HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_06232010 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 June 23, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Linda Sanders
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Mike Whetzel
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
18 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
19 Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visits for items 10A, 10B, and 10C were verified.
26
27 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— May 26, 2010
28 Linda Helland made the following corrections:
29 Page 10, line 45, public member's name is Katherine Fengler;
30 Page 11, line 4, public member's name is Jessica Stull-Otto.
31
32 M/S Molgaard/Helland to approve May 26, 2010 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0).
33
34 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
35 Marvin Trotter— It is in the best interest of public health and local family-owned businesses not to allow
36 more permits to sell alcohol or fast food.
37
38 Staff provided the Commission with copies of signed letters addressed to the City of Ukiah, Ukiah City
39 Council and Ukiah Planning Commission from public members in support of prohibiting additional fast
40 food restaurants and alcohol outlets in Ukiah and that also supports the `Vision Statement for the Ukiah
41 General Plan' that calls for `businesses that retain dollars within the community' as opposed to chain
42 formula businesses and restaurants that take away local money to corporate headquarters, and other
43 business establishments to benefit instead of the people of Ukiah.
44
45 A copy of a letter dated June 23, 2010 addressed to the Ukiah City Council and Planning Commission
46 was also given to the Commission from Terry Nieves recommending access to fast food be limited as
47 much as possible through the planning and zoning process.
48
49 7. APPEAL PROCESS
50 Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, the final date to appeal is July
51 6, 2010.
52
53 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
54 Agenda items 10A, 10B, and 10C were properly noticed in accordance with the UMC.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 1
1 9. NEW BUSINESS - EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP
2 9A. Education and Training on Low Impact Development (LID). Dennis Slota with the Mendocino
3 County Water Agency will conduct an educational workshop on Low Impact Development(LID).
4
5 Staff: Introduced Dennis Slota from the Mendocino County Water Agency.
6
7 Dennis Slota gave a PowerPoint presentation on Low Impact Development (LID) demonstrating
8 problems/damage to microorganisms that work to protect soil from contaminants/bacteria/impervious
9 materials/polluting minerals/nitrogen/ other pollutants associated with ground compaction for various
10 types of developments. There are effective techniques/treatments and storm drain filtering processes
11 available incorporating such practices as bio-retention, swales, well-designed retro-fits with curb-cuts, use
12 of permeable surfacing, and other techniques for use as a routing mechanism for control of stormwater
13 runoff , particularly for parking lots that protect and enhance ego systems, provide for better water quality,
14 and protect valued streams/creeks, as well as increase the water table/aquifers by maintaining
15 groundwater in creeks/streams for longer periods of time without them prematurely drying up as is
16 typically the case. Examples of ineffective techniques/treatments and processes for routing and
17 controlling stormwater runoff for parking lots were provided.
18
19 While the County and the City have very progressive language in their General Plans about development
20 and development standards, the zoning codes have not been updated to reflect general plan goals and
21 objectives and current best practices.
22
23 Commission: The Planning Commission cannot require developers to use permeable surfacing for their
24 projects because the treatment is not `codified.' The process has typically been for the Planning
25 Commission to ask to applicants if they are willing to consider the use of permeable surfacing for their
26 projects.
27
28 Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works: Added that street sweeping is very beneficial to
29 removing contaminant particulates together with regular debris from the street before they migrate with
30 stormwater into the City's storm drain system.
31
32 Commissioner Helland asked if there were any aspects of LID that can be incorporated into the
33 Downtown Zoning Code as a way to come up to date with new development standards and techniques.
34
35 Senior Planner Jordan: There is likely an opportunity to include LID concepts in the DZC standards even
36 though this was not identified as being included in the Code.
37
38 Dennis Slota: In terms of pre-development planning, drainage to include LID concepts is usually
39 designed first and then the location of the building(s)determined.
40
41 10. NEW BUSINESS—PUBLIC HEARING
42 10A. Mural Mosaics "Harmony" Mural Permit No. 10-12-MP-PC. Conduct a public hearing on a
43 request from Mural Mosaics for approval of the "Harmony" Mural at 201 South State Street, APN
44 002-267-10
45
46 Staff: Gave a staff report and briefly noted with regard to murals:
47 • Murals are addressed as part of the City's Sign Ordinance and subject to the General Sign
48 Provisions of the City Code.
49 • The Planning Commission must determine whether the graphics are sign or murals. Page 2 of the
50 staff report for this item provides the definitions of a `sign', a `mural' and 'advertising message.'
51 • The criteria for review and evaluation of murals by the Planning Commission for consistency with
52 Section 3225(G)of the Ukiah City Code as both art and advertising include:
53 A. Compatibility with surrounding environment and community in general;
54 B. Appropriateness of site:
55 C. Relationship to use of building upon which it is placed;
56 D. Impact on motorist and traffics hazards;
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 2
1 E. Advertising potential.
2
3 It was noted the proposed mural would be on the Church Street side of the building facing north.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:23 p.m.
6
7 Patrick Kerr: Asked who or what agency finances the mural and expressed concerned with potential
8 vandalism to murals in general and what precautions are taken in this regard.
9
10 Vice Chair Molgaard: How would the proposed mural effectively coordinate with the mural that is located
11 in close proximity?
12
13 Commissioner Helland: Referred to Attachment 3, regarding the sign for the mural, and noted 'Alcohol
14 and Other Drug Programs Prevention Youth Services' is presently called `Prevention and Planning Unit.'
15
16 Elizabeth Raybee, Applicant:
17 • The mural is grant funded.
18 • While the murals have different artistic forms, appropriate placement/location makes them
19 appropriate and harmoniously complementary with one another.
20
21 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:28 p.m.
22
23 Commission Consensus:
24 • Likes the design and theme, noting it to be appropriate for an art center.
25 • Agrees with staff's findings that the proposed mural is consistent with criteria in Section 3225(G)
26 of the Ukiah City Code.
27
28 M/S Helland/Molgaard to approve Mural Permit No. 10-12-MP-PC with Findings 1-4 and Conditions of
29 Approval1-9.
30
31 MURAL PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
32 A MURAL TO BE INSTALLED AT 201 SOUTH STATE STREET,APN 002-267-10
33
34 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
35 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
36
37 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
38 Plan as described in the staff report.
39
40 2. The proposed mural is consistent with criteria contained in Section 3225 (G) of the Ukiah City
41 Code, supported by the following.
42
43 A. Compatibility with surrounding environment and community in general.
44 Staff has visited and evaluated the proposed location and has determined that the site is an
45 appropriate location for the proposed mural since it is a commercial property and is
46 surrounded by commercial uses. Furthermore the mural will be representative of the
47 community in general. Therefore the mural would be compatible with the surrounding
48 environment.
49 B. Appropriateness of the proposed mural to the site.
50 The project site contains a commercial building that houses Art Center Ukiah. The mural will
51 be created by the Rural Mural Project and will be built at the Art Center Ukiah. The proposed
52 site is located in an area that will be highly visible to the general public and therefore will
53 create a positive community feeling and " Sense of Place ", as noted in the General Plan
54 Community Design Element. The mural will be located on the north elevation of the Art
55 Center Ukiah and will represent musical activities and examples of culture and art. Therefore
56 the mural is appropriate to the site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 3
1 C. Relationship to use of building upon which the mural will be place.
2 The mural will be located on the Art Center Ukiah building and will represent positive
3 community involvement and harmony. The mural does not represent services found with the
4 building.
5 D. Impact on motorist and traffic hazards. The mural will be visible to motorists traveling on
6 Church Street. However, the mural does not flash, rotate, blink or move. The graphics also do
7 not imitate or resemble official traffic or road signs (e.g. "stop", "go slow", "caution", "danger",
8 "warning" or similar). The mural permit application has been reviewed by the Public Works
9 Department and they did not have any comments. Therefore, the mural would not have an
10 impact on motorists and would not create a traffic hazard
11 E. Advertising potential.
12 The mural will not represent an advertising message but will convey a sense of community
13 involvement and well being.
14
15 3. The proposed mural is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not cause impacts to traffic,
16 pedestrians or bicyclists since the murals will be attached to the building wall and will not extend
17 into the public right-of-way, pedestrian path, or parking area(s).
18
19 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is exempt from the provisions of the California
20 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1(a),
21 which allows alterations to the exterior of an existing building when there is with no expansion of
22 the existing use based on the following:
23
24 • The proposed project only involves minor alterations to the exterior of the building.
25 • The proposed project does not involve an expansion of the existing use or building.
26
27
28 MURAL PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
29 A MURAL TO BE INSTALLED AT 201 SOUTH STATE STREET,APN 002-267-10
30
31
32 1. This Mural Permit is granted only for the proposed mural addressed in the staff report and shall not
33 be construed as an approval for any additional murals or as eliminating or modifying any building,
34 use requirement.
35
36 2. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Permit has been
37 exceeded, and any timely filed appeal has been reviewed.
38
39 3. This approval shall be null and void unless the California Environmental Quality Act/Fish and
40 Game filing fee of $50 payable to Mendocino County is filed with the City of Ukiah Planning and
41 Community Development Department within five (5)days of this approval.
42
43 4. No Permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable
44 to the application and Conditions of Approval have been paid in full.
45
46 5. All use shall conform to the application approved by the Planning Commission and to any
47 supporting documents submitted therewith or made part of the administrative record, including
48 staff reports, maps and renderings submittals or documents.
49
50 6. This approved Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
51 project related to the Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and
52 conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of
53 approval; or if the established and use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been
54 suspended for twenty-four(24)consecutive months.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 4
1 7. This approval is not effective unless and until all other required discretionary entitlements have
2 been granted, issued or approved as applicable.
3
4 8. All murals will be maintained in good condition. At any point if their condition becomes deteriorated
5 by graffiti, weathering or other means, as determined by the Planning Director, they will be
6 removed or obscured by the applicant or property owner.
7
8 From the Building Official ( David Willoughbv)
9
10 9. A building permit is required before attachment of the mural to the building.
11
12 10B. Mural Mosaics "Community Built" Mural Permit No. 10-12-MP-PC. Conduct a public hearing
13 on a request from Mural Mosaics for approval of the "Community BuilY' Mural at 107 East Perkins
14 Streets (preferred location, APN 002-229-09 or at Todd Grove Park (alternative location), APN
15 001-141-01.
16
17 Staff: Gave a staff report and noted:
18 • The preferred site is 107 S. State Street (Mendocino County Family Support Services) and if the
19 preferred site is not authorized by the property owner(Mendocino County), the exterior wall of the
20 pool house at Todd Grove Park has been identified as an alternative site.
21 • The mosaic theme is `Creating Public Value' and is funded from a grant by the California Arts
22 Council.
23 • Attachments 6 and 6-1 represent the conceptual design of the mural.
24 • An e-mail was received from the employees of Mendocino Child Support Services in opposition to
25 mural being placed on this building.
26
27 Commission: Questioned the e-mail from the employees at Child Support Services and why the mural
28 would not be appropriate for a very stoic-looking building. Murals are very appropriate for the Downtown
29 area and would look very nice on this building located in a very busy intersection.
30
31 Staff: Considered in its analysis of the project whether or not the mural would be a distraction for
32 motorists.
33
34 Chair Pruden:
35 • Attended a meeting concerning the Downtown and the persons attending thought the design is
36 not a good fit for the Child Support Services building. Alternative locations mentioned include:
37 o Alex Thomas Plaza inside the pavilion with LED lighting.
38 o The blank wall on the east side of the former Bank of America building that is now a
39 County building.
40 o Ukiah Conference Center wall on the north wall that fronts Church Street.
41 o Wall on the Ukiah Theater
42 o Nomad's World Gallery Moonlight Framers wall on the south side of building fronting
43 Stephensen Street.
44 • The mural would `get IosY at Todd Grove Park.
45
46 Commissioner Whetzel: Is of the opinion, the City pool would be a nice location since many events,
47 including `Sundays in the Park' occur in Todd Grove Park.
48
49 Vice Chair Molgaard:
50 • Asked if locations other than the proposed and alternative location can be considered at this
51 meeting.
52 • Would like to see the mural on the Family Support Services building because it is large and the
53 design would look really great on this wall in the Downtown.
54 • The intent of the DZC is to make the City's gateways more attractive not just for Ukiahians, but for
55 visitors. State Street is a primary City gateway.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 5
1
2 Staff: If the Commission desires to consider other locations, the best approach would be to continue the
3 project to a date certain. The project has to be re-noticed based on the new location(s)selected.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:48 p.m.
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:48 p.m.
8
9 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 7:49 p.m.
10
11 Elizabeth Raybee, Applicant:
12 • Likes the preferred location.
13 • Is open to considering other locations.
14
15 Chair Pruden noted the theme of the mural would fit very well with the Farmer's Market that occurs in
16 Alex Thomas Plaza.
17
18 Commission: Discussed whether to encourage the applicant to come back and consider other locations
19 for the mural as presently designed and/or for the applicant to consider a different design for the Family
20 Support Services building.
21
22 Commissioner Whetzel: It is possible the use could change and/or the building modified such that the
23 mural is removed, which would not happen if the mural was located at Alex Thomas Plaza.
24
25 Commission consensus:
26 • Likes the content of the mural.
27 • The mural should be located in the Downtown area.
28
29 Staff: Recommends the Commission continue the matter to a date certain in August to allow the
30 applicant to find a location and to obtain the authorization from property owners.
31
32 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:03 p.m.
33
34 M/S Molgaard/Whetzel to continue Mural Permit No. 10-12-MP-PC to the regular August 11, 2010
35 Planning Commission meeting and allow the applicant time to consider alternative options.
36
37 10C. Pacific Outfitters Mural Permit 10-10-MP-PC. Conduct a public hearing on a request from Brad
38 Smith of Pacific Outfitters for approval of murals at 955 North State Street, APN 002-040-43. The
39 application for a mural permit was required as a condition of approval of Site Development Permit
40 09-25-SDP-PC.
41
42 Staff: Gave a staff report and noted:
43 • Commissioner Sanders, who is unable to attend, provided comments via email and these
44 comments have been provided at places.
45 • The previously approved SDP for the project required the applicant to apply for and receive
46 Commission approval of a mural permit.
47 • Requests the Commission evaluate whether the proposed murals based on the criteria under
48 City Sign Ordinance Section 3225(G) constitute art and/or advertising since it appears the
49 purpose of the permit is to determine what part of the graphic is a mural and what part of the
50 graphic is a sign by definition.
51 • The plans approved as part of the SPD included a 3-foot tall X 6-foot wide (18 square foot) wall
52 sign above the main entrance to the store that has not yet been installed and a freestanding sign
53 that has been installed.
54 • The site is allowed a maximum of 199 square feet of sign area. Of this 45 square feet are taken
55 with the permitted freestanding sign and 18 square feet with the possible wall sign.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 6
1 • The total square footage of the 6 murals is 324 square feet. If all of this area is counted as
2 signage, it would exceed the 199 square feet of sign area allowed for the site. Based on the
3 Sign Ordinance definitions of advertising message, sign and mural, it appears that at least part of
4 the graphics is signage and part is mural.
5 • Staff is of the opinion that the part that is signage and the part that is art cannot be objectively
6 determined on a square footage or percentage basis.
7 • Staff recommends the graphics included in the mural permit be approved with the stipulation that
8 the site has used all of sign area allowed with the exception of allowing at some future time, the
9 18-square foot sign wall mounted sign that was included as part of the approved Site
10 Development Permit plans.
11 • Staff's analysis also addressed future tenants and uses and concluded it is unlikely the graphics
12 included in the mural permit would be installed on a building that was not used for the sale of
13 sporting goods or a business involved with the sale/marketing of outdoor activities. It is very
14 likely a future tenant would want to remove or modify the graphics proposed in this mural permit,
15 which would be inconsistent with the SDP and Mural Permit approved for this building.
16 Conditions of Approval Nos. 3 and 4 specifically address the issue of future tenants and uses.
17 • Permanent removal of the graphics would result in empty frames which would be a violation of
18 the SDP that required graphics to be installed in the frames with the graphics subject to Planning
19 Commission review and approval.
20
21 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 8:16 p.m.
22
23 Commission: If the total square footage of the murals calculates to more square footage than what is
24 allowed for the site, why would the proposed wall sign on the main entrance be a consideration?
25
26 Staff: Staff does not have a non-arbitrary way to differentiate which portion of the graphics should be
27 counted as art and which is portion is considered advertising. Since this sign is small and was shown on
28 the Site Development Permit plans, staff recommended allowing this sign at some future date.
29
30 Commission: Are banners considered `signs?' The site also has a banner.
31
32 Staff: Banners are considered signs. A banner can be up no more than for 30 consecutive days and/or
33 for a total of 45 days per year. Banners are counted in the sign area for the site.
34
35 Brad Smith:
36 • The commercial artist that designed and will be painting the murals is not present at tonight's
37 meeting.
38 • Generally agrees with the staff report.
39 • Disagrees:
40 - Condition of Approval No. 8, noting the fee of$50 has been paid.
41 - In terms of signage calculations, the murals should be considered 'art' and not as `advertising.'
42 In this case, the murals would not exceed the sign area allowed for the site.
43 • May not have a wall sign on the entrance.
44 • With regard to signage does not want to place restrictions on the property that could affect future
45 tenants or uses of the building.
46
47 Staff: Noted the issue of the murals and future tenants/change in use are addressed in Conditions of
48 Approval Nos. 3 and 4.
49
50 Commission: If the use were to change, can the applicant apply for a new sign permit for additional
51 signage for review by the Commission that would recategorize the existing signage for the murals.
52
53 Staff: The process would be for the applicant to amend the mural permit. The Commission would then
54 decide, using the Sign Ordinance criteria, if the change was a mural or signage.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 7
1 Commissioner Molgaard: What should occur if a Commissioner was initially satisfied with all the murals
2 except for the mural that displays a hunter carrying a gun being considered as an appropriate public
3 mural from an artistic viewpoint and is no longer a Commissioner when a new sign permit is being
4 considered? If the intent of the mural was to advertise `hunting,'this would be acceptable.
5
6 It was noted this may be a decision for a future Planning Commission.
7
8 Chair Pruden:
9 • All of the six murals represent commercial products that are sold in the store. Ukiah has many
10 murals. It is the Planning Commission's role to make certain murals are within the context of what
11 the community perceives as acceptable.
12 • Surprised that none of murals depict landscape features of the Ukiah area or northern California.
13
14 Brad Smith: Agreed the murals have product representation for items sold in the store, but do not
15 advertise a particular product brand and no brand names are identified in the murals.
16
17 Other Commission comments:
18 • Supports terrain for kayak and backpacking murals look more like Lake Mendocino or the
19 Mendocino coast and encourages the artist of the murals to include some local scenes to
20 resemble the look of northern California. This would also be good for the business since the
21 public could see products sold at the business being used in familiar locations in the Ukiah area.
22 • Consider increasing the diversity of the people in the murals since they all seem to be Caucasian
23 and 40% of the people in this area are people of color. This would better represent the people of
24 the area since there are many ethnic groups in the Ukiah area and would also be beneficial for
25 the business since it recognizes the various ethnic groups that live in the area.
26 • Would the applicant be amenable to moving the hunter carrying the rifle into the background of
27 the mural to make it less predominant?
28
29 Lynn McNamara, Real Estate Broker:
30 • Has worked with Brad on various real estate transactions, including in Humboldt County.
31 • Likes the modifications made to building that include the removal of the storefront windows facing
32 North State Street that will contain three of the six murals.
33 • The murals for the Eureka sporting goods store are beautiful and also represent sport activities
34 that exist in no particular area.
35 • Addressed the issue of whether or not the mural should reflect local landscape scenes and noted
36 the artwork for the proposed murals is that of a commercial artist that paints sport activities that
37 relate to no particular area.
38 • Believes the murals are art rather than advertising of outdoor sports and equipment.
39
40 Lisa Mammina:
41 • Likes murals when if tastefully designed and placed in appropriate locations, murals can beautify
42 the community.
43 • Likes the original architecture of the building. The changes made to the building are not
44 consistent with the design objectives of the DZC or the Downtown Design Guidelines.
45 • The storefront windows should not have been removed. Having no storefront takes away from the
46 community's objective of providing for`walkability' and creating a pedestrian-friendly environment.
47 • Is concerned with the amount of signage for the project and that the murals would make the
48 building look `too busy.' The building also has a very large banner that has been up for a long
49 time.
50 • Appreciates the Commission for making certain mural projects are an appropriate fit for the
51 community.
52
53 Brad Smith:
54 • Pacific Outfitters is receiving a beautification of commercial property award from the Ukiah
55 Chamber of Commerce.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 8
1 • Would give up signage in order to keep the murals and comply with the project conditions.
2
3 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:41 p.m.
4
5 Commission discussion:
6
7 Chair Pruden:
8 • Understands Commission approval for removal of the storefront windows changed the retail
9 aspect of the building such that the murals are necessary to enhance the look of the building and
10 for the business to function well.
11 • Would like the mural landscape designs to include local scenes such as Lake Mendocino,
12 Mendocino Coastline and/or mountain ranges typical of Mendocino County. This would be good
13 for the business.
14 • Would prefer the hunter with binoculars and a crossbow as opposed to a rifle.
15
16 Commissioner Helland:
17 • Likes the physical activity theme.
18 • Would tend to be more lenient about signage by not categorizing the murals entirely as `signs'
19 since it appears no brand names are used for the products in the murals.
20 • Supports all six murals with local content utilized on a few of the murals.
21 • Would like the banner on the west wall to be removed.
22
23 Commissioner Whetzel:
24 • The murals depict a way of life that promotes being athletic and allowing for a healthier lifestyle.
25 The murals represent`art' rather than advertising. Having a local theme is a good idea.
26 • The murals could be revised to include Lake Pillsbury or Cow Mountain.
27 • Firearms are not the leading cause of homicide, motor vehicles are.
28
29 Commissioner Molgaard:
30 • Sees the murals as 50% art and 50% advertising.
31 • Murals should include local scenes such as the Mendocino coast or Lake Mendocino.
32 • Is okay with staff's analysis concerning the wall sign above the entrance.
33 • Asked that the mural portraying a hunter carrying a large gun be removed if guns were no longer
34 sold at this store.
35 • Would prefer that the mural did not include a firearm since firearms are the leading cause of
36 homicides in the U.S.
37
38 Staff: Clarified with regard to the mural with the hunter that if the use changed, the SDP and Mural Permit
39 would have to be amended which requires Planning Commission review and approved of the changes
40 (Condition of Approval No. 4). At that time, the Planning Commission would look at the murals subject to
41 the same Sign Ordinance criteria.
42
43 Commission preference:
44 • Would like to see the mural revised to include people of color. This is not a condition of approval.
45 • Reconsider the prominence of the rifle, possibly replace with a crossbow. This is not a condition
46 of approval.
47 • More specifically address a change of use of the building.
48 • Revise three of the six murals be to reflect local scenes found in Mendocino County.
49 • Allow sufficient time for the applicant to revise and install the murals subject to final approval by
50 the Planning Director.
51 • The existing permitted freestanding sign, the mounted building sign that has not yet been
52 installed, and the area of the murals counted as sign area as part of the approved mural permit
53 utilize all of the sign area for the site. There is no additional sign area available for the site.
54 • Temporary banners up to a maximum of 20 sq.ft. would be allowed subject to the requirements of
55 the City of Ukiah Sign Ordinance and application for and approval of a Banner Permit. The
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 9
1 Commission recommended the following specific modification and additions to the project
2 conditions of approval:
3
4 Condition of Approval No. 4:
5 Modification to or removal of the mural(s) approved in this mural permit or a change of use of the
6 building requires application and approval of an amendment of the approved site development permit
7 (09-25-SDP-PC)and mural permit(10-10-MP-PC)for this site.
8
9 Condition of Approval 14:
10 Prior to the issuance of the building permit referenced in condition of approval #17 below, three of the six
11 murals shall be revised to reflect scenes from Ukiah and/or the greater Ukiah area (such as Lake
12 Mendocino, Clear Lake, the Mendocino Coast, Lake Pillsbury, Cow Mountain, and/or evergreen or
13 redwood trees) and are subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to installation.
14
15 Condition of Approval 15:
16 The revised murals approved by the Planning Director as required by condition of approval # 14 above
17 shall be installed within 120 days of Planning Commission approval of this Mural Permit. This condition
18 extends the time allowed by Site Development Permit Application 09-25-SDP-PC condition of approval #
19 7 to allow time to revise the murals as required by condition of approval#14 above.
20
21 Condition of Approval 16:
22 In addition to the existing permitted freestanding sign, the building mounted sign referenced in condition
23 of approval #2 above, and the area of the graphics counted as sign area and reviewed and approved as
24 part of this mural permit, temporary banners up to a maximum of 20 square feet and subject to the
25 requirements of the City of Ukiah Sign Ordinance and Banner Permit shall also be allowed with
26 application for and approval of a Banner Permit from the Planning and Community Development
27 Department.
28
29 M/S Whetzel/Helland to approve Mural Permit 10-10-MP-PC with Findings 1-5 and Conditions of
30 Approval 1-17 and with modification to Condition of Approval No. 4 and the addition of Conditions of
31 Approval 14, 15, and 16, as renumbered and as discussed above.
32
33 MURAL PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
34 SIX MURALS TO BE INSTALLED AT 955 NORTH STATE STREET, APN 002-040-43
35
36 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
37 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
38
39 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
40 General Plan as described in the staff report.
41
42 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with criteria contained in Section
43 3225 (G) of the Ukiah City Code based on the following.
44
45 A. Compatibility with surrounding environment and community in general. The
46 proposed graphics depict natural settings showing people participating in various
47 outdoor activities. Although the murals are not specific to Ukiah the murals do
48 represent activities that many people in Ukiah enjoy.
49
50 B. Appropriateness of the proposed mural to the site. The existing site contains a
51 commercial building that houses Pacific Outfitters, a retail sporting goods store.
52 Given that the proposed murals depict various sporting activities and the use on the
53 site is a retail sporting goods store, the mural are appropriate for the site.
54
55 C. Relationship to use of building upon which the mural will be place. The
56 proposed murals depict various sporting activities set against scenic backgrounds.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 10
1 This theme relates directly to the retail sporting goods business located at this site
2 and the goods that are for sale at the establishment. Therefore, the graphics have a
3 direct relationship to the use of the building, the retail sales of sporting goods.
4
5 D. Impact on motorist and traffic hazards. The mural will be visible to motorists
6 traveling on North State Street. However, the graphics do not flash, rotate, blink or
7 move. The graphics also do not imitate or resemble official traffic or road signs (e.g.
8 "stop", "go slow", "caution", "danger", "warning" or similar). The mural permit
9 application has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and they did not
10 have any comments. Therefore, the graphics would not have an impact on motorists
11 and would not create a traffic hazard
12
13 E. Advertising potential. The graphics display various sporting good items that are
14 used during sporting activities such as a snowboard, tent, backpack, kayaks, and
15 bikes all products that are sold within the business at this site. Therefore, at least
16 part of the graphics meets the Sign Ordinance definition of advertising message.
17
18 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding land uses and will
19 not cause impacts to traffic, pedestrians or bicyclists since the murals will be attached to
20 the building wall and will not extend into the public right-of-way, pedestrian path, or
21 parking area(s).
22
23 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Sign Ordinance, including the
24 maximum allowable amount of sign area per parcel and the criteria for mural permits,
25 based on the following:
26
27 A. The subject parcel is allowed a maximum of 199 square feet of sign area;
28
29 B. One 54 square foot freestanding sign is located on the site;
30
31 C. The site development permit application included one 18 square foot (3-feet by 6-
32 feet)wall sign located on the north elevation above the building entrance which has
33 not been installed;
34
35 D. The building mounted sign referenced in 4C may be installed at a future date subject
36 to an application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Community Development
37 Department;
38
39 E. The graphics included in this application are part sign and part mural; the portion of
40 the graphics that constitute a sign utilize the remaining sign area allowed for the site.
41
42 5. The proposed project, as conditioned, is exempt from the provisions of the California
43 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class
44 1(a), which allows alterations to the exterior of an existing building when there is with no
45 expansion of the existing use and Section 15311, Class 11(a) construction of on-premise
46 signs based on the following:
47
48 • The proposed project only involves minor alterations to the exterior of the building.
49 • The proposed project does not involve an expansion of the existing use or building.
50 • The proposed project involves the construction of on-premise signs to an existing
51 commercial facility.
52
53 MURAL PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW INSTALLTION OF SIX MURALS AT
54 955 NORTH STATE STREET, APN 002-040-43
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 11
1 1. Approval is granted for the murals as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
2 Department and date stamped May 12, 2010, except as modified by the following
3 conditions of approval.
4
5 2. The 3 feet X 6 feet (18 square feet) wall sign located above the main entrance to the store
6 on the approved with the Site Development Permit plans may installed at a future date
7 subject to application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Community Development
8 Department. installed if the owner chooses to do so subject to review and approval of a
9 sign permit. The sign submitted as part of the Sign Permit application shall be in substantial
10 conformance with the sign shown on the approved site development permit plans.
11
12 3. Permanent removal of the approved murals requires application for and approval of an
13 amendment to approved site development permit for the site (09-SDP-25-PC).
14
15 4. Modification to or removal of the mural(s) approved in this mural permit or a change of use
16 of the building requires application for and approval of an amendment of the approved site
17 development permit(09-25-SDP-PC)and mural permit(10-10-MP-PC)for this site.
18
19 5. All murals included in this approval shall be maintained in good condition. Murals may be
20 removed for a maximum of 30 days for repair, maintenance, and/or graffiti removal.
21 Murals that have been removed for maintenance shall be reinstalled in the location
22 shown on the approved plans within 30 days of their removal. If special circumstances
23 occur and a mural(s) cannot be reinstalled within 30 days, the owner may request an
24 extension of time in writing from the Director of Planning and Community Development
25 for addition time. The request shall include an explanation of the circumstances and a
26 timeline for the reinstallation of the mural(s).
27
28 6. This Mural Permit is granted only for the proposed mural addressed in the staff report and
29 shall not be construed as an approval for any additional murals or as eliminating or
30 modifying any building, use requirement.
31
32 7. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Permit has
33 been exceeded, and any timely filed appeal has been reviewed.
34
35 8. This approval shall be null and void unless the California Environmental Quality AcUFish
36 and Game filing fee of $50 payable to Mendocino County is filed with the City of Ukiah
37 Planning and Community Development Department within five (5) days of this approval.
38
39 9. No Permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
40 applicable to the application and Conditions of Approval have been paid in full.
41
42 10. All murals shall conform to the application approved by the Planning Commission and to
43 any supporting documents submitted therewith or made part of the administrative record,
44 including staff reports, maps and renderings submittals or documents any change to this
45 approval shall require an amendment to this approval.
46
47 11. This approved Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the
48 approved project related to the Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the
49 stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years
50 of the effective date of approval; or if the established and use for which the permit was
51 granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty-four(24) consecutive months.
52
53 12. This approval is not effective unless and until all other required discretionary entitlements
54 have been granted, issued or approved as applicable.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 12
1 13. All murals will be maintained in good condition. At any point as their condition becomes
2 deteriorated by graffiti, weathering or other means, as determined by the Planning
3 Director, they will be removed or obscured by the applicant or property owner.
4
5 From the Planning Commission
6 14. Prior to the issuance of the building permit referenced in condition of approval #17 below,
7 three of the six murals shall be revised to reflect scenes from Ukiah and/or the greater
8 Ukiah area (such as Lake Mendocino, Clear Lake, the Mendocino Coast, Lake Pillsbury,
9 Cow Mountain, and/or evergreen or redwood trees) and are subject to Planning Director
10 review and approval prior to installation.
11
12 15. The revised murals approved by the Planning Director as required by condition of
13 approval # 14 above shall be installed within 120 days of Planning Commission approval
14 of this Mural Permit. This condition extends the time allowed by Site Development Permit
15 Application 09-25-SDP-PC condition of approval # 7 to allow time to revise the murals as
16 required by condition of approval#14 above.
17
18 16. In addition to the existing permitted freestanding sign, the building mounted sign
19 referenced in condition of approval #2 above, and the area of the graphics counted as
20 sign area and reviewed and approved as part of this mural permit, temporary banners up
21 to a maximum of 20 square feet and subject to the requirements of the City of Ukiah Sign
22 Ordinance and Banner Permit shall also be allowed with application for and approval of a
23 Banner Permit from the Planning and Community Development Department.
24
25 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv)
26 17. A building permit is required before attachment of the mural(s)to the building.
27
28 11. OLD BUSINESS—WORKSHOP
29 11A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop. Continued review and discussion of Section 12:
30 Administration and Procedures, Table 126: Use Permit Procedures and Table 4: Allowed Uses
31 and Permit Requirements and the uses included in the table also will be reviewed and discussed
32 to determine by right uses and minor and major use Permits. Revised Section 13: Glossary is
33 also included for review and discussion.
34
35 There was a general discussion and it was the consensus of the Commission to continue review of this
36 agenda item to the regular July 14, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
37
38 12. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
39 None
40
41 13. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
42 None
43
44 14. ADJOURNMENT
45 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
46
47
48 Judy Pruden, Chair
49
50 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
51
52
53
54
55
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 23, 2010
Page 13