately protected during construction of the project.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders:
7 • Noted this is the third time the applicant has been to the Planning Commission regarding his
8 project, with the first being approval of a SDP in 2009 and later to have the Oak Tree removed,
9 which was not approved.
10 • Further noted the fence around the tree for protection purposes did not occur until January 2011
11 after site preparations were being made.
12 • There have been subsequent complaints from members of the public regarding improper care
13 and protection of the tree.
14 • Understands the site has been under construction, but is of the opinion the tree and its root
15 system has been negligently cared for during the process. There is still excess soil from
16 bulldozing of the site under the tree.
17 • The applicant is now asking Commission approval for a significantly taller sign than what was
18 initially approved.
19 • It appears this project is getting `bigger and more brazen.' The project was already controversial
20 when it came before the Commission for approval of SDP for a gas station and mini-mart.
21 • Questioned why the schematics for the sign project came in so late for a taller and wider sign.
22 • Asked the applicant to respond to her comments.
23
24 Haji Alam:
25 • "BP' is going totally LED with their signage and requires him as a franchise owner to comply with
26 their signage regulations.
27 • The project is costly.
28 • The reason BP wants to change the height from 17 feet to 25 feet is because the numbers of
29 LED channel letters require more spacing and in order to accommodate a larger width, the sign
30 must be taller so the height and width of the sign are proportional. The added feature of the sign
31 is pricing changes that will be done digitally instead of manually which is the case with the
32 original 17-foot tall free-standing sign approved for the project.
33 • When the project was initially proposed and approved, he was not aware that BP wanted
34 specific schematics for signage that would incorporate the logos for Arco logo and am/pm with a
35 digital price board so in order to accommodate the need for the expanded width, the steel-based
36 supports at the bottom of the sign must be taller.
37
38 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:34 p.m.
39
40 Chair Pruden:
41 • Does not like to be pushed by `corporate America' and there have been other times when
42 corporate America has demanded very expensive signs from local owners.
43 • Is okay with the width on the sign up to 6 feet 9 inches and not okay with the increase in height.
44 • Is of the opinion the sign should not be taller than the building.
45 • Supports retaining the signage portion of the sign but without the `tall' legs sustaining the sign.
46 • Does not care what BP wants.
47
48 Commissioner Sanders: Would support the amended sign of a width increase without the height
49 increase but does not see how this would really improve the project.
50
51 Commissioner Whetzel: Supports increasing the width, but not the height.
52
53 Commissioner Helland:
54 • Does not like the sign as large as proposed. However, Ukiah's Sign Ordinance does allow the
55 height with approval of a SDP.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 4
1 • Understands that the letter of conditions of approval for the SDP were violated; unsure if it was
2 with intent.
3 • Better care should be taken with regard to the Oak tree as conditioned.
4 • Would support increasing the width of the sign, but not the additional height.
5 • Does appreciate moving to LED lighting.
6
7 Chair Pruden:
8 • Is of the opinion if the sign is no taller than the height of the building it would be acceptable to
9 allow the additional height and shorten the legs to reduce the height.
10 • Would, however, support the original sign, but as an alternative would support keeping the height
11 of the sign commensurate with the building and allow for an increase in the width to
12 accommodate the lettering.
13 • The applicant has the option of telling BP that the width is acceptable but the height is not. The
14 Commission can either go with the original sign or the compromised sign.
15
16 Haji Alam:
17 • Does not want to spend $20,000 on the sign.
18 • BP has indicated the new sign will more than pay for itself overtime with energy cost savings.
19 • The lettering on the old sign is to too small to read from the street whereas lettering can be seen
20 with LED lighting from a greater distance. The sign width must be greater than the old sign to be
21 able to accompany the space the lettering for the sign.
22
23 Commissioner Sanders:
24 • The applicant does not want to pay the $20,000 cost of the sign.
25 • Inquired why LED lighting cannot be approved for the old sign approved in 2009.
26
27 Haji Alam:
28 • The signage has to be either the old or the new. LED cannot be applied to the old because the
29 letter structuring has to be larger than what is featured on the old sign to make it work.
30 • The mass of the sign that makes it looks so large is because of the structure.
31 • The height and the width for the new sign is the standard for BP.
32 • The reason he had to come before the Planning Commission is because the proposed height is
33 taller than the building and requires a SDP.
34 • Would like to have a tall sign so it can be seen from the freeway.
35
36 Chair Pruden:
37 • The intent of the Commission is not to make the sign smaller only shorter by reducing the height
38 of the legs.
39 • The project Findings and Conditions of Approval do need to be changed for not granting the
40 additional height with the exception of Condition of Approval No. 1 that would have to state
41 'approval is granted to allow a freestanding sign that is no higher than the roof of the building.'
42
43 Commissioner Helland:
44 • Inquired whether a SDP is necessary if the Commission is not granting the additional height.
45 • It is likely BP has other plans for signs that would work for the project.
46
47 Staff: If the Commission desires to reduce the height of the sign, a condition needs to be crafted that
48 allows this. Since the height will be reduced, by removing the poles and sight clearance, public works
49 must review the revised design to make certain the sign does not obstruct line of sight. This needs to be
50 included as a condition of approval.
51
52 Commission Helland: If public works reviews the sign and there is not adequate line of sight, does not
53 want the project to have to come back to the Planning Commission.
54
55 Staff:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 5
1 • To address possibly not having the applicant come back, recommended the Commission approve
2 the original sign as well as the amended new sign. In this way, the applicant has the choice of
3 installing either sign. If the applicant cannot make the revised sign work, he can install the original
4 sign.
5 • Amend Condition of Approval No. 1 to grant a 17-foot sign as originally approved.
6 • Add a condition from Planning Commission to reflect that the sign cannot exceed the height of the
7 roof as allowed by the Sign Ordinance.
8 • Add another condition that public works department will be required to approve the new sign.
9
10 M/S Helland/Whetzel to approve Amendment to SDP No. 07-23 with Findings 1-5 and Conditions of
11 Approval 1-8 with the addition of two conditions to reflect the applicant has a choice to go with the original
12 sign or go with modification to the new proposed sign that the sign cannot exceed the height of the
13 roofline and that the sign selected must be reviewed and approved by City staff.
14
15 Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
16
17 AYES: Commissioners Helland,Whetzel, Chair Pruden
18 NOES: Commissioner Sanders
19 ABSENT: Commissioner Brenner
20
21 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO SITE
22 DEVELOEOPMENT PERMIT N0.07-23 LOCATED AT 615 TALMAGE ROAD,
23 APN 180-070-10
24
25 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
26 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
27
28 1. The proposed sign is ancillary to the previously approved gas station and mini-market for the site.
29 This use of land is consistent with the commerce and business uses intended in this land use
30 designation. The project would enhance the previously approved restaurant use of the site which
31 is consistent with the General Plan Economic Development goal to support a strong local
32 economy.
33
34 2. The proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic
35 pattern because of the following.
36
37 a. The proposed project is located on a site that is at the intersection of two arterial streets.
38 b. The proposed freestanding sign will not cause any modifications to site access or parking
39 areas and will not be located in a vehicular or pedestrian path.
40 c. On site improvements associated with the new gas station and mini-market include a defined
41 pedestrian path of travel along with a new driveway on Hastings and the relocation of the
42 existing driveway on Talmage Road. These improvements will not be modified by the
43 freestanding sign.
44
45 3. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic
46 on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or
47 surrounding uses based on the following.
48
49 a. The proposed freestanding sign will not change the approved off-street parking and parking
50 area therefore a hazardous condition will be not be created for surrounding uses.
51
52 4. The approved landscaping plan will not change as a result of the proposed freestanding sign.
53
54 5. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including
55 trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 6
1
2
3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW CHANGES
4 TO THE FREESTATNDING SIGN LOCATED AT 615 TALMAGE ROAD
5 APN 180-070-10
6
7 From the Planning Commission
8
9 1. Approval is granted for one freestanding sign to be located on the site in association with the
10 approved gas station and mini-market. The freestanding sign shall be the sign approved as part
11 of the original project approval dated December 9, 2009 or the freestanding sign with LED
12 numbers and lighting as shown on the plans date stamped June 16, 2011 with the height of the
13 sign lowered to be no taller than the height of the roof in order to comply with the requirements of
14 the Sign Ordinance.
15
16 2. The freestanding sign referred to in condition #1 shall be reviewed and approved by the Public
17 Works Department prior to installation to ensure that the sign provides adequate sight distance.
18
19 From the Planning Department
20
21 3. Prior to installation of any signs, application for and approval of a sign permit from the
22 Planning and Community Development Department is required.
23
24 4. No change to any other signs shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on
25 December 9, 2009 is allowed by this amendment other than the freestanding sign.
26
27 5. All conditions of approval from Use Permit and Site Development Permit 07-23 remain in full force
28 and effect.
29
30 6. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
31 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
32 applied for and issued/finaled.
33
34 7. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
35 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
36
37 8. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
38 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
39 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
40 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
41 and issued.
42
43 9. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
44 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
45 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
46 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
47 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
48 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
49 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
50 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
51 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
52 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
53 remain in full force and effect.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 7
1 10. NEW BUSINESS
2
3 10A. Workshop. Conduct a Public Workshop to introduce and discuss the draft Ukiah Municipal
4 Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines updated by the Airport Commission.
5
6 Senior Planner Jordan provided an introduction to the workshop:
7 • The Ukiah Airport Commission has been revising the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and
8 Land Use Plan Development Guidelines for the past 18 months and has completed its revisions.
9 • One of the primary purposes of the revisions was to identify the type of permit required for the
10 uses allowed for the various areas identified on the Airport and to identify when and what level of
11 the SDP is required for development at the Airport.
12 • There has been some discussion regarding incorrect guidelines having been used by staff in the
13 processing applications and review of land uses at the Airport and while there are differences, the
14 differences are not substantive.
15 • The staff report for this agenda item provides a summary of the modifications made to the
16 Guidelines specifically related to:
17 o Purpose and Intent
18 o Relationship to Zoning
19 o Compatibility Criteria
20 o Planning Area Map
21 o Aviation-Related Uses
22 o Airport Support Uses
23 o Land Use Area Descriptions
24 o Land Uses
25 o Development Standards & Site Planning Considerations
26 o Planning Permits
27 o Determination of Appropriate Use
28 o Glossary of Terms
29
30 Commissioner Whetzel recused himself as a Commissioner from participating in the Guideline
31 discussions because he owns a business at the Airport.
32
33 Staff:
34 • The revised Guideline document is the Commission's recommendation to the Planning
35 Commission.
36 • The Planning Commission will review the document with a recommendation to Council for
37 adoption.
38 • The intent tonight is to introduce and provide for an overview of the document with the opportunity
39 for the public and Commission to ask questions and make comments.
40 • Most of the document remains unchanged as noted in the staff report for the various sections of
41 the Guidelines and the document format was retained.
42 • Most of the changes made to the Guideline sections pertain to land use area descriptions, land
43 uses, development standards/site planning consideration and planning permits.
44
45 Ukiah Municipal Airport Buildinq Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines
46
47 The Planning Commission was provided with a letter dated June 22, 2011 from Eric Crane, Chair of the
48 Airport Commission that addresses the Airport Commission's intent for revising the Ukiah Municipal
49 Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines and added the process provided for an
50 in-depth orientation to Airport facilities and operations.
51
52 Chair Pruden:
53 Q1. Referred to page 15 of the Guidelines and the paragraphs related to determinations that can be
54 made by the Airport Manger pertinent to the development of structure or other permanent fixtures.
55 Should these determinations be made by the Airport Manager and/or Airport Commission? Would
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 8
1 like the Commission to comment on this process as to who is responsible for making the
2 determinations. It may not be good practice to have one person making determinations in this
3 regard.
4 Q2. What type of landscaping is appropriate including trees at the Airport and recommends
5 discussion thereof?
6
7 Staff:
8 Q1. The Guideline document has already been reviewed by the Airport Commissioners and they were
9 fine with the Airport Manager making the determinations about the development of structures or
10 other permanent fixtures in the area between the Airport Property Line and the Building
11 Restriction Line and whether or not such developments/fixtures could impede aircraft operations.
12 The Airport Manager has the expertise to make these kinds of decisions while other City staff
13 may not.
14
15 Chair Pruden:
16 • Her concern with giving the Airport Manager the sole responsibility for making determinations
17 about development and other kinds of structures is that not every Manager makes the same kinds
18 of decisions as to what is best for the Airport and airport operations.
19 • Commented on past Airport Manager decision making examples that may not have always been
20 in the best interests of the Airport.
21 • Noted in the past, the Airport Manager never sat on Project Review Committee meetings for
22 projects that involved the Airport. Also, it used to be that the Assistant City Manager signed
23 Airport leases as opposed to the Airport Manager. It is important for the Airport Manager to attend
24 PRC meetings along with the Fire Marshall, Planning Director and public works staff for decisions
25 about development at the Airport.
26
27 Staff:
28 • Page 24, Section 11, Determination of Appropriate Use, of guidelines provides that the Planning
29 Director and Airport Manager can make a `Determination of Appropriate Use' decision whenever
30 a use is not listed in the Guidelines as an allowed or permitted use.
31 • Having two staff members as opposed to one when it comes to making determinations about the
32 Airport may be the best approach and these could include the Airport Manager, City Building
33 Official, Public Works Director, and/or Planning Director.
34
35 Airport Manager Owen:
36 • Signs small hangar and/or month-to-month leases.
37 • City Council approves the large hangar leases.
38 • Would attend PRC meetings in the event these meetings are held if it is an Airport matter.
39
40 There was discussion about what trees would be appropriate for the parking lot and landside at the
41 Airport. Trees are problematic at airports because of the height restrictions and the likelihood of drawing
42 birds that are hazardous to aircraft.
43
44 Chair Pruden:
45 • Referred to page 21, Table 5, landscaping requirements that states `landscaping is discouraged'
46 and suggests the language concerning landscaping airside be modified to make it clear it is not
47 appropriate to have landscaping airside.
48 • Add `Compatibility Criteria' from page 2 of document to Section 11, Determination of Appropriate
49 Use for consistency purposes since the determination regarding uses and development must be
50 found to be compatible with Airport operations and security, including the compatibility criteria of
51 the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan so the criteria can become part of the findings that the
52 use is appropriate.
53
54 Commissioner Sanders: Inquired how the inherent conflicts between fixed-wing aircraft and rotocraft
55 have been worked out in the document.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 9
1
2 Airport Manager Owen:
3 • Referred to the use table for Eastside Uses and Westside Uses in the Guideline document and
4 noted the Airport Commission spent considerable time reviewing the uses for the various areas
5 and subareas and decided the best approach would be to separately categorize fixed wing uses
6 from rotocraft uses and place these uses in the appropriate zone.
7 • The aforementioned approach taken by the Commission is a workable solution for consistency
8 purposes with the Airport Master Plan and effective operations at the Airport.
9
10 Chair Pruden:
11 • Acknowledged compatibility issues have existed with rotocraft operating in close proximity to fixed
12 wing aircraft.
13 • Does not support the area where Calstar has relocated.
14
15 Commissioner Helland:
16 • General introduction to the document has allowed her to become much more informed about the
17 Airport, with Airport terminology and how the Airport' generally functions.
18 • Would like to see `community garden' use be allowed with approval of a UP for the eastside south
19 area.
20
21 Staff:
22 • Appreciates the work the Commissioners did on the land use document taking into consideration
23 what is existing and what they want to see for development in the future by identifying the
24 purpose for each individual area, looking at what uses would get them to that purpose and how
25 these uses can be implemented.
26 • Looking at the use tables, the Commission's intent was to evaluate each area as to what they
27 would like to see for development in the future. During this process, the Commission identified
28 uses that could perceivably generate revenue and/or correspond with long term goals/objectives,
29 but at the same wanted to control how and where the potential uses locate for a particular area so
30 it is for this reason some of the uses were allowed by right while others require approval of a use
31 permit, were prohibited or allowed as an accessory to a primary use.
32
33 Lucy Neely, The Garden Project of NCO Community Action:
34 • Has requested the creation of a new use category `Community Garden' for the Ukiah Airport's
35 Land Use and Development Plan Guidelines.
36 • The Airport Commission has recommended the creation of a community garden use for Eastside
37 South, subarea 1 with approval of a UP.
38 • The Gardens Project is grateful for this recommendation of a allowing for a community garden in
39 Eastside South, Subarea 1 so that people will have an opportunity to produce food for local
40 consumption that might not otherwise have this opportunity where they reside.
41 • The Project requests the community garden use category be allowed in the undeveloped northern
42 portion of Westside South. The reason the Commission did not recommend a community garden
43 use in this area is because the Airport hopes to develop this area.
44 • The Gardens Project is looking at long-term perspectives and does not want to invest in a
45 community garden space that has development plan. However, should the Commission at some
46 later date decide on not developing the area would like to have the flexibility to create a
47 community garden at this location. Allowing this use with a UP does not mean a garden can be
48 created, it just allows for the possibility in the future.
49 • The Project also requests the community garden use category be allowed in the northern portion
50 of Westside North. The reason the Airport Commission did not recommend this area is due to
51 emissions from planes doing `run-up' near this area and would not be safe for food to grown here.
52 • While the Project does not want to grow food in an unhealthy environment, would like to consider
53 growing non-edibles, such as flowers. The Project believes there is value to the community with
54 possibly being able to have a garden that grows flowers for possible retail purposes.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 10
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • Thanked Lucy Neely of the Gardens Project for thinking about the good of the community with a
3 request for community garden(s)at the Airport.
4 • Was not aware that water is available in Eastside South, Subarea 1.
5 • When the Planning Commission formally reviews the Guidelines, will rely on the Airport
6 Commission's recommendations in this regard.
7
8 Staff:
9 • Clarified the community garden requirements for the Guideline document were modified and
10 taken from requirements established for the DZC.
11 • A proposed community garden use would require approval of a UP and ground lease agreement.
12
13 Chair Pruden:
14 • The possibility exists that a community garden could be created at the Airport.
15 • It is important to have the land use guideline document in place to help plan and guide
16 development at the Airport.
17
18 Commissioner Helland: Requested staff address the idea of allowing for non-edibles to be grown on the
19 Airport.
20
21 Chair Pruden:
22 • One option to possibly consider is in places where landscaping once existed on the north end of
23 the Airport where the hangars are located and no longer maintained, but do have irrigation
24 facilities and other relevant amenities. These areas may be an opportunity to do some
25 landscaping.
26 • There are also FBOs on Westside North that could be landscaped landside.
27
28 Don Albright:
29 • Is Vice-Chair of the Airport Commission.
30 • The Guideline document represents the Airport Commission's recommendations.
31 • Appreciates the work done by Judy Pruden, other City staff members and other persons on the
32 original land use plan guidelines that were adopted by Council. This work created the foundation
33 from which the Airport Commission worked.
34 • Sees value in having landscaping strips and cited planter areas that were privately maintained in
35 the Downtown area.
36 • Would be open to landscaping areas on the Airport landside where feasible.
37 • The Commission considered allowing non-edibles on Westside North and the concern was how
38 one treats a use that produces something that could potentially generate revenue in connection
39 with a ground lease agreement. Another concern noted was this area serves as a `run-up' area
40 for aircraft and is not considered safe for people tending to a garden whether or not the garden is
41 edible or non-edible. Additionally, it would not be safe to grow vegetables at this location because
42 of the emissions from aircraft.
43
44 Reference was given to the Airport Layout Plan with regard to the `Westside Mix-use proposal' as a
45 possible area for a community garden use.
46
47 There was discussion about allowing for a community garden on a month-to-month ground lease and
48 potential economic impacts as an investment to the Project should a development be proposed that could
49 generate more income for the Airport, such as hangar development. The intent of the Airport is to
50 consider development according to the best and highest use in terms of determining what is good for the
51 Airport that operates as an Enterprise Fund.
52
53 It was noted a community garden use would not change the long-term goals for development at the
54 Airport.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 11
1 Mike Whetzel (as a member of the public):
2 • The use table in the Guidelines has some discrepancies.
3 • Referred to the Airport Layout Plan Map in connection with the original intent of the Guidelines
4 concerning rotocraft and noted Westside South provides buffering of noise from rotocraft
5 operations mitigating noise impacts in accordance with a `noise signature' study as opposed to
6 Westside North.
7 • The current use table allows rotocraft medical emergency flight services (e.g. Calstar, Reach) in
8 Westside North as allowed by right with a footnote that indicates when the east side of the
9 Airport is developed this use would be relocated to the east side of the Airport provided the
10 necessary infrastructure is available and a UP is required for Westside South. This represents
11 discrepancies with the original intent of the Guidelines with regard to the operation of rotocraft on
12 the Airport.
13 • Is of the opinion the use table concerning rotocraft operations does not properly address the
14 noise issue in keeping with the Airport's Good Neighbor Policy.
15
16 Staff:
17 • The process involves figuring out what the recommendation and/or proposal is before considering
18 what type of environmental review is required.
19 • In some cases, environmental review may be necessary for a UP and in other cases the project
20 may be exempt from environmental review. It may be that emergency responders such as Calstar
21 or Reach are exempt from environmental review. There are exemptions for some types of
22 emergency projects in CEQA.
23
24 Chair Pruden:
25 • Asked Mr. Whetzel to note his concerns for when the Commission formally reviews the Guideline
26 document.
27 • Recommended flagging for further discussion of the use table what zone(s) is appropriate for
28 rotocraft as an allowed or permitted use.
29 • Encourages the Commissioners to tour the Airport for the purpose of gaining a better
30 understanding of the layout, existing uses, and how it functions and to contact Airport staff to
31 arrange a tour.
32
33 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
34 There was general Discussion of agenda items for upcoming regular meetings.
35
36 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
37 Commissioner Sanders addressed the progress being made by the Tree Committee concerning a
38 Master Tree List for City use. She would like Senior Planner Jordan to attend a Tree Committee meeting
39 to assist with the process of formulating the Master Tree List.
40
41 Chair Pruden noted the family-oriented Friday movie night in Alex Thomas Jr. Plaza will begin this
42 Friday.
43
44 13. ADJOURNMENT
45 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
46
47
48 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
49
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 12