HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_05262010 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 May 26, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
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 - Everyone cited.
26
27 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
28
29 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Minutes from the May 12, 2010 meeting will be available for review
30 and approval at the June 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
31
32 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS- None.
33
34 7. APPEAL PROCESS- N/A
35
36 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - N/A
37
38 9. PUBLIC HEARING
39 9A. Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Article 11: Regulations in Hillside Lot Size (-H)
40 District. Review and possible recommendation to the City Council regarding staff proposed
41 amendments to Zoning Ordinance Article 11: Regulations in Hillside Lot Size District (aka Hillside
42 Ordinance).
43
44 Staff: Presented the staff report and recommended the Commission review attachment #1 (Article 11,
45 Regulations in Hillside Lot Size (-H) District) and make a recommendation to the City Council to approve
46 the proposed Ordinance amendments. As a result of processing a BLA application involving parcels
47 located in the Hillside Combining District, Staff identified areas that need to be addressed in order to
48 determine whether or not a project is consistent with the zoning standards included in the Hillside
49 Ordinance. The areas identified pertain to:
50 • Minimum lot size and the percentage of land required to be retained in `natural state' are
51 determined by the `average parcel slope in °/o.' There is no definition of or formula to calculate
52 'average parcel slope' in the Zoning Ordinance or UMC.
53 • 'Natural State' is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance or UMC.
54 • The percentage of slope ranges leave out slopes that are greater than 20 and less than 21,
55 greater than 25 and less than 26, greater than 26 and less than 30, greater than 30 and less than
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 1
1 50, and greater than 50 and less than 51. The Zoning Ordinance does not include a provision to
2 address rounding.
3 • This is a very limited text amendment and is proposed in order to create zoning standards that
4 are clear so that consistency with these standards can be determined. The process for
5 development does not change.
6 • Recommend that we go through the proposed amendments item by item. The primary changes
7 are to delete language and sections that are not used, provide definitions where needed and to
8 revise the table in section 9139 based on the definition of natural state.
9
10
11 Article 11: Requlations in Hillside Lot Size (-H) Districts
12 Commission:
13 Q1. What is `rounding?'
14 Q2. Page 3 of staff report — 9135.5 Definitions — Average Parcel Slope — Clarification: 'past
15 practice for processing applications in the Hillside District has been to use the formula
16 included in the definition.'
17
18 Staff:
19 Q1. Rounding is how to deal with fractions and decimals. Do you round up or down to the
20 nearest whole number? Zoning Ordinance/UMC are silent on rounding. The Parcel Slope
21 ranges leave out specific numbers and direction on how to round these
22 fractions/decimals is needed. This is important since with regard to `Average Parcel
23 Slope' and `Minimum % of property retained in natural state and/or other relevant
24 mathematical calculations.
25 Q2. Need to have a definition of average parcel slope. The table in section 9139 bases
26 minimum lot size and percentage of property retained in natural state on 'average parcel
27 slope.' No definition of average parcel slope and no formula for average parcel slope are
28 included in Article 11 or in the Zoning Ordinance or UMC. Page 2 of Article 11, provides
29 for a formula for calculating Average Parcel Slope and this formula is based on an
30 'industry standard' and this standard has been used in the past in the City when
31 calculating slope.
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m.
34
35 Article 11
36 Section 9135: Hillside Lot Size or—H Districts
37 Staff:
38 Delete sentence: `The Hillside Lot Size (-H) Districts may be of different designations as indicated by a
39 numerical suffix.' (Unclear what this sentence is in reference to)
40
41 Martha Kilkenny:
42 • How does lot size correlate with subsections F and G on page 1 of Attachment 1?
43
44 Staff: Section 9135, subsections A-H are the intent statements for the Hillside Zoning District.
45
46 Commission: Section 9135, questioned whether the perception should be directed toward `lot size'
47 versus -H Districts' rather than `lot size or—H Districts' since there seems to be some confusion.
48
49 Section 9136: Yard and Buildinq Site Requirements in Desiqnated —H Districts
50 Staff: Delete section: The Yard and Building Site Requirements since there are no parcels in the City
51 with any of these designations and no new parcels with these designations could be created based on the
52 General Plan and the requirements of section 9139.
53
54 Commission consensus:
55 • Supports proposed changes to sections 9135.
56 • Consider revising language in section 9135 to clarify lot size or Hillside District.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 2
1 • Supports deleting section 9136.
2
3 Section 9135.5: Definitions
4
5 Definition: Averaqe Parcel Slope
6 Staff: Represents an industry standard for determining average parcel slope and this method of
7 calculation is how applications have been processed in the past.
8
9 Commission Consensus:
10 • Supports Definition of `Average Parcel Slope'
11
12 Definition: Defensible Space
13 Staff:
14 • Is defined by the State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and is the current
15 definition of`defensible space.'
16
17 Commission:
18 Q1. Should the term `current' be included in the definition?
19
20 Staff:
21 Q1. Since the State of California Department of Forestry defines and regulates `defensible
22 space,' this agency is responsible for keeping the regulations current. The Zoning
23 Ordinance would simply provide reference that `defensible space' is defined by the State
24 of California Department of Forestry. Using current could cause confusion as to `currenY
25 as of the date of the ordinance amendment or current as to the date that it is being read
26 or applied to a project.
27
28 Robert Werra:
29 • Questioned whether the rules for`defensible space' that typically apply to very rural, remote areas
30 should be the same for the Hillsides,' which are essentially located in the City limits.
31 • Is concerned the rules may be too stringent.
32 • How are access roads viewed? Does defensible space include the road, driveway, parking
33 areas, or utilities needed to serve the residence?
34
35 Commission:
36 • CDF is likely the responder for wildfires in the remote/very remote Hillside parcels because there
37 is no road access for the City Fire Department.
38 • Requested clarification `attachment 3', General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space, is a
39 'guideline' and not a law.
40 • It may be that some of the hillside properties are not insurable because of the fire hazard risk
41 and/or other issues for living in the hillsides.
42
43 Staff:
44 • Almost all of the parcels in the Hillside Zoning District are located in the Very High Fire Hazard
45 Severity Zone. The DOF requirements for Defensible Space provides that clearance be
46 maintained around buildings and structures from 30 feet to a distance of 100 feet and apply to
47 these parcels.
48 • No road standards will be changed or new standards created. The intent is to inform the public
49 there are `defensible space' requirements as defined by the State of California.
50 • The matter of having to create defensible space is a requirement in which all Hillside property
51 owners must comply. Referencing the rules in the Ordinance informs the public of these
52 requirements.
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 3
1 Dave Hull: Insurance company requirements are more stringent than those of CDF. Most insurance
2 carriers require thinning and clearing of vegetation from a distance of 200 to 300 feet of
3 buildings/structures so that the brush/trees are manageable in the event of a wildfire.
4
5 Definitions: Gradinq & Natural Grade
6
7 Staff:
8 • Is of the opinion, the proposed definition of`Natural Grade' is more realistic.
9 • The `Alternate Definition' of natural grade was proposed as a more strict definition.
10 • The alternate definition would be eliminated from the document if the Commission likes the
11 proposed definition of Natural Grade.
12 • Grading is the definition from the Ukiah Municipal Code. It is commom practice to use existing
13 definitions when possible in order to be consistent.
14
15 Commission Consensus:
16 • Supports the proposed definition of`Natural Grade.'
17 • Supports the proposed definition of`Grading'from the Ukiah Municipal Code.
18
19 Natural State
20 Staff:
21 • Referred to the language in the definition that reads `excluding vegetation modification necessary
22 for defensible space as required by the State of California Department of Forestry and Fire
23 Protection,' and inquired whether these areas should be included or excluded from the `natural
24 state' requirement.
25
26 Commission:
27 • There was discussion about the definition of `Natural State' in connection with land being
28 maintained in natural or undisturbed or unaltered state, including maintenance of natural grades,
29 drainage patterns, rock outcroppings, and the matter of native landscaping and still be able to
30 provide for appropriate fire protection.
31 • It is possible the State and/or insurance company could override native landscaping intentions.
32 The intent is to do what can be done in terms of creating a defensible space and preserving as
33 much native landscaping when possible.
34 • It does not appear to be a problem allowing for a defensible space into the natural state.
35 • There was discussion that the examples of fire resistant plants are not all native.
36
37 Staff:
38 • It may be that native landscaping under this definition could be limited/restricted as to what
39 should or should not be removed. The State has the ability to require the modifications within the
40 defensible space areas even if the City Code has landscaping requirements for `defensible
41 space.'
42 • If there is no problem allowing for a defensible space into the nature state, the language should
43 read, `including vegetation modification necessary for defensible space .........' as opposed to
44 excluding vegetation modification necessary for defensible space. The current State rule on
45 creating defensible space as noted above is clearance to be maintained around buildings and
46 structures from 30 feet to a distance of 100 feet.
47 • Attachment #4 provides examples of fire resistant plants that are less likely to burn as easily or
48 rapidly as flammable plants. The goal is to provide for fire resistant plants.
49
50 Chair Pruden:
51 • Has no problem with removing 'bio-mass' from around structures to lessen the fire risk. There is
52 nothing environmentally wrong with this process because the vegetation is most likely `invading'
53 the area.
54 • Is okay with allowing defensible space into the natural state because it is more of a grooming
55 process.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 4
1 • Property owners with well-maintained/groomed properties are not necessarily degrading the
2 natural state. If anything, this may be a way to eliminate 'invader' species, such as Poison Oak.
3
4 Commission: Discussed whether or not to include defensible space as part of the natural state. Not all
5 Commissioners agreed that defensible space should be included as part of the natural state for the
6 reason that once the area has been worked on/modified, it no longer is in its natural state.
7
8 Martha Kilkenny: It may be that maintaining a defensible space in accordance with the standards
9 establishing natural state should be better defined to distinguish between clear cutting and trimming of
10 vegetation/trees. Her concern is that a property owner may do too much or too little trimming and how is
11 this monitored.
12
13 Staff: The State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection define defensible space. A
14 property is required to comply with the standards established by the State for effectively creating
15 defensible space.
16
17 Commission: Discussed whether to further modify the sentence `.......vegetation modification defined as
18 necessary for defensible space ........'
19
20 Staff:
21 • Recommends the sentence read ...`including vegetation modification defined as required
22 defensible space ......'
23 • Does one view defensible space as being a natural state or altered state?
24
25 Martha Kilkenny:
26 • Realistically, defensible space is an altered state even though the intent is to maintain the natural
27 state as much as possible. Defensible space is an altered natural state.
28
29 Staff: With regard to consistency with the General Plan, the natural grade is maintained even if the
30 vegetation has been altered. What is allowed to change is the vegetation, which may range from native to
31 non-native to be fire resistant in order to be consistent with the State of California requirements. Overall,
32 if the grade is being maintained and part of this pertains to slope stability, erosion control, grading
33 patterns and aesthetics in the Hillsides, the goals/objectives for consistency with the General Plan are
34 being met.
35
36 The intent is to balance nature grade, vegetation, and defensible space.
37
38 Commission:
39 • What is important to citizens is viewing the hillsides from the Valley floor with a lot of vegetation.
40 • People are typically okay with hillside development as long as they do not have to look at it.
41 • The Hull/Piffero hillside development is slowly disappearing from sight with the maturing of the
42 vegetation that was planted blending nicely with the earth tone colors of the structures. The
43 community was very concerned about the bare spots on the hillside as the result of development.
44
45 Staff:
46 • Recommends adding language to the proposed Hillside Ordinance Amendment regarding
47 `Maintenance'for developed and undeveloped parcels and this language would likely be included
48 in the definitions. This language was provided at places and to the public in attendance.
49
50 Commission:
51 Q1. With the changes proposed, how is water quality addressed? Commissioner Sanders
52 likes the language on page 2 of the General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space
53 that reads `Environmental protection laws include, but are not limited to, threatened and
54 endangered species, water quality, air quality, and cultural/archeological resources' and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 5
1 is concerned with having some kind of statement referencing water quality in the
2 ordinance document.
3
4 Staff:
5 Q1. All new hillside developments require hydrology reports as required in the Hillside Zoning
6 District. This requirement would not change with these amendments.
7
8 Commission:
9 • Hillside homeowners must already comply with the General Guidelines for Creating Defensible
10 Space, which include compliance with environmental protection laws that address endangered
11 species, water quality, air quality and other environmental issues.
12
13 Commission consensus:
14 With regard to the language regarding `Natural State' on page 2 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text
15 Amendment, Article 11, flag for later consideration. The definition will affect the table in Section 9139.
16
17 Section 9137: Front Setback Lines
18
19 Staff: Since entire section 9136 has been eliminated, reference to this section must also be deleted in
20 Section 9137 for consistency purposes.
21
22 Commission consensus:
23 • Concurs with staff.
24
25 Section 9138: Exceptions to the Front Setback Lines
26
27 Staff: Sections 9035 and 9050 of the Zoning Ordinance have been deleted because these zoning
28 districts do not exist and cannot be created in the Hillside District.
29
30 Don Larson: Referred back to page 3, Front Setback Lines, and the requirements concerning street
31 right-of-way lines in Section 9137 and questioned why exceptions to the front setback requirement set
32 forth in section 9020 do not apply in —H Districts. Does this mean there are no setback line requirements
33 in hillside areas and asked for clarification in this regard. What about in cases where a carport or garage
34 cannot comply with the front yard setback requirements because the building footprint does not fit with the
35 parcel configuration?
36
37 Staff: These sections of the Zoning Ordinance allow applicants to reduce the front setback lines by
38 averaging existing setbacks in the area. The current ordinance does not allow this in the Hillside District.
39 Sections 9137 and 9138 are simply editorial `clean-ups' for consistency purposes. A minimum front yard
40 setback must be maintained as provided for in section 9139(A2)of the Ordinance.
41
42 It was further noted a variance is an option in cases where the exceptions to the setback requirements do
43 not fall within the Ordinance requirements set forth in section 9020.
44
45 Commission consensus:
46 • Concurs with staff.
47
48 Section 9139: Hillside Development Standards
49
50 Subsection A, Minimum Site and Development Standards:
51 1. Lot size, retention of land in natural stated based upon average parcel slope. Staff added `parcel'
52 to the language for consistency purposes with the revised table in section 9139.
53
54 Commission Consensus:
55 • Concurs with staff.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 6
1 Average Parcel Slope in %, minimum lot size, percentage of property retained in natural state — staff
2 deleted language and incorporated the gridlines into the `revised table' in this section.
3
4 Section 9139: Revised Table
5
6 Average Parcel Slope. Staff added language `greater than 15% to 20%, greater than 20% to 25%,
7 greater than 25% to 30%, greater than 30% to 50%, and greater than 50%.'
8
9 Minimum % of Property Retained in Natural State. Staff added term `Minimum' and modified the
10 percentages based on the definition of Natural State on page 3 of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text
11 Amendment, Article 11. The percentages were adjusted downward after discussing the definition and
12 development considerations with city staff, property owners, and design professionals. It appears after
13 review of former hillside development applications the way property retained in natural state was
14 calculated was based on the footprint of the structure rather than including associated improvements
15 (road, driveway, utilities), grading, any disturbance of land. However, there may have been instances
16 when the width of a driveway was considered. The minimum % of property retained in natural state is less
17 than the former standards because the definition of natural state has been broadened.
18
19 Greater than 50% Slope. Staff added language in the table, for parcels with average parcel slope greater
20 than 50% that the natural state requirement is 'Maximum amount possible in order to allow one dwelling
21 unit and associated improvements (road, driveway, utility need to serve the dwelling and comply with
22 State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection requirements. Accessory dwelling units are
23 prohibited. Use Permit to determine location of dwelling and improvements.' This was needed to create
24 consistency between the General Plan which would allow one dwelling unit and the zoning which
25 prohibited it. What likely occurred is that when the General Plan was adopted in 1995, the zoning which
26 is from 1982 was not revised to be consistent with the General Plan. Even without this change,
27 development would be possible since the General Plan designation is Rural Residential.
28
29 Commission:
30 • Need to review the percentages with the definition of `Natural State' since the percentage is
31 based on the definition. No consensus yet on the definition.
32 • The steeper the parcel grade:
33 o The more constrained the lot making development more difficult.
34 o More problematic for emergency vehicles to access.
35 o Cuts into the hillside may be necessary in order for a lot to be buildable.
36 • If `defensible space' is eliminated and not allowed to be counted as part of the natural state, the
37 amount of natural state required would need to be reduced.
38
39 Martha Kilkenny addressed the proposed `Revised Table,' minimum lot size, and noted the greater the
40 slope the more difficult it would be to develop citing examples of hillside development in Santa Barbara
41 where property owners have built in areas that have a very steep grade. Expressed concern with
42 reducing the % of property to be maintained in the natural state as demonstrated in the `Revised Table'
43 compared to the existing standards in this regard.
44
45 Commission:
46 • The steeper the grade, the more costly and challenging the development.
47
48 Staff: Compared the proposed percentage of property to be retained in natural state with the current
49 standards compared to the revised standards. The intent of the proposed percentage is to allow for
50 development as allowed by the General Plan and to provide for consistency with the General Plan goals
51 and policies for hillside development and the purpose statements of the Hillside Zoning District.
52
53 Commission consensus:
54 • Need to further consider the percentage that is required to be in Natural State with the definition
55 of Natural State which has not yet been agreed upon.
56 • Supports adding `Greater than'to the table in the `Average Parcel Slope' column.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 7
1 • Supports adding `Minimum'to the table in the `Natural State' column.
2
3 a. Calculating Natural State:
4 Staff added language for calculating natural state: The minimum amount of the parcel to be
5 retained in natural state shall be based on the gross area (square footage or acreage) of the
6 parcel and calculated by multiplying the gross area of the parcel by the minimum percentage to
7 be retained in the natural state, except allowed by the following' where staff provided three
8 exception scenarios as provided for on page 4 of Article 11, Regulations in Hillside Lot size (-H)
9 Districts.
10
11 Commission:
12 • Agreed with last sentences regarding the `intent' concerning exceptions 1 and 2 on page 4 that
13 read, Exception 1: This is intended to encourage the reuse of areas that have previously been
14 graded/disturbed. Exception 2: This is intended to discourage increased grading/disturbance of
15 the parcel.
16 • Concerned that a project could do either of the actions in way that does not result with a project
17 that is consistent with the intent.
18 • Revise the language in the last sentence of exceptions 1 and 2 to refer to the result of the project.
19
20 Staff:
21 • For some parcels, it is easier to disturb areas because they make sense, whether it is for a road,
22 driveway, previously graded area, building site. The intent is to discourage increased
23 grading/disturbance of a parcel, if possible and encourage reuse of areas that have been
24 previously been graded/disturbed.
25 • Understands there are hillside parcels that are difficult to develop because they may be oddly
26 configured and constrained as they relate to access and fire protection issues.
27 • As a planner, I do not encourage variances. The intent of the proposed amendments is to cover
28 most situations. However, each hillside development is unique. In order to develop, a variance
29 may be needed and, in this situation, the lot is likely to have something unique about it that could
30 support a variance. This is what a variance is for. The variance request would be combined with
31 the use permit and both would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
32
33 Commission:
34 • There was discussion about whether language to address the possible need for variances should
35 be included.
36 • Questioned subsection 2 that reads, `Previously graded or disturbed areas (such as road,
37 driveway, grading, building site) that existed prior to adoption of the first hillside ordinance, that
38 are not used as part of the proposed development or redevelopment of the site 1)shall not be
39 counted as natural state or 2)shall be deducted from the gross square footage of the parcel used
40 to determine the minimum percentage of the parcel that is required to be retained natural state'
41 and why is there an `or'?
42 • There was discussion concerning the requirements whether#1 or#2 would be appropriate.
43
44 Staff:
45 • Variances are allowed by the Zoning Ordinance as part of Article 20. A specific reference does
46 not need to be included and is not included in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
47 • Clarified the `or' was intended as a choice for the Commission by options. It is not intended as a
48 choice for the applicant or staff.
49 • #2 creates more discouragement.
50 • The Commission could include both if they choose.
51
52 Commission:
53 • Addresses general landscaping rather than specific types of vegetation.
54 • The `Fire resistant plants' document has suggestions for plant species that are different than
55 those found in the native state. There are not many native plants listed in the document.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 8
1 • Possibly modify the language in section 3 for the or that states, or, in the case of areas required
2 to be maintained as Defensible Space by the State of California Department of forestry and Fire
3 Protection (BOF), consistent with the BOF landscaping requirements for Defensible Space may
4 also be included as natural state when approved by the decision making authority as part of their
5 review of a discretionary application,'to require just native plants.
6 • The `Fire Resistant Plants' document provides for plants/vegetation that are fire resistant, some of
7 which are not necessarily native. The intent is to have plants that protect a person's property.
8 • Having landscaping as opposed to a bare spot is more important. A property owner can choose
9 the landscaping species from among the fire resistant plants provided for in the `Fire Resistant
10 Plants' some of which are non-native.
11 • Section 3, consider adding term, non-invasive, as a compromise concerning landscaping and
12 plants.
13 • The BOF landscaping requirements for Defensible Space do not recommend any invasive plant
14 species.
15 • It may be a property owner desires to have exotic plants, which should not be a problem provided
16 they are fire resistant.
17
18 Staff: The Planning Commission will be looking at the landscaping anyway for projects as part of the use
19 permit and for consistency with the General Plan.
20
21 Commission consensus Calculating Natural State (page 4):
22 • Revise language for exceptions 1 and 2
23 • Generally okay with language in section 3
24 ➢ Property owner should be able to exercise some discretion with regard to choice in
25 landscaping in order to comply with section 3.
26 ➢ Non-invasive plant species would be okay. Are invasive plants okay?
27 ➢ While native plants are encouraged, a property owner can exercise discretion in this
28 regard provided he/she complies with BOF landscaping requirements.
29
30 Robert Werra: Invasive and non-invasive plants — Lives in the hillside and plants what are considered
31 invasive exotic plants by some states on his property.
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:37 p.m.
34
35 M/S Molgaard/Whetzel to continue discussion of the proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Article
36 11: Regulations in Hillside Lot Size (-H) District to the regular June 9, 2020 Planning Commission
37 meeting.
38
39 10. OLD BUSINESS—WORKSHOP
40 10A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop. Continued review and discussion of Section 12;
41 Administration and Procedures, Table 12B. Use Permit Procedures and Table 12C: Exception
42 Procedures. Table 4: Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements and the uses included in the table
43 also will be reviewed and discussed to determine by right uses and minor and major use permits.
44 Revised Section 13: Glossary is also provided for review and discussion related to the uses
45 identified in Table 4.
46
47 Staff: Gave a staff report and requested the Commission review, discuss, and provide direction to staff
48 regarding Table 12C, Exceptions that prescribes the procedures for the process of Exceptions.
49 Exceptions do not exist in the current zoning ordinance.
50
51 Table 12C: Exception Procedures
52 Commission:
53 • What would be the protocol for projects that are minor, but considered controversial? Would the
54 Zoning Administrator have the ability to refer such projects to the Planning Commission or would
55 the Zoning Administrator act on the matters?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 9
1 Staff: If this is the direction the Planning Commission desires to go, footnote as part of the table.
2
3 Commission consensus:
4 • Footnote as part of the table that minor projects typically reviewed by the Zoning Administrator
5 can be referred by the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission.
6
7 Commission:
8 • Okay with Exception procedures for Minor/Major Exceptions as provided for in Table 12C.
9 • There was discussion concerning the Findings to support approval of the Exceptions.
10 • What is the protocol if an appeal deadline date (10 days) is missed?
11
12 Staff: An applicanUperson would likely have to re-apply if an appeal deadline date is missed. City
13 Council reviews and acts on all appeals.
14
15 Commission consensus:
16 • Approves of Table 12C with no modifications.
17
18 Staff requests the Commission revisit for further review Table 4A and corresponding definitions for the
19 individual use categories. At the May 12 meeting, the Commission reviewed the table and categorized
20 uses that are allowed whether the use should be a minor or major use permit. For those uses categorized
21 as A(3)or A(4)determine whether the threshold should be based on square footage or some other factor.
22
23 Does the Commission agree with the size limits discussed at the May 12 meeting?
24 • For zones with A(3) Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Minor UP when more than 5,000 sf
25 or 100 lineal feet.
26 • For zones with A(4)Allowed up to 15,000 sf on ground floor. Major UP when more than 15,000 sf.
27 • If project also requires a SDP for new construction exceeding 15,000 sf, it would automatically be
28 reviewed by the Planning Commission since the entitlements are subject to the highest review
29 authority, which would be the Planning Commission for SDP.
30 • Projects processed as Major SDP having a minor use or minor exception component would be
31 reviewed by a higher authority as one project, which would be the Planning Commission.
32
33 Charley Selzer:
34 Alcoholic beverages sales — Recommends prohibiting use in any of the zones and provided statistical
35 information to support his position. There is a moratorium for allowing new alcoholic sales establishments
36 in the community that is not be complied with by ABC.
37
38 Marvin Trotter:
39 Restaurant—fast food— Recommends prohibiting use in all zones and provided statistical information to
40 support his position that fast food establishments are detrimental to the public's health and general
41 welfare. Promote/preserve locally owned restaurant businesses versus commercial/fast food franchise
42 establishments. Ukiah currently has a sufficient number of fast food restaurants.
43 Alcoholic beverage sales— Recommends prohibiting use in all zones.
44
45 Katherine Fengler — Is a resident of Ukiah and works for Mendocino County Health Department and
46 recommends prohibiting fast food restaurants and alcoholic beverage sales in all zones. Promotes
47 healthy living through diet and exercise.
48
49 Miles Gordon—
50 Community garden, playground, plaza, square
51 Complimented the Commission for supporting this use as allowed by right. The program encourages
52 healthy eating habits and promotes unity and goodwill in the community. Community gardens are
53 becoming very popular.
54
55 Farmers market—certified
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 10
1 Is a low impact use and benefits the community for all income levels. Questioned why use is prohibited in
2 the GU zone. Supports use in all zones.
3
4 Jessica Stull-Otto —
5 • Promotes healthy eating and educating the public on the importance of a nutritional diet.
6 • Supports Farmers Market and community garden uses.
7 • Most people are conscious of what constitutes healthy eating and will purchase food that is
8 nutritionally good, particularly if easily accessible. Does not support allowing additional fast food
9 establishments in all zones. If fast food establishments are not as plentiful, people will consider
10 alternative options likely having more of a nutritional value.
11 • Does not support drive-up/thru types of businesses/services. Creates stacking of vehicles and
12 affects air-quality.
13 • Questioned page 15 of Table 4A and the reason the drive-thru use categories have not been
14 completed.
15 • Inquired why Artisan/craft product manufacturing, clothing and fabric product
16 manufacturing uses are not allowed in the GU zone and DC zones. They appear to be low
17 impact uses.
18
19 Staff:
20 • Drive-thru manufacturing uses have not been discussed by the Planning Commission.
21
22 Commission: Some drive-up services such as pharmacies are necessary because there are
23 circumstances where people are sick and/in incapacitated in some way and unable to go into a pharmacy
24 to pick up prescriptions.
25
26 Bed and Breakfast
27 • Refer to Section 13. Glossary
28 • Base threshold regarding level of review on number of rooms rather than square footage(size).
29 • All zones - 5 rooms and under = allowed by right. Six rooms or more = Major use permit
30 for review by Planning Commission.
31 • Alcohol sales may be a separate issue.
32 • Need to consider bar and/or restaurant uses.
33
34 Hotel, Motel
35 • Refer to Section 13. Glossary
36 • Use and all use components that are typically in hotels, restaurant/bar, for example would likely
37 be completed in phases, but as one project and need to be considered.
38 • All zones - 5 rooms and under = allowed by right. Six rooms or more = Major use permit
39 for review by Planning Commission.
40
41 Public Member — Expressed concern with basing threshold for level of review on number of rooms,
42 noting this approach can be problematic and cited examples.
43
44 Commercial recreation—indoor
45 • Staff clarify the use requirement for GU zone.
46
47 Fitness/health facility
48 • Refer to Glossary
49 • These types of uses typically require large square footage because they often have multiple
50 amenities.
51 • The size of the facility would depend upon the design and how it is to be setup.
52 • Staff would review parking/traffic concerns/noise and other issues.
53 • All zones =Allowed with a Minor UP regardless of size.
54
55 Studio—Art, Dance, martial arts, music
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 11
1 • Refer to Glossary
2 • Discussion concerning individual classes versus multiple classes. The primary focus of the
3 definition is on small scale facilities (single instructor in a single classroom/studio).
4 • Add language to definition to clarify special/training schools/groups having multiple classrooms.
5 • Discussion concerning threshold for use requirement and level of review based on square
6 footage.
7 • All zones =A(3)Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Allowed with Minor UP when more than
8 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet.
9
10 Lisa Mammina:
11 • Appreciated the above discussion concerning eating healthy.
12 • Health and fitness facilities should be made easy and allowed by right. 5,000 sf is a large facility.
13 • Fitness/health facility-All zones under 1500 sf—Allowed by right.
14
15 Conference, convention, exhibition facility
16 • Review whether use requires a major UP in the GU zone. The use is currently prohibited in this
17 zone.
18 • All zones = Major UP, strike footnote (3).
19
20 Homeless facility
21 • Review State law.
22
23 Artisan shop
24 • Refer to Glossary
25 • Consider modifying the definition: A retail store selling handcraft items such as art glass,
26 ceramics, jewelry and other handcrafted items where the facility includes an area for the crafting
27 of the items sold.
28 • Use essentially allows an artisan to sell his/her handcrafted items at a studio.
29 • All zone = A(3) Allowed up to 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet. Allowed with Minor UP when more than
30 5,000 sf or 100 lineal feet and A(4) Major UP for use when exceeds 15,000 gross sf.
31
32 Farmers Market—certified
33 • Commissioner Helland introduced information, Establishing Farmers Market as an
34 allowed use.
35 • As noted above, review whether use should be allowed in GU zone.
36
37 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
38 • Budget for FY 2010/11 is progressing. June hearings are tentatively set for June 21, 2010. The
39 Planning Commission stipend issue will be discussed.
40 • The General Plan Housing Element has been submitted to State HCD for review.
41 • City Council adopted the Creek Maintenance Policies and Procedures that the Paths, Open
42 Space and Creeks Commission has worked on very diligently along with the Friends of Gibson
43 Creek and other interest persons.
44 • The CEQA 101 Workshop will be held at the regular June 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
45 • The City is under contract on the Water Rights Permit Amendment EIR.
46 • Work is being done on the Airport B2 Infill Area Modification project.
47 • The Courthouse relocation project is moving towards selecting a site followed by the land
48 negotiation process. Building plans have been submitted by architect firms and are being
49 reviewed. The intent is to construct a sustainable landmark building.
50 • The Municipal Service Review is progressing.
51 • The City will be applying for a Sphere of Influence update next fiscal year. Money has been
52 budgeted for this application.
53 • There has been interest expressed in the former Trinity School property.
54 • There are Code Compliance issues the City must address.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 12
1 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
2 Commissioner Whetzel invited everyone to attend Airport Day and Hangar Dance on June 5, 2010.
3
4 Chair Pruden attended the California Preservation Foundation Workshop held in Grass Valley and
5 Nevada City wherein the theme was 'Sense of Place.'
6
7 13. ADJOURNMENT
8 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
9
10
11 Judy Pruden, Chair
12
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2010
Page 13