HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_10132010 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 October 13, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Planning Director Stump Listed below, Respectively
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
26
27 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site verification was confirmed.
28
29 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— September 22, 2010
30 M/S Helland/Whetzel to approve September 22, 2010 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (5).
31
32 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
33 None.
34
35 7. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
36 the final day to appeal is October 25, 2010.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — GreeotYs Sign Variance Application No. 10-09-VAR-PC was
39 properly noticed in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
40
41 9. OLD BUSINESS—CONDITION COMPLIANCE &SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE
42 Arco and AM/PM Use Permit and Site Development Permit Condition
43 Compliance Application No. 07-23-UP-SDP-PC. Request from the applicant to remove the
44 existing oak tree located on the corner of Talmage Road and Hastings Road.
45
46 Staff: presented a staff report and requests the Commission review the applicanYs request to remove the
47 existing Oak tree located at the corner of Talmage Road and Hasting Road.
48
49 Commission:
50 • Liability concerns/issues would be directed to the City and not to the applicant, since the tree is
51 located in the City right-of-way and is a City tree.
52 • The reports from the City Public Works and Electric Departments and Landscape Designer Nick
53 Thayer indicate the tree is not a problem and is basically healthy. It appears there are conflicting
54 opinions because the comments made by City staff go against the initial assessment presented
55 by the arborist that it would be acceptable to remove the tree.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 1
1 • How frequently does the tree need to be pruned and what is the associated cost?
2
3 Staff: Electric utility staff has stated that the tree would be put on the City's pruning schedule.
4
5 Chair Pruden: Once a mature tree is trimmed, it is usually good from five to seven years.
6
7 Commission: Referred to email correspondence dated October 9, from Bruni Kobbe who supports
8 retention of the tree and promotes/encourages maintaining an urban forest in the community for
9 environmental and health reasons.
10
11 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:18 p.m.
12
13 Clayton Maimberg, Arborist for the applicant:
14 • Referred to his arborist report and noted he did find some concerns about the overall health of the
15 Oak tree.
16 • The tree does have predisposed problems because it is situated in a bio-swale. There are
17 indications the tree has mildew, which is the result of high moisture content and poor air
18 circulation. It is not to say that this situation cannot be corrected with proper care and pruning
19 practices: however, its location predisposes it to disease because of this factor.
20 • The tree is located underneath a power line that restricts branch growth/expansion and overall
21 appearance of the tree because the branches must be trimmed to protect the power line.
22 • Further elaborated on the overall health of the tree and in his professional opinion, the tree has
23 some issues that overtime may or may not be resolved.
24 • Is concerned with overcrowding, particularly with the three Oak trees to be planted as part of the
25 landscaping plan for the project that was approved December 9, 2009.
26 • The tree poses some problems for the parking lot in terms of liability in the event the tree
27 becomes a weakened structure due to its potential health problems and weather conditions in
28 Ukiah.
29 • There other varieties of tree species that may be better suited for this site that can be considered.
30
31 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:22 p.m.
32
33 Chair Pruden: There is conflicting information about trees in Ukiah.
34
35 Commissioner Whetzel: The tree should be removed and replaced with a tree species that does not
36 interfere with the power lines. The existing tree will likely become more and more problematic, particularly
37 in winter conditions. There is a very nice Valley Oak located across the street.
38
39 Commissioner Helland:
40 • The Ukiah General Plan requires native trees and other natural vegetative species be preserved
41 and protected.
42 • After reading the information in the staff report and other sources, is of the opinion the tree can go
43 on living with proper care unless it becomes a safety hazard.
44 • Would be willing to compromise on the landscaping and save the tree.
45
46 Commissioner Sanders: Asked about the landscaping design plans for the corner, living conditions of
47 the tree, location of the tree with regard to on-site circulation and the potential for large trucks to damage
48 the trunk of the tree.
49
50 Staff: The location of the curb for the driveway is close to the trunk so it is possible large vehicles may
51 damage the tree canopy.
52
53 Commissioner Sanders:
54 • A cyclone fence could be constructed around the tree to protect the root zone during construction
55 and inquired whether this was included in the original project conditions of approval.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 2
1 • Agrees with the goals and policies of the Ukiah General Plan that native trees, particularly Oak
2 trees should be preserved and protected.
3 • The Oak tree exists in an agricultural area and it is a `nice transition' to have this Valley Oak tree
4 in this area.
5 • Supports protecting the Valley Oak for as long as possible, particularly when staff thinks it will
6 survive.
7
8 Commissioner Molgaard:
9 • The General Plan says Oak Trees should be preserved.
10 • Understands there are conflicting opinions about whether the tree should be removed or retained.
11 • It would be acceptable to remove the tree if enough other trees would be planted to compensate
12 for the loss.
13 • Would be open to bargaining about whether the tree should be removed or retained and in the
14 absence of a really good argument, supports trying to make the tree work as it currently exists.
15
16 Chair Pruden:
17 • Values the opinion of staff and other persons having tree expertise who have provided comments
18 to support retention of the tree.
19 • The tree is a City street tree and is the responsibility of the City.
20 • Is of the opinion the City will be able to properly care for the tree in order for it to become
21 healthier and survive.
22 • Has no concern about excessive moisture from a health standpoint because the tree exists in a
23 bio-swale. Ukiah valley has many healthy Oaks that essentially grow and thrive in ditches.
24 • A local tree professional and national tree expert have indicated Oak trees actually `like' water,
25 particularly if the tree has already adapted to this type of environment. Oak trees also thrive in
26 more dry types of environment.
27 • Would support retention of the tree and allow the applicant to reduce the landscaping by planting
28 one street tree as opposed to three at the corner of Talmage Road and Hastings Road in order to
29 prevent overcrowding of the existing Oak tree.
30 • The root zone is required to be protected during construction. It is of paramount importance the
31 root bulb be protected and as such there may have to be a reduction in landscaping of other Oak
32 trees in this area and supports modification of the landscaping plan in this regard.
33
34 Staff: City Code requires a street tree every 30 feet of frontage. Staff needs to determine if any trees can
35 be removed and still comply with this requirement.
36
37 Commission: In order to retain the existing tree, it would be okay to allow a reduction in the number of
38 trees to be planted at the corner provided the landscaping plan still complies with City Code which will be
39 determined by staff.
40
41 M/S Helland/Sanders to deny applicanYs request to remove the existing Valley Oak tree and project
42 shall comply with City Code requirements for the number streets tree(s) that are required to be planted
43 which will be determined by staff. Motion carried by the following roll call voice vote:
44
45 NOES: Commissioner Whetzel
46 AYES: Commissioners Helland, Molgaard, Sanders and Chair Pruden
47
48 10. NEW BUSINESS—PUBLIC HEARING
49 Greeott's Sign Variance Application No. 10-09-VAR-PC. Request for approval of two
50 variances from the Sign Ordinance to allow a sign to be installed that would extend above the
51 roof of the GreeotYs Wheel & Brake building, 1340 South State Street, 003-472-12. This item has
52 been continued from the September 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 3
1 Staff presented the staff report and staff's analysis for recommending approval of two variances from the
2 City of Ukiah Sign Ordinance to allow a new sign to be placed on the building that would extend above
3 the roof of Greeott's Brake and Wheel Service.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:44 p.m.
6
7 Lawrence Mitchell, Project Architect:
8 • Commented on the revisions made to the variance application in an effort to make the project
9 workable for the installation of signage that is more attractive and in keeping with proportions and
10 design of the building
11 • Referred to the PowerPoint presentation showing the site plans for location of the sign and
12 generally elaborated on the fascia materials that will consist of inetal for the background, color
13 scheme, and lettering type and size as further provided for on page 2 of the staff report. There will
14 no lighting features for the sign.
15 • He discussed the new roof mounted building sign in contrast to the former non-conforming
16 building sign that was constructed in 1954 when the site was located in the County.
17
18 Staff:
19 • Planning staff was unable to approve the permits to install a new sign to replace the fire damaged
20 sign since the sign did not conform to the Sign Ordinance requirements for the total amount of
21 sign area allowed per parcel and signs mounted on or above the height of the roof.
22 • The original variance application requested approval for four variances. Staff informed the
23 applicant the necessary findings to support approval could not be made and therefore, would
24 have to recommend denial of the variance application. The sign variance application was revised
25 and that was the reason for the continuance from the September 22nd meeting.
26
27 Chair Pruden:
28 Q1. During her visit she noticed U-Haul trucks and/or other large vehicles parked on-site and inquired
29 whether his business was part of a franchise in this regard.
30 Q2. Observed the large U-H trucks visually block the view of the building and signage from State
31 Street so if it were not for the fact the business is well-established in the community, this could be
32 a problem.
33 Q3 Questioned why the applicant wanted to go to the expense of installing a new sign that cannot for
34 the most part be seen from State Street.
35 Q4. Would it more cost effective to change the monument sign to reflect the services offered.
36
37 Gary Nevill, Owner of Greeott's:
38 Q1. His business services fleet trucks for business, such as U-Haul, UPS. A person can also rent a U-
39 Haul from his business establishment.
40 Q2. Understands it is often difficult to see the business since the site is situated below grade relative
41 to State Street. There is limited parking with two businesses operating on one parcel and every
42 effort is made to utilize parking in the rear of the GreeotYs building to allow for better visibility of
43 the business. There are times when the front parking lot has fewer trucks.
44 Q3. The original sign that was mounted on the roof was large and visible from State Street. If the
45 building and sign had not been damaged by fire, the sign would have remained. He supports
46 having a mounted sign on the roof even if it cannot be as large as the original that is at least
47 similar to the original sign. The business is not limited to servicing vehicles for brakes and tires.
48 Q4. It would be more cost effective to change the sign on top of the building than the monument sign.
49
50 Commissioner Molgaard:
51 • Observed visual clutter at the site.
52 • Asked if the color for the sign coordinates with the monument sign?
53 • Supports approval of the project.
54
55 Staff:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 4
1 • The sign would be mounted on a low sheen black metal fascia on the front of the building and
2 measures 1 foot high by 44.5 feet long and 44.5 square feet and comprised of 12-inch tall, 2-inch
3 deep individual non-illuminated white plastic channel letters that extend above the height of the
4 roof.
5
6 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:13 p.m.
7
8 Commissioner Sanders: Commended staff for preparing a very extensive staff report and analysis of the
9 project and thanked the architect and applicant for their extensive research on signs that exceed the roof
10 line of buildings. The fact the applicant has experienced a fire and the building is an old and established
11 structure, supports the Commission approve the recommended action.
12
13 Commissioner Molgaard: Commented while she supports/appreciates the project and project square
14 footage that is barely above the limit, times change and it may be that a sign once appropriate on the roof
15 of the building is not being done now. She recalled how much thought and concern was given to the
16 BeBops sign variance application because a portion of the 'straw' extended above the roofline.
17
18 Commissioner Whetzel: Likes the former sign because it was more visible from State Street.
19
20 Commissioner Helland: Fine with the project and believes the required Findings can be made to support
21 of the variance.
22
23 Chair Pruden: The findings made in support of the project are substantial and logical.
24
25 M/S Whetzel/Helland to approve Greeott's Sign Variance No: 10-09-VAR-PC with Findings 1-9 and
26 Conditions of Approval 1-10. Motion carried (5-0).
27
28 FINDINGS
29 FOR TWO VARIANCES FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
30 A SIGN TO EXTEND ABOVE THE ROOF AND SIGN AREA THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM
31 ALLOWED
32 GREEOTT'S BRAKE AND WHEEL SERVICE
33 1340 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-472-12
34 APPLICATION NO: 10-09-VAR-PC
35
36 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
37 Plan based on the following:
38
39 This land use designation identifies areas where commerce and business may occur. The
40 specific uses that may occur are determined by the zoning of the property. The proposed signs
41 are ancillary to the automotive repair and service use of the building; and, therefore, consistent
42 with the Commercial general plan land use designation of the site.
43
44 The project is also consistent with the Economic Development Goal ED-1 to Suppo►t a strong
45 local economy. The variances will allow a local business that has been located in the City of
46 Ukiah since 1955 to 1) continue to provide identification and advertisement of the business and 2)
47 enhance the appearance of the business by installing a new sign that is more attractive and in
48 keeping with the proportions and design of the building.
49
50 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Heavy
51 Commercial (C-2) Zoning district because in the C-2 district, auto service and repair are allowed
52 by right.
53
54 3. Special Circumstances. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including
55 size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Article deprives
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 5
1 such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and subject to identical zoning
2 regulations based on the following:
3
4 • Sign Area. The site is 100 feet wide and 493 feet deep. Since the total amount of sign area
5 allowed for a parcel is based on the parcel frontage, the narrowness of the parcel reduces the
6 amount of sign area allowed for the site. A more proportional parcel configuration would
7 create a wider parcel frontage; and, therefore, allow more sign area for the parcel.
8
9 Based on staff research, there are no other parcels in the area of the subject parcel with
10 similar dimensions and depth to width ratios. Upon cursory review of parcels City-wide, staff
11 has not identified any parcels with similar characteristics zoned C-2.
12
13 Due to the configuration of the parcel, the site has been developed with the Greeott's building
14 located at the front of the site and the Woodcycle building located behind the Greeott's
15 building. The Woodcycle building is not visible from South State Street. Due to the location
16 of the buildings and the lack of visibility of the Woodcycle building, more sign area may be
17 required for the site in order to provide adequate visibility and identification of the businesses
18 on the site.
19
20 There has been a 200 square foot sign on the roof since 1954. The new sign would be 44.5
21 square feet and more in keeping with the proportion of the building while still providing
22 identification for the business.
23
24 • Sign Location. The site is located 3-4 feet below the grade of South State Street and the
25 sidewalk. Due to this change in grade and the speed of vehicles traveling on South State
26 Street, in order to be visible the sign needs to be located at an elevation that allows the sign
27 to be seen.
28
29 The design of the building severely limits the location of any building mounted sign since the
30 front of the building is primarily comprised to roll-up doors that are almost the height of the
31 roof and the office portion is lower in height and the front of the office is comprised primarily
32 of glazing, making a sign on this part of the building not visible from the street or sidewalk
33 due to the change in grade and making attachment of a sign difficult.
34
35 4. Special Privilege. The issuance of the variance, as conditioned, would not constitute a grant of
36 special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject
37 to identical zoning regulation based on the following:
38
39 • Sign Area and Location. The site is uniquely due to the narrowness, location below the
40 grade of the street and sidewalk, development of the site with one building located behind the
41 other(with no visibility of the rear building from the street) and the design of the front of the
42 building providing limited opportunities for the location of signs ( See Special Circumstances
43 above).
44
45 Each variance applicant is unique since the circumstances of each application differ based on
46 the variance(s) requested, characteristics and design of the project, and site and parcel
47 characteristics. This application would not result in a grant of special privilege since
48 circumstances specific to the characteristics of the parcel, development pattern of the site,
49 and design of the building are unique to this application as described above (see Special
50 Circumstances above).
51
52 5. Detriment. The grant of the variance would not be detrimental to surrounding property owners.
53
54 • Sign Area and Location. A building permit is required for the sign, ensuring that it will be
55 safely constructed and installed. A sign permit is also required ensuring compliance with all
56 applicable requirements of the City Code.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 6
1 There has been a sign in a similar location on the building for many years and the City has
2 not received complaints in regards to the sign.
3
4 The grant of the variances is consistent with the purposes of the sign ordinance since it would
5 allow a business to provide information to the public; does not result in visual clutter since the
6 signs on the Woodcycle building are not visible from the public way; enhances the value of
7 the property by allowing a sign that is attractive and compatible and proportional to the
8 building. Since the sign is consistent with the purposes of the Sign Ordinance and requires
9 two variances in order to be installed, the grant of the variance would not be detrimental to
10 the surrounding property owners.
11
12 6. Property Values and Private Investment. The project as conditioned will safeguard and
13 enhance property values in the neighborhood and will protect private investment in buildings
14 based on the following.
15
16 • Sign Area and Location. The building has been repaired as a result of the fire damage. The
17 result has been a much an upgraded and much more attractive building that has improved
18 the area and enhanced the value of the site.
19
20 The proposed sign and associated variances are a continuation of this investment and will
21 also enhance and safeguard the property value. The sign and associated variances
22 safeguard property values and protect private investment by allowing the business (and any
23 future business)to provide identification and advertisement of the business.
24
25 7. Signing Practices The project as conditioned will encourage sound signing practices as an aid
26 to business and for information to the public based on the following:
27
28 • Sign Location. The sign will extend approximately 1 foot above the parapet. The sign will
29 not be mounted on the roof. Due to the design and location of the parapet and the design and
30 location of the fascia on which the sign will be mounted, the sign structure and sign will
31 appear to be integrated into the design of the building as opposed to a standalone "tacked-
32 on"structure constructed in order to install a sign.
33
34 In part the extension of the sign above the height of the roof is due to the location of the site
35 below the grade of the street and sidewalk and the design on the building with tall roll-up
36 doors located on almost all of the front elevation (see above Table 2, Special
37 Circumstances).
38
39 • Sign Area. The area of this sign has been reduced from 200 square feet to 44.5 square feet.
40 The proposed sign in more attractive and the design is compatible with and proportional with
41 the building.
42
43 In part, the additional sign area is needed due to the configuration and development of the
44 parcel (see above Table 2, Special Circumstances).
45
46 8. Historic/Architectural Merit The fire damaged sign has no architectural merit. The sign
47 background was grey and flat with flat letters that provided no dimension or interest. There is no
48 evidence that the sign has any historic significance. However, a roof mounted sign advertising
49 Greeott's has been located on the building since 1955.
50
51 9. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
52 (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use
53 Limitations, which allows alterations in land use limitations when the average slope of the
54 property is less than 20°/o and the alteration will not result in a change in land use or density and
55 Section 15311, Class 11(a), Accessory Structures, which allows the construction or replacement
56 of signs when they are accessory to a commercial use based on the following:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 7
1 ■ The proposed variances are related to the signs on the site and will not change the existing
2 land use of the property.
3
4 • The proposed signs are ancillary to the automotive repair and service use of the building.
5
6 ■ The location is not environmentally sensitive and there is no habitat on the site, no trees, and
7 no drainage courses or bodies of water(such as creeks or streams). The footprint of the
8 existing building will not change as a result of the project.
9
10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
11 FOR TWO VARIANCES FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
12 A SIGN TO EXTEND ABOVE THE ROOF AND SIGN AREA THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM
13 ALLOWED
14 GREEOTT'S BRAKE AND WHEEL SERVICE
15 1340 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-472-12
16 APPLICATION NO: 10-09-VAR-PC
17
18 1. Approval is granted for two variances from the sign ordinance to allow a sign to extend above the
19 roof and sign area that exceeds the maximum allowed as shown on the plans submitted to the
20 Community Development and Planning Department and date stamped October 7, 2010, except
21 as modified by the following conditions of approval.
22
23 2. The four existing signs located above the service bay doors and the one office sign require
24 application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Community Development Department. It
25 appears that these signs have been installed without a permit.
26
27 3. The sign included in this application requires application for and approval of a Sign Permit from
28 the Community Development Department.
29
30 4. The signs included in Table 1 (except the 200 square foot sign) are the signs approved for this
31 site. All other signs shall be removed since they exceed the sign area allowed for the site and are
32 not included in this approval.
33
34 5. In order to allow the advertisement of special events, temporary banners up to 20 square feet
35 shall be allowed consistent with the City's requirements for temporary banners and subject to
36 approval of a banner permit from the Community Development Department.
37
38 From the Buildinq Official
39
40 6. A building permit is required for the installation of the sign.
41
42 Standard Conditions
43
44 7. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on
45 the first sheet.
46
47 8. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
48 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
49
50 9. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
51 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
52 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
53 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
54 and issued.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 8
1 10. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
2 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
3 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
4 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
5 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
6 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
7 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
8 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
9 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
10 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
11 remain in full force and effect.
12
13 11. NEW BUSINESS—WORKSHOP
14 City of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines. Conduct a public workshop to review and discuss
15 the Guidelines prepared by the Tree Advisory Group (TAG).
16
17 Commissioner Sanders is a member of The Tree Advisory Group (TAG) and presented an overview
18 about TAG and the City of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines prepared by(TAG):
19 • This document will be presented to City Council for final review.
20 • Is hopeful City Council approves of and supports the Tree Advisory Group.
21 • TAG members consist of a variety of concerned persons/organizations/agencies dedicated to
22 the preservation and proper care of trees.
23 • The document is a guideline for tree management policies for the protection, function and
24 maintenance of trees on City property.
25 • A series of events that included the loss of significant trees in the community prompted the
26 formation of TAG in an effort to look at how trees can be protected and properly cared for.
27 • TAG is hopeful that other documents/programs, such as the formation of a rather strict Tree
28 Ordinance, establishment of policy/procedures for removal and replacement of trees because
29 there is concern trees are being cut down and not replaced, identification of `landmark' trees
30 on public and private properties and protection thereof via a voluntary landmark program,
31 provide more information on how to maintain an urban forest, and the formation of a master
32 tree list will follow this document.
33 • It is important to inventory'landmark' trees.
34 • The intent of the document is to inform and assist City employees with the protection,
35 maintenance and care of City trees.
36
37 Commission discussion about City employee training for the care/maintenance of City trees, trees in
38 public right-of-ways, next step for TAG in terms of other future documenUpolicies/programs and/or
39 perspective supporting document considerations, the balancing of private and public opinions about trees,
40 and other relevant topics that can inform and assist the public in understanding the importance of
41 preserving and maintaining an urban forest in the community.
42
43 Commission consensus:
44 • The document is well-written and a very valuable resource tool.
45
46 M/S Molgaard/Helland to recommend City Council review/comment and approve the City of Ukiah Tree
47 Management Guidelines as prepared by TAG.
48
49 Chair Pruden: It may be beneficial to set up a voluntary landmark designation in the future for
50 individuals wanting their private trees designated as landmark.
51
52 Commission Molgaard:
53 • A landmark tree should be designated in the title document for the property and does not support
54 a voluntary landmark tree program to list such trees. She favors having a stricter ordinance that
55 trees on private property of a certain size cannot be removed without being replaced.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 9
1 • Persons interested in landmark trees, tree removal and replacement and/or other tree topics
2 attend a TAG meeting. It is also very important for TAG to have Council's support in order to
3 continue with the process of successfully formulating documents/policies to effectively address
4 tree issues and concerns.
5
6 Staff: It would be beneficial for interested persons to attend the City Council meeting for review of the
7 tree management guideline document and speak to Council about what TAG's next task should be.
8
9 Commission Consensus: Requested that future tree topics for the Tree Advisory Group be agendized
10 for Planning Commission discussion and a possible recommendation to City Council.
11
12 12. OLD BUSINESS—WORKSHOP
13 Downtown Zoning Code Workshop Update. Conduct a public workshop to review and discuss
14 revised Sections 1-5 and Section 14 of the Downtown Zoning Code and request for Design
15 Examples.
16
17 Section 1. Purpose
18
19 Staff: The following items still need to be addressed based on previous Commission comments.
20 • Decide if statement regarding Low Impact Development(LID) should be included.
21 • Decide if statement regarding creating a safe environment from a public safety standpoint should
22 be included.
23
24 Commission:
25 • Include language about Gibson Creek as being a design and natural feature in a prominent way
26 somewhere in the document and whether this topic should be in the purpose statement. There
27 has been DZC workshop discussion about allowing for a parking lot or anchor store that abuts
28 Gibson Creek in the Henry Street and North School Street area. There are also sites being
29 considered for the new Courthouse that could have an effect on Gibson Creek.
30 (Commissioner Sanders provided language that could be included in the document pertinent to
31 Gibson Creek).
32 • The document already contains discussion about City creeks in the Ukiah General Plan.
33 • Possibly add purpose statement #9 about future developments being respectful of the riparian
34 habitat of Gibson Creek as it flows through the City or powntown zoning district.
35 • Purpose statement # 2 allows for `a healthy creek corridor' in broad terms. The addition of
36 language to purpose statement #9 would be specific to Gibson Creek. Orr Creek exists outside
37 the boundaries of the DZC.
38 • The language provided by Commissioner Sanders may be too specific for the purpose section.
39 Possibly include language that states, `Be respectful of the riparian habitat of Gibson Creek,
40 including the restoration of a healthier environment for aquatic species.'
41 • Include fish species, such Steelhead that relate to Gibson Creek in the language.
42
43 Commission:
44 • Add `healthy and safe' to purpose statement #1 to read, `To create an urban environment that
45 implements and fulfills the goals, objectives and strategies of the Ukiah General Plan by
46 encouraging the development of a healthy and safe diverse, compact and walkable urban
47 community.'
48 • Should affordable housing and public transportation be included in the purpose section?
49 • Affordable housing is addressed in the Housing Element of the Ukiah General Plan and is not
50 really an aspect of the DZC.
51 • Add purpose statement #10 to reflect the use and design of `green building' techniques as an
52 important component to Form Based Zoning. LID could be included in this subsection along with
53 energy efficiency, resource conservation, water conservation, and rain harvesting on rooftops.
54 The intent is to keep as much storm water runoff out of the storm drains.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 10
1 • Expand on purpose statement #2 and add 'green building' techniques and associated language
2 to this paragraph.
3 Staff:
4 • The matter of affordable housing is likely covered in the DZC because of the various housing
5 types provided for in the Use Table. It is probably not necessary to cover it in the purpose section
6 because it is covered in other ways. In terms of transportation, the circulation section of the DZC
7 talks about this matter, including walkability wherein the purpose is to balance vehicle with other
8 types of circulation. Public transportation is generally covered in the purpose statement and in the
9 circulation section.
10 • Purpose statements are intended to be broad. Purpose statement #2 is already lengthy.
11 Language can be added to purpose statement#2 about'green building'techniques or formulate a
12 new purpose statement #10 to address `green building' techniques and other environmentally
13 sustainable elements such as energy efficiency, resource conservation, LID.
14
15 Commission consensus:
16 • Add healthy and safe to purpose statement#1.
17 • Expand on the language that addresses Gibson Creek as a prominent riparian habitat having
18 significant design and natural features, as discussed above. Commissioner Sanders to provide
19 language.
20 • Add language to purpose statement #2 about `green building' techniques or formulate an
21 alternative purpose statement #10 to address the same and other environmentally sustainable
22 elements for further review.
23
24 Jim Mayfield addressed the uses in Table 3:
25 • Owns Rainbow Agricultural Services on E. Perkins Street that is located in one of the City's
26 primary gateways.
27 • His business is rather difficult to define because while the retail use component primarily is
28 associated with the sale of farm equipment, Rainbow Ag also repairs farm equipment and sells
29 pet food and supplies, garden supplies, clothing, irrigation equipment/supplies, hay, and other
30 farm-related products.
31 • Questions where the uses associated with his business fit in Table 3.
32 • The site is well suited for the various uses of the business.
33 • Has visions of possibly expanding his business and is concerned that if his business uses are not
34 clearly defined that expansion of the uses would not be possible under the DZC. Rainbow Ag is a
35 well-established business and effectively services the community in a variety of ways, such as
36 operating as the location for mobile pet vaccinations and other community services.
37 • Desires Rainbow Ag to continue operating in the DZC even though the uses may not appear to
38 be compatible with the other uses or planned uses, such as the new Courthouse project that is
39 being considered in the area.
40 • There is nothing in the Use Table that allows for'Farm Supply and Feed Store.'
41
42 Commission: The uses in Rainbow Ag would fall under `General Retail' unless Mr. Mayfield wants the
43 uses called out separately.
44
45 Jim Mayfield:
46 • Wants to make certain his farm supply business is an allowed use in the Downtown corridor and
47 does not become legal non-conforming. Again, he wants to be able to continue operating at his
48 present location and possibly expand in the future.
49 • It appears the DZC excludes the farm machinery business in the Downtown section making the
50 use in this application legal non-conforming. It also appears according to the table that large farm
51 equipment repair is prohibited.
52
53 Commission:
54 • Recommends Mr. Mayfield work with staff concerning the multiple uses for his business.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 11
1 • During Commission discussion of the Use Table, Mr. Mayfield's business was addressed with the
2 conclusion that as a rural agricultural community, Rainbow Ag was considered a good fit and may
3 be considered General Retail.
4 • It is likely the Use Table will have to be more responsive as to whether auto repair and tractor
5 repair uses are allowed in the DC zone.
6 • Rainbow Ag clearly fits the vision that Ukiah is essentially a rural agricultural community.
7
8 Jim Mayfield:
9 • The equipment repair use that is similar to an automotive repair business needs to be addressed.
10 His business needs to be able to fit the form of the DZC.
11
12 Staff:
13 • Rainbow Ag is a very nice business that is well-received by the neighborhood and embraced by
14 the community.
15 • The intent of zoning is to address the 95% and this issue appears to be part of the 5%. If the
16 Commission and community want to allow this type of use to continue, it is best addressed as a
17 non-conforming use.
18 • With regard to the non-conforming uses, the Commission could allow the expansion of a non-
19 conforming use including construction of a new building or building expansion with a Major Use
20 Permit similar to what the Commission has previously discussed.
21
22 Commission: Steve's Auto repair located at the corner of State Street and Clay Street is reputable and
23 convenient. Should this legal non-conforming business that is good and is also an eye sore at this
24 location be allowed to be expand?
25
26 Jim Mayfield:
27 • The point being is why exclude a well-established auto repair business when it is convenient,
28 does not generate noise impacts and provides a good service to the community.
29 • The DZC may be too structured and to some degree too restrictive.
30 • While it is understood 'adult entertainmenY does not belong in the DZC for all zones, why have
31 the individual uses listed in a use table format?
32 • If the intent of the DZC is to promote business and development, why not encourage individual
33 use businesses like Steve's Auto Repair to continue operation and/or to consider expansion in
34 the Downtown if it can be consistent with the form part of the Code?
35
36 Commission:
37 • One reason such businesses are discouraged under the DZC is because more buildings will be
38 mixed-use having commercial and residential usesand this type of use may interfere with the
39 quality of life for persons living in the area.
40 • It is unlikely the infrastructure for agriculture and corresponding uses would be discouraged
41 because this is what this community was historically built upon.
42 • A Code is necessary so developers understand and have some certainty as to what uses are
43 allowed and to reduce the amount of discretionary review required.
44
45 Jim Mayfield: Would offer to use the property where Rainbow Ag is currently located for an exercise in
46 using the Code. Could use it an exercise in using the Code to review redevelopment and expansion of the
47 existing uses on the site.
48
49 Commission: The Clay Street property alluded to by Mr. Mayfield has a historical past where the
50 railroad that runs through this property would load/unload freight from the loading dock of the former
51 Holzhauser building so there is an industrial/commercial component associated with this property.
52
53 Jim Mayfield: Understands that agricultural equipment/auto repair uses have potential environmental
54 impacts associated with the use that require precautionary measures and likely discouraged.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 12
1 Chair Pruden: Such business are highly regulated by the State in terms of how to safely dispose of
2 waste, such as oil or the work environment controlled by having no open spray booths so that the air
3 quality is protected and there are no noise impacts using the recently approved McCarty vehicle painting
4 restoration and repair business as an example.
5
6 Staff: Recommends those uses that are no longer being continued be identified and addressed in the
7 non-conforming section of the DZC by requiring a Major Use Permit. This allows Planning Commission to
8 review each expansion on a case by case basis to determine if the expansion is appropriate and
9 consistent with applicable requirements of the Code and the purpose of the Code and compatible with
10 surrounding uses. This allows the Commission the opportunity to review expansions on a case by case
11 basis as opposed to an outright prohibition of an expansion.
12
13 Commission: It would be a perfect Ukiah vision to have Rainbow Ag next door to the new Courthouse.
14
15 Jim Mayfield: It could be that some kind of `Farm Supply' recognition under the `General Retail' use
16 category makes the most sense or whether it should have its own definition.
17
18 Commission consensus:
19 • Jim Mayfield work with staff about adding farm supply and feed store as a use under General
20 Retail and to provide create a definition of farm supply and feed store.
21
22 Chair Pruden: Questioned page 8, subsection 5, Parking Structure and/or Anchor Tenant Opportunity
23 Sites— Preferred that states, 'These opportunity sites designated on the Zoning Map recommended to be
24 developed with a parking structure and/or medium or large retail use or a large employer with the
25 potential to generate a significant number of pedestrians and thereby invigorate the Downtown
26 Commercial Zoning District.'
27
28 • Has another area in mind for a parking structure that she would like to expand upon. The cross
29 hatching on the DZC Boundary Map indicates the designation for the City parking lot is the area
30 across from Henry Street.
31 • Desires the parking structure go over the top of Henry Street and possibly extend into the corner
32 area for the viability of the Palace Hotel. Is it possible to change the cross hatching on the Zoning
33 Map to expand the parking structure over Henry Street? Santa Rosa puts streets through parking
34 structures and this works quite well.
35
36 Staff: Would this mean the boundaries would have to be expanded?
37
38 Chair Pruden:
39 • There would be no boundary changes because the boundary extends up to Gibson Creek so
40 bringing it back down south of Henry Street would actually show Henry Street as part of the
41 parking garage.
42 • Following the Zoning Map, from Henry Street immediately along School Street and Henry Street
43 is a City parking lot, which was a former City electrical plant. A parking structure is proposed
44 along School Street and Henry Street.
45 • Proposes to expand the area possibly designated for parking along School Street and Henry
46 Street to accommodate a parking structure that would go over Henry Street and possibly into the
47 corner lot. There is a large grade difference that can accommodate a two-story parking structure
48 without ramping with access to the second level from Smith Street. Because of the change in
49 grade the viewscape would not be affected.
50 • To clarify, in between the former Toppers building and Bead Fever is a parking lot that is at the
51 roof level of the old Dorsey Garage.
52 • There is the potential to have a two-story parking structure if there is additional area. A benefit
53 would be for persons using the Palace Hotel.
54
55 Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 13
1 • Supportive of two-story parking for the purpose of reducing the parking footprint shown on the
2 Zoning Map.
3 • Can the area be reduced as hatched on the map for the parking structures by adding some area
4 and going two stories?
5
6 Chair Pruden: It is possible, particularly because this area is located in the Flood Plain where there has
7 been no development. The area across from Henry Street is a City parking lot. Allowing for a two story
8 parking structure so far to north would likely have to be reduced to allow for a more practical parking
9 structure that could serve both the Palace Hotel and community. The bottom floor, for instance, could be
10 for any one and the top floor permitted parking. With funding assistance, it is possible to construct a two-
11 story parking facility in this area.
12
13 Commission: Does this mean there has to be a parking structure because the language states parking
14 structure, preferred?
15
16 Staff:
17 • The language in section 5 is letting persons know the City's preferred location for a parking
18 structure. The Use Table allows Parking structure—in location designated on Zoning Map in the
19 UC Zone. Parking structure — in location not designated on Zoning Map requires a Major Use
20 Permit in the UC and DC Zones.
21
22 Chair Pruden:
23 • Page 22, Section 5.080, Second units: What is the difference between a duplex and a second
24 unit if the second unit is attached to the building but has its own separate entrance?
25
26 Staff:
27 • There is really no distinction. If the structure is more than 750 square feet, the building must be
28 considered a duplex since the maximum square footage for a second unit is 750 square feet. If it
29 benefits a person to call a structure a second unit because it is attached to a single-family
30 dwelling, the Code allows this. A person can refer to the Use Table: Dwelling, duplex allowed by
31 right in GU and UC Zones, prohibited in DC Zone; Dwelling, second unit, use allowed accessory
32 to a principal Use (AC(7) in GU and UC Zones, prohibited in DC Zone or consult with the City
33 Building Official.
34 • A duplex has to have its own distinct address and egress as does a second unit. The size of the
35 structure is the distinguishing factor. Some cities have different development fees for a duplex
36 and second unit.
37 • Section 5.080 of the DZC requires second units comply with the requirements in this section
38 where allowed by the Use Table.
39
40 Commission: If someone wanted to construct a duplex, would it be treated in this section as a primary
41 and a second unit or two units?
42
43 Staff:
44 • Example: If someone wanted to construct a duplex and the project would exceed the density
45 requirement, staff would be discuss the alternative of constructing a second unit because it is
46 exempt from the density requirement even though there are limitations on the size second units.
47 • The intent is to start with a proposed project and determine how it can work.
48
49 Chair Pruden: Page 23, Section 5.090, Single Room Occupancy Facilities, subsection b, Common area:
50 Requested clarification how to calculate square footage for interior common area. Example, for 10 SROs
51 there would have to be a total of 40 square feet of interior common area?
52
53 Staff: There must be 200 square feet because this is the minimum required.
54
55 Section 2: Applicability Staff: Determine the boundaries of the Code.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 14
1 Refer to Page 8, Downtown Zoning Code Map, represents proposed current boundaries.
2
3 Commission: Is there a reason the boundaries were reduced?
4
5 Planning Director Stump:
6 • During review of the DZC and its adaptation to Ukiah, staff strategized about what areas should
7 be included in the DZC boundaries. Staff also considered historical areas during the strategizing
8 process.
9 • The primary focus became the Downtown area and Perkins Street corridor. The Perkins Street
10 corridor was a primary focus partly because of the Walgreens project and the difficulty of it and
11 the community wanting something special for the Perkins Street corridor.
12 • The boundaries formulated by staff were smaller than the current proposed.
13 • The boundaries grew dramatically during the charrette process with discussions of areas the
14 community thought should be included.
15 • Airport consultants also reviewed the proposed boundaries relative to potential density and height
16 compatibility issues for those areas in the DZC located in the B2 Infill Zone.
17 • Discussion was also conducted regarding environmental review for the Code. The issues of traffic
18 and density and the preliminary results of a traffic study were indicating an EIR may be required.
19 • EIRs are very expensive documents and it may be more feasible to reduce the density and
20 boundaries than to prepare an EIR. No matter what the decision, CEQA must be complied with.
21 • Staff formulated the Downtown Zoning Code Map with some suggested boundary reductions to
22 address overall densities. Density constraints restrict development potential for those areas east
23 of State Street because of compliance with the Airport Compatibility B2 Zone.
24 • Staff formulated boundaries for the DZC that make the most sense given the issues of traffic and
25 density and corresponding potential CEQA consequences. It may be that in the future the
26 boundaries can be expanded. At this point, the threshold for boundary expansion appears to have
27 been reached. On the other hand, it may be the boundaries need to be scaled back.
28
29 Commission: Has consideration been given about extending the boundaries in the area near Henry
30 Street up to Gibson Creek to include the Creek for protection purposes?
31
32 Chair Pruden: Standard block size is 200 feet x 200 feet. This area in particular is slightly larger
33 because it was formerly an apple orchard and is all residential. While she understands the desire to
34 protect Gibson Creek, there are other areas on the map that could be extended that are more critical. The
35 frontage parcels on Smith Street are particularly critical to Gibson Creek.
36
37 Planning Director Stump: The property owner has requested these parcels be included in the DZC.
38
39 Chair Pruden:
40 • The commercial properties on Clay Street that abut Grace Hudson Park are critical for proper
41 development.
42 • Are the boundaries at maximum not to trigger CEQA review or can a few more areas be added?
43
44 Planning Director Stump:
45 • This depends upon what City Council thinks of the Final Draft DZC, its uses and boundaries.
46 • Is concerned there may be difficulty completing a Negative Declaration because of traffic issues
47 and density issues pertinent to the B2 Airport Compatibility Zone. The City is working with the
48 Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission about possible modifications to the B2 Infill
49 zone in connection with the DZC project and the new Courthouse project.
50 • Would discourage for the most part the idea of expanding the boundaries at this point.
51
52 Commissioner Sanders: Supports providing for a pedestrian greenway in the northwest quadrant of
53 Henry Street, State Street, and Main Street.
54
55 Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 15
1 • There was discussion about expansion of the boundaries where the preference at this juncture
2 would be not to expand. However, it is possible to trade one area for another so essentially the
3 boundaries would not increase.
4 • The two parcels on Smith Street should likely be included in the boundary because Gibson Creek
5 runs underneath the existing buildings located on these parcels. These buildings are structurally
6 jeopardized by having the Creek run underneath. If for some reason, the buildings were non-
7 existent, this would be an opportunity to daylight the Creek. Also, if this becomes a preferred site
8 for the Courthouse project, it is possible these parcels could become part of the Courthouse
9 property or at least is an opportunity for this to occur.
10 • There was further discussion about surrounding parcels on Smith Street and whether or not to
11 include them in the boundaries, as well as other areas/parcels that are view as `critical' because
12 of the potential for development/redevelopment, opportunity to protect infrastructure/creek and/or
13 other type of reason where it is critical that an area be included in the boundary.
14
15 Staff:
16 • Adoption of the Code will not automatically cause these parcels to be developed. Agrees, these
17 parcels are probably the most re-developable parcels compared to others and they should be
18 included in the DZC boundaries.
19 • The approach for choosing boundaries is to focus on a particular area, adopt the Code, use the
20 Code and determine what works and does not work, and then modify the Code and expand the
21 boundaries as appropriate.
22
23 Commission consensus:
24 • DZC boundary adjustment by trading the railroad-owned right-of-way property north of E. Perkins
25 Street for one parcel on Smith Street between one parcel that is already included in the DZC
26 boundary and one that is not included and abuts Mason Street.
27
28 Section 3: Zoning
29 Staff:
30 • Expand the Downtown Core (DC) to include the entire block of Perkins, State, Church and School
31 Streets.
32
33 Commission: Would expanding DC zone trigger some type of review?
34
35 Staff: No. Since the density maximum is the same for the DC and UC zones.
36
37 Commission:
38 • It may be beneficial to expand the DC to include Main Street because of the fronting buildings on
39 State Street that have parking lots and/or back doors on Main Street. Having the front door/back
40 door scenarios has made these businesses viable, particularly with having both a Main Street and
41 State Street entrance.
42 • Recommends expanding the DC by extending three of the blocks on State Street to Main Street
43 and why was this not a consideration?
44 • Recommends extending the blocks in the DC zone between Perkins Street and Church Street
45 since the density limitation is the same.
46 • Where Attorneys Mason and Morrison and the antique mall operate should likely be included in
47 the DC zone.
48
49 Staff:
50 • The form requirements for the DC and UC are similar and reference would have to be given to
51 the specific use in the Use Table.
52 • On the Zoning Map under Special Designations, Anchor Tenant needs to be added to Parking
53 Structure Preferred and would read Parking Structure Preferred/Anchor Tenant. This will be done
54 as part of the revision of the Zoning Map.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 16
1 Commission consensus:
2 • Extend the DC borders from Smith Street to Church Street and from Main Street to School Street
3 allowing for six full blocks as opposed to three half blocks of the DC. They were typically
4 developed historically around the same period and they all function in the same way.
5 • Concurred with staff's recommendation for Parking Structure Preferred/Anchor Tenant.
6
7 Section 4: Building and Site Uses
8
9 Staff: Add farm supply and feed store as a use or treat as a non-conforming use. Farm supply and feed
10 store: A retail business selling supplies for use in soil preparation and maintenance, the planting and
11 harvesting of crops, the keeping and raising of farm animals, and other operations and processes
12 pertaining to farming and ranching. Does not include the sale, rental or repair of farm equipment or
13 machinery.
14
15 Commission consensus: Commission has provided direction in the discussion above.
16
17 Staff:
18 • Formula fast food is prohibited. How should fast food be addressed as a use and defined? Is
19 formula food different from fast food? Is food that is not formula fast food, fast food?
20 • Restaurant — formula fast food and Restaurant cafe, coffee house, and Restaurant — outdoor
21 dining have been defined.
22
23 Commission:
24 • Formula fast food has low food value and is high in calories.
25 • Fast food is different from Formula fast food. Examples: Oco Time, Happy Thai, Safeway — deli,
26 Bottle Shop, Subway, China Dina or Mexican food establishments versus McDonalds, Taco Bell.
27
28 Staff:
29 • Refer to Section 14, Glossary, Restaurant — Formula Fast Food, defines Formula Fast Food
30 whereby an establishment would be considered `formula fast food' if it has three or more of the
31 characteristics listed in section C.
32 • The question becomes what does the Planning Commission not intend to prohibit?
33 • Recommends looking at the definition of restaurant and formula fast food and see if there is a
34 characteristic that falls in the middle that is being inadvertently allowing or prohibiting.
35
36 Commission:
37 • Oco Time, for instance, does not correspond with subsection B because it is not required to
38 maintain any of the following: substantially standardized menus, architecture, building
39 appearance, signs, or other similar standardized features.' Oco Time is a restaurant, but does not
40 fall under the category of `formula fast food.' Oco Time likely does not have low nutritional value
41 nor is it inexpensive. According to the definition of restaurant—formula fast food, a restaurant that
42 complies with subsections A, B, and three characteristics of subsection C is considered a formula
43 fast food restaurant.
44 • Does not think of Subway as a fast food restaurant, but it is. Subway is essentially no different
45 than the Bottle Shop except Subway is a national chain (formula fast food) and the Bottle Shop is
46 privately owned. National chains typically take profits out of the County whereas privately owned
47 businesses do not.
48 • Okay with Subway if it is a franchise because the owner is local.
49
50 Commission consensus:
51 • Do not need a definition of fast food. Definitions of Restaurant—Formula Fast Food is adequate.
52
53 Section 5: Standards for Specific Land Uses
54
55 Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 17
1 • Referred to attachment 2 and comments from Bob Axt regarding the DZC. It was noted Mr. Axt
2 has not been supportive of the Form Based Code concepts and applications.
3 • Commissioner Sanders requested including a definition for riparian corridor in the Glossary.
4
5 Commission consensus:
6 • No changes made to this section.
7 • Include the General Plan definition of riparian corridor in the glossary.
8
9 13. NEW BUSINESS
10 November and December Planning Commission Schedule. Determine the Planning Commission
11 meeting dates for November and December.
12
13 Commission Consensus: Revise the regular meeting schedules due to the upcoming Thanksgiving and
14 Christmas holidays as follows:
15
16 1. Cancel the regular November 10 and 24 Planning Commission meetings. The November meeting
17 will be Monday, November 1.
18 2. Cancel the regular December 8 and 22 Planning Commission meetings. The December meeting
19 will be Thursday, December 16. The Commission may consider having a second meeting in
20 December.
21
22 The Commission would like to complete their review of the DZC document before the end of the year.
23
24 14. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
25 Planning Director Stump reported on the City of Ukiah having a business friendly approach:
26 • The City has issued 118 business licenses for new businesses from January through September
27 30, 2010. Since July of this fiscal year through September, 34 of the business licenses issued
28 represent 21 new jobs. This is business friendly.
29 • Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator review was not required for 98% of these business
30 licenses issued. These were primarily over the counter business licenses.
31 • Planning staff has been working diligently on revising the existing Fa�ade Improvement Program
32 and also to develop a new program called `The Business Improvement Program' whereby the
33 RDA would financially assist businesses with infrastructure requirements, such as sprinkler
34 systems, sewer laterals, unreinforced masonry and other requirements. This is business friendly.
35 • Staff has been statistically tracking the Solar Living Institute `green works program.' The majority
36 of these students come from out of the area and come to Ukiah to learn how to install solar voltaic
37 panels on buildings. Over 30% of the graduates from this program are hired immediately in the
38 industry. `Green' jobs are occurring and the training for these jobs take place in Ukiah. The
39 students are spending substantial amounts of money on food, lodging and retail in this
40 community. This is business friendly.
41 • The City has been funding the Main Street Program and the Chamber of Commerce for many
42 years. This is business friendly.
43 • In the 17 years Director Stump has worked for the City, he cannot recall any projects that have
44 come to the Planning Commission that were denied except for the proposed `Safeway Gas
45 Station' project. This is an incredible track record and commended the many Planning
46 Commissions that have made this possible by helping to shape projects and working with
47 businesses to develop approvable projects. This is business friendly.
48
49 14. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
50 Commissioner Molgaard: It has been her experience that not everyone views Ukiah as a `business
51 friendly' community and recommends instituting `outreach' methods for how to get the news out that
52 Ukiah really is business friendly.
53
54 Staff: Will help the Commissioners with developing outreach methods/information that can be used when
55 Commissioners are having conversations with constituents.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 18
1 15. ADJOURNMENT
2 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
3
4
5 Judy Pruden, Chair
6
7 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
8
9
10
11
12
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2010
Page 19