HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_08252010 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 August 25, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Linda Helland
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Sanders
9 Mike Whetzel
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Ben Kageyama, Senior Civil Engineer
15 Mel Grandi, Public Utilities Director
16 Jim Bauer, Electrical Distribution Engineer
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 1. CALL TO ORDER
20 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
21 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
22 Ukiah, California.
23
24 2. ROLL CALL
25
26 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
27
28 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site verification was confirmed.
29
30 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—July 28, 2010
31 M/S Molgaard/Whetzel to approve July 28, 2010 minutes as submitted. Motion carried (4-0) with
32 Commissioner Sanders abstaining.
33
34 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
35 Councilmember Benj Thomas spoke and expressed appreciation to the Planning Commission and
36 Planning staff for review of the DZC and the considerations being made in regards to expediting the
37 permit process and supports that this direction continue.
38
39 7. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
40 the final day to appeal is September 7, 2010.
41
42 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- N/A
43
44 9. CONSENT CALENDAR
45 9A. Evans Final Map. Planning Commission acceptance of and recommendation to City Council of
46 the Evans final Subdivision Map, 196 Wabash Avenue, APN 003-540-23.
47 M/S Molgaard/Whetzel to accept consent item and approve the Evans final Subdivision Map for
48 presentation to City Council for final approval. Motion carried. (4-0).
49
50 Chair Pruden signed the Planning Commission Statement on the Final Map.
51
52 10. CONDITION COMPLIANCE
53 10A. Orchard Avenue Substation Condition Compliance. Review and approval of the final lighting
54 plan, wall color and details, control building color, and recycling of the trees to be removed for the
55 Orchard Avenue Substation required as mitigations and conditions of approval.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 1
1 Staff presented a staff report and requested the Planning Commission review the lighting plan, the wall
2 height alternatives, control building color and final wall color, details for the wall that will enclose the
3 facility, and options for reuse/recycling of the trees to be removed.
4
5 Staff advised the Landscaping Plan for the project has not been submitted.
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:18 P.M.
8
9 Lighting Plan
10
11 Commission:
12 • Referred to the Lighting Plan (Attachment 1)
13 • Discussion concerning lighting for the project and the maximum height for the lights to be
14 mounted inside the wall and the pole lights to be mounted on the interior of the substation.
15 • Likes that the fixtures are LED and International Dark Sky Association approved.
16
17 Commission consensus:
18 • Approved the Lighting Plan.
19
20 Wall Heiqht Alternatives & Final Color for the Wall and Control Buildinq &Wall Design
21
22 Staff:
23 • The wall height on the site plans submitted for the building permit exceeds the approved 10-foot
24 maximum for the North, South and East elevations because a portion of the footing for the wall is
25 above grade.
26 • Consider-Alternative 1: Allow additional wall height in order to provide for a uniform appearance
27 or
28 Alternative 2: Stagger the top of the wall by removing a section of the top row of blocks where the
29 10-foot maximum height is exceeded, thereby reducing the height to comply with the 10-foot
30 maximum.
31 • Provided the two colored wall samples recommended by the Commission at the December 2009
32 meeting.
33 • Noted Commission's recommendation at the December 10, 2009 meeting was not unanimous
34 concerning the wall and control building color. The color for the wall was selected from a small
35 paper color sample and the color for the control building was based on a small paint sample.
36
37 Staff: Jim Bauer, Electric Distribution Engineer commented on the material and color samples for the
38 wall.
39
40 Commission:
41 • Referred to Attachment 2, sheets 5 and 6 for the wall height alternatives.
42 • Discussion and consideration regarding Alternatives 1 &2.
43 • Concerned with project aesthetics since the site is located in one of the City's gateways
44 and in a residential neighborhood.
45 ■ The wall should have uniformity.
46 ■ It is possible that if the wall had variation, it would appear less `institutional.'
47 ■ Consider treatments and/or variations in the pattern of the material to possibly include a
48 'band' to help break up the mass of the wall.
49 ■ Consider `stacking' the corners to provide for some architectural articulation unless this is
50 cost prohibitive.
51 ■ Colors for the sample materials do not resemble any color originally considered at the
52 December 2009 meeting.
53 • Should the wall use two or more colors to create an architecturally pleasing contrasting
54 effect?
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 2
1 Staff: The elevations for the wall vary in range with the changes in grade. In terms of wall detail the plans
2 include a 2-inch capstone for all parts of the wall and referred to the e-mail dated August 19, 2010 from
3 the project engineering firm that addresses use of capstones for the corner of the wall and grout color.
4
5 Commissioner Molgaard does not necessarily have a preference relative to the wall alternatives so long
6 as the final product is aesthetically pleasing and not institutional in appearance. Additional height would
7 make the wall look more massive.
8
9 Commission: How long would it take for the vines to grow along the wall?
10
11 Staff: Since no landscaping plan has yet been submitted, the species of the vines is unknown.
12
13 Commission:
14 ■ Discussion regarding the use of capstones to accent the wall for aesthetic purposes.
15 ■ Discussion concerning using a `banding' effect by using a different color to offset the
16 primary color to enhance the overall appearance.
17 ■ The standard approach would be to utilize darker material colors for the bottom of the
18 wall that creates an `anchoring' effect as opposed to the reverse combination, followed
19 possibly by accent features for the top of the wall.
20 ■ Discussion whether to allow the wall height to exceed the 10-foot maximum so that the
21 top of the wall would be uniform as opposed to staggering the top where the 10-foot
22 maximum height is exceeded.
23 • It is difficult to consider alternatives without the landscaping plan.
24 ■ Would like to see samples of different designs used for other electrical substations.
25 • A masonry person would have expertise in creating a design using the alternative
26 'smooth' and `split face' sides.
27 ■ Discussion concerning the color of the grout so that it complements the wall color.
28 ■ Discussion concerning the corner treatment of the wall relative to aesthetics and potential
29 costs.
30 ■ The color scheme for the control building and wall do not necessarily have to match, but
31 should be compatible.
32 ■ When the color schemes are available, two of the Commissions can review for final
33 approval so that this issue does not have to be revisited.
34
35 Commission consensus:
36 ■ Wall height may exceed the 10-foot maximum in order to have the top of the wall be uniform.
37 ■ Wall design—
38 ➢ 4" beveled capstone.
39 ➢ Color Calstone 4625 for the top rows of the wall and capstone.
40 ➢ Provide for a darker color for the body of the wall.
41 ➢ The body of the wall to alternate `smooth' and `split face' sides to create a pattern.
42 ➢ The design of the wall can be determined by the mason.
43 ➢ Banding of the wall is okay.
44 ➢ A corner treatment is preferred, if financially feasible.
45 ➢ Building color should be compatible with the wall color.
46 ➢ Grout color should match the wall color.
47 ➢ Planning Commission chair and one Commissioner to review building colors when they
48 arrive.
49
50 Redwood Tree and other trees on the site
51 Commission:
52 • Important the Redwood tree is recycled and that it remains in the City because it is a public
53 resource as opposed to being removed and taken to a lumberyard for resale.
54 • Did not support recycling the Redwood Tree into mulch.
55 • Consider the options for the removal and recycling of the Redwood tree: Cut the tree into 10-12-
56 foot sections and move to City-owned Observatory Park to dry for re-use as benches, repairs to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 3
1 building, or in some other useful way or cut into 6-8-foot sections and move sections to the
2 adjacent vacant C1 parcel owned by the City to dry and be reused.
3 • Determine whether removal of the tree and cut into sections is cost prohibitive.
4 • Recommend consulting with John Phillips, Arborist, to decide best and most cost effective option
5 available.
6 • The less significant trees on the site can be removed and mulched.
7
8 Electric Utility Director Grandi will review the option of relocation and reuse of the Redwood tree.
9
10 Commission consensus:
11 • Cut the Redwood tree into lengths of 10-12-foot sections and move to Observatory Park to dry
12 and reuse.
13 • If feasible and/or cost prohibitive, cut into 6-8-foot sections and move to adjacent City-owned
14 vacant C1 parcel to dry and reuse.
15
16 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:22 p.m.
17
18 M/S Whetzel/Sanders to approve the final lighting plan, wall color and details, control building color, and
19 recycling of the trees to be removed for the Orchard Avenue Substation as follows:
20 • Approved the lighting plan as proposed.
21 ■ Cut redwood tree into lengths of 10'-12' and move sections to Observatory Park to dry and
22 eventually be reused. If this is infeasible or cost prohibitive, cut into 6'-8' sections and move
23 sections to the adjacent vacant C1 parcel owned by the City to dry and be reused.
24 ■ Wall height may exceed the 10-foot maximum in order to have the top of the wall be uniform.
25 ■ Wall Details:
26 ➢ 4" beveled capstone;
27 ➢ Color Calstone 4625 for the top rows of the wall and capstone;
28 ➢ Darker color for the body of the wall. Calstone to provide colored wall material samples
29 for Chair and one other Planning Commissioner to select body color from.
30 ➢ Body of wall to alternate "smooth" and "split face" sides to create a pattern. Design to be
31 determined by the mason. Banding is okay.
32 ➢ Grout color to match the wall color.
33 ➢ Corner treatment if feasible based on the budget.
34 ■ Building color to be compatible with the wall color. Planning Commission Chair and one
35 Commissioner to review building colors once they arrive.
36 Motion carried. (4-0)
37 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
38 11A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop. Review and discussion of Standards for Specific Uses,
39 Site Development Permit Considerations and Findings. Lot line Adjustments and Non-Conforming
40 Uses.
41 Staff presented a brief staff report and requested the Commission discuss `standards' for specific land
42 uses relative to Table 4: Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for the following uses allowed by right:
43 Community Gardens, Home Occupations, Large family daycare, Live-work unit, Residential in mixed use
44 building, Single room occupancy, and Second unit.
45
46 Staff also requests the Commission discuss review and provide direction concerning lot line
47 adjustment/boundary line adjustment, site development considerations and findings, tasting room
48 considerations, and non-conforming uses and structures.
49
50 Communitv Garden Requirements: (Attachment 1)
51
52 Staff: Miles Gordon has reviewed the standards and approves.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 4
1 Commission:
2 • There may not be sufficient space for community gardens except for along the railroad tracks.
3 • While the standards do not specify where community gardens should be located, there is the
4 potential to have community gardens on rooftops.
5 • Lines 42-44 should read, `If unsure of how to combat pests, weeds, and diseases organically,
6 contact the garden team leader or other qualified professionals or organizations for guidance and
7 resources.'
8 • Line 39 should read, `needed for garden plot.'
9 • Bathroom facilities can be an issue for some community gardens.
10 • Possibly add commercially maintained portable bathroom as an accessory structure.
11 • Community gardens are important to communities.
12
13 Staff: Preference would be to include bathroom facilities as a separate item rather than as an accessory
14 structure and review all issues associated thereof. Can look into this further and revise for review by
15 Planning Commission as part of the final draft.
16
17 Commission consensus:
18 • Revise: Lines 42-44 to read, `If unsure of how to combat pests, weeds, and diseases organically,
19 contact the garden team leader or other qualified professionals or organizations for guidance and
20 resources.'
21 • Approves of requirements.
22
23 Home Occupation Requirements: (Attachment 2)
24
25 Commission:
26 • Questioned the intent of bullet #4. The addition of an ADA ramp may be for the benefit of the
27 resident as opposed to a customer.
28
29 Staff: Making modifications to a single family dwelling to accommodate a home occupation would not
30 constitute a `home occupation' but rather a commercial use that would not be allowed.
31
32 Commission:
33 • Likes the concept that not more than two non-residents may work at a home occupation location.
34 • Home occupations provide additional employment opportunities.
35 • It should not matter how many family members living in the home are working at the business.
36 • Allowing too many employees for a home occupation can create negative impacts to the
37 neighborhood.
38 • Employee parking in a residential area is an issue.
39 • The home occupation requirements appear to be overly restrictive. However, staff has reaffirmed
40 home occupation needs to be restrictive because it is located in a residential area.
41 • Child care falls under a different use category.
42 • An example of a home occupation that readily comes to mind is an alterations/seamstress where
43 people would come for fittings.
44 • Jewelry appraisal is an example of a home occupation.
45 • Cited a civil engineer working out of a home is another example where people can come and pick
46 up their plans.
47 • The requirements should indicate a business license is necessary for a home occupation.
48
49 Staff: Table 4 requires that all uses listed must have a business license.
50
51 Commission:
52 • No more than a 1-1/2 square foot sign is allowed for a home occupation.
53 • Questioned bullet #13 that states, `The home occupation does not involve the direct transfer or
54 sale of goods or commodities to clients upon or from the dwelling or any residential property.'
55 How does exchange of money fit into the home occupation use?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 5
1 Staff:
2 • Staff's approach with regard to the proposed requirements was to review the definitions for the
3 uses, as well look at what other cities are doing.
4 • Recommends the Commission make revisions by striking, changing or adding language.
5 • The standards for the uses being considered pertain to the DZC area as opposed to a single-
6 family residential zoning district.
7
8 Commission:
9 • Questioned the intent of bullet #7, 'The home occupation shall not generate vehicular traffic not
10 normally associated with a residential use. No clients shall visit the home as a regular business
11 practice.'
12 • Is concerned with idling vehicles.
13 • Discussion concerning bullet#7 and #8.
14 • Interpret bullet#13 from a retail aspect.
15 • Consider modifying bullet#13, `The home occupation does not involve the direct transfer or sale
16 of retail good or commodities to clients upon or from the dwelling or any residential property.'
17 •
18 Staff:
19 • Bullet#13 pertains to a situation involving a home occupation where the commercial part is fairly
20 invisible to neighbors even in the Downtown area. For more of an intensive use in this regard, a
21 person should likely look at a live/work unit use as opposed to a home occupation.
22 • Recommends striking 'single family' to read, `The home occupation shall not generate vehicular
23 or pedestrian traffic not normally associated with a residential use.'
24 • Considered bullets #7 and 8 as an either/or with preference to #8 because parking issues are
25 addressed.
26 • Retails sales is not typical of a home occupation. It may be that a person, for instance, makes
27 jewelry at a residence and there is the occasional client who wants to purchase this home crafted
28 product. This type of scenario pertains to production of a good/product made at the home and
29 making a sale as opposed to a person purchasing jewelry for resale at home.
30
31 Commission:
32 • There was discussion about businesses such as Amway, Mona-Vie, Shaklee, Mary Kay where
33 people carry a certain amount of inventory for resale where people work out of their home.
34
35 Staff:
36 • Referred to bullet#6, `Articles offered for sale shall be limited to those produced on the premises,
37 except where the person conducting the home occupation serves as an agent or intermediary
38 between off-site suppliers and off-site customers, in which case all articles, except samples, shall
39 be received, stored and sold to customers at off-premises locations' and whether this standard
40 sufficiently covers enough of what we want to see occur as part of a home occupation? If so,
41 bullet 13 can be stricken.
42
43 Commission consensus:
44 • Strike bullet #10, `No employees other than family members.' Maintain bullet #9, `Residents and
45 not more than two non-residents may work at a home occupation location.'
46 • Maintain - bullet #12, `A non-illuminated identification sign of not more than 1-1/2 square feet in
47 area may be placed flat against an outside wall of the house to advertise the home occupation.'
48 • Strike bullet#7.
49 • Maintain — bullet#8, The home occupation shall not create pedestrian, automobile, or truck traffic
50 or parking in residential neighborhoods in excess of that normally associated with residential use,
51 with no more than two non-occupant vehicles present on the street at any given time.'
52 • Agrees with Prohibited uses.
53 • Strike bullet#13.
54 • Approves of requirements.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 6
1 Larqe Familv Davcare (Attachment 3)
2
3 Commission:
4 • Pertains to operating a large day care of 8-14 children from a person's home. The parent and/or
5 provider must live in the home.
6 • Standards could be too restrictive. Children have to be cared for somewhere.
7
8 Staff: These standards are intended to address the issues often associated with a Large Family Daycare
9 and remove the requirement for a Use Permit which can be cost prohibitive for some people. They are
10 based on requirements used by other cities.
11
12 Commission:
13 • Discussion about drop-off/pick-up and arterial streets in the DZC. The standard states, `Residents
14 located on arterial streets must provide a drop-off/pick-up area designed to prevent vehicles from
15 backing onto the arterial roadway.'
16 • Use is not likely to occur in the DZC.
17
18 Commission consensus:
19 • No change to attachment 3.
20 • Approves of requirements.
21
22 Live/Work Units (Attachment 4)
23
24 Commission:
25 • Discussion about types of live/work units in former warehouses in other communities where, for
26 instance, an artisan lives and works in an industrial/commercial capacity using a kiln to make
27 pottery. This type of live/work use having an artisan effect often provides for a nice feeling in
28 communities.
29 • Are live/work units having an artisan effect appropriate in the Downtown?
30 • Discussion about live/work units and the standards and restrictions in attachment 4, noting
31 according to Section A, `Limitation on use', live/work units that involve welding, machining or any
32 open flame work cannot be established so an artisan operating in a live/work scenario requiring
33 the use of kiln would not be allowed. What would happen if a person in a live/work scenario
34 wanted to operate a business that uses a kiln? May not want to exclude certain live/work unit
35 uses.
36
37 Staff: The use for the commercial component of the live/work unit must be allowed in the DZC. The
38 allowed and permitted uses are included in Table 4. Manufacturing uses, such as welding, machining,
39 and/or any open flame work, were not included as allowed or permitted uses.
40
41 Commission:
42 • Table 4 indicates an `Artisan shop' is allowed (A(3)(4) in all zones.
43
44 Staff: Referred to Glossary. An artisan shop does not involve the use of chemicals, fire, gas, hazardous
45 materials and/or activities that possibly can affect the health or safety of live/work residents. Also, artisan
46 shops typically operate on a much smaller scale than possibly a larger scale live/work unit with a
47 commercial component.
48
49 Commission:
50 • There are many pottery makers in Ukiah, which `fire' on-site.
51
52 Staff:
53 • This type of activity should not likely be done as part of the live/work unit.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 7
1 • The City Fire Marshal determines which materials are hazardous and/or dangerous so if the
2 building or fire codes do not find a particular live/work activity hazardous or dangerous, the use
3 may be allowed.
4
5 Chair Pruden:
6 • Is familiar with welding for sculpture in a live/work unit in the artisan complex in downtown
7 Carpinteria. This type of commercial activity not be conducive to Ukiah's downtown area.
8 • There has to be some type of compromise or leeway if Ukiah wants to have an artistic community
9 even though it has never happened or may never happen.
10
11 Commission:
12 • It would not be appropriate to allow certain types of artisan live/work unit activities in the DZC.
13
14 Staff: What will typically occur with live/work units is whether or not the proposed commercial use
15 component complies with the City building and fire codes. If the use is not a health and safety
16 issue/hazard as defined by `limitations on the use' nos. 3 & 4, the use is not likely compatible with the
17 residential component of the live/work unit and should not be allowed. The uses must be compatible
18 without unforeseen consequences. Table 4 allows artisan/craft product manufacturing in the UC zone
19 provided the proposed use fits the definition for this use and provided the use is not a danger or hazard
20 according to nos. 3 and/or 4 of the `limitation on use' in attachment 4.
21
22 It was noted according to Table 4: Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements:
23 1. Clothing and fabric product manufacture - allowed (A(3) in the UC zone.
24 2. Metal products fabrication, machine, welding shop - prohibited in all zones.
25 3. Small products manufacturing -allowed (A(5) in the GU and UC zones.
26
27 Commission noted it is possible for an artisan to do a live/work unit, provided the use does not create
28 danger/hazard to live/work residents or to the public and complies with the California Building Code and
29 California Fire Code.
30
31 Staff: So long as the uses meet the definitions that are allowed and comply with the limitations on the use
32 as defined by the building and fire codes, a live/work unit should be allowed.
33
34 Commission consensus:
35 • No change to attachment 4.
36 • Approves of requirements.
37
38 Mixed Use Proiects—Attachment 5
39
40 Commission:
41 • Questioned section E and noted there are many old buildings having the potential for mixed-use
42 that have loading areas that are `grandfathered in' and may or may not be located as far as
43 possible from the residential units and/or screened from view from the residential portion.
44
45 Staff: This pertains to new construction. A review would be conducted for buildings being converted to
46 mixed-use.
47
48 Commissioner Molgaard inquired about complaints that too many residential units are being converted
49 to professional office. By definition, does this mixed-use mean a residential component is still associated
50 with the use?
51
52 Staff: Likely not the same issue. Attachment 5 pertains to new construction or adding a residential use to
53 a commercial building where the residential use is on the second floor and the commercial use on the
54 bottom floor.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 8
1 Chair Pruden: There has been little or no residential unit conversions for a long time in Ukiah.
2
3 Commission consensus:
4 • No change to Attachment 5.
5 • Approves of requirements.
6
7 Sinqle Room Occupancv Facilities (Attachment 6)
8
9 Commission:
10 • Discussion regarding intent of section A2, Common Area.
11 • General discussion relative to section A3, laundry facilities and section B3, bathroom.
12
13 Staff: Spoke with Planning Director Charley Stump who indicated that allowing SRO's is consistent with
14 and helps implement the Housing Element.
15
16 Commission consensus:
17 • No change to Attachment 6.
18 • Approves of requirements.
19
20 Second Unit Requirements (Attachment 7)
21
22 Staff:
23 • Table 4: second unit— Use allowed as Accessory to a Principal Use (AC(7) in GU and UC zones
24 provided the project complies with second unit requirements in Attachment 7; Use prohibited in
25 the DC.
26 • The revised second unit regulations are provided for on page 1 of Attachment 7.
27 • The existing second unit requirements are provided for on pages 2 & 3 of Attachment 7.
28 • The intent is to require the second unit to use the same development standards as other uses in
29 the DZC rather than the more restrictive standards included in the zoning ordinance.
30
31 Commission consensus:
32 • No change to Attachment 7.
33 • Approves of requirements.
34
35 Lot Line Adiustments (Attachment 8)
36
37 Staff—Explained the intent for the new Code:
38 • Existing City code does not specifically address lot line adjustments wherein it has been the
39 practice to process them similar to a Minor Subdivision.
40 • The California Subdivision Map Act limits City review of lot line adjustments for consistency with
41 the General Plan and zoning and building ordinances. If the boundary line adjustment is
42 consistent with these documents, the City is required to approve it.
43 • The limitation placed on City review of a lot line adjustment limits or eliminates any discretionary
44 review.
45 • The California Subdivision Map Act also limits the conditions that can be placed on a BLA to the
46 extent the project has to conform to the policies and goals of the Ukiah General Plan, zoning and
47 building ordinances regulations in this regard.
48 • In terms of keeping with the intent of DZC, Attachment 8 (Lot Line Adjustments) has been created
49 for inclusion as part of the DZC to provide clarity and effectiveness in the processing of lot line
50 adjustments.
51 • Changes to how Lot Line Adjustments are processed allow the City Engineer to approve or deny
52 a LLA by determining whether the parcels resulting from the adjustment conform to the applicable
53 provisions of the new Code (attachment 8)for the DZC and the UMC.
54 • City Public Works Department and Planning Department approve of the revised process.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 9
1 Commission:
2 • Approves of the new procedures for processing lot line adjustments.
3
4 Site Development Considerations and Findings (Attachment 9�
5
6 Staff:
7 • Attachment 9 provides for the proposed revisions to the current findings for site development
8 permits.
9 • Included are `Considerations' which inform people of what to `consider' when
10 designing/developing a project. The City currently has no `considerations' for designing of
11 projects. The advantage to considerations is they are not findings but rather factors that will be
12 taken into consideration as part of reviewing a project.
13 • The considerations are to a large degree incorporated as a finding which are also included for
14 review and discussion.
15
16 Considerations
17
18 Commission:
19 • Bullet#4— How does a passive recreation facility apply to a big box project?
20
21 Staff:
22 • This relates more to a residential or mixed-use project that may involve a rooftop or courtyard
23 and/or some other type of passive outdoor area as opposed to retail use.
24 • Attachment 9 pertains to a project subject to a SDP and not a use.
25
26 Commission:
27 • Not likely to see a big box retail store in the Downtown area.
28 • Noted Friedman's Home Improvement store has a passive recreation facility for use by the public
29 or employees.
30 • Bullet#5, discussion of term 'viewshed' versus scenic views.
31 • Under`Considerations:' The Planning Commission does not encourage residential conversions to
32 commercial use.
33
34 Staff: With regard to residential conversions to commercial use, this is a use issue rather than a SDP
35 issue.
36
37 Commission consensus:
38 • Bullet#5, change term `historic'to historic and cultural.
39 • Request staff address in the use standards that the Planning Commission discourages residential
40 conversions to other uses.
41
42 Staff: Residential conversions to other uses may not be an issue for the DZC.
43
44 Commission: What about residential conversions should the DZC boundaries expand?
45
46 Staff: Again, this should not be an issue because the property in the DZC boundaries is zoned
47 commercial and the general plan is commercial. The City has already determined that the preferred use
48 of these properties is commercial.
49
50 Findinas
51
52 Staff: This attachment includes findings used by other communities that are consistent with the purpose
53 of the DZC. They are provided as an alternative to the City's current SDP findings which may not apply
54 that well or be consistent with the purpose of the DZC. Staff has no preference. They are provided for
55 Planning Commission consideration.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 10
1 Commission:
2 • Discussion about storm water runoff and flooding and how this should be addressed in terms of
3 findings. Water runoff and flooding may require a separate finding.
4 • It may be this issue is sufficiently addressed in bullet 4 (Hazards) which states `The proposed
5 project will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including trees, creeks, and the
6 natural grade of the site.'
7 • Runoff from parking lots has to be routed somewhere. Parking lots can be designed such that
8 some of the water can be absorbed on the property.
9 • Consider incorporating into conditions or findings implementing language that Low Impact
10 Development(LID) practices are options that are available.
11
12 Staff: Should make certain LID practices are feasible for projects. LID can be difficult to include as part of
13 modifications to an existing site. They are typically easier to include as part of new development of a
14 vacant site.
15
16 Commission: Regarding the current SDP findings, what is the intent of`The proposed development will
17 not restrict or cut out light and air on the property?'
18
19 Staff: These are the current findings for a SDP project and may not be preferable for a form based zoning
20 project.
21
22 Commission consensus:
23 • Add language to `Findings' — Parking lots shall use accepted LID practices where feasible as
24 determined by the review authority.
25 • Approves of Draft Site Development Permit Considerations and Findings.
26 • Staff to review State regulations for parking lots in conjunction with application of LID practices.
27
28 Staff— Would like to craft language pertinent to potential findings or considerations for parking lots and
29 use of LID practices.
30
31 Considerations for Tastinq Rooms (Attachment 10)
32
33 Commission:
34 • Discussion regarding bullet#11 regarding the concept of the `extent'that alcohol is sold for this use.
35 A tasting room could not exist without the retail sale of alcohol. A tasting room has to make a certain
36 number of alcohol sales for the business to be viable.
37 • Tasting rooms are also social gathering places where other goods/products besides alcohol are
38 displayed and sold. The goods could be art of some form or food in addition to wine, beer, brandy.
39 • Even though a tasting room sells alcohol there is a distinct difference between a tasting room and a
40 typical liquor store. Most people would not go to a tasting room to purchase wine to serve at dinner.
41 • Questioned intent of bullet#12.
42
43 Staff: The intent of bullet #11 is about the fact that a certain amount of alcohol has to be sold for the
44 business to be viable. Bullet#12 is about what the use adds to the commercial neighborhood.
45
46 Commission consensus:
47 • Strike bullet#14.
48 • Approves of`Considerations for Tasting Room.'
49 Nonconforminq uses (Attachment 11)
50 Staff: This section is consistent with how the City addresses non-conforming uses and structures. This
51 section provides clarity and detail as to how non-conforming uses and structures are addressed which
52 has been a significant part of the DZC discussions.
53
54 Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 11
1 • Discussion regarding page 2, section 2 (nonconforming use of a structure), should be a Major
2 Conditional Use Permit as opposed to a Minor Conditional Use Permit, if an applicant desires to
3 expand a non-conforming use structure. If the use is non-conforming, why allow it to expand?
4
5 Staff:
6 • The intent of this section is to allow a non-conforming use that occupies part of a structure to
7 expand into the rest of the structure with approval of a minor use permit and if consistent with the
8 provisions of this section. For example, if the proposed expansion, extension, or increase of a
9 nonconforming use for a structure would not increase the degree or the detrimental effects of the
10 nonconformity, the expansion of the use could be allowed with approval of a minor use permit.
11 • It may be that the language of this section is unclear with regard to the definition of
12 `addition/enlargement' and that such words should be stricken to provide the necessary clarity.
13 • Non-conforming uses are not going to disappear overnight and there might be circumstances
14 where a nonconforming use exists and an expansion of the use is being proposed. The question
15 then becomes is it appropriate for the Zoning Administrator (Minor Conditional Use Permit) or the
16 Planning Commission (Major Conditional Use Permit)to review the project.
17 • The intent is to create a new code with expanded uses and new development standards in order
18 to encourage development. Expanding non-conforming uses may not be consistent with this and
19 may warrant a broader discussion which would be more consistent with Planning Commission
20 review of a Major Use Permit than with Zoning Administrator review of a Minor Use Permit.
21
22 Commission:
23 • Discussion concerning which types of projects should be reviewed by the Planning Commission
24 versus the Zoning Administrator.
25
26 Commission consensus:
27 • Nonconforming use changes for structures that involve enlargements, expansions additions,
28 reconstruction, or relocation for structures to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
29 • Approves of Attachment 11.
30
31 12. PLANNING DIRECTORS COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
32 Senior Planner Jordan— Unsure whether there will be a Commission meeting on September 8.
33
34 13. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
35 Commissioner Sanders advised of a Coastal Cleanup Day to be held on Saturday, September 25,
36 2010.
37
38 Chair Pruden reported on September 11, the Garden project will be touring five gardens with wine/art
39 event in the Downtown.
40
41 14. ADJOURNMENT
42 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
43
44
45 Judy Pruden, Chair
46
47 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
48
49
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010
Page 12