HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_09282011 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 September 28, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Jason Brenner
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Greg Owen, Airport Manager
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
26
27 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 10, 2011 &August 24, 2011 meeting minutes.
28 Commissioner Helland made the following changes to the August 10, 2011 meeting minutes:
29 • Correct the spelling of public speaker, Ike Hites to Ike Heinz.
30 • Page 18, line 4, sentence to read, `....of Mendocino County only increased by 1.8% over 10
31 years.
32 • Page 21, lines 52-54, sentence to read, `Bicycle planning experts at UC Davis say that a bike
33 route should only be signed and established if bike routes offer a higher degree of service than
34 alternative streets and if some of the follow apply: ............'
35
36 Commissioner Sanders made the following changes to the August 10, 2011 meeting minutes:
37 • Page 22, line 35, sentence to read, `This is a comment for the General Plan consistency
38 determination because it only addresses construction.'
39 • Page 25, line 5, sentence to read, `It is not her understanding that the general practice of Walmart
40 uses staff to patrol their parking lot.'
41
42 M/S Helland/Whetzel to approve August 10, 2011 minutes, as amended.
43
44 M/S Sanders/Whetzel to approve August 24, 2011 minutes, as submitted.
45
46 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
47
48 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
49 the final date to appeal is October 11, 2011.
50
51 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9B was verified.
52
53 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda items 9A & 9B were properly noticed in accordance with
54 the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 1
1 9. PUBLIC HEARING
2 9A. Variance File No. 11-12-VAR-PC: Conduct a public hearing for a request for Planning
3 Commission approval of Major Variances to allow a pool (Accessory structure) to be located in
4 the required front setback and less than 15 feet from the front property line and to allow a 6-foot
5 fence to be located within the required front setback at 326 Washington Avenue, APN 003-520-
6 17.
7
8 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report:
9 • The subject property is a corner lot in the R-2 zoning district that has by definition two fronts, a
10 side and a rear. As such the yard area located on the South Dora Street side is considered a front
11 yard. The applicant proposes to locate the pool five feet from a front property line. A variance is
12 required for the pool to be located in this location.
13 • The applicant proposes to locate a pool within the front yard located along South Dora Street.
14 The zoning code does not allow accessory structures in front yards. A variance is required for the
15 pool to be located within a front yard.
16 • The subject property has an existing six-foot fence that was constructed on top of the retaining
17 wall. A variance is required to allow a six foot fence to be located within the front setback.
18 • Having two fronts, the property owner is limited to a three-foot tall fence within the property lines
19 along both Washington Avenue and South Dora Street of this property. This would limit the
20 useable private yard space for this particular lot. The building code requires properties that
21 contain pools have a five-foot high fence to enclose the pool. With two front yards the property
22 owner is limited to the useable yard space for this particular lot because of the location of the
23 existing structures.
24 • The zoning ordinance defines the development standards for yard setbacks within the R-2 zoning
25 district. The setback requirements for this district are: Front: 15 ft. for dwellings and accessory
26 structures; Side: 10 feet; Rear: 15 feet.
27 • The project requires the approval of three variances to allow 1) an accessory structure (pool) to
28 be located within the required 15-foot front yard setback. 2) a pool to be located within a front
29 yard setback. 3) a six-foot fence to be located within the front yard setback.
30 • The necessary findings supporting approval of the three variances are included in the staff report.
31 • The project is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan and corresponding zoning district
32 requirements as provided for in staff's analysis of the project
33 • Staff is recommending approval.
34
35 Commission:
36 When was the existing six-foot fence constructed?
37
38 Staff: Public Works records indicate the City constructed a retaining wall along the perimeter of the
39 subject parcel in the 1960s and the fence was constructed on top of the retaining wall at some point over
40 the last 20 years.
41
42 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:13 p.m.
43
44 Michael Jenne': Neighbors have indicated the fence was constructed in the late 1960s shortly after
45 construction of the retaining wall and house.
46
47 Commission:
48 Q1. Referred to the applicanYs letter that explains the nature of the project and requested clarification
49 what the applicant meant to request is the east side of the property that borders Dora Street be changed
50 from front yard to rear yard.
51 Q2. Asked about the retaining wall that borders Dora Street and whether construction of a pool would
52 be a problem as far as pressure on the wall.
53
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 2
1 Michael Jenne':
2 A1. Reference to the west side of the property was a typographical error and should be the east side
3 of the property.
4 A2. The project must comply with all engineering standards associated with the construction of a
5 swimming pool. The retaining wall on the Dora Street side will be reinforced using steel and concrete
6 materials to make certain the wall can support the weight of a swimming pool.
7
8 Staff: A building permit will be required for construction of the pool. Public Works along with the Building
9 Department will review the building permit application and if approved monitor the construction.
10
11 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:15 p.m.
12
13 Commission:
14 • The property is unique.
15 • Privacy would not be an issue if the applicant decided a five-foot in height fence would be
16 sufficient as opposed to six-foot fence.
17
18 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 6:20 p.m.
19
20 Commission:
21 Q1: What are the plans for the fence? Do the applicants intend to replace the existing six-foot fence
22 with a six-foot new fence?
23 Q2. Will the variance allow for a six-foot fence on all sides in the front setback? Requested
24 clarification the property will be fenced on three sides of the property to include a six-foot high fence on
25 the northern boundary, approval of Variance 1 will allow a six-foot in height fence on the Dora Street side
26 and what about the three-foot chain link fence on the Washington Avenue side in front of the house.
27 Q3. Would it be a problem to replace the existing six-foot fence with a better material? Should the
28 type of material be an issue?
29
30 Michael Jenne'/Patricia Jenne':
31 A1. The intent is to repair the existing six-foot wooden fence that runs along the Dora Street side of
32 the lot.
33 A2. There is an existing chain link fence in the front yard that faces Washington Avenue and this will
34 remain. Part of the fence on the Dora Street side is three feet.
35
36 Staff: The applicant is not proposing to change the fencing that currently exists, but rather is legalizing
37 what is there.
38
39 Staff:
40 A3. Should the Commission grant the variance for a six-foot wood fence then overtime if the fence is
41 repaired or replaced, it would be in the same location as approved or in a better location as it relates to
42 the zoning rules, which would be a further setback. This is not a condition of approval, but rather how
43 variances work.
44
45 Chair Pruden: The applicant may choose to use a different type of material, such as PVC or some type
46 of decorative wood. The Commission would not like to see a chain link fence with slates. Does the
47 Commission need to specify materials such that a chain link fence cannot be constructed in the future?
48
49 Staff:
50 • It appears the Commission would not be comfortable with a variance if the fence were chain link
51 or chain link with slates. One of the reasons fences are required to be setback from front property
52 lines is because of community design issues and consideration for pedestrian orientation. It may
53 be the Commission should condition the project that the fence shall not be chain link or chain link
54 with slates.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 3
1 • What the Commission is saying is rather than require a 15-foot setback for a six foot fence they
2 will support a variance to allow for a zero setback but in exchange for zero does not want to see a
3 chain link with slates.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:25 p.m.
6
7 Commission consensus:
8 • Variance 1 —Accessorv structures (pool) located in front yard setback.
9 Agrees with staff's analysis.
10 • Variance 2— Pool to be located in side and rear yards.
11 Agrees with staff's analysis.
12 • Variance 3—Six-foot fence in front setback.
13 Agrees with staff's analysis.
14 • Is okay with other fencing materials except a chain link fence because this type of fencing
15 material does not have the design compatibility the Commission would want to see in a
16 neighborhood.
17 • Add a finding for Variance 3 that if the fence is replaced or repaired it shall not be constructed of
18 chain link or chain line with slates. This is to ensure the fence at the zero lot line will not have an
19 impact on pedestrians.
20
21 M/S Sanders/Whetzel to approve Variance File No. 11-12-VAR-PC with Findings 1-4 as provided for in
22 attachment 1 and Conditions of Approval 1-7 as provided for in attachment 2 with the addition of a
23 condition the fence cannot be chain link and the addition of a finding the setback for the fence can be a
24 zero lot line provided the fence is not chain link. Motion carried (5-0).
25
26 MINOR VARIANCE FINDINGS TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR THREE VARIANCES NEEDED TO
27 CONSTRUCT A POOL AT 326 WASHINGTON AVENUE.
28
29 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
30 application materials, and the public record.
31
32 1. See General Plan and Zoning Section of the staff report.
33
34 2. The following special circumstances apply to the subject property; therefore the strict
35 application of the code will deprive the property owner privileges enjoyed by other properties
36 within the R-2 zone.
37
38 Variance 1 Section 9035(A): Accessorv structures (pool) located in front vard setback.
39
40 A. The subject property is located on a corner and therefore by zoning code definition the
41 parcel has two fronts, a side and rear yard.
42 B. With two front yards the property owner is limited to the useable yard space for this
43 particular lot because of the location of the existing structures.
44 C. The site is developed with a single family dwelling and attached accessory structure that
45 take up much of the useable yard. The side yard of this parcel is only 5 feet wide (see
46 attachment 4, site photo)which does not allow enough room for a pool to be installed.
47 D. This particular corner parcel is unique in that it is surrounded by a 5 foot retaining wall
48 that runs parallel to the city sidewalk making the Dora Street frontage non-visible or
49 accessible from the public right of way. No other corner parcels in the area, and possibly
50 the city are configured similar to the subject parcel in that they are contained within a
51 retaining wall that sits above the public right of way.
52 E. If the property owner is held to the current regulations in regards to structures in the front
53 yard he would not be able to install a pool.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 4
1 Variance 2 Section 9176: Pools to be located in side and rear yards.
2
3 A. The subject property is located on a corner and therefore by zoning code definition the
4 parcel has two fronts. This limits the useable yard space for this particular lot to construct
5 a pool.
6 B. The parcel is developed with a single family dwelling and attached accessory structure
7 the structure is located towards the rear of the property leaving only five feet of rear yard
8 area, which does not allow enough room for a pool to be located.
9 C. If the property owner is held to the current regulations in regards to allowed pool locations
10 he would not be able to install a pool.
11 D. Because of the uniqueness of this particular lot the yard area defined as the front yard
12 which runs along Dora Street is not visible or accessible from the public right of way.
13
14 Variance 3 Section 9178 Six foot fence in front setback.
15 A. The subject property is a corner lot that has by definition two fronts. The property owner is
16 limited to a 3 foot tall fence along both Washington Avenue and South Dora Street of this
17 property. This limits the useable rear yard space for this particular lot.
18 B. The Building Code requires that properties that contain pools have at least a five foot
19 fence.
20
21 3. The issuance of these variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege based on
22 the following:
23
24 Variance 1 Section 9035(A): Accessory structures (pool) located in front vard setback.
25 A. The proposed pool would not block or change the pedestrian or vehicle circulation within
26 the neighborhood.
27 B. The project is required to comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
28 C. The construction of the pool will not result in an intensification of the existing primary
29 residential use of the property. The proposed pool is accessory to the primary use.
30 D. The granting of this variance will not change the existing footprint of the primary structure
31 Therefore the privacy of the neighbors will not be compromised.
32 E. The proposed pool would be located in an area that functions as the rear of the property
33 and is not visible or accessible from the public street.
34
35 Variance 2 Section 9176: Pools to be located in side and rear vards.
36 A. Given that the subject parcel is a corner the parcel's defined side and rear are very
37 narrow and would not provide enough room to locate a pool. Other properties within the
38 district are able to locate a pool in their side or rear yards.
39 B. Based on staff's survey of the neighborhood there does not appear to be any other lots
40 with similar side and rear yards and therefore are able to locate a pool as allowed by the
41 Zoning Ordinance.
42
43 Variance 3 Section 9178 Six foot fence in front setback.
44 A. If the property owner is held to the current regulations in regards to fence heights he
45 would not be able to use his yard area as other property owners within this district have
46 been and are able to.
47
48 4. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the surrounding property owners
49 based on the following:
50
51 Variance 1 Section 9035(A): Accessory structures (pool) located in front yard setback.
52 A. The proposed pool would not block or change the pedestrian or vehicle circulation within
53 the neighborhood.
54 B. The project is required to comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 5
1 C. The construction of the pool will not result in an intensification of the existing primary
2 residential use of the property. The proposed pool is accessory to the primary use.
3 D. The granting of this variance will not change the existing footprint of the primary structure
4 Therefore the privacy of the neighbors will not be compromised.
5 E. The proposed pool would be located in an area that functions as the rear of the property
6 and is not visible or accessible from the public street.
7
8 Variance 2 Section 9176: Pools to be located in side and rear yards.
9 A. The proposed pool would not block or change the pedestrian or vehicle circulation within
10 the neighborhood.
11 B. The project is required to comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
12 C. The construction of the pool will not result in an intensification of the existing primary
13 residential use of the property. The proposed pool is accessory to the primary use.
14 D. The granting of this variance will not change the existing footprint of the primary structure
15 Therefore the privacy of the neighbors will not be compromised.
16 E. The proposed pool would be located in an area that functions as the rear of the property
17 and is not visible or accessible from the public street.
18
19 Variance 3 Section 9178 Six foot fence in front setback.
20
21 A. The fence would not block or change the pedestrian or vehicle circulation within the
22 neighborhood.
23 B. As conditioned by the Planning Commission, the fence would not be detrimental to
24 surrounding property owners since it is an attractive solid wood fence and any fence
25 repair or replacement is prohibited from being constructed of chain link or chain link with
26 slats in order to provide compatibility with the neighboring properties and to maintain the
27 attractive appearance of the area and ensure that the fence at the zero lot line would not
28 have a detrimental effect on pedestrians.
29 C. The project is required to comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
30 D. Enclosure of a portion of the yard with a six foot fence will not result in an intensification
31 of the existing primary residential use of the property. The proposed fence is accessory
32 to the primary use.
33 E. The fence design will be similar to other wood fences in the neighborhood.
34 F. The granting of this variance will not change the existing footprint of the primary structure
35 Therefore the privacy of the neighbors will not be compromised.
36
37 CONDITIONS OF APPROCAL OF THREE VARIANCES NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT A POOL AT 326
38 WASHINGTON AVENUE.
39
40 1. Variance approval is granted for the three variances needed to construct the in ground pool as
41 shown on the site plan submitted to the Community Development and Planning Department and
42 date stamped August 16, 2011 except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
43
44 2. Except as otherwise specifically noted, these variances shall be granted only for the specific
45 purposes stated in the action approving the variance and shall not be construed as eliminating or
46 modifying any building, use, zoning or other requirements except as to such specific purposes.
47
48 3. This approved variance may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
49 project related to the Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and
50 conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of
51 approval; or if the established and use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been
52 suspended for twenty-four(24) consecutive months.
53
54 From the Planninq Commission
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 6
1 4. Chain link fence or chain link fence with slats shall not be used for the six foot fence located within
2 the setback.
3
4
5 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv 467-5718)
6
7 5. Building permits are required for the installation of the gunite pool and associated electrical and
8 plumbing.
9
10 Standard Citv Conditions of Approval
11
12 6. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
13 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
14
15 7. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
16 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
17 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
18 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
19 and issued.
20
21 8. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
22 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
23 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
24 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
25 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
26 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
27 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
28 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
29 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
30 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
31 remain in full force and effect.
32
33 10. NEW BUSINESS
34 Determine Planning Commission meeting schedule for November and December 2011.
35
36 The Commission reviewed the meeting schedule and recommended the following:
37 1) Retain the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 9.
38 2) Cancel the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 23 due to the
39 proximity of the Thanksgiving Day holidays.
40 3) November 30 is not an option.
41 4) Retain the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of December 14.
42 5) Tentatively selected a special meeting for December 12 as a substitute for the December 28
43 re�ular meeting and tentatively selected December 19 or 20 for a special meeting with December
44 19 h as the preference. Staff to determine Council Chambers availability.
45
46 9B. Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines.
47 Conduct a public hearing and make a possible recommendation to the City Council on proposed revisions
48 to the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines.
49
50 Senior Planner Jordan gave a staff report and:
51 • Recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to review the revised Ukiah
52 Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Plan Guidelines.
53 • Asked the Commission to make sure they have made all the changes they want to make.
54 • Recapped what the Airport Commission and Planning Commission review process has been
55 concerning the Guideline document.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 7
1 • Addressed staff's analysis and the fact the Airport is zoned Public Facilities (PF), what the Ukiah
2 Municipal Airport Master Plan recommends in that the City could consider adopting an Airport
3 overlay zone or an airport area specific plan similar in format and content to the AIP PD that
4 includes principal uses, conditional uses, prohibited uses, nuisances and development standards,
5 noting many of the proposed revisions in the Guidelines likely require amendments to individual
6 section of the zoning ordinance such as site development permit, use permit, landscaping, etc. in
7 order to be implemented. As such, the revised Guidelines could be adopted as:
8 • Guidelines;
9 ■ Guidelines with some associated zoning ordinance amendments; or,
10 ■ An amendment to the zoning ordinance to create an overlay zone or a zoning district
11 specific to the Airport.
12 • Requests the Commission provide a recommendation as to its preference of the above options
13 and if none of the options are preferred, staff asks the Commission to provide a recommendation
14 as how to proceed with the proposed revisions.
15 • To assist with the process staff has included attachment 1, Article 15 (Regulations in Public
16 Facilities (PF) Districts, Attachment 2, excerpts from the Airport Master Plan relative to land use
17 and environmental issues concerning an Airport Overlay Zone, Attachment 3, the Ukiah Municipal
18 Airport Building Area & Land Use Plan Development Guidelines dated April 7, 2004, and
19 attachment 4, Table 7A, Current Compatibility Criteria as provided for in the Airport Master Plan.
20
21 Commissioners Whetzel and Brenner recused themselves from participating in discussion/action of this
22 agenda item.
23
24 Chair Pruden referred to the July 27, 2011 Planning Commission minutes relevant to the discussion and
25 recommendations concerning revisions to the Guidelines and asked if these comments will carry forward
26 as changes within the document in addition to changes made tonight when the document goes to City
27 Council.
28
29 Staff: It may be the recommended revisions made by the Commission will be summarized and/or
30 excerpts made of minutes when Council reviews the document.
31
32 Chair Pruden: Pages 19 and 20 of the July 27 Planning Commission minutes provides that summary.
33
34 Chair Pruden: It appears the only area in the draft document that is of concern and needs further
35 discussion is the use table regarding rotocraft uses in terms of compatibility with fixed-wing aircraft.
36
37 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:50 p.m.
38
39 Commissioner Helland:
40 • There has been discussion by members of the public about consistency between the Airport
41 Master Plan and the Guidelines relevant to the location of rotocraft.
42 • Referred to the Airport Master Plan specific to:
43 ■ Page 2-9, helicopter operations, `To better accommodate transient helicopter operations,
44 the Master Plan recommends that at least two helicopter parking positions be designated
45 on the concrete apron located directly to the east of the airport terminal building.
46 Helicopters based at the Airport will continue to operate directly to/from their respective
47 on-airport facilities.'
48 ■ Page, 5-19, Other Airfield Design Elements, Helicopter Operations further addresses
49 rototcraft operations, noting `the short-to-intermediate time frame helicopter and airplane
50 operations at the Airport will of necessity continue to be interactive and dependent — as
51 they are at present.'
52 ■ Page 6-8, Transient Helicopter Parking Position, reiterates the desire for transient
53 helicopter parking at the Airport.
54 • The Master Plan clarified her questions/concerns about location of rotocraft.
55
56 John Eisenzopf:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 8
1 • Is a tenant at the Airport.
2 • Has no issue with the Guideline document.
3 • His primary concern is location of helicopter fixed-based operations (FBOs) being an allowed use
4 or even a permitted use on the northwest side of the Airport and does not see this is addressed in
5 the document. They are either not allowed or permitted on the northwest side.
6 • Supports that the Guideline document encourages helicopter operations on the eastside of the
7 Airport.
8 • As he sees it the protections, the oversight and due process in the revised document be at least
9 as strong as the current version.
10
11 Staff: Determined Mr. Eisenzopf was referencing the original version of the Guidelines and not the
12 revised version and referred him to the use table for rotocraft on pages 12 & 13 of the revised Guidelines.
13
14 John Eisenzopf:
15 • Advised he was not referencing the correct document that is being discussed tonight.
16 • Is of the opinion allowing rotocraft uses on the west side of the Airport is inappropriate and
17 hazardous and will drive fixed-wing operators out of that area.
18 • Relevant to Westside North, presently the closest neighbor to Calstar is Gordon Jahnke's hangar,
19 which is 20-feet away. He cannot open his hangar door without debris blowing in from Calstar
20 rotocraft. T&M Aviation is the next neighbor and owner Mike Whetzel must sweep his hangar out
21 daily.
22 • Would like to see the same protections in the revised Guideline document that exist in the original
23 document.
24 • Helicopter operations on the Northwest side should be either allowed or permitted so they have to
25 go through the same determination of appropriate use with review from the Airport Commission,
26 as well as endorsement from the Planning Commission.
27 • Is of the opinion the Calstar relocation should have never happened.
28 • Again, to allow an expansion of helicopter operation in the west side is unfortunate, inappropriate
29 and will drive fixed-wing operators out of this area.
30 • In the event Gordon Jahnke vacates his hangar and a helicopter operation moves into the space,
31 Mike Whetzel of T&M Aviation would be unable to open his hangar without a lot of debris coming
32 in.
33 • Allowing a helicopter use on the west side gives the Airport Manager the authority to place such
34 an operation in any hangar without oversight or review.
35
36 Staff:
37 • The 2004 Guidelines concerning Westside North Planning Area refer to allowed uses as 'aircraft'
38 uses, such as `aircraft avionics' whereas the revised Guidelines refer to the uses as `airplane' or
39 rotocraft uses. Aircraft is defined as `a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the
40 air.' (FAA FAR Part 1). Airplane is defined as `an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than
41 air that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.' (FAA FAR Part
42 1). Aircraft Avionics is defined as `the development and use of electric and electronic equipment
43 for aircraft.' The definition of aircraft is not specific to airplane or fixed-wing aircraft and/or other
44 types of flying machines/apparatuses and includes helicopters. When the Airport Commission
45 went through the exercise of determining uses, they were very specific about differentiating
46 between airplane/fixed-wing aircraft uses and rotocrafUhelicopter uses.
47 • The same procedure of differentiating between airplane/fixed-wing aircraft and rotocraft uses was
48 followed in the use table for the east side of the Airport.
49 • The intent of the Guidelines was to make certain the uses were consistent with the Airport Master
50 Plan whereby many of the allowed uses referenced in the original version were included in the
51 revised version with some modification for clarity purposes according to uses that are appropriate
52 for fixed-wing or rotocraft type of uses relative to the various plan areas.
53
54 Commissioner Helland:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 9
1 • There was prior Planning Commission discussion about funding that is dependent on having a
2 place for rotocraft. What does `having a place' mean? Does it mean the use is allowed or would a
3 use permit suffice for retaining that funding?
4
5 Airport Manager Owen:
6 • Is not sure of the question. In terms of grant assurances, the Airport has to allow for aviation-
7 related activities and this may be what Commissioner Helland is referring to. Also, in order to
8 keep up with the grant assurances, the Airport is not allowed to discriminate against different
9 uses. His concern is if fixed-wing aircraft is allowed by right in a hangar and require a use permit
10 for a helicopter in a hangar, this could be determined to be discriminatory against the two.
11
12 Chair Pruden is of the opinion the concern should be about compatibility between fixed-wing aircraft and
13 rotocraft rather than discrimination.
14
15 Airport Manager Owen:
16 • On this subject, Airport uses must comply with FAA safety standards and as such must make the
17 necessary repairs to avoid jeopardizing FAA grant assurance funding.
18
19 Chair Pruden:
20 • Her only problem with the revised Guideline document is the use table for rotocraft uses,
21 specifically the uses categorized `A(1).'
22 • Supports changing 'A(1)' to `UP(1)' in the rotocraft section. Footnote `1' refers to `when the east
23 side of the Airport is developed and leases expire, these uses shall be relocated to the east side
24 of the Airport to Eastside North Subarea 3 provided the necessary infrastructure is available.'
25 • Is okay with the rotocraft uses that are allowed by right in the table.
26
27 Staff:
28 • The Airport Commission probably spent more time on how to deal with helicopters more than any
29 other issue concerning the Guideline document relative to determining where helicopters should
30 be allowed.
31 • There was Commission consensus that at least one area of the Airport accommodate helicopter
32 uses.
33 • The Airport Commission being the experts has decided that helicopters are appropriate and
34 should be allowed by right in the areas specified in the use table.
35 • Is concerned with changing rotocraft uses that are allowed by right to require a use permit when
36 in the previous Guidelines, referencing page 8, for Westside North allows by right `aircraft' uses
37 which by definition includes helicopters. Suddenly the rotocraft uses are becoming restrictive and
38 contrary to the Airport Commission's recommendation.
39
40 Commissioner Helland:
41 • Are the proposed changes specific only to Westside North or to all of the plan areas on the west
42 side?
43
44 Chair Pruden: Use permits are already required for the Westside South land designation. The A(1)
45 designations pertain to Westside North and Westside Central and she would like to change these
46 designations to UP(1) like that of Westside South. She is not proposing changes to the uses designated
47 'A' that allows for rotocraft parking/transient parking and repairs.
48
49 John Eisenzopf:
50 • According to the FAA development guidelines and best practices and advisory circulars he has
51 reviewed recommend the segregation of rotocraft and fixed-wing aircraft.
52 • One of the advisory circulars that was submitted to the Planning Commission before recommends
53 at least a 'three roto-diameter separation' in operations. This does not exist where Calstar is
54 presently located.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 10
1 • The discrimination issue is a `red herring' and that the FAA would encourage the Airport to
2 segregate rotocraft and fixed-wing aircraft and not encourage the Airport to put helicopter
3 operations in any hangar especially if it is going to endanger and/or have a negative impact on an
4 existing operation. The Calstar location already has had a negative impact on T&M Aviation and
5 has severely affected its closest neighbor.
6 • An expansion of those operations could very well put T&M Aviation out of business or force the
7 business to relocate to another location on the Airport.
8 • Is of the opinion the discrimination issue is invalid. We are allowing access to the Airport by
9 rotocraft where they are allowed to park and operate.
10 • Supports that appropriate facilities can be made available through the proper permit process.
11 • Is also of the opinion no Airport funding is at risk.
12
13 Duell Parks:
14 • Is a fixed-wing and helicopter pilot and a user of the Airport.
15 • Frequently uses the Sonoma County Airport and noted this airport has both fixed-wing aircraft
16 and helicopter operations working side-by-side.
17 • In his opinion there is no problem with helicopters fixed-wing aircraft working in close proximity to
18 one another in terms of safety factors.
19 • Speaking from experience, helicopter pilots today are more courteous than most airplane pilots.
20 • It is important for helicopter pilots and airplane pilots to be aware of one another.
21
22 Commissioner Helland:
23 • Asked Mr. Parks if additional consideration and attention would take care of the roto-wash issue
24 and debris that gets blown into fixed-wing areas.
25
26 Duell Parks: Has personal experience with helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft and noted fixed-wing aircraft
27 can generate just as much debris.
28
29 Commissioner Helland: Would the matter improve if the two aircraft operated further apart from one
30 another?
31
32 Duell Parks:
33 • It is just a matter of observing each other and exercising common courtesy.
34
35 Don Albright:
36 • Is vice-Chair of the Airport Commission.
37 • The Airport Commission gave the revised Guideline document a lot of consideration.
38 • Addressed Mr. Eisenzopf's comments regarding the difficulties T&M Aviation has with helicopter
39 activity operating in close proximity.
40 • Noted T&M Aviation actually services a helicopter out of that particular location which is much
41 closer than the Calstar issue.
42 • Explained how Calstar takes every precaution to make certain they do not impact neighbors
43 operating in the vicinity and measures taken to ensure safety.
44 • Rotocraft operators take precautionary measures to maintain a safe distance from fixed-wing
45 aircraft operations.
46 • Is not aware of any complaints concerning Calstar by FedEx and/or other Airport operations from
47 across the fence.
48
49 John Eisenzopf:
50 • It is appropriate to distinguish between recreational use of helicopters and other aircraft that Mr.
51 Parks represents and the helicopter that is occasionally serviced in the hangar next door to T&M
52 Aviation. Recreational users may fly once or twice a month and are aware of impacts to
53 neighbors. What is being discussed is perhaps locating another FBO that could be a 24-hour
54 operation like Calstar, which is taking off multiple times during the course of the day, day and
55 night, day in and day out. This represents a huge impact to other FBOs in the area. Calstar
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 11
1 rotocraft are also much heavier than recreational private aircraft that Mr. Parks flies and that Mr.
2 Jahnke has in his hangar relative to the 'prop-wash' and impacts to the neighbors are many times
3 greater.
4 • Supports restricting private use hangars for helicopters for commercial use and not recreational
5 use.
6 • Helicopter operations that function day and night do have an impact on neighbors.
7 • It is not appropriate to locate these kinds of operations without oversight and it is absolutely
8 necessary there be a permitting process for such operations.
9
10 Airport Manager Owen:
11 • Addressed the statement concerning the helicopter operating next to T&M Aviation that has
12 operated from 10 to 15 years out of Mr. Jahnke's hangar. This same helicopter has operated out
13 of T&M Aviation this year and is actually taking off and landing directly on the T&M Aviation ramp.
14 • Noticed the other day the helicopter was operating less than 30 feet from a fixed-wing aircraft.
15 While the helicopter may be somewhat smaller than the Calstar helicopter, it is still a turbine
16 helicopter that is extremely fast.
17 • The helicopter takes off and lands a couple of times a day directly on T&M Aviation ramp with
18 fixed-wing aircraft less than 30 feet away. The helicopter is also stored in T&M Aviation's hangar.
19 • There have been no complaints from tenants in the area.
20
21 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:15 p.m.
22
23 Commission consensus:
24
25 Chair Pruden: The only `sticking point' concerning the Guideline document is the compatibility issue and
26 would like to see the A(1) uses be changed to UP(1) in the use table for rotocraft for Westside North and
27 Westside Central.
28
29 Commissioner Helland:
30 • Finds the Guideline document to be one of the harder decisions while serving on the Planning
31 Commission relative to the issues compatibility versus discrimination and safety raised above.
32 • Is not concerned about the issue of discrimination because it is a community's right that its
33 elected and appointed bodies decide where to locate different uses and what the level of review
34 should be.
35 • Is unwilling to second guess the Airport Commission since they are the experts who worked on
36 the Guideline document for the past year and a half where only two objections were received to
37 what is written in the Guidelines.
38 • No one has suggested the document is an ideal situation and while everyone would prefer that
39 helicopter operations occur on the east side when the services and necessary infrastructure are
40 available unfortunately this is not the case at present.
41 • Is reluctant to change what is stated in the document.
42 • Is of the opinion that a use permit is highly onerous.
43 • Is willing to see the A(1) in either the Westside North or Westside Central changed to require a
44 use permit, but there needs to be somewhere rental sales and storage of rotocraft are allowed.
45
46 Commissioner Sanders:
47 • Does not want to make a recommendation that would go against the Airport Commission.
48 • There was a helicopter representative serving on the Commission.
49 • The Airport Commission carefully considered the document and corresponding uses in terms of
50 value and fairness to rotocraft and fixed-wing aircraft operations.
51 • The Planning Commission should support the recommendation of the Airport Commission.
52
53 Staff:
54 • Pointed out that for rotocraft parking-transient and rotocraft parking and tie downs refer to UCC
55 Section 5019. Based on this City code section, it is likely these uses would have to be allowed.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 12
1 • A UCC typically would preempt any desire there might be for a use permit.
2 • Looking at the previous Guidelines for Westside North, aircraft uses which would include
3 helicopters were allowed by right in this area.
4 • If Westside North remained as allowed by right, this would not be inconsistent with the previous
5 Guidelines. The Commission could consider doing something different for Westside Central or
6 Westside South that might be a middle ground, noting the Airport Commission worked very hard
7 to find a place where rotocraft was allowed by right because of concern for jeopardizing FAA
8 grant assurance possibilities if there was not at least one location where rotocraft uses were
9 allowed by right.
10
11 Chair Pruden: Is not suggesting any changes for rotocraft uses that are allowed by right in the use table.
12 Is only concerned about changing the five A(1) rototcraft use categories on Westside North and two A(1)
13 rotocraft use categories on Westside Central to UP(1).
14
15 Staff:
16 • Rotocraft hangars are categorized A(1) for Westside North and Westside South and prohibited in
17 the Westside Central.
18 • For Westside North, the A(1) category pertains to rotocraft hangars, rotocraft medical emergency
19 flight services (e.g. Calstar, Reach), rotocraft rental, rotocraft sales and leasing and rotocraft
20 storage &support equipment.
21 • The Airport Manager has some comments about making changes in this regard.
22
23 Chair Pruden:
24 • When the east side is developed, rotocraft uses would automatically be required to go there.
25 • Noted A(1)are included in Westside Central for rotocraft rental and rotocraft sales & leasing.
26 • Westside South is mostly UP(1)for rotocraft uses with the exception of rotocraft hangars.
27 • Is okay with allowing rotocraft hangars in Westside South because she views it as a temporary
28 situation.
29
30 Motion by Chair Pruden to recommend City Council approve the revised Guidelines with a change to
31 the use table for rotocraft that the A(1) categories for Westside North and Westside Central be changed
32 to UP(1).
33
34 Staff indicated there was other issues to address before a motion is made to recommend City Council
35 approve the Guideline document
36
37 Chair Pruden amended her motion to recommend City Council approve the changes on page 13 of the
38 use table for rotocraft as discussed above.
39
40 Motion failed for lack of second.
41
42 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 7:38 p.m.
43
44 Jason Brenner:
45 • Important not to second guess the recommendations made by the Airport Commission
46 concerning the revised Guideline document.
47 • People who are unfamiliar with the flying of aircraft do not have the ability to make decisions that
48 will affect the functioning of this aspect of the Airport.
49 • The possibility of restricting rotocraft on the Airport is a critical issue.
50
51 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:42 p.m.
52
53 Chair Pruden considers herself very knowledgeable about how the Airport functions and she helped
54 formulate the existing Airport Guideline document so she is no stranger to the process.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 13
1 Staff asked the Commission to:
2 • Make certain all outstanding Guideline issues are addressed.
3 • Have a discussion about Guidelines versus a Zoning Ordinance as to how the document should
4 move forward.
5
6 Staff: Related to allowed uses and interaction between rotocraft and fixed-wing aircraft, the Airport
7 Manager, Council and Airport Commission review leases so even if the use is allowed by right, if these
8 decision makers were of the opinion there was some kind of compatibility issue with the location of
9 rotocraft related to fixed-wing this aspect would be addressed in part through the lease. Certainly the use
10 permit is a public process requiring an application and public hearing, but the lease discussion also plays
11 a role in the decision process about potential compatibility issues between rotocraft and fixed-wing so a
12 mechanism is in place that addresses this issue.
13
14 Chair Pruden: Unfortunately the process did not work for the Calstar project or well in the past.
15
16 Commissioner Sanders: Would like more feedback from staff regarding page 3 of the staff report with
17 regard to the pros and cons for having just Guidelines, or Guidelines with some association with Zoning
18 Ordinance amendments or an amendment to the zoning ordinance to create an overlay zone or a zoning
19 district specific to the Airport.
20
21 Staff: It may be the Commission could create two separate documents that includes all the background
22 information that describes the various plan areas on the Airport to include a purpose statement etc., for
23 each area that would not really be appropriate language for a zoning code so for lack of a better term the
24 Guidelines should contain language that describes all the background information relative to the various
25 plan areas separate from language that pertains to `zoning' that would be codified in the Zoning
26 Ordinance.
27
28 There was Commission discussion concerning the three options noting the hierarchy of documents in
29 terms of planning decisions includes first the General Plan and Zoning regulations followed by Guidelines.
30 It was noted that guidelines are not necessarily followed.
31
32 Chair Pruden: What was the Airport Commission's concern about having a codified document versus
33 guidelines.
34
35 Staff: The concern was this was not the direction of Council.
36
37 Staff:
38 • A standalone document related to the Airport would likely include the purpose and intent
39 statement, all background information, Airport compatibility criteria, and land use descriptions.
40 • The use table would be part of a zoning ordinance specific to the Airport together with individual
41 sections of the ordinance pertinent to site development threshold levels/use permit and
42 corresponding findings, landscaping and parking standards, lighting standards etc., wherein many
43 of these standards differ from the existing PF zoning standards that pertain to the current zoning
44 regulations for the Airport.
45 • Is of the opinion that either the overlay zone or standalone zoning district for the Airport would be
46 appropriate.
47 • Rather than having to distinguish as to type of zoning ordinance, overlay or guidelines with some
48 associated zoning ordinance amendments, it would be perfectly fine for the Planning Commission
49 to just say they prefer implementing a zoning ordinance than guidelines.
50 • If the choice is to go with the Guidelines those sections of the document contradictory to the
51 current zoning for the Airport would have to be pulled out, such as language relevant to site
52 development/use permits and findings.
53
54 Chair Pruden:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 14
1 • Her preference would be to implement a zoning ordinance for the Airport, but not necessarily an
2 overlay zone that may have State planning-related special constraints such as floodplains,
3 topographical and/or other possible geographical or historical constraints.
4 • Supports implementing a standalone zoning ordinance for at this time with consideration for a
5 possible overlay in the future. Allowing for an overlay without zoning does not mean `a whole lot.'
6
7 Staff: The way this approach would work is to create an overlay with the Airport zoned PF-A with `A' as
8 reference to the Airport.
9
10 Commission consensus:
11 • All outstanding issues expressed by the Commission are documented and provided for in the July
12 27 Planning Commission meeting minutes. The only other issue is Commissioner Sanders'
13 request for information on the clear zone located north of the Airport in the area of Tamage Road
14 and Doolin Creek.
15 • Supports the guidelines become a zoning ordinance for the Airport.
16
17 Staff: Has indicated in the staff report `Doolin Creek/Talmage Road is not located within the boundaries
18 of the Guidelines and is not affected by the proposed revisions. The area is designated as Compatibility
19 Zone A — Runway Protection Zone or within the Building Restriction Line (refer to Mendocino County
20 Airport Land Use Commission, Table 7A). In Zone A normally acceptable uses include aircraft tie down
21 apron, pastures, field crops and vineyards and automobile parking whereby the density requirement in
22 this zone is limited to 10 persons per acre and the land area is required to remain open. A portion of
23 Doolin Creek is located north of the Airport in the A zone. At this time, the City does not have a Doolin
24 Creek Plan. Should resources allow in the future, the intent would be to continue the work to prepare and
25 adopt a plan/study for poolin Creek.'
26
27 Commissioner Sanders: Her request is the information section on page 3 of the staff report, Doolin
28 Creek/Talmage Road, be provided to Council.
29
30 M/S Sanders/Helland recommend City Council adopt Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land
31 Use Development Plan Guidelines with the recommendation of making the guidelines a zoning ordinance
32 and a section on the Doolin Creek Plan for Council to review.
33
34 Chair Pruden inquired how the document will be presented to Council.
35
36 Staff: What will likely occur is to present a `background documenY and what the zoning ordinance would
37 include.
38
39 Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
40
41 AYES: Commissioners Helland and Sanders
42 NOES: Chair Pruden
43
44 Chair Pruden approves of the document with the exception of page 13 concerning some of the use
45 designations for rotocraft.
46
47 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
48 It is likely the Planning Commission will review the final Walmart EIR at the regular November 9 meeting.
49
50 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
51 Commissioner Sanders has information about the annual planning commission conference held at
52 Sonoma State University on December 3�d for those commissioners interested in attending.
53
54 Commissioner Sanders inquired about a letter in the UDJ concerning a pedestrian safety issue at the
55 new Sears building.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 15
1 Staff will look into the matter.
2
3 Chair Pruden commended Commissioner Sanders and the Friends of Gibson Creek for their clean-up
4 efforts and noted a lot of trash was pulled out.
5
6 13. ADJOURNMENT
7 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
8
9 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
10
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 28, 2011
Page 16