HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_05122010 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 May 12, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
26
27 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION — Planning Commission confirmed site visit for agenda item 10A.
28
29 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 14, 2010
30 Recording Secretary Elawadly noted corrections have been made where necessary that Vice Chair
31 Molgaard conducted the meeting.
32
33 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve April 14, 2010 minutes, as amended with Chair Pruden abstaining.
34 Motion carried (4-0).
35
36 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS- None.
37
38 7. APPEAL PROCESS— N/A
39
40 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE— N/A
41
42 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
43 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop. Review and discussion of Section 12: Administration and
44 Procedures.
45 Staff presented an overview of the workshop objectives and stated the topic for discussion tonight is
46 about how permits would be processed for projects in the DZC.
47
48 Paqe 68, Section 12: Administration and Procedures
49
50 Staff:
51 ➢ Subsection f, `Subdivisions' requires further review by staff and will be discussed by the
52 Commission at a later date.
53 ➢ Review/discuss subsection C. Site Development Permits —Table 12A establishes the procedures
54 for review and SDP process using 3 levels of review(tiers) based on the size of the project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 1
1 ➢ Review/discuss subsection D, Use Permits — Table 12B establishes the procedures for review
2 and processing of Use Permits using 2 levels of review, Minor Use Permit and Major Use Permit.
3 ➢ Need to review Table 4A, Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements, to determine if the Use Permti
4 indicated in the table is Minor or Major.
5 ➢ Changes to the Uses included in Table 4 was not specifically agendized and is not a topic for
6 discussion at tonighYs meeting.
7 ➢ If a use also requires a site development permit since it exceeds the threshold of 15,000 total
8 square feet of floor area, since the Planning Commission would review the site development
9 permit, the Planning Commission would also review any required use permit regardless of if the
10 use permit is identified as minor or major in Table A. When more than one entitlement is
11 required, the decision maker is the based on the highest review authority for the permits involved
12 and that decision maker will decide on all the permits.
13 Review/discuss Table 12C, Exception procedures.
14 ➢ Page 69, Table 12A, Tier1, Permit Type, even though the use is allowed by right, a building
15 permit is required with review by staff for compliance with all applicable standards. Either the
16 project complies with the applicable standards and Planning staff signs the permit or the project
17 does not comply and staff informs the application of where the project is inconsistent.
18 ➢ Page 69, Table 12A Tier 2, Minor SDP, is similar to what occurs with the procedures under the
19 current zoning code. Staff would review the project and the Zoning Administrator is the decision
20 maker.
21 ➢ Page 69, Table 12A, Tier 3, Major SDP, is also similar to what occurs with the procedures under
22 the current zoning code. Staff would review the project and prepare the analysis for review and
23 possible action by the Planning Commission.
24 ➢ The `Tier' categories provide the required permit procedures for each of the 3-tiered scenarios.
25
26 Commission:
27 Q1. Will the title, `Site Development PermiY change for the DZC?
28 Q2. What about CEQA review for site development permits in the DZC? Should there be a specific
29 heading or footnote in Table 12A related to CEQA review?
30 Q3. How does the General Plan fit into the DZC?
31 Q4. Why are the thresholds different for the current zoning code compared to the DZC?
32 Q5. There have been situations at the Zoning Administrator review level where projects have been
33 'controversial' in nature. Would these types of situations be treated similarly for the DZC or would
34 the Planning Commission review such projects?
35 Q6. While it may be important to subject certain projects to review at a higher discretionary level, is
36 the intent of the DZC to streamline projects and limit the amount of discretionary review? This
37 process should be balanced. It may be the trigger mechanism requiring a higher level of review is
38 that the project is determined to be a `special circumstance.' Furthermore, should the
39 determination be made by staff? What if the City has a Planning Director that prefers projects be
40 reviewed by the Planning Commission when in fact this is not necessary? There was a time
41 when the Planning Commission was reviewing projects concerning fence heights, vendor carts,
42 and other types of incidental/minor projects. As a result, the City Code was changed to allow
43 decisions about minor projects be made at a lower level of review.
44 Q7. Page 68, subsection f, what is a non-residential condominium?
45 Q8. Why are Planned Developments (PD) prohibited in the DZC boundaries, since they are
46 encouraged in the Downtown area?
47 Q9. Page 68, subsection G, Benefits and Incentives, is not clear and will changes be made?
48 Requested G(1) be rewritten.
49
50 Staff:
51 Q1. The title will not change. The requirements for Site Development Permits within the DZC will be
52 established by Section 12 and SDPs outside of the DZC will be subject to the requirements of the
53 zoning ordinance.
54 Q2. Most Site Development Permits are exempt from CEQA review because of the size of the project;
55 Staff reviews the project after it is submitted to determine if it is exempt from CEQA. If it is not
56 exempt, staff determines the level of environmental review required for the project. Staff's
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 2
1 preference would be to create a heading and include text that references a determination of the
2 project being exempt or level environmental review required made by staff.
3 Q3. Every project whether it is a major/minor SDP or UP must be reviewed for consistency with the
4 Ukiah General Plan.
5 Q4. The DZC includes more standards than the zoning ordinance. Currently, projects are required to
6 comply with the standards in the zoning ordinance, primarily height, setbacks, parking, and
7 landscaping. Projects are also subject to design guidelines. However, these are more like
8 "recommendations" than requirements. The DZC has many more requirements and most of the
9 current guidelines are included as requirements. This reduces the amount of discretion needed
10 and provides more certainty as to what is expected. The 15,000 square foot threshold is based on
11 the size of the Walgreen's building.
12 Q5/Q6. If Planning Commission would like to include this as part of the tables, we would include a
13 reference to zoning code Section 9268(D) provisions state: Referral to the Planning Commission:
14 The Zoning Administrator may refer any application for a use permit, site development permit,
15 variance, or any other zoning matter to the Planning for public hearing.
16 Q7. Refers to a non-residential building (commercial or industrial) that is converted to or constructed
17 as a condominium. The units can be individually sold just like residential condominiums.
18 Q8. A PD is typically requested when an applicant is unable to comply with the zoning standards or
19 chooses not to and/or does not want to apply for a variance(s). The DZC allows an applicant to
20 apply for exception(s)to the standards making a PD unnecessary.
21 The Clark subdivision and PD on Cleveland Lane was cited as an example of a PD. The DZC
22 would also have allowed the project since a subdivision that includes proposed
23 improvements/buildings as part of the application has no minimum lot size or lot width/depth
24 requirement in the DZC. The Planning Commission and Council would be able to review the
25 project and see how the lots are laid out, the building configurations for the various lots, frontage
26 improvements and street improvement and determine if the proposed size and dimensions are
27 adequate.
28 Q9. Staff can review/revise once Planning Commission has had an opportunity to review the item.
29
30
31 Commission Preference:
32 • Include CEQA reference in the tables.
33 • Include reference to zoning code section 9268(D) to allow the Zoning Administrator to refer
34 projects to the Planning Commission.
35
36 Paqe 69, Section 12 Administration and Procedures, Table 12A.
37
38 Commission:
39 Q1. Page 69, Table 12A, Project type, Tier 2, What is the rationale for `Less than 1,000 sq. ft. of
40 significant modification to historic character'?
41
42 Staff:
43 Q1. Language was included in the original text for DZC and carried forward. There are likely CEQA
44 implications associated with this standard. Is concerned with the term `significant' because it is
45 somewhat contrary to the standards in the tables related to historic buildings and recommends
46 striking this term because it is open to interpretation and could be confusing.
47
48 Chair Pruden: Interprets the language `less than 1,000 sq. ft. of significant modification to historic
49 character' as primarily changes to facades.
50
51 Commission preference:
52 • Strike term `significant' for standard that reads, 'Less than 1,000 sq. ft. of �� modification
53 to historic character.'
54
55 Sample Desiqn Review Findinqs, Nos. 1-8
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 3
1 Staff: The Sample Design Review Findings for Site Development Permits are from the City of Ukiah and
2 other communities. Does the Commission want to use these Findings? These same Findings are found in
3 Article 20, City of Ukiah Zoning Ordinance, Section 9263: Site Development Permit Procedures and must
4 be made to support approval of a SDP project. Failure to making the findings will result in a denial of the
5 SDP application. Would these same findings effectively satisfy the goals/objectives of the DZC?
6 • How does the General Plan fit in with the Findings?The first finding of fact reads, `The proposal is
7 consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City General Plan.' This means the
8 project must be found to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Ukiah
9 General Plan.
10 • Each community uses different findings based on city issues for that particular community.
11 • The DZC is very design/form/siting-based compared to the existing City Code.
12 • There has been considerable discussion about providing for walkability, bicycle friendly
13 environments and pedestrian connections. The current SDP findings do not have provisions that
14 appropriately address these topics. The Commission may find it necessary to provide for
15 pedestrian orientation and/or `transparency' types of findings. While the current zoning standards
16 incorporate findings related to building design features such as glazing and/or other design
17 applications to promote/encourage architecturally pleasing projects having good visibility,
18 effective pedestrian orientation and building configuration, applicants can still more request an
19 exception to the standards. The intent of the DZC is to provide for some flexibility while at the
20 same time uphold a high regard for building standards so as to discourage exception requests
21 other than for unusual circumstances.
22
23 Commission:
24 Q1. The City Council adopted a storm water discharge ordinance that is under the purview of the City
25 Public Works Department. The matter of using permeable surfaces for projects as opposed to
26 concrete surfacing for parking lots to better control excess runoff is not included in the design
27 guidelines the Design Review Board uses and likely should be.
28 Q2. Do the other DZC findings for other cities listed effectively address walkability, bicycling, and
29 providing for pedestrian orientation/connections?
30
31 It is important the findings be tied/consistent with the adopted documents such as the Bike and
32 Pedestrian Master Plan, Airport Master Plan, Downtown Commercial Development Design Guidelines,
33 and other corresponding adopted working documents whether to strengthen the document or to
34 strengthen the argument of the findings.
35
36 Q3. Attachment 5, Purpose, subsection 2, sentence: That vision is one of environmentally sustainable
37 and economically vital public spaces and buildings with a renewed civic square, attractive civic
38 buildings and spaces, a healthy creek corridor, gateways that reflect Ukiah's sense of place, a
39 mix of building types and affordability, new development that supports and enhances the train
40 depot and rail corridor, interconnected and pedestrian-oriented public streets, specific locations
41 for potential anchor buildings (such as large-scale retail, employment centers and parking
42 structures), and pedestrian-friendly buildings and streetscapes. Could staff elaborate on this
43 statement?
44
45 Vice Chair Molgaard:
46 • Noted that `walkability' is really about promoting good health when considering how this element
47 should apply in the DZC.
48 ■ Noted regarding the `Sample Design Review Findings' for the City of Petaluma, Satisfactory
49 design quality and harmony will involve among other things: subsections b `The architectural style
50 which should be appropriate for the project in question, and compatible with the overall character
51 of the neighborhood' and subsection c `The siting of the structure on the property, as compared to
52 the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood' and recalled a statement made by
53 former Commissioner Landis that when a building is not sited or designed appropriately for
54 compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, it is as if that particular building is 'yelling' at the
55 other buildings.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 4
1 ■ A building may have a nice look/style and originality, but if it is `jarring' to the surrounding
2 buildings then it is not enjoyable.
3
4 Staff: The findings referenced from Petaluma were helpful in creating better projects. However, if the
5 surrounding buildings and site are not consistent with the DZC and not something to emulate this could
6 create a problem.
7
8 Staff: It may also be important to look at drafting findings that relate to the purpose section of the DZC
9 (attachment 5).
10 Q1. In some communities the DZC allows applicants to reduce their parking requirements for projects
11 that provide a certain percentage of parking spaces/parking lot that contains permeable surface.
12 The Commission could consider this same provision as part of the parking requirement section of
13 the DZC as part of the benefiUincentive discussion that will occur at a future meeting.
14 Q2. Staff has not yet reviewed the findings for this type of content.
15 Q3. Speaking to `Ukiah's sense of place' is not a topic that was agendized for discussion and
16 recommends the Commission make note of topics, issues, concerns that have not been
17 discussed for review/clarification once the document has been completed in final draft form. The
18 Commission will then have an opportunity to fine-tune the document, make comments and make
19 additional modifications as necessary.
20
21 Staff: Design guidelines are not really used in Form-Based Codes because these codes are more
22 prescriptive in nature and cover just most aspects included in design guidelines.
23
24 Commission preference:
25 • Draft findings that relate to the Purpose section of the DZC and consider the Sample Design
26 Review Findings (1-8) for the City of Ukiah that have been in use and determine whether
27 appropriate for the DZC for further review by the Planning Commission.
28 • Look into tying the `Findings' in with other working documents.
29
30 Commission Summary of revisions for Site Development Permit Procedures
31 • Add statement that CEQA can be implicated.
32 • Zoning Administrator has the authority to refer UP/SDP to Planning Commission.
33 • Thresholds for`Project Type' remain the same.
34 • Strike term `significanY for Minor SDP, less than 1,000 sq. ft. of °�^^��.rmodification to historic
35 character.
36
37 Paqe 70, Table 12B, Use Permit Procedures
38
39 Staff:
40 • The procedures are essentially the same as for site development permits and for use permit
41 currently. Recommends the Commission review Table 12B concerning minor/major use permits
42 and whether the thresholds for the `Project Type' are appropriate.
43 • As part of the review exercise, review Table 4A and determine if the use permit required is major
44 or minor.
45 • Changes to the uses in the table were not agendized for tonighYs meeting.
46 • For those subsections where no use is indicated are uses that require discussion when the
47 document comes back to the Commission at a later date.
48
49 Commissioner Sanders: Questions the validity of the exercise because there are uses that have not
50 been identified and possibly could be included in the table, as well as recognized the need for further
51 discussion concerning the compatibility of certain uses in the different zoning areas.
52
53 Discussion reqardinq Table 4A
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 5
1 Staff:
2 • With the designation A(3), the use is allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet on the ground floor.
3 Uses of more than 5,000 sf would require a use permit. The Commission needs to review the
4 uses in the table to determine the type of use permit- Major or Minor.
5 • If a project requires a site development permit or other entitlement that is subject to Planning
6 Commission review and approval, then the use permit would also be subject to Planning
7 Commission review since the application would be subject to the review and approval of the
8 highest review authority. In the case of Use Permits and Site Development Permits, this would be
9 the Planning Commission.
10 • Based on comments from the Planning Commission as part of their original review of the use
11 tables, some new uses have been added to the table. These are shown in bold.
12
13 Bed and Breakfast
14 ■ All zones = A(3) Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or
15 100 lineal feet.
16 Hotel, motel
17 ■ All zones = A(3) Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or
18 100 lineal feet.
19 Church, chapel, religious assembly and instruction
20 ■ GU = Minor UP
21 ■ UC and DC =A(3)Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or
22 100 lineal feet.
23 Commercial recreation indoor
24 ■ GU = Prohibited
25 ■ UC and DC = Minor UP regardless of size
26 ■ Revisit with definitions this category for possible changes from UP to Allowed by Right in UC
27 Conference, convention, exhibition facility
28 ■ UC and DC = Major UP
29 ■ GU = Prohibited
30 Fitness/health facility
31 ■ Need to review with the definitions
32 School, business, college, trade
33 ■ All zones = Major UP regardless of size
34 School-elementary, middle
35 ■ A(3) in GU, UC, DC zones = Major UP
36 School—high school
37 ■ All zones = Major UP
38 School—nursery
39 ■ All zones = Minor UP regardless of size so that impacts such as traffic, pick-up, drop-off can be
40 addressed and conditions applied if needed.
41 Social hall, lodge
42 ■ GU = Minor UP regardless of size
43 ■ UC and DC = Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or 100
44 lineal feet.
45 ■ If project also required a SDP for new construction exceeding 15,000 gross sq. ft. it would
46 automatically be reviewed by the Planning Commission since the entitlements are subject to the
47 highest review authority which would be the Planning Commission for the SDP.
48 Theatre—movie, live perFormance
49 ■ GU = Prohibited
50 ■ UC and DC = Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or 100
51 lineal feet.
52 Homeless facility— large (more than 12 persons)
53 ■ Need to revisit with State law requirements for homeless facilities
54 ■ GU and UC = Major UP regardless of size
55 ■ DC = Prohibited
56 Homeless facility—small (fewer than 12 persons)
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 6
1 ■ Need to revisit with State law requirements for homeless facilities
2 ■ GU = Major UP regardless of size
3 ■ UC = Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Major UP when more than 5,000 sf or 100 lineal
4 feet.
5 ■ UC = Prohibited
6 Adult Entertainment
7 ■ All zones = Major UP
8 Alcoholic beverage sales
9 ■ GU = Prohibited
10 ■ UC and DC = Major UP
11 ■ There would be other agency requirements for this use. There was discussion about this use and
12 it does not matter whether the beverage is beer, wine or other type of alcohol negative social
13 behaviors are associated with the sale of alcoholic beverages.
14 Artisan Shop
15 ■ All zones = Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or 100
16 lineal feet.
17 Bar, cocktail lounge, night club
18 ■ GU = Prohibited
19 ■ UC and DC = Major UP regardless of size
20 Fueling station
21 ■ GU = Prohibited
22 ■ UC and DC = Major UP regardless of size
23 ■ Revisit at a future meeting with the zoning map
24 Furniture,furnishings, and appliance stores
25 ■ GU = Prohibited
26 ■ UC and DC = Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or 100
27 lineal feet.
28 General retail
29 ■ All zones = A(4) Allowed up to 15,000 sf on the ground floor. Major UP when more than 15,000
30 sf.
31 Grocery/specialty food store
32 ■ All zones = A(4) Allowed up to 15,000 sf on the ground floor. Major UP when more than 15,000
33 sf.
34 Laundromat
35 ■ GU = Prohibited
36 ■ UC and DC = Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or 100
37 lineal feet.
38 ■ Questioned why is this prohibited in the GU (residential area)?
39 ■ Revisit with zoning map at a future meeting
40 Mobile food vendor
41 ■ GU and UC = Minor UP regardless of size
42 ■ DC = Prohibited
43 ■ Requires Business license.
44 ■ Revisit with zoning map
45 Outdoor sales establishment
46 ■ All zones = Minor UP regardless of size
47 Pet shop
48 ■ GU = Prohibited
49 ■ UC and DC = Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Major UP when more than 5,000 sf or 100
50 lineal feet.
51 ■ Revisit with definitions and with or without overnight boarding
52 Restaurant, cafe bakery without drive-thru/up service
53 ■ All zones = A(4) Allowed up to 15,000 sf on the ground floor. Major UP when more than 15,000
54 sf.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 7
1 ■ If project also required a SDP for new construction exceeding 15,000 gross sq. ft. it would
2 automatically be reviewed by the Planning Commission since the entitlements are subject to the
3 highest review authority which would be the Planning Commission for the SDP.
4 Restaurant—fast food
5 ■ Need to agree on a definition at a future meeting and then determine Use type
6 Second hand store,thrift store, pawn shop
7 ■ GU = Minor UP regardless of size
8 ■ UC and DC = Major UP regardless of size
9 Shopping center
10 ■ GU and DC = Prohibited
11 ■ UC = Major UP
12 Wine and liquor sales.
13 • This is the same as alcoholic beverage sales and needs to be deleted.
14 Administrative services
15 ■ All zones = A(3) Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or
16 100 lineal feet.
17 Business services
18 ■ Review at a later date with definition of Business services.
19 Community care facility—6 or fewer clients (A(3) in GU, UC and DC
20 ■ Need State of California definition prior to review
21 Community care facility—7 to 12 clients UP in GU and A(3)for UC
22 ■ Need State of California definition prior to review
23 Convalescent services, rest home, residential medical facility—
24 ■ GU and UC = Major UP
25 ■ DC = Prohibited
26 Financial services
27 ■ All zones = A(3) Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or
28 100 lineal feet
29 Medical services—clinic, urgent care
30 ■ GU = Major Use Permit regardless of size
31 ■ UC = Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or 100 lineal
32 feet.
33 ■ DC = Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Major UP when more than 5,000 sf or 100 lineal
34 feet.
35 Medical services—major
36 ■ GU = Prohibited
37 ■ UC and DC = Minor UP regardless of size
38 ■ If new construction, Planning Commission would review the use permit with the site development
39 permit if the building is more than 15,000 sf since the entitlements are subject to the highest
40 review authority which would be the Planning Commission for the SDP. If less than 15,000, the
41 use permit and site development permit would be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator.
42 Office—Business service, Government, Medical, Dental, Processing, Professional —
43 ■ All zones = A(3) Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf or
44 100 lineal feet
45 Veterinary office or services—small animal
46 ■ All zones = A(3) Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Major UP when more than 5,000 sf or
47 100 lineal feet
48 Parking lot
49 ■ All zones = Major UP regardless of size
50 Parking structure—in location not designated on Zoning Map
51 ■ GU = Prohibited
52 ■ UC and DC = Major UP regardless of size
53 Transportation service, transportation terminal
54 ■ GU = Prohibited
55 • UC and DC = Major Use Permit regardless of size
56 Temporary uses less than 6 months
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 8
1 ■ All zones = Minor UP regardless of size
2
3 Commissioner Sanders: Would like to have Medical Marijuana Dispensary listed as a use in the table.
4
5 Page 71, Table 12C, Exception Procedures
6 Discussion continued to a future meeting due to time.
7
8 Commissioner Helland: Requested the City update its Website in connection with the schedule of
9 workshops and corresponding documents for the DZC.
10
11 10. PRELIMINARY REVIEW
12 10A. Preliminary Review Permit No. 10-08-PRE-PC.A Pre-Application review of conceptual plans for
13 the construction of a Taco Bell restaurant with drive-through at 1405 South State Street(southeast
14 corner of Thomas Street and South State Street).
15
16 Senior Planner Jordan gave a brief staff report.
17
18 Larry Mitchell, architect representing the applicant:
19 ■ Referred to the site plans, particularly with regard to access, drainage and other plans for the
20 parcel that may include a bio-swale and community garden in the unused open areas of the land.
21 Implementation of a bio-swale would reduce the potential for drainage problems. He is available
22 to answer questions/concerns the Commission may have about the SDP application that involve
23 design, circulation, and development standards pertinent to building setbacks, height, parking and
24 landscaping.
25 ■ The City Public Works Department has indicated a traffic study will be required to evaluate traffic
26 issues and possible traffic impacts that could result from the project.
27 ■ The hours of operation—Open 9:00 and close at Midnight.
28
29 Commission concerns/comments:
30 Traffic/Circulation
31 • The stacking of vehicles idling on site to go thru the drive-up with regard to air quality contributing
32 to air pollution and other possible nuisance/health issues could be a potential problem.
33 • The stacking of vehicles making a turn into the facility particularly during peak hours could be an
34 issue.
35 • The site is one block from the Talmage/South State intersection which is very busy and can have
36 traffic backed up to the project site and beyond.
37 • Egress onto S. State Street even though there is a second driveway on Thomas Street is a
38 potential problem. It would difficult to make a left-hand turn onto S. State Street from the site due
39 to the stacking of traffic at the intersection of S. State Street and Talmage. This could be made
40 more difficult by the location and offset of Thomas Street and Observatory Avenue.
41 • Thomas Street is offset from Observatory Avenue which could create circulation issues for the
42 site.
43
44 Desiqn
45 • Some of the Commissioners support the design and color scheme for the proposed project while
46 others did not.
47 • Are there other Taco Bell design prototypes available?
48 • The proposed design does not look like Ukiah in terms of design and architectural details, colors.
49 • Consider providing some design articulations/mitigation measures that would maintain the Taco
50 Bell identity and at the same time soften the appearance, such as a different type of rock/stone,
51 colors, type of awning.
52 • Would like to see the landscaping plans.
53 • Likes the idea of a bio-swale and community garden for the site in the area that may need to
54 remain open due to Airport Compatibility Zone requirements.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 9
1 Neiqhborhood
2 • The project is adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The facility would likely generate noise and
3 headlight impacts from idling vehicles, including littering, loitering and other potential negative
4 impacts to the residents. This would need to be addressed as part of an application.
5 • Recommend having a meeting with the neighborhood to get their input and hear any concerns.
6 The issues then could be addressed as part of the design of the project and as part of a formal
7 application.
8
9 General
10 • Consider a different type of business that would better benefit the community since there is
11 already an existing Taco Bell north of town. A second facility is not necessary.
12 • Some commissioners expressed concerns related to the health effects of fast food.
13 • The project can be viewed from a positive standpoint since it would develop the site and could
14 provide community-based amenities such as a community garden and would create newjobs.
15
16 Health
17 • Commissioner Helland provided the Commission with statistical information regarding the
18 documented connection between fast food and health issues. When the project comes before the
19 Planning Commission, one of the issues she will be looking at is whether the project would be
20 detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of citizens since this is a required finding for a use
21 permit.
22
23
24 11. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
25 Senior Planner Jordan reported on upcoming Planning Commission meetings and agenda items.
26
27 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
28 Chair Pruden attended a Pedestrian and Bicycle all-day conference last Thursday. She will be attending
29 more training on historical structures.
30
31 Commissioner Helland reported the Commission is invited to attend a local healthy foods summit on
32 Wednesday, May 19 from 1 to 5 p.m. at the Ukiah Fairgrounds.
33
34 Commissioner Sanders -There were some excellent speakers from water agencies at a recent seminar
35 held at Mendocino College. She inquired whether representatives would be interested in giving a
36 presentation to the Planning Commission about permeable surfacing for parking lots, bio-swales, and
37 other associated solutions to better address drainage and excess runoff.
38
39 13. ADJOURNMENT
40 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
41
42
43 Judy Pruden, Chair
44
45 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010
Page 10