HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_07282010MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 1
CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION 1
July 28, 2010 2
Minutes 3
4
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT 5
Judy Pruden, Chair Linda Sanders 6
Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair 7
Linda Helland 8
Mike Whetzel 9
10
STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT 11
Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively 12
Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner 13
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 14
15
1. CALL TO ORDER 16
The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by 17
Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, 18
Ukiah, California. 19
20
2. ROLL CALL 21
22
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited. 23
24
4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site verification was confirmed. 25
26
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 14, 2010 27
M/S Molgaard/Helland to approve July 14, 2010 minutes as submitted. Motion carried (4-0). 28
29
6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None 30
31
7. APPEAL PROCESS – Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, 32
the final day to appeal is August 9, 2010. 33
34
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Use Permit No. 10-11 was properly noticed in accordance with the 35
provisions of the UMC. 36
37
9. PUBLIC NOTICE 38
9A. Curious Minds Learning Center Use Permit No 10-11-UP-PC. Conduct a public hearing on 39
request from Tanyjasu Simms for approval of a child care center for 38 children to be located at 40
270 North Pine Street, APN 002-214-07. 41
42
Staff presented a staff report. 43
44
Tanyjsau Simms, applicant provided a brief overview of the proposed child care center and welcomed 45
questions from the Commission. 46
47
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m. 48
49
Commission: 50
Q1. Does the applicant intend to complete a circulation plan for the parking lot? Has 51
consideration be given about one-way circulation through the parking lot with egress via 52
Smith Street and ingress via Standley Street or vice versa depending upon the direction a 53
particular person is coming from. 54
Q2. Will the clientele be notified about circulation in the parking lot? 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 2
Q3. Will there be a designated drop-off area? Concerned was expressed that cars could be 1
left idling creating potential pollution and noise impacts to the neighborhood. 2
Q4. Referred to page 11, draft Conditions of Approval No. 2, line 19, Once a month Parent 3
Education meeting, and inquired whether this condition should state ‘twice’ a month 4
parent meeting. 5
Q5. Is caring for 38 children that will occupy three of the existing classrooms the maximum 6
allowed? 7
8
Tanyjsau Simms: 9
Q1. Preference would be one-way traffic through the parking lot with the entrance to the 10
center via Standley Street and exit via Smith Street. 11
Q2. Confirm the clientele for the facility will be notified. 12
Q3. Clients will enter the facility at the southern-most door. Every client must sign in and sign 13
out, as required by law. Additionally, parents will be notified p rior to enrollment that the 14
operational policy for the facility requests other children that will not be attending the 15
facility must also come in while the parents are signing in their child/children. Parents are 16
asked to park their cars prior to entering the building as opposed to leaving them to idle. 17
It will likely take less than 10 minutes to sign in a child. 18
Q4. Conducting a parent education meeting once a month should be sufficient. 19
Q5. To comply with State Title 22 licensing requirements, the maximum number of children 20
allowed is based on square footage. 21
22
Commission: 23
Recommends for safety reasons, the project be conditioned with the entrance on 24
Standley Street and the exit on Smith Street. 25
Recommends a sign with an arrow be posted at the driveway entrance or painted on the 26
ground to effectively advise the clientele of the one-way circulation plan for the parking 27
lot. 28
Playground noise should not be problematic in this neighborhood. 29
One particular daycare facility in a church located in a residential area was cited as an 30
example of a facility that did not work well because of noise and other nuisance impacts 31
that occurred to the neighborhood particularly during the early morning hours. 32
The proposed project is in a good location and its operation sh ould not impact the 33
neighborhood. 34
Supports conditioning the project that parent education meetings can be held twice a 35
month if necessary for flexibility purposes. 36
37
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:20 p.m. 38
39
Commission preference: 40
Stipulate the circulation in the parking lot for the child care use by conditioning the project 41
to require a small sign be posted indicating entrance to the facility would be from 42
Standley Street and exit would be onto Smith Street. 43
44
PUBLIC HEARING Re-OPENED: 6:22 p.m. 45
46
Paul C. Holden, Representative of the Church: Addressed circulation in the parking lot and the 47
Commission’s preference to have one-way directional flow of traffic in the parking lot for the day care 48
center use. There have been other day care facilities that operated in the Church facility over the years 49
and parking was never an issue. Clientele typically entered the parking lot from Standley Street and 50
exited onto Smith Street. 51
52
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:25 p.m. 53
54
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED: 6:26 p.m. 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 3
1
Don Larson: Likes to park his car on the street as opposed to a parking lot. He suggests the clientele 2
with this preference park on Bush Street. 3
4
Chair Pruden: Public parking is available on Bush Street, but parking on the street for the clientele would 5
be problematic when dropping off and picking up children. 6
7
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:34 p.m. 8
9
Staff: Recommends adding conditions ‘From the Planning Commission’ to address signage to the 10
entrance of the parking lot and potential noise and air quality impacts from idling vehicles and modify 11
Condition of Approval No. 2 pertinent to hours of operation as it pertains to the number of monthly 12
meetings. 13
14
Commissioner Molgaard: Asked about the likelihood of painting a crosswalk at one or both of the 15
intersections at Bush Street and Standley Street or Bush Street and Smith Street to access the facility 16
from Bush Street. 17
18
It was noted this type of request must be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineering Committee. 19
20
Commissioner Helland: Advised the pedestrian always has the right-of-way in California at intersections 21
even if they are unmarked. 22
23
Commission consensus: 24
Likes the project and the location. 25
Modify Condition of Approval No. 2 - Parent Education Meeting to allow two (2) 26
Parent Education Meeting, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 27
Add Condition to require a directional sign/arrow at the parking lot entrance on Standley 28
Street to create one-way traffic circulation with exit on Smith Street. 29
Add Condition to prohibit idling of cars; Clients must park and sign in child/children. 30
31
M/S Molgaard/Helland to approve Major Use Permit 10-11-UP-PC for Curious Minds Learning Center 32
with Findings 1-8 and Conditions of Approval 1-18 with the changes/additions to the conditions as 33
referenced and discussed above. Motion carried. (4-0). 34
35
USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW 36
THE OPERATION OF A CHILD CARE CENTER 37
AT 270 NORTH PINE STREET, APN 002-214-07 38
FILE NO: 10-11-UP-PC 39
40
The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the 41
application materials and documentation, and the public record. 42
43
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General 44
Plan as described in the staff report. 45
46
2. The proposed project, as conditioned and with an approved Use Permit pursuant to Zoning 47
Ordinance Section 9262 and per Section 9198 (E)(1) off- street parking requirements, is 48
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report. 49
50
3. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in regards to parking in 51
that: 52
53
A. The project site has a paved on site parking lot that contains nineteen (19) parking spaces. 54
Seven (7) parking spaces are required and eight (8) spaces have been designated by the 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 4
Church specifically for this use. Therefore the impact to the neighborhood in terms o f on –1
street parking will be minimal. 2
3
B. The proposed project will not conflict in terms of operating days and hour with other activities 4
scheduled at the church therefore there will be ample parking on site. 5
6
C. The child care center will be licensed for 38 children the nature of a child care center is that 7
not all of the children are dropped off at the same time resulting in staggered parking needs 8
throughout the day. Therefore the 8 designated parking spaces will be sufficient. 9
10
4. The proposed project is compatible with surrounding neighborhood in regards to traffic in that: 11
12
A. Given that the operation of the child care center will not conflict in terms of days and hours 13
with other church functions the adjacent neighborhood will not experience an increase i n 14
traffic. 15
16
B. The child care center will be licensed for 38 children, the nature of a child care center is that 17
not all of the children are dropped off or picked up at the same time. Therefore there will not 18
be an dramatic increase in traffic to the neighborhood. 19
20
C. Given that the project site is located in a transition area, surrounded by both residential and 21
commercial uses, the child care center will be available to residents and working families in 22
the neighborhood who can walk to the center. Furthermore the center is located in close 23
proximity to public transit. 24
25
5. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in regards to noise in that 26
: 27
28
A. The proposed use will be held to the City standard noise requirements as defined in the C ity 29
Municipal Code therefore the adjacent neighborhood will not be impacted with increased 30
noise levels. 31
32
B. The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of residential and commercial uses. Based on the 33
performance of past child care facilities at this location and the fact that there have not been 34
complaints from the neighbors in the past therefore the proposed use is compatible with the 35
neighborhood. 36
37
6. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and general welfare in 38
that : 39
40
A. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building Official, 41
Public Works and comments received have been included as conditions of approval. 42
43
B. The Child Care Facility will be licensed by the State of California through the Communit y 44
Care Licensing Board. 45
46
C. The project is required to comply with all federal, state and local laws. The applicant has 47
provided information as to compliance with applicable requirements. 48
49
D. Based on findings 3, 4, and 5 above. 50
51
52
7. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act 53
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c), New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures, 54
which allows structures up to 10,000 square feet in urbanized areas when the use does not 55
involve significant amounts of hazardous materials, where all necessary public services and 56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 5
facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive based on the 1
following: 2
3
A. The proposed project includes 1,516 square feet of classroom area. 4
5
B. The Child Care Center use does not involve the use of hazardous materials. 6
7
C. The project site is located in an area where all public services and facilities area 8
available. 9
10
D. The project is not located within an environmentally sensitive area in that the site is 11
located in a developed urban area. The site is developed with buildings, parking lot, 12
landscaping and a play yard. No water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat, floodway or flood 13
plain or other environmentally sensitive areas are present. 14
15
E. The proposed project will not conflict in terms of operating days and hours with other 16
activities scheduled at the church site therefore the on -site parking shall be sufficient and 17
not impact the neighborhood. Furthermore the drop-off and pick-up times will be 18
staggered throughout the day resulting in less impact on the neighborhood. 19
20
F. Given that the operation of the child care center will not conflict in terms of days and 21
hours with other church functions the adjacent neighborhood will not be adversely 22
impacted by increased traffic. 23
24
G. The proposed use will be held to the City Standard Noise requirements as defined in the 25
City Municipal Code therefore the adjacent neighborhood will not be impacted with 26
increased noise levels. 27
28
8. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning 29
Ordinance: 30
31
A. Posted in three places on the project site on July 16, 2010; 32
B. Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on July 16, 2010; and 33
C. Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 18, 2010. 34
35
USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW 36
THE OPERATION OF A CHILD CARE CENTER 37
AT 270 NORTH PINE STREET, APN 002-214-07 38
FILE NO: 10-11-UP-PC 39
40
1. Approval is granted for the operation of a Child Care Center as described in the project 41
descriptions submitted to the Community Development and Planning Department and date 42
stamped June 7, 2010 except as modified by the following conditions of approval. 43
44
2. This Use Permit is granted subject to the following hours of operation: 45
46
Monday through Friday 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM 47
48
Twice a month Parent Education Meeting 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM 49
50
The parent education meetings shall not be scheduled at a time and day that conflict with othe r 51
scheduled events at the Church 52
53
3. The Child Care Center is limited to a maximum of 38 children. 54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 6
4. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a site plan that shows the location of and the 1
accurate number of parking stalls on the site. 2
3
5. A copy of the revised site plan submitted with the building permit shall be submitted to the 4
Planning Department for inclusion on the Use Permit File. 5
6
6. The drop-off and pick-up times for the children shall be staggered as noted in the project 7
description submitted by the applicant. 8
9
7. Noise generated from the child care center and outside play yard shall not exceed the established 10
noise standards as defined by the City’s Municipal Code. Outside play time will be limited to a 11
total of three hours per day. 12
13
8. All signs on the project site shall conform to the regulations of City’s Sign Ordinance Section 3227 14
(C) and are subject to sign permit approval. 15
16
From the Planning Commission 17
18
19
9. Plans submitted for building permit (Change of Occupancy) shall include the following and 20
are subject to staff review and approval: 21
22
A. A directional sign shall be installed at the Standley Street entrance to indicate that the clients 23
of the child care center shall enter the parking lot via Standley Street and exit onto Smith 24
Street. 25
26
10. The child care center handbook distributed to new clients shall be revised to include the following: 27
28
A. Clients of the child care facility shall park and turn off their vehicles when dropping off or 29
picking up children. There shall be no idling of cars in the parking lot. 30
B. Clients are required to enter the parking lot via Standley Street and exit onto Smith 31
Street. 32
33
From the Fire Marshal (Chuck Yates) 34
35
11. As required by the Fire Code a fire alarm system shall be installed in the classrooms and 36
hallways leading to and around the classrooms. 37
38
From the Building Official ( David Willoughby) 39
40
12. A building permit is required for the change of occupancy to a day care center for 38 children and 41
8 administrator/teachers (a group E occupancy). 42
43
Standard City Conditions of Approval 44
45
13. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including 46
but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been applied for 47
and issued/finaled. 48
49
14. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges 50
applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full. 51
52
15. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation, 53
specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as 54
applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 7
structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved 1
and issued. 2
3
16. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any 4
future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest. 5
6
17. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior 7
to building permit final. 8
9
18. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City’s revocation process if the approved project 10
related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions 11
of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this 12
approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been 13
suspended for 24 consecutive months. 14
15
19. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their 16
agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its 17
agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commiss ions from any claim, action or 18
proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to 19
attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, 20
but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be 21
asserted by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the 22
City's action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence 23
on the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to 24
be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement 25
shall remain in full force and effect. 26
27
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 28
10A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop. Review and discussion of revised Table 4: Allowed Uses 29
and Permit Requirements and revised Section 13. Glossary 30
31
Staff: Requested the Commission continue discussion and review of Table 4: Allowed Uses and Permit 32
Requirements, particularly as the uses relate to the DC zone and Section 13. Glossary. 33
34
Equipment Rental 35
36
Commission consensus: Refer to Glossary; 37
GU & UC= A(4a); Allowed; Major Use Permit for more than 5,000 square feet or 100 lineal feet 38
DC= Prohibit 39
40
Vehicle services – Minor maintenance/repair 41
42
Commission: 43
Examples of uses: Car detailing, Quick lube 44
45
Commission consensus: 46
GU & UC = MIUP; Minor Use Permit regardless of size 47
DC= Prohibit 48
49
Storage – personal storage facility 50
Commission: 51
Personal in-door/interior storage use may be appropriate in the DZC district. 52
Not supportive of interior storage use in the DC zone. 53
Most people are familiar with mini-storage facilities that are placed on land because they are a 54
relatively inexpensive investment and have a pretty good monetary return. 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 8
Questioned whether a property owner would go to the expense of having personal storage uses 1
in buildings when there are relatively inexpensive mini-storage units available on the perimeter 2
areas. 3
4
Chair Pruden: There are some very attractive personal storage facilities in the downtown area for cities. 5
If designed correctly to be inconspicuous, such uses can look like a regular building. 6
7
Staff: This type of use is not pedestrian oriented and there are design issues which may not be 8
consistent with the purpose of this Code or appropriate for the Downtown or on a City gateway. Familiar 9
with one mini- familiar with storefronts on the ground floor with the mini-storage behind the shopfront and 10
on upper floors. The mini-storage units on the upper floor had elevator access. 11
12
Commission: Would an indoor storage use considered ‘ancillary’ be allowed where the primary function, 13
for instance, was a retail component? 14
15
Staff: From staff’s perspective, the bigger issue is the affect on the streetscape. The facility would either 16
have to be located behind the storefront or located above allowing for what is necessary on the ground 17
floor. The storage use would most likely be a second ‘primary’ use. 18
19
Commission: Preference – personal storage buildings with street frontage. 20
21
Staff: This depends upon what the Planning Commission recommends as a use for a building, which 22
could include an indoor storage use on the second story or behind a shopfront. of building. In this way the 23
streetscape would be maintained. 24
25
Commission consensus: 26
GU = MIUP (8), Minor UP; Allowed without a Use Permit when located behind a shopfront or above the 27
ground floor. with an allowed use on floors above the ground floor. 28
UC & DC = Prohibit 29
30
Homeless Facility – small & large 31
32
Staff: Discussed these uses with the Planning Director related to the Housing Element. The Planning 33
Director indicated that HCD has reviewed the Draft Housing Element and at this time the approach to this 34
type of facility would be to allow them in the C-2 zoning district and there is adequate vacant and 35
underutilized land with this zoning to accommodate additional facilities if needed. If the Commission 36
prefers to prohibit these facilities in all DZC zones this would be consistent with the Draft Housing 37
Element. 38
39
Commission: General discussion about possible sites available for a homeless shelter in the Orchard 40
Avenue area. 41
42
Commission consensus: 43
No change to GU zone = MAUP(2) (SDP would likely be required) 44
UC & DC = Prohibit 45
46
Commission: 47
Okay with the additions to Table 4 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements and definitions for 48
smoke shop, tasting room, equipment rental, vehicle services – minor & major. 49
Okay with staff revised definitions for adult entertainment business, electric vehicle charging 50
station, pet services, pet store, and restaurant – formula fast food. 51
52
Commission noted the DZC boundaries can be revisited when the DZC Map is reviewed. 53
54
(Residential) Dwelling – condominium, duplex, multiple household 55
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 9
Commission: Discussed whether to add condition/restriction No. 8 or prohibit these uses in the DC zone. 1
There was concern how a mixed-use with a residential component would be considered? 2
3
Staff: Stated the ‘Residential in a mixed-use building’ use category clarifies any confusion and this 4
category is currently classified A(8) for all zones . Footnote #8 requires that the residential portion of the 5
building be located above the ground floor. This requires different use(s) on the ground floor, such as 6
retail, restaurant, office. 7
8
Commission: Discussed ‘residential’ in a mixed-use building with an A(8) condition/restriction. 9
10
Staff: The concern is not whether there is one unit that takes up the entire floor or 10 units that are 11
condominiums, but rather that the building is residential with another type of use. 12
13
Chair Pruden: Stated the intent is to allow and encourage residential in a mixed -use building. There are 14
some long and narrow buildings in the Downtown. In the past, people typically lived behind their shops. 15
There are some buildings where an apartment could be constructed behind a shop and cited the Joseph 16
Jewelry building on S. State Street as a former example. 17
18
Staff: This type of scenario could be viewed upon as a live/work situation or ‘residential’ in a mixed-use 19
building where this use category states the unit must be above the ground floor or behind the storefront. 20
21
Commission Consensus: 22
GU & UC = Allowed; No change 23
DC = Prohibit 24
25
Commission Recommend: Modify footnote 8 to read Allowed on floors above the ground floor or 26
behind a street fronting use. Major Use Permit required to allow on the ground floor. 27
28
It was noted a building behind a storefront must meet all Fire Code standards. 29
30
It was further noted a definition is necessary for ‘Residential in a Mixed-Use Building.’ 31
32
Bed and breakfast – 5 rooms or fewer, more than 5 rooms 33
Hotel, motel – 5 rooms or fewer, more than 5 rooms 34
There was Commission discussion about the use possibilities for the Palace Hotel. 35
36
There was further discussed about allowing by right bed and breakfast in the DZC in terms of size. 37
Footnote No. 3 states, ‘Any use(s) that exceed gross square feet of floor area or 100 lineal feet on the 38
ground floor frontage when located on a Required Storefront Frontage on the Zoning Map requ ires 39
approval of a MIUP. Footnote 4 states, ‘Any uses(s) that exceed 15,000 gross square feet of floor area on 40
the ground floor requires approval of a Major Use Permit. 41
42
Staff: 43
If there are not impacts that need to be addressed through a use permit, a use permit should not 44
be required. The use has to comply with the standards in the Code, including parking. If the 45
Planning Commission wants to see these uses to determine if the use is appropriate for the site 46
or address potential impacts, then a use permit should be required whether the use is bed and 47
breakfast, hotel, motel. 48
As written, the Commission would see this use based on the number of rooms and not the square 49
footage of the facility. 50
51
Commission: Agreed that a MAUP would be appropriate for bed and breakfast, hotel, motel with more 52
than 5 rooms in all zones and allowed in all zones for these same uses 5 rooms or fewer. 53
54
Commission consensus: 55
No changes were made to the original discussion. 56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 10
1
Church, chapel, religious assembly and instruction 2
3
Commission: 4
Discussion about storefront churches that exist in Ukiah. 5
Many of these uses are only Sunday operations. Would this one day-a-week use be feasible in 6
the Downtown? 7
There was further Commission discussion whether or not to allow such uses in the DC. 8
9
Commission Consensus: 10
GU = MIUP; No change 11
UC = A(3); No change 12
DC= Prohibit 13
14
Laundromat 15
16
Commission consensus: 17
GU = A(4a); No change 18
UC = A(4a); No change 19
DC = Prohibit 20
21
Second hand store, thrift store, pawn shop 22
23
Commission: Discussed this use category and discussed whether to restrict or prohibit in the DC zone. 24
Referred to Glossary for second hand, thrift store and was of the opinion a pawn shop should be viewed 25
as a separate use. 26
27
Staff: 28
An antique shop is a retail/commercial use. 29
Recommended adding ‘pawn shop’ to the Personal services – restricted use category. 30
31
Commission consensus: 32
Delete pawn shop from the definition of ‘second hand store, thrift store’ and from this use 33
category in Table 4A 34
Add pawn shop to the examples included in definition of ‘personal services restricted’ 35
36
Business services 37
38
Commission: 39
Refer to Glossary, which states, ‘See Section 9278 Definitions (reference is to current zoning 40
code). 41
Not a Downtown use. 42
43
Commission consensus: 44
GU & UC = MIUP; Always requires a Minor Use Permit regardless of size 45
DC = Prohibit 46
47
Transportation service, transportation terminal 48
49
Commission consensus: 50
No change. 51
52
Parking lot 53
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2010
Page 11
Staff: Existing parking lots can remain. Would the Commission want to see any more new parking lots in 1
the DC zone even with a major use permit? This use pertains to surface parking, is a standalone use and 2
pertains to a parcel just being used as a parking lot. 3
4
Commission consensus: 5
GU & UC = MAUP, no change 6
DC = Prohibit 7
8
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S REPORT 9
Staff/Commission discussion about the next step in the procedural review of the DCZ document. 10
11
12. ADJOURNMENT 12
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m. 13
14
15
Judy Pruden, Chair 16
17
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 18
19
20
21
22
23
