HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_07272011 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 July 27, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Mike Whetzel
7 Jason Brenner
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 6:00 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 — The minutes from the July 13, 2011 meeting will be available for
27 review and approval at the August 10, 2011 meeting.
28
29 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
30
31 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
32 the final date to appeal is August 8, 2011.
33
34 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9A was verified.
35
36 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the
37 provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
38
39 9. PUBLIC HEARING
40 9A. Amendment to Site Development Permit No: 07-23. Conduct a public hearing for a request for
41 Planning Commission approval for an Amendment to an approved Site Development Permit to
42 allow the use of alternate accent materials for the building and for use on the base of the
43 freestanding sign at 615 Talmage Road, APN 180-070-10. The building and freestanding sign
44 were originally approved by Planning Commission on December 9, 2009.
45
46 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report:
47 • The applicant requests a materials change from slate (Onion Skin Tan)that was approved by the
48 Planning Commission as part of the 2009 SDP to Genuine stone Wainscot (Natural Ledger-
49 Golden White).
50 • Applicant further requests using Genuine Stone Wainscot (Natural Ledger—Golden White on the
51 base of the freestanding sign.
52 • In June 2011 Planning Commission approved a freestanding LED sign with a condition that the
53 sign not be taller than the building.
54 • The original request from the applicant included material changes to the awnings, wainscot, and
55 freestanding sign, but staff was informed by the applicant after the public noticing of the project,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 1
1 BP Arco did not approve the change to the awnings and is requiring the applicant to install the
2 originally approved awnings.
3 • When the gas station and mini-mart were initially reviewed by the Planning Commission, the
4 Commission was concerned about the aesthetics of the project given that the project is located
5 on a city gateway and was of the opinion that the architectural design of the project did not
6 represent the feel of Ukiah and furthermore that it had no connection to the community. After
7 much discussion, a condition of approval was agreed upon by the applicant and the Planning
8 Commission that required slate or tile wainscot treatment to be added to the am/pm building and
9 if feasible to the columns of the gas station canopy.
10 • A building permit was issued for construction of the project in November 2010 that included slate
11 wainscot on the am/pm building. Wainscot was not added to the gas canopy columns because of
12 any wrap material added to the gas canopy columns would impede the operation of the gas
13 dispensers.
14 • Given that the new wainscot material is smaller than the slate an opportunity may exist to add it to
15 the gas canopy columns.
16 • Staff is not making a recommendation on the proposed request and asked the Commission to
17 complete the required SDP Findings based on the Commission's decision; findings noted in bold
18 on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report need to be completed by Planning Commission.
19 Commissioner Sanders:
20 • Is concerned about the western side of building where a solid wall not shown on the approved
21 plans has been constructed. The wall appears to be seven feet tall.
22 • During the December 2009 Planning Commission review and approval of the SDP/UP concern
23 was expressed by the neighbors about safety and blind spots on the project site that may occur
24 as a result of the project.
25 • Asked for a response from staff about how safety concerns and blind spots have been
26 appropriately addressed, and what will happen with the wall.
27
28 Staff:
29 • Based on field observations by the City Building Official, planning staff was made aware of a solid
30 wall on the western elevation that was not shown on the approved plans.
31 • Since finding out about the wall, staff inet with the property owner who agreed to reduce the
32 height of the wall to 4 feet and put a chain link fence on top of it. In the effort not to create a blind
33 spot at the rear of the property.
34 • City Police Captain Taylor agreed with the aforementioned solution.
35 • The project will not be finaled for occupancy until the applicant reduces the wall height.
36
37 Commissioner Helland:
38 • Has City Public Works Department been consulted regarding the base of the sign and the issue
39 of visibility?
40 • Has the store management plan as part of the project conditions of approval been submitted for
41 review?
42
43 Staff: Public Works Department determined the sign is situated far enough back from the corner and
44 driveways that there will be no line of sight issues. Before the sign is approved for construction through
45 the sign permiUbuilding permit process. Staff will ensure that the sign meets all the conditions of project
46 approval.
47
48 Chair Pruden:
49 • The height of the sign is 18.8 feet not including the base. There is the sign, the legs and the base
50 above grade and questioned whether the overall height of the sign will exceed the height of the
51 building.
52 • Received a comment from the public whether or not the newly laid sod is within one foot of the
53 trunk of the native Oak Tree.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 2
1 • It appears the applicant was stopped in the process of installing a wainscot material that was not
2 approved by Planning Commission. Asked for clarification if the letter from the project manager
3 that addresses putting up the new material as an example was accurately presented or was the
4 project stopped by staff because it was not in conformance with the conditions of approval.
5 Staff:
6 • The project manager has assured staff the sign will not exceed the height of the building, but as
7 part of the building permit/sign permit review, details will be required to demonstrate to staff that
8 the sign will not be taller than the building.
9 • Acknowledged the new material being put up was not what the Planning Commission approved
10 and therefore that component of project construction was stopped until the new material could be
11 reviewed and approved by Planning Commission.
12 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:13 p.m.
13
14 John Ramos, Project Manager:
15 • Is the Project Manager and represented the project during the original Planning Commission.
16 • Acknowledged a mistake on his part when the project was originally approved whereby slate
17 and/or natural stone was specified that was inadvertently omitted on the final drawings.
18 • The natural stone will look much better than the slate tile and ties in nicely with the natural
19 surroundings.
20
21 Chair Pruden:
22 • Decisions made by the Planning Commission are a matter of official public record so with regard
23 to the materials aspect of the project, slate tile was what was approved by the Commission and
24 not stone.
25 • Asked if the project manager misspoke about the exterior material for the building.
26
27 John Ramos: Mistakenly did not advise the Commission that natural stone was the intended material.
28
29 Chair Pruden:
30 • Discretionary review of projects is a legal hearing with binding conditions of approval and that are
31 not subject to any change without prior approval by the Planning Commission.
32 • Regardless whether or not the materials change was a mistake or the Project Manager did not
33 get the intended materials correct, it appears the intent was to `back-door' the application without
34 Planning Commission approval.
35
36 John Ramos:
37 • There was really no attempt to `back door' the matter and was of the opinion that alternate use of
38 materials was not an issue and did not think it would require Planning Commission approval.
39 • Alternate use of materials was brought to the attention of planning staff and the applicant was
40 advised that any change would require Planning Commission approval.
41
42 Chair Pruden: How was the process stopped?
43
44 Staff: The installation of the new material for the wainscot could not move forward because it was not the
45 approved material. On this particular element of the project, the Building Official determined the material
46 was not incompliance with what was shown on the approved building permit plans and therefore stopped
47 this portion of the project.
48
49 Commissioner Brenner: At the last Commission meeting there was discussion about project oversights
50 and changes that are sometimes necessary in the field to make a project work, and the BP Arco project is
51 an example of an oversight that sometimes occurs.
52
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 3
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • The system worked because the Planning Commission is reviewing the project again.
3 • Commented on the change of materials and asked whether or not it would be feasible to add the
4 new stone treatment to the columns of the gas station canopy given that they are smaller in size.
5
6 John Ramos: Confirmed the application of stone on the columns of the gas station canopy would not be
7 feasible even with the change of material.
8
9 Chair Pruden: The stone material would likely be too thick for the columns. Is this the same material
10 intended for the bottom of the sign?
11
12 John Ramos:
13 • Genuine Stone Wainscot Natural Ledger—Golden White is planned for the base of the sign.
14 • Addressed the concern of the height for the monument sign and noted precautionary measures
15 have been taken to make certain the sign does not exceed the height of the building. Explained
16 how this will be accomplished. The site is sloped from the store to the street by three feet so it
17 looks like the sign is taller than the building, but the way in which the sign is situated taking into
18 consideration the base, the sign will not be taller than the building. The base will accommodate
19 the grade differential such that the sign will not exceed the height of the building. The base of the
20 sign will be 34" high and will have the same natural stone wrap that is on the store wainscot.
21 • His role is project manager and is not overseeing the construction part of the project.
22 • Apologizes for the problems that have occurred regarding the project whereby the Planning
23 Commission has had to revisit the project twice.
24 • Understands staff is not making a recommendation about the proposed new material.
25
26 Chair Pruden:
27 • The Building Official will inspect the sign for compliance with the building height requirement.
28 • Would like the store to be open and for everything to go well.
29
30 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:20 p.m.
31
32 Commission comments:
33 Commissioner Brenner: The solution to the problem turned out fine.
34
35 Chair Pruden: Likes the new material better than what the slate or tile that was originally approved.
36 However, does not approve of the process by which the applicant went about changing what was
37 originally approved whereby staff had to stop construction because of non-compliance with the conditions
38 originally agreed to.
39
40 Commissioner Helland: The process has been quite problematic.
41
42 Commissioner Sanders:
43 • Has concerns that the turf was placed too close to the trunks of the Oak trees and supports some
44 of the turf be removed. Oak trees do not do well in environments having a lot of irrigation.
45 • Likes the proposed new material and has no problem with the applicanYs request.
46 • Is concerned about the height of the wall in terms of addressing blind spots and maintaining
47 safety.
48 • Is pleased staff provided a very thorough and complete report of project issues for this meeting
49 and that staff will not sign off on the project until all project conditions have been appropriately
50 met.
51
52 Staff: Recommend asking the applicant if he is comfortable working with a landscaping professional to
53 address the tree protection issue.
54
55 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 6:26 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 4
1 John Ramos: Generally when a landscape plan is designed, there is a detail that shows sod should be
2 roughly two feet away from the trunk.
3
4 Chair Pruden: The sod is too close to the trees.
5
6 John Ramos: Noted the sod is a little too close, but because of the drainage in that area the water will
7 not stay at the base of the tree and will run off into the bioswale.
8
9 Chair Pruden: The problem that often occurs is the edging of the grass develops a root system and
10 encroaches onto the tree and its root system. The solution would be to cut the grass back a foot.
11
12 John Ramos: Cutting back the sod a foot should not be a problem.
13
14 Commissioner Sanders: Care should be given to the operation of the lawnmower and weed eater
15 around the trees also.
16
17 Chair Pruden:
18 • The project manager in his letter to staff indicated the 6' 0" wall adjacent to the motel and at the
19 rear of the property will be cut down and a 2'-0" chain link fence will be placed on top of the wall
20 and therefore this should no longer be an issue.
21 • The proposed material change to the awnings has been withdrawn by the applicant so this is not
22 an issue.
23 • Supports following best practices regarding proper care and maintenance of the existing native
24 Oak Tree and the three new Oak trees planted as part of the project. The sod shall be cut back
25 so the root systems will not be jeopardized and/or the overall health of the trees. No sod should
26 be touching any of the Oak trees. It may be that the applicanYs landscape architect can
27 determine how far the sod should be cut back. The project manager agreed cutting back the turf
28 would not be an issue.
29 • The only issue tonight is to make a decision concerning the proposed new material for the am/pm
30 building and base for the sign.
31
32 Staff:
33 • Referred to attachment 7 regarding the design of the legs for the freestanding sign and is of the
34 opinion the design is odd, in that that support columns are exposed and do not match the rest of
35 the sign. Asked the Commission to consider whether or not the stone treatment should wrap
36 around the legs of the sign for continuity.
37 • The height of the sign as shown on the signage details of attachment 7 is not what staff and/or
38 the Planning Commission approved. Staff will look at the Planning Commission conditions of
39 approval along with the sign ordinance in regards to height calculations. Planning staff will make
40 certain the sign complies with the height requirements as part of their review of the building
41 permit/sing permit application. The only element of the sign that the Planning Commission is
42 approving tonight is the type of material to be used on the base.
43
44 John Ramos: The reason the legs of the sign are showing and not covered with the same stone
45 treatment as the base is because this type of sign is generally designed without a base and there must be
46 sufficient space to access the cabinet underneath the sign for repair and maintenance purposes.
47
48 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:32 p.m.
49
50 Commission consensus:
51 • Supports approval of the proposed change in material from slate to stone as shown the submitted
52 plans and based on the material sample, for the am/pm building and base of the sign.
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 5
1 • Okay with the design and materials for the freestanding sign and for not requiring the columns to
2 be covered with stone material; understands the need for sufficient space for sign maintenance;
3 provided it does not exceed the height of the building.
4
5 Staff asked the Commission to complete the language for the findings on page 2 and 3 of the staff report.
6
7 Commission provided language on page 2 of the staff report regarding staff's analysis of the Findings
8 that reads, `The project site is located at one of the City's identified gateways and provides a first
9 impression to visitors and residents to the City of Ukiah. The change in wainscot material will greatly
10 enhance the appearance of the gateway.'
11
12 Commission added language why the Finding on page 3 of the staff report is true that reads, `There is
13 sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the structure and grounds to avoid monotony and/or box-
14 like uninteresting external appearance because of the following:
15 a. The proposed wainscot material as compared to the originally approved slate is more attractive
16 and will add more interest and color to the building.
17 b. The texture of the new wainscot material will add articulation to the building elevations.
18
19 M/S Helland/Brenner to approve Amendment to SDP No. 07-23 with Findings 1-5 as noted in the staff
20 report and with completion of the finding to address the projecYs location in one of the City's identified
21 gateways in that it will provide a first impression to visitors and residents to the City of Ukiah.
22 Furthermore that the change in wainscot material will enhance the City's gateway. The findings will also
23 include the addition of language as referenced above that the change in wainscot material and texture of
24 the new wainscot will provide sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the structure and grounds to
25 avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external appearance subject to Conditions of Approval 1-
26 6. Motion carried (4-0).
27
28 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO SITE
29 DEVELOEOPMENT PERMIT N0.07-23 LOCATED AT 615 TALMAGE ROAD,
30 APN 180-070-10
31
32 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
33 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
34
35 1. The proposed change to construction materials for the wainscot which is part of the approved gas
36 station and mini-market will not change the use of the land. This use of land is consistent with the
37 commerce and business uses intended in this land use designation. The project would enhance
38 the previously approved restaurant use of the site which is consistent with the General Plan
39 Economic Development goal to support a strong local economy.
40
41 2. The project site is located at one of the City's identified gateways and provides a first impression
42 to visitors and residents to the City of Ukiah. The change in wainscot material will enhance the
43 gateway.
44
45 3. The proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic
46 pattern because of the following.
47
48 a. The proposed material change to the wainscot will not change the approved footprint of the
49 building nor will it cause any modifications to the site access or parking area.
50 b. On site improvements associated with the new gas station and mini-market include a defined
51 pedestrian path of travel along with a new driveway on Hastings Road and the relocation of
52 the existing driveway on Talmage Road. These improvements will not be modified by the
53 proposed changes to the wainscot.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 6
1 4. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic
2 on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or
3 surrounding uses based on the following.
4
5 a. The footprint of the building will not change as a result of the proposed material changes to
6 the wainscot and therefore will not affect off-street parking areas, create a hazardous
7 inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses.
8
9 5. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the structure and grounds to avoid
10 monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external appearance because of the following:
11
12 a. The proposed wainscot material as compared to the originally approved slate is more
13 attractive and will add more interest and color to the building.
14 b. The texture of the new wainscot material will add articulation to the building elevations.
15
16 6. The approved landscaping plan will not change as a result of the proposed changes to the
17 wainscot material.
18
19 7. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including
20 trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site.
21
22
23 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
24 CHANGES TO THE FREESTATNDING SIGN LOCATED AT 615 TALMAGE ROAD APN 180-070-10
25
26 1. Approval is granted to allow changes to the construction materials used for the wainscot as
27 shown on the plans submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department date
28 stamped July 14, 2011 except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
29
30 2. All conditions of approval from Use Permit and Site Development Permit 07-23 remain in full force
31 and effect.
32
33 3. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
34 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
35 applied for and issued/finaled.
36
37 4. 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 5. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
41 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
42 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
43 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
44 and issued.
45
46 6. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
47 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
48 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
49 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
50 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
51 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
52 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
53 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
54 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
55 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
56 remain in full force and effect.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 7
1 10. OLD BUSINESS
2
3 10A. Workshop for the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan
4 Guidelines. Conduct a Public Workshop to review and discuss and make a possible
5 recommendation to City Council regarding the revisions proposed to the Ukiah Municipal Airport
6 Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines update by the Airport Commission.
7 Continued from the July 13, 2011 meeting.
8
9 Commissioner Brenner recused himself from participating in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and
10 Land Use Development Plan Guidelines workshop discussion.
11
12 Chair Pruden invited the public to participate in the workshop. She recommended review and discussion
13 page by page.
14
15 Ukiah Municipal Airport Buildinq Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines
16
17 Commission:
18 Q1. Has the City Corporation Yard been relocated?
19 Q2. Request for clarification page 7, Purpose, lines 8-11, `The Development of private hangars is
20 consistent with this purpose so long as the lease will transfer to the City within a timeframe that
21 allows the use of the hangar for commercial activities.'
22 Q3. Would Westside South Planning Area be a good area for a community garden use?
23
24 Staff:
25 A1. The City Corporation Yard has not been relocated at this time. Future plans at the Airport do
26 include discussions about the corporation yard relocating.
27 A2. The Airport provides for long term ground leases whereby private development on this ground is
28 encouraged and allowed. For instance, a private hangar facility could be developed on Airport
29 grounds and when the lease expires and is not renewed or is terminated the hangar facility
30 becomes City-owned for the City to lease. It could be that a person owns a hangar facility for 40
31 years, depending upon the terms of the ground lease.
32
33 Chair Pruden: Good planning takes into consideration the best and highest use for a particular area.
34 The best and highest use for Westside South is development related to Airport operations and
35 corresponding fixed base operations (FBOs)as opposed to a community garden use.
36
37 Eric Crane, Airport Commission Chair:
38 A3. The Airport Commission did consider the possibility of allowing for a community garden use in
39 Westside South during discussion of the land use plan guidelines. However, it was determined
40 much of this land is potentially contaminated from the dumping over the years of paving and
41 asphalt debris and would not be a good place to grow food.
42
43 Commissioner Sanders: The purpose statements for the different land use areas and subareas do not
44 appear to be consistent with the use tables.
45
46 Chair Pruden: There are some inconsistencies with the use tables. She is okay with the narrative portion
47 of the document.
48
49 Paqes 10 & 11, Table 1: Eastside Uses and Permit Requirements
50
51 Commission:
52 Q1. Questioned why a UP for Airplane avionics as opposed to an allowed use since this use is
53 compatible with Airport operations.
54 Q2. Page 11, questioned use categories related to storage, when Airport policy has been that
55 hangars must be used for aviation-related purposes and not for storage.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 8
1 Staff:
2 A1. Airplane avionics is included along with Airplane painting, body work, machine shop as an
3 allowed use with approval of a use permit in correlation with the purpose statement for the
4 Eastside use areas where the intent is to possibly develop these areas as gateway properties. As
5 such, Airplane avionics and Airplane painting etc., uses would be allowed with a use permit since
6 there is no discretion as to how these uses locate or operate which is contrary to long term
7 development intended for Eastside areas. So the only way to control this is through the UP
8 process. The Airport Commission was very thorough when describing the existing uses and
9 considering potential new uses for each area and subarea as to how this can effectively be
10 achieved in the long term distinguishing between what type of uses should be allowed by right
11 versus those requiring approval of a UP in order to achieve the purpose and vision for the specific
12 area.
13 A2. With regard to allowing 'Storage (month-to-month) vehicle, equipment, material and Storage (up
14 to 1 year) —vehicle, equipment, material, the intent is to provide for an opportunity to generate
15 revenue since the Eastside area is relatively undeveloped whereby such uses are month-to-
16 month or allowed up to 1 year must be reviewed annually and are surface only, no permanent
17 structures.
18
19 Eric Crane:
20 • Commented on allowing storage uses and noted this allows someone the opportunity to park cars
21 possibly for overflow reasons or to store equipment, materials on the Eastside since this area is
22 undeveloped and space is available in the short term.
23 • The Airport does have a hangar policy that requires hangars be used for aviation-related
24 purposes and not for storage. All hangars are required to house aircraft, but other items are
25 allowed in the hangar in addition to aircraft. A hangar cannot be used only for non-aviation
26 related uses such as for storage.
27
28 Pages 12, Table 2:Westside Uses and Permit Requirements, Fixed Winq Uses
29 Commission: Fixed wing table, distinguish between `Airplane—flight instruction classrooms' and
30 'Airplane—flight schools with classrooms and why do the specific use designations vary with regard to
31 AC, UP or Allowed.
32
33 Staff: The intent of an Airplane-flight instruction classroom use is it is typically located in a terminal
34 building where this use would function as an accessory use to the primary terminal building use. A flight
35 instruction classroom is just a classroom with just a classroom function. It may be in terms of use
36 designation, this is too confusing and could consider changing `AC' to 'A.'
37
38 Airplane — flight schools with classrooms would require a whole facility because the classroom and
39 equipment would function together as opposed to a single classroom function without the airplane.
40
41 Eric Crane:
42 • The reason for the proposed `AC' designation has to do with the use of the existing structure.
43 • Flight instruction classroom is interpreted to mean classroom use only whereas flight schools with
44 classroom is interpreted to mean classroom and aircraft co-located to a hangar, for instance. A
45 plane and a classroom could not be located at a terminal building. The intent of the Airport
46 Commission was not to have hangars built at the terminal building but for the airplane to park or
47 tie-down as part of the classroom instruction whereas airplane-flight schools with classrooms
48 allows for a tie-down area near a hangar, for instance, to park planes used for instruction
49 purposes.
50 • Change category Airport-flight instruction classroom to read `Airplane-flight instruction only.'
51 • Change `Airplane-flight schools with classrooms' to read, `Airport—flight schools with classrooms
52 and hangars.'
53
54 Staff: Could consider `Airport—flight instruction classroom - change AC' designations to `A' and change
55 category to read, `Airplane-instruction classrooms only.'
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 9
1 Change `Airplane-flight schools with classrooms' to read, `Airport—flight schools with classrooms
2 co-located with hangar.'
3
4 Page 13, Table 2,Westside Uses and Permit Requirements, Rotorcraft and Other Uses
5 Chair Pruden:
6 • Allowing rotorcraft uses mixed with fixed-wing operation uses on the west side of the Airport has
7 been a controversial subject because of compatibility issues associated with safety and damage
8 to personal and private property.
9
10 It was noted with regard to table 2 on page 14 the attached `1' to 'A' or`UP' references a footnote.
11
12 John Eisenzopf, Airport Tenant
13 • Is opposed to allowing rotorcraft operating in close proximity to fixed-wing operations because of
14 incompatibility issues.
15 • Is of the opinion rotorcraft operations belong on the east side of the Airport and not the west side.
16 • While the Eastside remains undeveloped and particularly undeveloped in terms of the appropriate
17 accommodations for helicopter operations, thought should be given to providing the necessary
18 infrastructure for rotorcraft as part of the ongoing Airport planning process.
19 • The Eastside will never get developed to accommodate rotorcraft if rotorcraft is continually
20 allowed to operate on the Westside.
21 • Was opposed to the relocation of Calstar to Westside North.
22 • Cited problems with rotorcraft from CAMP operations when very large helicopters park in the
23 same area as fixed-wing aircraft and associated FBO operations creating a lot of dust and debris.
24 • Another problem associated with rotorcraft operations is that helicopters randomly park, often
25 next to fixed-wing aircraft, and throw dust and debris when they hover or take off.
26 • Supports helicopters having hangars, helipads, parking areas and other necessary infrastructure
27 separate from fixed-wing aircraft.
28 • It appears there are more rotorcraft operating at the Airport than in previous years.
29
30 Chair Pruden:
31 • Pilots have indicated they would like rotorcraft operations to have their own area to minimize the
32 conflict between rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft.
33 • Questioned the use designations for rotorcraft uses in Table 2 as to whether or not the uses
34 should be allowed by right whereby a compromise may be a solution by changing the allowed
35 uses to require a UP so that a determination can be made about the appropriateness of the use.
36 • Has had no complaints about Calstar, but has had numerous complaints about helicopters and
37 where they land and the problems caused thereof.
38 • The conflict between rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft has been going on for a long time.
39
40 Commissioner Sander: Is there more rotorcraft versus fixed-wing aircraft operating now than when the
41 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan was written?
42
43 Airport Manager Owen:
44 • At the time the Airport Master Plan written, there were two based helicopter operations at the
45 Airport.
46 • Currently Calstar is the only based helicopter operation at the Airport. However, seasonally
47 particularly during the summer months, there is a large amount of helicopter traffic. This year
48 there has been a large amount of helicopter activity because of the marijuana eradication
49 operations being conducted in the national forests.
50 • The large transient military helicopters typically park on the northern portion of the Airport, but
51 because rocks are being thrown at them from State Street causing damage, they are reluctant to
52 park on Westside North and instead must park in areas where feasible, such as where the
53 Calstar helicopter used to park adjacent to the terminal building in Westside Central.
54
55 Commissioner Sanders:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 10
1 • Questioned whether or not there is something affordable that can be done to make it work for
2 people who own fixed-wing airplanes and the need for emergency helicopter services at the
3 Airport.
4
5 Staff:
6 • Staff has received no comments from pilots or other concerned persons other than the comments
7 received as part of the Airport Commission's review and revision of the Guidelines.
8 • It would be helpful if people have concerns about rotorcraft operations to make these concerns
9 on the record by sending a letter or email to staff that would be forwarded to the Planning
10 Commission because staff does not have a public record of the concerns of pilots related to
11 rotorcraft operations as expressed by Chair Pruden.
12
13 Commissioner Sanders: There was an incredible public turn out when the Planning Commission
14 reviewed the Calstar relocation project.
15
16 Staff: While there was public testimony regarding the relocation of Calstar, the comments were basically
17 from the same people and not this `out-pooring' of frustration from pilots or other persons that was noted
18 above.
19
20 Commissioner Sanders: The table with regard to rotorcraft uses is not consistent with the Ukiah
21 Municipal Airport Master Plan and/or other relevant documents.
22
23 Staff: The table is consistent with the Airport Master Plan as far as being the current location for
24 helicopters at the Airport.
25
26 Airport Manager Owen:
27 • The Airport Master Plan does not speak about putting helicopters on the Eastside of the Airport.
28 • The Master Plan suggests two helicopter parking pads be located directly east of the terminal
29 building which used to be the building where the flight school currently operates. The flight school
30 currently parks in the area the Master Plan states should be the transient helicopter parking area.
31 • Referred to the Planning Commission agenda packet for section 6, page 3 of the Airport Master
32 Plan shows helicopter operating area is identified in Westside Central.
33 • According to the FAA, helicopters do have to be allowed to use the terminal area just like fixed-
34 wing aircraft and cannot be completely banned. It would not be a reasonable and/or good practice
35 to make people have to walk long distances to get to their helicopters.
36 • Section 5 pages 18 and 19 of the Airport Master Plan addresses helicopter operations and
37 provides that:
38
39 o Helicopters should operate in a facility that they are in. It is anticipated that the operators
40 of small helicopters based at the Airport will continue to operate directly to/from their
41 respective on-airport facilities. Future decreases in demand for airplane tie-down facilities
42 could result in more apron becoming available for development of a dedicated helicopter
43 operations area on the Airport whereby a portion of an unused airplane tie-down area
44 and/or hangar apron could be developed for dedicated helicopter operations. Due to
45 uncertainty in this regard, a specific layout for this area/use has not been identified on the
46 Airport Layout Plan. Furthermore, such an area should be located near suitable
47 helicopter-oriented hangar/office facilities and should be located so as to minimize
48 helicopter/airplane operational interaction.
49 o There is a need for transient military helicopters to occasionally utilize the Airport for
50 refueling or to park on a temporary basis because of some type of operation they are
51 conducting.
52 o Due to the relatively infrequent need to accommodate such helicopters, a formal helipad
53 or approach/departure target area has not been established at the Airport.
54 o Current practice is for transient helicopters to park on the concrete apron located to the
55 east of the Airport terminal building.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 11
1 o No formal helicopter parking pads are currently designated on the Airport. However, the
2 Master Plan recommends a transient helicopter parking area encompassing 2-3 positions
3 be formally designated at the Airport whereby the concrete apron just east of the airport
4 terminal building appears to be the best location for siting these parking positions as
5 depicted on the Airport Layout Plan.
6 • The way the Airport operates in terms of interface between rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft is just
7 how it is at the Airport at this time.
8
9 Chair Pruden:
10 • Referred to page 5 of the guidelines and noted the purpose for Eastside North Subarea 3, states
11 this subarea is intended for permanent (non-transient) rotorcraft uses and should remain vacant
12 until such time as the infrastructure (such as a taxiway, utilities, etc.) can be provided to support
13 these uses. Although this subarea is intended for rotorcraft related uses, fixed-wing aircraft may
14 locate in this area provided they are associated with a rotorcraft use. Fixed-wing aircraft as a
15 standalone use is prohibited in order to retain adequate land area for rotorcraft.
16 • This purpose statement calls forth for a distinct area for rotorcraft.
17
18 Staff:
19 • The purpose statement states `until such time as the infrastructure can be provided to support
20 rotorcraft uses.'
21 • While the Eastside of the Airport is the preferred location for rotorcraft, there is no plan at this
22 time to develop it for rotorcraft uses. The Airport Commission was very clear about this matter
23 because there is no money available at this time to develop the Eastside to accommodate
24 rotorcraft uses.
25 • It is staff's understanding in working with the Airport Manager that we do not have the ability to
26 just have no home for rotorcraft operations. The Airport Commission worked very hard to find a
27 home that is consistent with the Airport Master Plan so that in the interim until such time the
28 Eastside can be developed for rotorcraft, rotorcraft has a place to locate.
29
30 Chair Pruden:
31 • Understands staff's comments, but noted the use table for rotorcraft does not have to be allowed
32 in nearly every Westside area. The uses could require a UP. Those uses allowed include
33 'rotorcraft hangars, rotorcraft medical emergency flight services (e.g. Calstar, Reach), rotorcraft
34 maintenance/repair/service/painting/body work, rotorcraft parking —transient, rotorcraft parking &
35 tie-downs, rotorcraft rental, rotorcraft sales& leasing, and rotorcraft storage &support.'
36
37 Staff: Again, the Airport Commission worked very hard and closely looked at every use and Westside
38 area before making a decision about whether a particular use should be allowed or permitted
39 based on what is most feasible for a particular area/subarea.
40
41 Eric Crane:
42 • Noted many of the allowed uses have a footnote, A(1) that indicates while the use is allowed,
43 when the Eastside of the Airport is developed and leases expire, these uses shall be relocated to
44 the Eastside of the Airport to Eastside North Subarea 3 provided the necessary infrastructure is
45 available.
46 • It is going to take a major project to make a place for the helicopters on the Eastside.
47 • From his reading about what the FAA says about helicopters is any place that has a tie-down a
48 helicopter can go.
49 • We can come up with a rule that is contradictory to what the FAA says that would put the Airport
50 in jeopardy of being a grant funding recipient or we can accommodate rotorcraft.
51
52 Chair Pruden:
53 • Is okay with accommodating rotorcraft uses, but with a Use Permit which means there is a review
54 process.
55 • The fact cannot be denied that rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft conflict with one another.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 12
1 • Problems concerning rotorcraft have been expressed by some FBOs on the Westside North due
2 to dust and debris generated by Calstar.
3
4 Eric Crane:
5 • Agrees conflict exists between rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft and had concerns about the
6 relocation of Calstar. He advocated strongly concerning the relocation of Calstar to Westside
7 North where there would be a time limit on their current lease with a statement the lease can be
8 extended it this use could be accommodated on the Eastside of the Airport.
9 • Recalled that Caltrans Aeronautics determined the best location for Calstar at this time was to
10 relocate from Westside Central to Westside North and made a recommendation accordingly. It
11 was Caltrans Aeronautics that required Calstar to relocate citing the existing location in Westside
12 Central as being a safety hazard for the operation of rotorcraft.
13 • Does not see a way for 'rotorcraft parking —transient and rotorcraft parking &tie-downs' to not be
14 allowed because certain rotorcraft operations would not come to the Airport if theses uses
15 required a UP so rotorcraft can land. The Airport can either have an allowed use to deal with the
16 reality as to how this area will be used by persons `having bigger sticks' than we have or face the
17 potential of setting ourselves up for problems by making the uses require a Use Permit.
18 • His preference is to require Use Permit for rotorcraft uses and to encourage a helicopter use on
19 the Eastside.
20 • Is concerned with formulating a rule that ends up not being followed because of the concept of
21 the rule.
22
23 Chair Pruden:
24 • Mr. Crane makes a good argument in terms of `rotorcraft parking — transient' and `rotorcraft
25 parking &tie downs' and why it should be allowed as opposed to a UP.
26 • A UP would allow another review process to see where these uses d occur.
27
28 Eric Crane: Relative to the other rotorcraft uses in the Table, his preference is for a UP, but respects the
29 other members of the Airport Commission preferences that he may have disagreed with during plan
30 guidelines discussions of rotorcraft.
31
32 Commissioner Helland:
33 • Does not feel comfortable second guessing the document that has been revised by the Airport
34 Commission during the last year and a half.
35 • Problems with the document should have been brought to the Airport Commission since that
36 Commission is the expert.
37 • Would like to hear about the process and what the vote was in determining the different levels of
38 review for the zones/areas and the corresponding uses.
39
40 Staff:
41 • Recalled that Calstar was allowed to relocate to Westside North because a Determination of
42 Appropriate Use was made by the Airport Manager and City Planning Director.
43 • The process was quite interesting because there was only one Commissioner representing the
44 helicopter side of the discussion and he was very well-rounded.
45 • The Commission no matter what the individual preference concerning the elements of the
46 planning document worked together until the Commissioners came to some kind of consensus
47 or agreement about an issue.
48 • Recalled that Mr. Crane was not entirely comfortable with allowing rotorcraft uses by right on the
49 Westside of the Airport, but rather with approval of a UP. Part of the discussion was that the
50 Commission could require a UP when the truth of matter in some areas this is not consistent
51 with the Airport Master Plan so it will not matter what the table says as the table will have to be
52 changed to be consistent with the Airport Master Plan.
53 • Additionally, if the table is not consistent with the FAA requirements, the Guidelines would be
54 preempted by the FAA and the use would be allowed.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 13
1 • Is of the opinion the Airport Commission decisions concerning the rotorcraft use table
2 designations for the specific zones was not always their preference, but understood in what
3 circumstances they were preempted.
4
5 John Eisenzopf:
6 • Was present for most of the process concerning revisions to the guidelines.
7 • Referred to the use table for rotorcraft and while he understands the use designations for
8 rotorcraft parking questions some of the other uses that are allowed by right or allowed by right
9 with the footnote on the Westside and they include `rotorcraft hangars, rotorcraft medical
10 emergency services, rotorcraft maintenance etc., rotorcraft rental, rotorcraft sales & leasing and
11 rotorcraft storage & support equipment.' Does not support these allowed use designations for all
12 cases because consideration is not effectively given to impacts to neighbors, fixed-wing aircraft
13 and hangars. It also removes any incentive whatsoever for developing the Eastside of the Airport.
14 • Does not approve of the Use table for rotorcraft as drafted.
15
16 Chair Pruden:
17 • Recommends leaving the `rotorcraft parking — transienY and `rotorcraft parking & tie downs' as
18 allowed uses and changing all the other rotorcraft uses to a UP for `rotorcraft hangars,
19 maintenance, rental, sales & leasing and storage & support equipment.' Is of the opinion, with
20 these changes the Airport would not be in violation of any other requirements.
21
22 Eric Crane:
23 • Questioned whether rotorcraft maintenance, repair etc. should be changed to a UP which would
24 mean a business like T & M Aviation doing maintenance on a helicopter would require a UP.
25 • Further questioned what would occur for rotorcraft medical emergency flight services.
26
27 Chair Pruden:
28 • An existing business would be a legal non-conforming use and would not require a Use Permit.
29 • Medical emergency flight services would be allowed until the lease expires and then a Use Permit
30 would be required.
31
32 Staff: Clarified just because a tenant might be doing some type of use does not mean it is legal and non-
33 conforming, it just means he/she is doing something. There are times research is necessary to see if the
34 use was actually approved. There is a concern that just because someone is working on rotorcraft and
35 has rotorcraft in a hangar does not mean the use was approved. Does not want people to assume that a
36 particular use is non-conforming and allowed to continue because this may not be the case.
37
38 Chair Pruden: The uses would be looked at when a new business is proposed.
39
40 Eric Crane: Asked if at some future date if the Eastside of the Airport were developed to accommodate
41 rotorcraft, would T& M Aviation, for instance, be allowed to maintain helicopters in their hangar, which is
42 located in Westside North?
43
44 Chair Pruden: Would be allowed to maintain a helicopter in the hangar with approval of a Use Permit.
45
46 Eric Crane: Part of the rationale concerning rotorcraft maintenance and repair is as an allowed use is
47 when a helicopter needs repair, this space would be better utilized for this type of use rather than for
48 taking off or landing and cautioned modifying this use because it is necessary to have facilities that do
49 offer special services on the Westside.
50
51 Chair Pruden: How would a new rotorcraft maintenance/repair business be treated?
52
53 Eric Crane: Does not have a problem with allowing someone to maintain rotorcraft maintenance and
54 repair on Westside North because the space would not be used for rotorcraft taking off or landing many
55 times a day. The point being Calstar takes off and lands many times a day whereas a rotorcraft
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 14
1 maintenance/repair business would mean a rotorcraft would land once and be in the repair shop for
2 awhile and then leave. There is no rotorcraft traffic being generated on a regular basis.
3
4 Chair Pruden: How to treat rotorcraft hangars, A(1)or Use Permit once the lease expires.
5
6 Eric Crane: Could not speak for the Airport Commission and supports the recommendation of A(1).
7
8 Staff:
9 • Much of what the Airport Commission worked on during the process of reviewing the land use
10 plan was making sure not to discriminate against helicopters at the Airport and were highly
11 concerned about not having at least one location where rotorcraft use was allowed by right. This
12 was the issue and is the reason the rotorcraft uses in the table are allowed by right in Westside
13 North and Westside Central as opposed to a Use Permit.
14 • It appears the preference is to allow any airplane to locate anywhere on the Airport grounds and
15 for making sure there is no space for a helicopters to locate on the Westside may be
16 discriminatory.
17 • The Airport Commissioners are the airport experts and took great measures to be fair and
18 reasonable about what should occur.
19
20 Chair Pruden: Recommends: 'Rotorcraft rental', change all A(1) to UP, `Rotorcraft sales & leasing'
21 change all A(1)to UP and `Rotorcraft storage & support equipment,' change all A(1) to UP. In this way do
22 not have to wait for a lease to expire.
23
24 Eric Crane: While the aforementioned recommendation is appealing supports going with the use
25 designations in the table.
26
27 Staff: Westside Central is recognized in the Airport Master Plan as the location for helicopter operations
28 (see Building Area Issues, section 6 page 3) of the Plan. The uses in the table must be consistent with
29 the Airport Master Plan. The use designations recommended in the use table were crafted to give
30 helicopters a location at the Airport so by not having a home for rotorcraft uses on the Airport, a person is
31 suddenly required to always have a use permit for a rotorcraft use whereas if a person has a fixed-wing
32 operation or works on a fixed-wing aircraft he/she does not have this limitation.
33
34 Chair Pruden: Helicopter uses would be allowed by right on the Eastside of the Airport if the master plan
35 document was written correctly.
36
37 Airport Manager Owen: The intent of the table is to make the use designations fair to all users of the
38 Airport without discriminating between fixed-wing and rotorcraft by requiring a UP for a rotorcraft use and
39 allowing by right a same or similar uses for Fixed-Wing aircraft.
40
41 John Eisenzopf:
42 • Regarding the matter of discrimination, uses must be compatible with one another. In this case,
43 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter are not compatible with one another and should have separate
44 areas in which to operate.
45 • At the time the Airport Master Plan was written, there was no helicopter FBO like Calstar at the
46 Airport other than a few helicopters that were based for occasional use.
47 • The current Guidelines approved by Council about five years ago is the better document because
48 it spells out and added detail about what the Airport Master requires in the way of future
49 development and use.
50 • In his opinion, the existing Guidelines is the more appropriate document because potential and
51 future building area issues talked about in the Airport Master Plan were addressed by the Airport
52 Commission at that time in the Guidelines document. Westside North was not recognized as a
53 location for helicopter operations.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 15
1 Chair Pruden: According to page 5 of draft revised Guidelines rotorcraft uses are allowed in Westside
2 North.
3
4 Commissioner Helland: Requested clarification why the Land Use Plan allows rotorcraft in Westside
5 North when the Airport Master Plan does not recognize this location for helicopter operations.
6
7 Staff:
8 • The proposed revised Guidelines are not in conflict with the Airport Master Plan.
9 • The existing Guidelines were not written properly as a zoning document and do not properly
10 address use and the permit requirements.
11 • The document confuses conditional and allowed uses with site development permit and use
12 permit throughout the document.
13 • The intent of revising the Land Use Plan was to make it a proper planning document and to
14 address uses as would be done for any zoning document.
15
16 Eric Crane: Added it was later discovered the current Land Use Plan that was adopted was not the
17 version that should have been adopted.
18
19 Commissioner Helland: Would like to view the land use plan that was adopted and the one that should
20 have been adopted and would like both documents included as part of the information provided at the
21 next meeting for the Guidelines.
22
23 Page13
24
25 Chair Pruden: Inquired why the Picnic area/primitive parking area located in Westside Central is not
26 allowed in Westside North, Westside Central or Westside South.
27
28 Eric Crane: Clarified this area is an airside use with a grassy area where planes can park. Some airports
29 have an actual campground area where people can land a plane and taxi off and set up a tent and this is
30 what this use pertains to. It is not an area where people can go to have a picnic.
31
32 Chair Pruden:
33 • Recommended specifying the use to read, `Airside Picnic area/primitive parking' if this is just a
34 grassy area where people can park planes.
35 • Requested clarification that `pilot lounge' is an ancillary or accessory use to the airport terminal.
36
37 Staff: A Pilot lounge can be an accessory use in the terminal building or as part of a hangar.
38
39 Paqe 14. Table 2: Westside Uses and Permit Requirements
40
41 Chair Pruden: Requested clarification the `Storage (month-to-month) vehicle, equipment, material and
42 storage (up to 1 year)' can occur if space is available.
43
44 Staff:
45 • The uses represent the same scenario as these same uses in the Eastside. Whether or not the
46 uses are allowed for a particular area depends on whether such a use would be feasible if space
47 is available.
48 • Keep in mind there are the uses that are allowed by the Guidelines document and those uses that
49 are approved as part of the lease. A potential developer or tenant may begin the process by
50 looking at the Land Use Plan Guidelines document and then speak to the Airport Manager about
51 the likelihood of a project or use.
52
53 Airport Manager Owen: Leases are reviewed by the Airport Commission with a recommendation to
54 Council.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 16
1 Paqe 15
2
3 Chair Pruden: Referred to the narrative that reads, `The development of structures or other permanent
4 fixtures in the area between the Airport Property Line (APL) and the Building Restriction Line (BRL) are
5 prohibited if it is determined by the Airport Manager that they could impede aircraft operations' and asked
6 if the BRL area should also have Airport Commission review.
7
8 Airport Manager Owen: It may be important for the City Engineer to come and survey areas that involve
9 the BRL.
10
11 Commissioner Helland: Noted there was previous discussion that such a determination can be made by
12 the Airport Manager, City Engineer and/or Building Official.
13
14 Staff: Noted a determination would be made by a combination of City staff to include Airport Manager,
15 City Engineer, Building Official and Planning Director.
16
17 Pages 16 & 17.
18 Grammatical errors were recognized and changed.
19
20 Page18
21 Commission Helland: It appears the parking requirements were reversed for uses, `freighUshipping with
22 no customer counter service and with customer counter service.'
23
24 Paqe 19—no discussion
25
26 Paqe 20
27
28 Chair Pruden:
29 • Okay with language, `Tree species shall be primarily deciduous.'
30 • Small trees at maturity are considered to be 30 feet or less in height and medium trees 30-60 feet
31 in height.
32 • Does the Commission want to put in a height limit?
33 • Any existing trees over 30 feet in height should be referred to the Airport Manager in terms of
34 safety.
35
36 Airport Manager Owen:
37 • Prefers smaller trees for landscaping.
38 • Caltrans Aeronautics conducts tree inspections to ensure they meet safety requirements relative
39 to height. There are times when trees must be topped to stay within FAA height limitation
40 requirements.
41
42 Eric Crane: Areas where landscaping is required should be small.
43
44 Commissioner Sanders: Asked about Doolan Creek in the areas of Talmage and South State Street,
45 noting it to be `pretty denuded.' How is this section maintained? Is this section of the Creek located in the
46 Clear Zone? Would like to see a policy for the agency responsible for maintaining areas in the Runway
47 Protection Zone/Object Free Zone and how this works.
48
49 Chair Pruden:
50 • This area of the Creek is located in the Clear Zone and/or Object Free Zone.
51 • Areas in the Clear Zone must be kept free of tall weeds.
52 • The 'strip mall' that was allowed to be developed on Talmage Road within the departure and
53 approach pathway/Runway Protection Zone caused a tremendous amount of problems.
54
55 Staff:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 17
1 • Doolin Creek is not located within the boundaries of the Land Use Plan Guidelines.
2 • Will work on getting information regarding Doolin Creek and maintenance thereof.
3 • A plan for poolin Creek has been started but has not been completed. The hope is to complete
4 the Doolin Creek Plan at some time in the future.
5
6 Airport Manager Owen: The City Corporation Yard typically maintains that section of Doolin Creek by
7 mowing it a couple time of year.
8
9 Eric Crane:
10 • Certain areas on Talmage Road are located within the jurisdiction of the Runway Protection
11 Zone, which is an area designated by the FAA that must be clear of buildings and persons
12 because of approach and departure of aircraft from the runway.
13 • Caltrans Aeronautics reviews the Clear Zones to make certain areas are properly maintained in
14 accordance with FAA standards.
15
16 Page 21, Table: Landscaping Requirements
17
18 Chair Pruden:
19 • Questioned language, `Airside, Landscaping is discouraged' where it seems landscaping airside
20 should be prohibited.
21
22 Staff: This was the Commission's comment during the last discussion.
23
24 Chair Pruden: The exception would be landscaping in front of the terminal building in Westside Central
25 where some landscaping would be appropriate on the embankment.
26
27 Airport Manager Owen:
28 • Some type of landscaping would be acceptable on the front and backside of the terminal building
29 and commented where landscaping is being developed in and around the terminal building for
30 decorative purposes and as a picnic area.
31 • Cited the Don Albright hangar that is located airside as a site that has been very nicely
32 landscaped.
33
34 Chair Pruden:
35 • Agreed the renovation and landscaping completed by Don Albright to his hangar is an
36 aesthetically pleasing asset to the Airport.
37 • Looks at planning documents as to what is feasible at the Airport, moving forward with the
38 document. Landscaping airside is not feasible.
39 • Does not like the language, `landscaping is discouraged.' This language does not work as a
40 planning document.
41 • Recommends airside, language read, `Landscaping is prohibited except the Westside Central
42 area.' This would allow flexibility to landscape the embankments since this is a presentation area.
43 • Supports landscaping landside.
44
45 It was noted if landscaping exists, it is highly important it be properly maintained.
46
47 Commissioner Helland: Noted the table does require landscaping/irrigation plan.
48
49 Eric Crane: The intent of the language, `landscaping is discouraged,' is if the desire and ability is there
50 and it is feasible, that landscaping is an option that is available.
51
52 Staff: The way the table reads is standards are provided that shape and direct how landscaping should
53 occur. The language reads that while, `Landscaping is discouraged, when landscaping is provided, it shall
54 be consistent with the requirements of this table.'
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 18
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • With regard to the table concerning landscaping, how will landscaping be regulated if the
3 language reads, 'landscaping is discouraged.' The language is open-ended and needs to be
4 specific.
5 • This language leaves a loophole subject to interpretation with regard to what elements constitute
6 landscaping based on what is feasible, particularly airside.
7
8 Airport Manager Owen:
9 • Landscaping or the extent thereof would be left to the tenant.
10 • The intent is if a tenant proposes a nice landscaping plan, he/she has that opportunity.
11 • The language says `landscaping discouraged' not prohibited, airside.
12 • The table provides the corresponding standards that must be applied for landscaping.
13
14 Eric Crane: Invites the Planning Commission to take a tour of the Airport so as to better understand the
15 Airport Commission's reasoning for why the Plan was written as it is taking into issues airside, landside
16 and the uses recommended for the various areas and subareas.
17
18 Staff: If landscaping is proposed for a project airside that it be subject to the Airport Manager's approval.
19 If the landscaping is not part of the project, it is doubtful whether landscaping would be proposed.
20
21 Chair Pruden: Landscaping airside needs to have Airport Manager approval.
22
23 Paqe 22
24
25 Chair Pruden: Language should reflect that all permits must be secured before leases or agreements
26 are finalized. This allows that before leases are executed that `all entitlements' are in place. In other
27 words, it should be made clear that Use Permits and/or Sight Development Permits should be in place
28 before a lease agreement is signed to avoid problems that can occur with a lease being signed and a use
29 or development proposed that is not compatible with Airport land use documents.
30
31 Staff: Is unsure if such language is necessary in the guideline document, but can be added if this is the
32 direction from the Commission.
33
34 Airport Manager Owen: With the exception of month-to-month leases, City Council reviews and
35 approves all leases, including ground leases.
36
37 Eric Crane:
38 • In the case of a ground lease such as the Gregg Taylor hangars, this type of requirement is not
39 applicable. The City leased the ground to Mr. Taylor and he built the hangars. City Council has no
40 authority over leasing of the Taylor Hangars. It is Airport policy that hangars must be used for
41 aviation-related purposes whereby there have been policy violations associated with the Taylor
42 Hangars.
43 • Cannot speak for other Airport Commission, but Chair Pruden's recommendation to include
44 language that entitlements must be in place before a lease agreement is signed is a reasonable
45 check.
46
47 Paae 23, no discussion
48
49 Paae 24
50
51 Chair Pruden: Recommends adding the same language as written for `compatibility criteria' section on
52 page 2 of the land use plan document be included as section 4 on page 24.
53
54 Commission consensus:
55 • Pages 1, 2, 3: No change.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 19
1 • Page 4, line 13: Duplication, strike B-1 (Approach/Departure Zone &Adjacent to Runway).
2 • Page 5, line 13: Change land `are' to land `area.' Line 12, question spelling of`standalone.'
3 Standalone is one word.
4 • Pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: No change.
5 • Page, 12: Flag for more review, Airplane—flight instruction classrooms and Airplane—flight
6 instruction classrooms.
7 • Page 13: Change picnic/primitive parking to `Airside Picnic Area/Primitive Parking.'
8 • Page 14: No change.
9 • Page 15: Add language relevant that area between the APL and BRL concerning development of
10 structures of other permanent fixtures must be reviewed by a combination of the Airport Manager,
11 City Engineer, Building Official, or Planning Director.
12 • Page 16, line 16: Grammatical error, change to read, `which allows the development of certain
13 low-intensity land uses.'
14 • Page 17, Line 29: Grammatical error, change to read, `Premanufactured structures shall be large
15 enough to accommodate and provide access for aircraft.'
16 • Page 18: Reverse parking requirements for freight/shipping with no customer counter service and
17 with customer counter service.
18 • Page 19: No change.
19 • Page 20: Required landscaping for areas shall be small having a maximum 30-foot height at
20 maturity.
21 • Page 21: If the preference is not to have landscaping airside, language should reflect
22 `landscaping prohibited airside unless approved by the Airport Manager' but if someone is
23 interested and can create an appropriate plan, landscaping should be considered.
24 • Page 22: Add language that UP and/or SDP must be secured and/or in place before a lease
25 agreement is signed.
26 • Page 23: No change.
27 • Page 24: Add `Compatible Criteria' section same as written on page 2 of the land use plan to be
28 included in the Determination of Appropriate Use section.
29 • Pages 25, 26, 27: No change.
30
31 There was discussion about whether the issue of noise at the Airport should be a part of the document. It
32 was noted the Airport has a Neighborhood policy about quiet flying and this matter does not need to be
33 addressed in the guideline document.
34
35 Commissioner Helland appreciates Airport Chair Crane's comments about the document and document
36 process.
37
38 The Planning Commission will continue review of the document before making a recommendation to
39 Council concerning adoption.
40
41 There was discussion about how Determination of Appropriate Use works for projects, including the
42 Calstar relocation project.
43
44 There was also discussion about the Airport Commission's process for making decisions about the
45 Guidelines document and why.
46
47 John Eisenzopf: Further questioned table 2 with regard to helicopter uses and allowing such uses to
48 operate on the Westside and it being contradictory to the Airport Master Plan.
49
50 Commissioner Helland: Expressed concern about Mr. Eisenzopf's comments regarding rotorcraft
51 operations on the Westside being contradictory to the Airport Master Plan and desires to have more
52 information in this regard from other relevant Airport documents for the next Planning Commission
53 meeting on the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines.
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 20
1 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
2 The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be discussion about the DEIR for the Walmart
3 Expansion project.
4
5 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
6 Chair Pruden expressed how important the Airport is to her and that is why she had to be clear about
7 compatibility issues concerning the revised ALUP during the above discussion.
8
9 13. ADJOURNMENT
10 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
11
12
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 21