HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_10272010 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 October 27, 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 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
19 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23
24 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
25
26 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
27
28 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— October 13, 2010
29 The minutes from the October 13, 2010 meeting will be available for review and approval at the
30 November 1, 2010 meeting.
31
32 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
33 None.
34
35 7. APPEAL PROCESS- N/A
36
37 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- N/A
38
39 9. OLD BUSINESS—WORKSHOP
40 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop Update. Conduct a public workshop to review and discuss
41 revised Sections 6-9 and Section 13 of the Downtown Zoning Code and request for Design Examples.
42
43 Staff presented a staff report and requested the Commission review and make recommendations to the
44 revised Sections 6-9 of the DZC document.
45
46 Section 6: Site Planning and Development Standards
47
48 Staff: Drew attention to the revised changes made to Table 9 and Table 10 as addressed on pages 1 and
49 2 of the staff report.
50
51 The Commission noted some grammatical and typographical errors in the document that will be corrected
52 by staff for the Final Draft. Specific discussion about the corrections will not be included in the minutes.
53
54 Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2010
Page 1
1 Q1: Paqe 26, Residential Densitv: Should a footnote be added to indicate the 28-uniUgross acre
2 maximum could be affected by density bonuses.
3
4 Q2: Paqe 26, Lot Standards, The blocks around the Courthouse in the Downtown were developed in the
5 1860s. If these were legal parcels what would occur if one of the parcels containing building(s) burned
6 down and replaced with a new building?
7
8 Q3: Requested clarification the lot standards apply even if the parcels are smaller than requried?
9
10 Staff:
11 Q1: Footnote 4 covers this.
12
13 Q2: All new subdivisions must comply with the lot standards as provided for in Table 4 and the
14 development standards that are applicable. A new subdivision is taking an existing parcel and subdividing
15 into new parcels. If an existing parcel is substandard in size, the development standards for setbacks,
16 height, parking, architectural design and other standards still apply.
17
18 Q3: Affirmed and noted most all of the standards in the table allow for a major/minor exception if the
19 standard does not work for a particular project so there is a built-in provision to allow modification to
20 almost every standard.
21
22 Paqes, 26, 27, �28
23 • No changes.
24
25 Page 29, Table 7: Standards for Accessorv Buildinqs
26
27 Commission:
28 Q1: The front setback for the GU and UC is a 30 ft. minimum. Where does the 30 feet begin for an
29 accessory building?
30
31 Q2: Footnote 3, height is also subject to Airport Compatibility Zone requirements, and whether there will
32 be a follow up to the recent Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission meeting regarding City's
33 plans to modify the Airport Compatibility Zone requirement for the B2 Infill zone to review increased
34 heights and density limits for buildings in this area.
35
36 Staff:
37 Q1: Front setback begins at the front property line. If there is an existing building the setback is still
38 measured from the front property line but the building may be setback more than 30 feet due to the
39 location of the main building.
40
41 Q2: The meeting was specific to the proposed Courthouse project. The meeting was continued for further
42 discussion.
43
44 Commission:
45 • No changes.
46
47 Paae 30
48 Commission:
49 Q1: Figure 3C, Courtyard Building, Questioned the area shaded in blue.
50
51 Staff:
52 Q1: Staff will correct the various inconsistencies to show only the setback areas in blue.
53
54 Paqe 31
55 Item c, Galley, add `2 feet of the curb' to end of last sentence.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2010
Page 2
1 No other changes.
2
3 Paqes 32 &33
4 Commission:
5 • Footnote 4, term `site' should read `sighY distance.
6 • No other changes to page 32.
7
8 Paqe 33
9 Commission:
10 • Outdoor lighting, fixtures, should read, `Hooded and/or shielded to force light downward to
11 prevent emission of light or glare beyond the property line.'
12 • No other changes to page 33.
13
14 Paqe 34
15 Commission:
16 • Figure 4, Layers, first paragraph, typographical error noted, `Development.'
17 • No other changes.
18
19 Page 35, Table 10: Landscapinq Standards for All Developments
20
21 Staff: Determine whether `modification to standards' is a minor/major exception. Two minor exceptions or
22 more projects comes to Planning Commission. Initially a Planning Commission project with two or more
23 exceptions to standard, project comes to Planning Commission.
24
25 Commission:
26 General Requirements section
27 • Correct typographical errors noted subsections 'hydrozones,' `irrigation,' `Safety — location/size of
28 plantings at maturity.'
29 • Dimensions: Minor Exception with footnote for staff review by appropriate City departments
30 • Height: Minor Exception with footnote for staff review by appropriate City departments
31 • Hydrozones: Minor Exception
32 • Plans: No modification allowed
33 • Safety: No modification allowed with footnote for staff review by appropriate City
34 departments
35 • Species: Major Exception and Reference appropriate tables Exception
36
37 Trees section
38 • Existing Trees: Reference appropriate Tables
39 • Location: Minor Exception with footnote for staff review by appropriate City departments
40 • Planter size: Minor Exception with footnote for staff review by appropriate City departments
41 • Parking Lot Trees: Reference appropriate Tables
42 • Street Trees: Reference appropriate Tables
43
44 Groundcover and Shrubs section
45 • Groundcover: Minor Exception
46 • Shrubs: Minor Exception
47 • Turf: Minor Exception with footnote keeping to a minimum where it can be
48 demonstrated there is a practical need as part of the landscaping plan.
49 • Crushed rock, etc.: Minor Exception
50 • Planting beds: Minor Exception
51 • Prohibited: Major Exception
52
53 Irriqation section
54 • Design: No modification allowed
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2010
Page 3
1 • Plans: No modification allowed
2 Page 36, Table 10: Landscaping Standards for All Developments continued
3
4 Maintenance Requirements section
5 • All items: No modification allowed
6
7 Paqe 37, Section 7: Architectural Standards, Table 11: Frontaqe Type and Storefront Standards
8 • Ground Floor—Residential and Lodging:
9 ➢ Commission questioned the reasoning for requiring two feet elevation above sidewalk on
10 frontages.
11 ➢ Staff to discuss with Building Official if there is a Building Code requirement for this and to
12 research if there is a design purpose for this requirement.
13 • No change.
14
15 Don Larsen: The requirement is likely to protect the public from walking through a solid glass panel, for
16 instance, whereby the ground floor level is raised to block the panel.
17
18 Chair Pruden: This may be related to structural features for buildings.
19
20 Staff: Refer to Table 8: Private Frontage Types. Some of the frontage types appear to include this
21 requirement.
22
23 Page 38. Section 7: Architectural Standards, Table 12: Architectural Elements and Materials
24
25 Openinqs section
26 • Doors and windows—slider operations: Major Exception
27 • Doors and window—Faux: Major Exception
28
29 Roofs section
30 • Cool Roof, Living Roof, Roof Garden: Commission had questions about this subsection with regard to
31 maintaining energy efficiency and architectural standards and design.
32
33 Staff:
34 • Will review roof types with City Building Official. Requirements likely covered in new `Green Building
35 Code.' Would recommend that this continues to be encouraged rather than required. The new
36 building code has more stringent requirements related to energy efficiency.
37 • How best to be most energy efficient can be different from project to project and differ based on the
38 needs of the occupant, construction costs and operational costs. One thing learned during my green
39 building program is that all projects are different and how to be the most energy efficient will also
40 differ based on the project.
41 • The word 'encourage' informs applicants that this is important to the City.
42
43 Commission:
44 • No changes.
45
46 Paqe 39, Section 7, Architectural Standards, Architectural Fiqures
47 Commission:
48 • No changes.
49
50 Paqe 39. Fiqure 6. New Infill
51 Commission:
52 • No changes.
53
54 Paqe 41, Fiqure 7: Hotel Concept
55 Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2010
Page 4
1 • No changes.
2
3 Page 41, Figure 8: Anchor Building
4 Commission:
5 • No changes.
6
7 Paqe 43, Fiqure 9: Countv Courthouse Concept
8 • Change title of Figure 9 to read, `Civic Building Concept.
9 • No other changes.
10
11 Don Larsen referred to the courthouse rendering on page 43 and commented it was his understanding
12 the architect and design of the new Courthouse has been chosen.
13
14 Staff: This illustration was formulated at the charrettes. Staff has no ability to revise the drawing.
15 Paqe 44, Fiqure 10: Courthouse Square Renderinq
16 • No changes.
17
18 Page 44. Fiqure 11: State Street Rendering
19 Commission:
20 • No changes.
21
22 Paqe 45, Fiqure 12: Perkins Street Renderinq
23 Commission:
24 • No changes.
25
26 Page 47. Section 8: Historical Building Standards
27 Commission:
28 • Doors—Original: Add footnote#3
29
30 Paqe 48, Table 13, Historical Buildinq Standards
31 Commission:
32 • No changes.
33
34 Paqe 49. Section 9: Parkina Standards and Procedures
35 Commission: Discussed Table 15, Vehicular Shared Parking Factor.
36
37 Staff: The figures in the table most likely represent industry standards that are based on the typical hours
38 of operation for the various uses and parking needs for the different uses.
39
40 Commission:
41 No changes.
42
43 Paqe 50
44 Commission:
45 • Paragraph 1, formatting corrections noted.
46 • No other changes.
47
48 Paqe 51
49 Commission:
50 • No changes.
51
52 Paqe 52
53 Commission:
54 • Footnote 2, need to check spelling and correct punctuation errors noted.
55 • No other changes.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2010
Page 5
1 Paqe 53. Table 17: Open Parkinq Lot Standards —landscapinq and Irriqation
2 Commission:
3 • No changes.
4
5 Page 54
6 Commission:
7 • No change.
8
9 Paqe 55
10 Commission:
11 • No change.
12
13 10. NEW BUSINESS
14 10a. Tree Advisory Group (TAG). Discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council of
15 future projects for the Tree Advisory Group. Linda Sanders presented this item as a member of the Tree
16 Advisory Group.
17
18 Linda Sanders, TAG:
19 • Concerned certain documents in the `Additional Resources' section of the new tree document
20 formulated by TAG were titled correctly.
21 • Inquired whether the `Tree Protection During Construction' document listed in the `Additional
22 References' dated November 2008 was adopted by City Council.
23 • Protection of existing trees during construction is very important. Questioned whether the text in
24 this section of the document should be revised.
25 • The City has working documents that are used for protection of existing trees during construction.
26 • Asked the Commission if there were concerns about the City of Ukiah Tree Management
27 Guideline document and the Additional Resources listed and whether the new document needs to
28 be revised with regard to protection of existing trees during construction.
29
30 Commission:
31 • There is a tree protection during construction document that was never adopted by Council and
32 the new tree guideline document that assumes the former document had been approved may
33 not appropriately address the issue of protection of existing trees during construction.
34 • The intent of the new guideline document is directed toward City crews in an effort to
35 educate/train on how to properly care and maintain trees on City property.
36 • Proper care of trees during construction is a completely different issue.
37 • Proper management of existing trees during construction is also a condition of approval for
38 projects.
39
40 Linda Sanders, TAG:
41 • Would like to have the 'Tree Protection During Construction' document as a reference for the City
42 of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines document. Would like the new document to emulate what
43 documents the Planning Department uses with regard to tree issues for projects.
44
45 • Would like to reference all working tree documents adopted by Council in the new document and
46 is concerned about the timeframe to verify these documents in connection with the upcoming
47 review and adoption of the City of Ukiah Tree Management Guidelines.
48
49 Staff: Recommends review of the tree documents the Planning Department currently uses to determine
50 whether or not they have been adopted and how they are being used. Requests that Chair Pruden and
51 TAG provide the list of documents that she uses so that staff can determine if they document is a policy
52 or ordinance.
53
54 Commission: The preference would be for Chair Pruden/Commissioners to submit the names of the
55 documents so staff can verify whether or not they have been adopted by Council. Staff will also consult
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2010
Page 6
1 with the Public Works Department about what tree documents they are using. Staff will then report to the
2 Planning Commission about the tree documents being used.
3
4 Chair Pruden:
5 • Review of the new tree document would not likely be encumbered if the only concern is the
6 `Additional Resources' listed for reference purposes.
7 • There have been many tree policy documents adopted by City Council, but not many of these
8 documents have been codified There is a definite distinction in this regard. It will be helpful to
9 know whether the tree documents used by Public Works are policy or codification.
10 • Will provide staff with the tree materials she has and also check with Public Works about the tree
11 documents they use.
12 • Measures should be taken to protect the community's urban forest via advanced discussions by
13 policy makers, as well as provide education programs about the need to conserve and protect
14 trees.
15
16 Commissioner Molgaard:
17 • Does not support that private property owners have 100% freedom to do want they want
18 concerning trees on their property. After all, trees play a significant role in the protection of the
19 environment because people depend on trees to breathe. Is in favor of having more stringent
20 requirements regarding removal and replacement of trees to protect environmental watersheds,
21 temperature and all other relevant environmental measures that should be protected with the
22 assistance of what trees guard against and the need to have valuable policies/ordinances in
23 place to protect trees.
24
25 LindaSanders, TAG: TAG has formulated a list of topics this organization could work on:
26 1. Inventory trees in City parks.
27 2. Voluntary landmark tree program.
28 3. Education outreach.
29 4. Update the City Master Tree list.
30 5. Protection of existing trees during construction.
31 6. Community input regarding public trees.
32
33 Commission:
34 • The City Master Tree List should be updated/revised.
35 • Suggest TAG continue to work on the `Tree Protection During Construction document because it
36 is close to being a finished product and formulate a landmark/heritage tree ordinance or policy
37 that is not necessarily voluntary.
38 • It took a long time to get a tree maintenance ordinance adopted in this community because
39 people are very`touchy' about their private property.
40 • The question is essentially how a landmark tree should be treated on private property. Should this
41 be voluntary or mandatory.
42 • The public may not be favorably responsive to formulating a policy/ordinance concerning trees on
43 private property.
44 • Formulating an ordinance takes a long time.
45 • The better approach may be to start a voluntary landmark tree program/policy emphasizing that
46 the City does not support that private properties owners cut down trees on property, but rather the
47 property owner make considerations.
48 • On the other hand, property owners should not have to go before a Commission because they
49 want to remove a tree.
50 • Supports encouraging TAG to remain a voluntary group of citizens without becoming a
51 Commission.
52 • Allow City Council to determine how TAG should proceed.
53 • In terms of establishing a list prioritizing which topics TAG should work on is to consider how a
54 voluntary group should best utilize their time. TAG is a group that operates without professional
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2010
Page 7
1 facilitation and without this type of input could lead to a lot of time consuming and unnecessary
2 discussion on the part of TAG.
3
4 Commissioner Molgaard:
5 ■ It would be beneficial if the community is serious about moving forward and commit to following
6 the direction of a professional facilitator in order to get work accomplished.
7 ■ What may take a few meetings with a professional facilitator may take a year for a voluntary
8 group for work to get accomplished.
9
10 Staff: Updating the City's Master Tree List is important since an applicant or property owner has to select
11 trees from this list when required to plant street trees and the list is outdated and includes species that
12 are not good street trees for Ukiah's climate.
13
14 Commission preference:
15 • TAG to remain as voluntary organization.
16 • Possibly tying in updating the City Master Tree List together with the `Protecting Trees During
17 Construction' draft document that was created, but not adopted because both of these documents
18 already have criteria established and/or are partially completed.
19
20 Staff: Rather than prioritizing the list, the Commission would select its top 4 priorities in no particular
21 order and indicate that there are other items of interest that are not included as priorities for TAG.
22
23 Commission consensus regarding a list of the top 4 topics for TAG to address, not necessarily in
24 the following order:
25
26 ■ Keeping TAG together as a voluntary organization to work on tree issues/programs/policies.
27 ■ Protecting Trees During Construction.
28 ■ Landmark/heritage tree policy or ordinance.
29 ■ Update of the City Master Tree List.
30
31 M/S Molgaard/Wetzel the Planning Commission recommends the Ukiah City Council consider the 4
32 topics stated above and for staff and Council to provide support as available. Motion carried (5-0).
33
34 10b. December Planning Commission Meetings. Discussion and possible action to add a second
35 Planning Commission meeting for the month of December.
36
37 The Planninq� Commission considered alternative second meeting dates in December and selected
38 December 8t , 20th, and 29th as possible meeting dates with the date to depend on when the item(s) is
39 ready for review.
40
41 11. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
42 None.
43
44 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
45 Commissioner Whetzel asked about upcoming Planning Commission conferences.
46
47 Chair Pruden will provide the Commissioners with some information she has knowledge of.
48
49 13. ADJOURNMENT
50 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
51
52
53 Judy Pruden, Chair
54
55 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 27, 2010
Page 8