HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_11012010 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 November 1, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Ann Molgaard, Vice Chair
7 Linda Helland Mike Whetzel
8 Linda Sanders
9
10 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
11 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
12 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
15 1. CALL TO ORDER
16 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
17 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
18 Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
23
24 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit was confirmed.
25
26 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— October 13, 2010
27 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve October 13, 2010 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried. (3-0).
28
29 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
30 Don Larsen presented the Commission with a copy of a magazine that shows the type of architectural
31 design selected for the new Courthouse.
32
33 7. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
34 the final day to appeal is November 12, 2010.
35
36 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Ukiah Plaza Center Sign Program Amendment Application No:
37 10-18 SDPA-PC was properly noticed in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
38
39 9. NEW BUSINESS—PUBLIC HEARING
40 9A. Ukiah Plaza Retail Center Sign Program Amendment Application No. 10-18-SDPA-PC.
41 Request for approval of a Site Development Permit Amendment to allow modifications to the Ukiah Plaza
42 Retail Center Sign Program for Verizon Wireless located at 1214 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-080-
43 73.
44
45 Staff presented the staff report with the recommendation:
46
47 1. Approve Paramount Sign request for an amendment to the sign program for the Ukiah Plaza
48 Retail Center to allow the installation of a new wall sign on behalf of Verizon Wireless on the north
49 elevation of the building located at 1214 Airport Park Boulevard.
50 2. Approve staff request to allow the installation of an additional sign on the south elevation of the
51 building located at 1212 Airport Park Boulevard.
52
53 Commission:
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 1
1 Q1. Was it an oversight on the part of the applicant as to what was submitted to staff as far as adding
2 a third sign?
3
4 Q2. Game Stop, the neighbor to the south, has a small sign on the southeast corner of the building
5 and requested clarification if the square footage requirements is the reason why this sign is not as large
6 or was there some other type of issue and why the Verizon sign is so large comparatively speaking even
7 though it is allowed.
8
9 Staff:
10 Q1. This was allowed as part of the original sign program. The original applicant did not know at the
11 time another sign might be wanted.
12
13 Q2.
14 ■ There may be several reasons, such as Game Stop has a smaller leased area or did not ask for a
15 large sign. The Ukiah Retail Master Sign Program allows a certain amount of sign area based on
16 the linear frontage of the leased area or tenant space and it could be Game Stop has a smaller
17 leased space compared to Verizon Wireless.
18 ■ It may also be Game Stop did not want to spend a lot of money on signage because from an
19 architectural standpoint, a larger sign would not look good as the elevation is smaller.
20 ■ While the sign program allows for a maximum amount of signage, no minimum size is required.
21
22 Chair Pruden:
23 ■ Recalls the Game Stop project wherein the cost for signage may have been a factor since the
24 applicant wanted a double sign. It was not an oversight on the part of Planning staff because
25 where Verizon Wireless is located was not leased. Technically, the Game Stop is a corner
26 building, but was not perceived as such. Also, even though the drive-thru for Starbucks
27 essentially divides the two buildings (Starbucks and Verizon Wireless), Starbucks does not have
28 the same corner presence. Game Stop can be considered as a corner building because of
29 circulation and landscaping amenities.
30 ■ Requested clarification that the project includes modification to the sign program for the complex
31 where Verizon Wireless is located and not the Sign Ordinance for the City.
32
33 Staff:
34 ■ By definition of the Sign Ordinance, Game Stop is not a corner building. It is located adjacent to
35 the access driveway to the site.
36 ■ The amendment does not affect the City's Sign Ordinance and is specific to the Sign Program for
37 the Ukiah Plaza Retail Center that affects 1212 and 1214 Airport Park Boulevard. The
38 amendment would apply to Verizon Wireless and to all future tenants that occupy this tenant
39 space. It is not limited to Verizon Wireless. The second component to the project pertains to
40 staff's request to allow a sign on the south elevation end-cap (facing the drive-thru) of the building
41 located 1212 Airport Park Boulevard that is similar to what is being requested by Verizon
42 Wireless should this be requested by the tenant or a future tenant.
43
44 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:15 p.m.
45
46 Chuck Sitnik: Confirmed the reason for requesting a new sign is because the building cannot be seen
47 when driving south on Airport Park Boulevard.
48
49 Chair Pruden:
50 • The existing sign is visible from the west. The east facing sign is clearly visible from the
51 southbound lane. It is difficult to the see the sign from Hastings Road.
52 • It is unlikely persons going though the Starbucks drive-thru can see the sign.
53
54 Chuck Sitnik, Verizon Wireless Manager:
55 • Verizon Wireless has taken down all the window signs that were adjacent to the drive-thru.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 2
1 • Agreed, the new sign would not be entirely visible from the Starbucks drive-thru side of the
2 building.
3
4 Butch Bainbridge, owner of Paramount Sign:
5 • Noted the Game Stop tower is the narrower elevation on the building where the placement of a
6 larger sign would not be compatible with the size and proportion of the building unlike Verizon
7 Wireless.
8 • Visibility of the existing sign is an issue.
9
10 Commission: Asked if the signs inside the building adjacent to the Starbucks drive-thru have been
11 removed to allow for more square footage for the new sign?
12
13 Chuck Sitnik: Confirmed the 4 light box signs that are lit from the interior of the building and can be seen
14 from the outside of the store have been removed for aesthetic reasons and were basically no longer
15 necessary with the installation of a new sign.
16
17 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:20 p.m.
18
19 Commission:
20 • Verizon Wireless is entitled to additional signage.
21 • The sign fits the scale and size of the building.
22 • Recommends putting displays of products in the window on the Starbucks drive-thru side
23 because the new sign will not be visible.
24 • Requested clarification that signage for retail establishments is based on lineal feet.
25 • Verizon Wireless is located in a PD zoning designation that has different criteria than other zoning
26 designations in the City.
27
28 Staff: Signage for the project is based on lineal parcel frontage. Since the building is on a corner, the site
29 has two frontages for the purpose of calculating allowable sign area. When a building is designed for
30 multiple tenants, a sign program is often required in order to ensure that all tenants receive adequate sign
31 area and one tenant does not utilize all of the sign area.
32
33 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve Site Development Permit 10-18-SDPA-PC to allow an amendment to
34 Ukiah Plaza Retail Center Sign Program that includes installation of additional sign on the north elevation
35 of 1214 Airport Park Blvd. with Findings 1-5 (Attachment 1) and Conditions of Approval 1-10 (Attachment
36 2) that includes staff's request for a sign on the south elevation end-cap (facing the drive-thru) of building
37 1212 similar to what has been approved for Verizon Wireless to accommodate any future request. Motion
38 carried (3-0).
39
40 SITE DEVELOPEMNT PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
41 AMENDMENT TO UKIAH PLAZA RETAIL CENTER SIGN PROGAM THAT INCLUDES
42 INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL SIGN ON THE NORTH ELVATION OF
43 1214 AIRPORT PARK BLVD. APN 180-080-73
44 FILE NO: 10-18-SDPA-PC
45
46 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
47 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
48
49 1. See"General Plan" under staff analysis above.
50
51 2. The proposed sign will be ancillary to an existing commercial/retail use that is consistent with the
52 uses allowed in the Airport Park Industrial Planning Development.
53
54 3. The proposed sign is consistent with the allowable sign area of the Ukiah Plaza Retail Center
55 Master Sign Program and the City of Ukiah Sign Ordinance.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 3
1
2 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the following specific findings required
3 pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9263(E) in order to approve a site development permit.
4
5 a. The proposed project site is currently developed with two separate commercial/retail
6 building (1212 and 1214 Airport Park Blvd). The new wall sign will be located on the
7 north elevation (end-cap)of 1214 Airport Park Blvd an existing building. The footprint of
8 the building will not change as a result of the new sign and there will be no change the
9 current pedestrian or vehicular traffic pattern. Therefore the project will not create a
10 hazardous or inconvenient
11 vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern. The additional of the sign will further identify
12 Verizon Wireless Store resulting in convenience for vehicles and pedestrians looking for
13 the store.
14
15 b. The accessibility of the existing off-street parking and driveways will not change as a
16 result of the proposed wall sign therefore no hazardous or inconvenient conditions will be
17 created on adjacent streets.
18
19 c. The site contains existing mature landscaping which was required with the original site
20 development permit. The addition of the wall sign will not change or impact the
21 landscaping on the site.
22
23 d. The site is not located in or adjacent to a residential zoning district.
24
25 e. The proposed sign will be located on the north elevation (end-cap) of building 1214.
26 Furthermore it will be installed directly onto the existing north elevation. There will be no
27 change to the architecture/footprint of the building and therefore will not restrict or cut out
28 light and air on the property or on adjacent properties nor hinder the development or
29 future use of commercial buildings in the neighborhood.
30
31 f. The site is located in an commercial /retail area developed with an two existing
32 commercial building , landscaping and parking area, no water courses, wildlife, wildlife
33 habitat, floodway or flood plain or other environmentally sensitive areas are present.
34
35 g. The proposed sign will be consistent in design and materials to the existing signs along
36 with the architecture of the existing commercial buildings.
37
38 5. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
39 Section 15311, Class 11 Accessory Structures, which allows the construction of minor structure
40 accessory to existing commercial facilities this includes on- premise signs based on the following
41 a. The proposed project is related to a new signs on the site and will not change the existing
42 land use of the property and the footprint of the existing buildings will not change as a
43 result of the project.
44
45 b. The proposed sign is ancillary to the commercial/retail use of the building.
46
47 c. The location is not environmentally sensitive and there is no habitat on the site, no trees,
48 and no drainage courses or bodies of water(such as creeks or streams).
49
50 SITE DEVELOPEMNT PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
51 AMENDMENT TO UKIAH PLAZA RETAIL CENTER SIGN PROGAM THAT INCLUDES
52 INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL SIGN ON THE NORTH ELVATION END-CAP OF 1214 AIRPORT
53 PARK BLVD. APN 180-080-73
54 FILE NO: 10-18-SDPA-PC
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 4
1 1. Approval is granted to amend the Master Sign Program for Ukiah Plaza Retail Center that
2 includes the installation of an additional sign on the north elevation end cap of 1214 Airport Park
3 Blvd as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 13,
4 2010.
5
6 2. All criteria of the Mater Sign Program for Ukiah Plaza Retail Center remain in force.
7
8 3. A Sign Permit is required prior to installation of sign.
9
10 From the Building Official (David Willoughbv)
11
12 4. Sign Permit and Building Permit approval is required prior to installation.
13
14 From the Planninq Department(Jennifer Faso)
15
16 5. Application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Community Development Department is
17 required.
18
19 6. Prior to issuance of a Sign Permit or Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a revised Sign
20 Program for the Ukiah Plaza Retail Center that includes the modifications listed below that were
21 approved by Planning Commission, subject to staff review and approval.
22
23 A. Provisions for a wall sign on the north elevation of building 1214.
24 B. Provisions for a wall sign on the south elevation of building 1212.
25 Standard Requirements
26
27 7. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
28 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
29 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
30 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
31 and issued.
32
33 8. The approved Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if
34 the approved project related to the Site Development Permit is not being conducted in
35 compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established
36 within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established land use for which the
37 permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty four(24) consecutive months.
38
39 9. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
40 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
41
42 10. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
43 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
44 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
45 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
46 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
47 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
48 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
49 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
50 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
51 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
52 remain in full force and effect.
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 5
1 10. OLD BUSINESS -WORKSHOP
2 Downtown Zoning Code Workshop Update. Conduct a public workshop to review and discuss revised
3 Sections 10-13.
4
5 Staff: Requests the Commission review and provide additional comments for Sections 10-13 of the DZC.
6
7 Section 10: Tree Preservation and Plantinq Requirements
8
9 Commission highly complimented staff for their work on the DZC document, particularly Section 10.
10
11 Paqes 56 and 57
12
13 Commission comment: Section 10.030: Tree Preservation, (D8). A change in the existing grade
14 creates drainage problems. Requests staff expand on the language.
15
16 Staff: When a grade change is facilitated for project improvements and a protected tree is involved, it is
17 best to consult with an arborist. The purpose is not to change the grade, but when this is necessary an
18 arborist can provide professional instructions about tree protection for best results.
19
20 Commission consensus:
21 ■ No change.
22
23 Paqes 58 and 59:
24
25 Staff: Section 10.050: Street Tree Design Principles was added to provide some context and this new
26 language is included in italics. This section will help provide direction when considering an exception to
27 the required street trees included in Tables 20 and 21 of this section.
28
29 Commission consensus:
30 ■ No change.
31
32 Paqe 60, Table 18: Protected Trees - New table at the repuest of the Commission
33
34 Commission comment:
35 ■ Not sure if Ukiah has any Blue Oak.
36
37 Commission consensus:
38 ■ No change.
39
40 Paqe 61, Table 19: Landmark Trees
41
42 Staff asked for Commission assistance with filling in Number of Trees section where blank.
43
44 Commission:
45 ■ Likes having Table 18: Protected Trees and Table 19: Landmark Trees because Table 18
46 provides further justification for Table 19.
47 ■ Questioned number of Coast Redwood and Deodar Cedar trees at Pear Tree Center.
48
49 Staff: Recommends using the DZC zoning map to check boundaries when counting the number of
50 Willows along the Gibson Creek drainage.
51
52 Commission consensus:
53 ■ The Giant Sequoia at 220 Mason Street is a Coast Redwood. Revise this.
54 ■ Confirmed, there are two Southern Magnolia, North State Street in front of Courthouse, two Tulip
55 Magnolias, located on the southeast corner of North State Street and two Dawn Redwood, North
56 State Street located in the northwestern corner on Standley Street and School Street.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 6
1 ■ Delete street tree section; No need to count number of Chinese Pistache for Main Street, Perkins
2 Street, North State Street, and School Street because street trees are protected in Table 18 and
3 leave private property trees.
4 ■ Commission Sanders will verify whether or not there is a Deodar Cedar at the Pear Tree Center,
5 number of Coast Redwoods at Pear Tree Center, and number of Willows, Gibson Creek
6 Drainage.
7 ■ No other changes.
8
9 Paqe 62, Table 20: Required Street Trees for Primarv Streets and Paqe 63, Table 21: Alternate
10 Street Tree for Primarv Streets
11
12 Staff:
13 ■ Modification to Standard requires Major Exception with a footnote that reads: Planning
14 Commission review and approval of a Major Exception is required(see Section 12:Administration
15 and Procedures and Table 28) The application shall address the Street Tree Design Principles
16 included and identified in Section 10.050 and shall include the information required by Section
17 10.090(A).
18 ■ How should street trees be treated? It is possible for someone to select a tree as a street tree
19 from the alternate street tree list. Should this be treated in the same manner as Table 23:
20 Required Parking Lot Trees (Minor Exception 1)/Table 24: Alternate Parking Lot Trees (Major
21 Exception 1). For Required Parking Lot Trees with minor exception, Zoning Administrator
22 approval is required to use a tree from Table 24: Alternate Parking Lot Trees, Planning
23 Commission approval is required to use a tree not included in Table 24. If someone wanted to
24 use a species not listed on the alternate street tree list, a Major Exception would be required.
25 ■ Consider allowing use of a tree from Table 21: Alternate Street Tree for Primary Streets with
26 approval of a Minor Exception similar to how parking lot trees are being treated.
27
28 Commission: When choosing alternative street trees what occurs when City street trees encroach on
29 private property? How should the exception be treated? Street trees are typically planted on the inside of
30 the sidewalk.
31
32 Commission:
33 ■ Likes there are separate lists for Alternate Street Trees and Alternate Parking lot Trees.
34 ■ Developers should be made aware of the rules ahead of time in an effort to better enhance the
35 Downtown.
36 ■ The alternate tree lists should be an available source so that an applicant is not required to come
37 to the Planning Commission.
38 ■ An applicant should be able to choose a tree species from Table 20 or Table 21.
39
40 Staff:
41 ■ There are instances, where the sidewalk width is not sufficient space to accommodate a street
42 tree so the tree ends up on private property. The intent is to plant the tree as a street tree in the
43 public right-of-way. The Zoning Administrator would then make a recommendation for review by
44 the Public Works Department and/or other City Department to make certain the tree is an
45 appropriate substitute prior to application of the street tree design principles as part of the
46 consideration to the exception.
47 ■ It should be if someone did not want to use a tree on the Required Street Tree list that a minor
48 exception would be required and a tree species from the Alternate Street Tree could be a
49 consideration. The way the rule is now, a major exception is required for review by the Planning
50 Commission. This encourages someone to use a tree from the alternate street tree list rather than
51 asking for a Major Exception which is beneficial for the community and the applicant.
52
53 Commission consensus:
54 ■ Confirmed the only street tree with no alternate for School Street is the Chinese Pistache.
55 ■ Minor Exception to use tree from Table 21.
56 ■ Major Exception to use a tree that is no from Table 21.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 7
1 ■ Page 62, Table 20, change to Minor Exception with same footnote as Table 23' and refer to Table
2 21. If no selection is made from Table 21, a major exception is required.
3 ■ Page 63, No change to Table 21. Will require a Major Exception with same footnote as Table 24.
4
5 Paqe 64, Table 22: Required Street Trees for Non-Primarv Streets—requires Maior Exception.
6
7 Staff: There is no alternate list for Required Street Trees for Non-Primary Streets.
8
9 Commission consensus:
10 ■ No change to Table 22.
11
12 Paqe 65, Table 23: Required Parkinq Lot Trees
13
14 Staff: Table 23 lists the required parking lot trees where the modification to the standard requires a Minor
15 Exception that includes footnote: Zoning Administrator approval of a Minor Exception is required to use a
16 tree from Table 24: Alternate Parking Lot Trees. Planning Commission approval of a Major Exception is
17 required for use of a tree not included in Table 24.
18
19 Commission consensus:
20 ■ No change.
21
22 Paqe 66, Table 24: Alternate Parkinq Lot Trees
23
24 Staff: Footnote 1 reads, Planning Commission approval of a Major Exception is required to use a species
25 not included in this Table.
26
27 Commission:
28 ■ How do you treat tree invader species, particularly the Chinese Rain Tree?
29
30 Staff: The Commission has been very specific that trees need to be native to be protected. Since this tree
31 is not native, it would only be protected if it was required as a condition of approval or mitigation measure,
32 or was planted as a street tree as listed in Table 18: Protected Trees.
33
34 Commission consensus:
35 ■ No change.
36
37 Paqe 67, Table 25: Riparian Trees
38
39 Staff: At Commission's request `California Bay' has been added to the list. There is no alternate table.
40
41 Commission consensus:
42 ■ No change to Table 25.
43
44 Paqe 68, Section 11: Circulation Standards
45
46 Commission consensus:
47 ■ No change.
48
49 Paqe 69, Circulation Standards
50
51 Commission:
52 ■ 11.070, Pedestrian Path, referred to page 6 of Attachment 2, Minute Excerpts, line 35,
53 Commission preference states, `Require a dedicated pedestrian pathway in the area of Hospital
54 Drive behind Lucky's relevant to some kind of future development project that changes the
55 parcels and allows for a pathway as part of the project.'
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 8
1 ■ Change 11.070(B) from Recommended Path to Required Path. This would result in two required
2 paths and no recommended paths.
3
4 Commission consensus:
5 ■ Expand subsection A to include subsection B, which is another geographical area by adding
6 items 1 and 2 to represent the different geographical areas referenced.
7 ■ No other changes.
8
9 Paqe 70, Circulation Standards
10
11 Commission: Subsection D, Turret Element, questioned whether there is an error concerning the
12 language, `Turret Elements are strongly encouraged on new buildings located at specific places on the
13 Circulation Map.'
14
15 Staff: This is an error. Section should read Special Designations Map.
16
17 Commission consensus:
18 ■ 11.110(D)change Circulation Map to Special Designations Map.
19 ■ No other changes.
20
21 Page 71, Fiqure 15: Circulation Map
22
23 Staff:
24 ■ Many of the street sections will be determined by the Downtown Streetscape Improvement Plan.
25 ■ Will check with the Public Works Department to determine whether the number of options in the
26 Plan should be limited with reference to Figures 17-21. Based on the comments from Public
27 Works, the final draft may include fewer options for street sections.
28
29 Commission:
30 ■ Recommends changing how the 'Flood Plain' designation is demarked in Figures 15 & 16 for
31 clarity purposes.
32 ■ Developers might want to know the location of the Flood Plain.
33
34 Staff: Requested leaving the Flood Plain designation only on the DZC Map and remove from the
35 Circulation Map and Special Designations Map.
36
37 Commissioner Sanders: Supports having a pedestrian greenway path in the area that toes out north of
38 Gibson Creek behind a potential parking structure on N. School Street and Henry Street the Commission
39 discussed in section 3: Zoning, Parking Structure and/or Anchor Tenant Opportunity Sites, Preferred and
40 Figure 1 of the Downtown Zoning Code Map. This area is not clearly delineated on the DZC maps and is
41 not located in the DZC boundaries. It may be the Circulation Map is wrong.
42
43 Chair Pruden: Noted the area is privately owned and the lot lines typically extend to the middle of the
44 Gibson Creek.
45
46 Commission discussion:
47 ■ Discussion about where Gibson Creek daylights in the vicinity of the existing City parking lot on
48 School Street and Henry Street relative to possibly providing for a path greenway. There was also
49 discussion about Gibson Creek and where it daylights as it meanders easterly in the DZC area.
50 ■ There was further discussion about the location of Gibson Creek and the proposed location of a
51 parking structure on the Circulation Map.
52
53 Chair Pruden: Recommends checking maps to see where Gibson Creek undergrounds and daylights.
54 Gibson Creek does not underground on Henry Street, but rather swings to the north. In terms of providing
55 for a required pedestrian pathway is that Gibson Creek does not come down Henry Street.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 9
1 Commission consensus:
2 ■ Remove Flood Plain designation from Figure 15.
3 ■ If it can be determined any section of Gibson Creek in the vicinity of Henry Street and N. School
4 Street is in the DZC boundaries, the Commission would like to see a required pedestrian pathway
5 similar to what is stated on page 69, section 11.070 concerning pedestrian paths whereby the
6 green line (required Pedestrian/Bike Path) on the Circulation Map would be extended. Page 72,
7 Figure 16: Special Designations.
8 ■ Make delineations of Gibson Creek on Map clearer.
9
10 Don Larsen: The AAA Map shows Gibson Creek clearly.
11
12 Staff/Commission: Brief discussion why section 11.060 was added, noting a development of this size
13 would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
14
15 Paqe 72, Fiqure 16: Special Desiqnations
16
17 Commission consensus:
18 ■ Remove Flood Plain designation from Figure 16 as this is confusing.
19 ■ Verify accuracy of the location of Gibson Creek.
20
21 Pages 73-77, Figures 17-21 of the Circulation Section
22
23 Commission consensus:
24 ■ Check with Public Works to determine whether the circulation standard options documented in
25 the figures will be maintained or limited.
26
27 Page 78, Fiqure 22: Allev
28
29 Commission consensus:
30 ■ No change.
31
32 Paqe 79, Fiqure 23: Pedestrian Path
33
34 Staff: The figure will reference Caltrans Class I standards.
35
36 Commission consensus:
37 ■ Preferred standard would be Caltrans Class I. If not, for non right-of-way reasons Class II would
38 be acceptable.
39 • The process preference would be for City departments to review the individual standards and
40 determine which of the class structures i.e., Class I, II, or III is appropriate.
41
42 Paqe 80, Section 12: Administration and Procedures
43
44 Commission: Okay with the new language for Section 12.030(B3)concerning LID design principles.
45
46 Commission consensus:
47 ■ No change.
48
49 Paqe 81, Administration and Procedures
50
51 Commission discussion: Concerning subsection C, Findings for SDP, #2 Design and #3 Siting relative
52 to design compatibility with the character in neighborhoods, siting design issues with a muffler building
53 that had burned down on S. State Street and replaced with a metal building. While this building was likely
54 the best looking one in the neighborhood, the Commission was not pleased with the design standards for
55 this commercial building.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 10
1 Commission consensus:
2 ■ Revise 12.030(B12) to read Location of towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio,
3 telecommunications and television masts/poles or other projections.
4
5 Paqe 82, 12.040: Use Permits
6
7 Commission: When the building codes change in January 2011, will the text in the sections referencing
8 these codes have to be amended?
9
10 Staff: No, the reference is to the Building Code. This is intentional so that when the Building Code
11 changes, this Code does not have to be amended.
12
13 Commission consensus:
14 ■ No change.
15
16 Paqe 83, Section 12:120: Non-Conforming Uses, Structures and Parcels & 12:130: Nonconforminq
17 Uses
18
19 Commission:
20 ■ Item D, Illegal use or structure, concern expressed whether grandfathering is a `taking' for an
21 existing buildings.
22 ■ Is the Commission satisfied section 12:130 adequately addresses nonconforming uses?
23
24 Staff:
25 • Clarified there are buildings that are legal and non-conforming and there are building that were
26 not permitted and therefore, illegal. This is the differentiation. A legal and non-conforming building
27 means when initially constructed the building was legally permitted, but the standards are
28 somehow different than they were at the time the building was constructed. This is different from
29 a building that was built or use that was established without the required permits or in compliance
30 with the required standards. In this case, there is no right to continue a use or a structure that was
31 never permitted to begin with.
32 ■ A structure is not `grandfathered in' simply because it is 50 years or older is allowed, or in other
33 words being old does not make a structure legal and non-conforming if it was never permitted in
34 the first place. Staff spends a considerable amount of time researching whether or not
35 'grandfathered in' structures are legal using building records, planning records and assessor
36 records. Uses and structures can change over time. What was once a legally permitted use
37 and/or structure may over time become illegal if the use and/or structure changes were not
38 permitted. Changing in zoning regulations can also have an impact on whether uses and
39 structures are legal and conforming.
40
41 Paqe 83, 12.130: Nonconforminq Uses
42
43 Staff: Referred to Subsection C, Enlargement or expansion of use not allowed, item 1, Nonconforming
44 use of land and item 2, Nonconforming use of a structure, and recommends discussion. The current rule
45 does not allow an addition to a building or construction of a new building in order to expand the non-
46 conforming use. The question is whether the language should be revised to allow a major exception for
47 expansion of a non-conforming use, such as for an addition to a building or construction of a new building
48 with a major use permit. This concern was raised by Jim Mayfield and the possibility of expanding
49 Rainbow Ag as some future time which would not be allowed based on how the Code is currently drafted.
50
51 Commission: A major exception would likely be the most appropriate in this instance.
52
53 Staff:
54 ■ The Commission can also consider a minor exception.
55 ■ If there is an appropriate use that would be a good neighbor and wants to conform to all the
56 design standards of the DZC, what would be the harm in allowing expansion of a non-conforming
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 11
1 use provided the findings of fact can be made to allow this to occur? The consideration would be
2 that the applicant would have to come to the Planning Commission to make the request.
3
4 Commission: Such cases would likely be few and far between and whether or not the applicant could
5 make a case to support expansion of the non-conforming use.
6
7 Staff: Cited an example of an auto repair business in the Downtown where the owner wanted to start
8 over and build a new building on the site. If the new building is consistent with the Code but the use is no
9 longer allowed, should the non-conforming use be allowed to continue and expand if the use will occur in
10 the new building? Requiring a Use Permit would allow the Commission this on a case by case basis
11 subject to public comment and the ability to make the required findings.
12
13 Commission:
14 ■ Agreed, a non-conforming use should be considered, particularly in instances where a new
15 building resulted or if the use fits in the neighborhood.
16 ■ Addressed nonconforming use of a structure and noted it may be the use or what goes on inside
17 the facility provided it complies with health, safety and environmental standards is acceptable in a
18 building that is an improvement from what was existing provided it is compatible with the
19 neighborhood, citing the McCarty auto painting and restoration building project as an example.
20 ■ Also cited examples of mini-storage facility uses next door to professional offices uses in other
21 communities that upheld the same quality landscaping and building design standards as the
22 professional office buildings where the uses could not be distinguished because the architecture
23 was so good. Ukiah is used to seeing mini-storage facilities on large areas of land that are
24 designed to look like such.
25
26 Staff: Another scenario to consider would be a nonconforming use of land where what occurs on the
27 ground outside if screened appropriately and is not a problem, should this use be allowed to expand?
28
29 Commission:
30 ■ This type of scenario may be more difficult and not desirable, particularly with regard to
31 anticipating more multi-story structures on buildings, which changes the viewshed considerably.
32 ■ A building and corresponding design features can actually hide a function just as the McCarty
33 Auto paint and restoration business hides this operation, which may not have been the type of
34 use the neighborhood would like see occur in this area.
35 ■ Single-story buildings are not proposed for the Downtown. Also, most business buildings are not
36 constructed to be single-story because of the cost of land.
37
38 Staff: The question is whether to leave this section as written, which means no expansion of use with
39 regard to nonconforming use of land would be allowed or, allow on a case-by-case basis with a use
40 permit.
41
42 Commission:
43 ■ Okay with nonconforming use of land coming to the Planning Commission as a Major Use Permit.
44 ■ Cited a use permit approved for a local recycling center that operated in a building. The use
45 permit was tied to a building. Unfortunately, the building collapsed, requiring a reevaluation of
46 what should occur. The recycling operation was hidden within the building and no longer hidden
47 when the building collapsed.
48
49 Staff: There may be times when an expansion cannot be approved based on the purpose and intent of
50 the code, public comment, and/or the necessary findings. The Use Permit allows the Commission to at
51 least consider the request.
52
53 Commission consensus:
54 ■ Non-conforming use of land may expand with approval of a Major Use Permit.
55 ■ Non-conforming use may expand through an addition to the structure/building with approval of a
56 Major Use Permit.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 12
1 ■ Non-conforming use may expand through new construction of a building with approval of a Major
2 Use Permit.
3 • This provides the Commission to consider the expansion of the use on a case by case basis and
4 provides the appropriate level of review and an opportunity for public comment as part of the
5 consideration of the expansion.
6
7 Paqes 84 and 85, 12.140: Nonconforminq Structures
8
9 Commission:
10 ■ The process is comprehensive with regard to the various scenarios.
11 ■ Discussion about nonconforming uses and structures.
12
13 Staff:
14 ■ There are two different elements, the use and the structure. There are different non-conforming
15 requirements for each.
16 ■ It is possible to have a conforming use in a non-conforming structure or a non-conforming use in
17 a conforming structure.
18
19 Commission: How is a future lease affected relative to the former Joseph Jewelry building on State
20 Street that was built in 1889 where the interior was destroyed by fire a few years ago?
21
22 Staff: Whatever use comes into the building must conform to the zoning code. The building is non-
23 conforming due to its age.
24
25 Commission consensus:
26 ■ No changes.
27
28 Page 86, 12.050, Nonconforming Parcels
29
30 Commission: Referred to section 12:050(A4), Partial government acquisition and whether the
31 Courthouse should be mentioned in the capacity that provided the parcel was created in compliance with
32 the provisions of DZC, but was made nonconforming with regard to reduction of setback when a portion
33 was acquired by a government entity. How would this work?
34
35 Staff: This section is not relevant to the purchase of the property for the purpose of construction of the
36 courthouse. Gave a personal example of a legally conforming parcel that became non-conforming due to
37 government acquisition for the public right-of-way in order to widen a road, build bike paths and widen
38 sidewalks in which certain parcels became non-conforming as did building setbacks and parking.
39
40 Commission consensus:
41 ■ No change.
42
43 Paqes 86 &87, 13.070, Exemptions
44
45 Commission consensus:
46 ■ Noted grammatical error Section C: Nonconforming due to lack of a Use Permit, item 2 Previous
47 Use Permit in effect and correct spelling of`use' in the sentence.
48 ■ No other changes.
49
50 Paqe 87, Section 12:180: Unlawful Uses and Structures
51
52 Commission consensus:
53 ■ No change.
54
55 Paqe 88, Section 12: Administration, Table 26: Site Development Permit Procedures
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 13
1 Staff: Based on Commission discussion, `New drive-thru facilities' was added to Tier 3 section for Project
2 Type as a Major Site Development Permit based on past discussion concerning uses.
3
4 Commission: Section, Expiration/Revocation, Tier 1, 6 months of no activity and requested clarification
5 regarding `(date of last inspection).' Is this tied to revocation for violation of a use permit?
6
7 Staff: Under the Site Development Permit procedure section for Tier 1, `date of last inspection' refers to
8 the building permit and not the site development permit part of a project so for building permits, 6 months
9 of no activity is determined by date of the last inspection. The building permit would expire if there is no
10 activity as determined by the date of last inspection.
11
12 JR Rose: Requested clarification concerning the Site Development Permit and building permit processes
13 and procedures in terms of expiration of permits and the granting of extensions and inquired about a
14 project discussed at City Council where it was his understanding a permit had expired and the applicant
15 was required to submit another application and again pay the fees.
16
17 Staff:
18 ■ The project referred by Mr. Rose may have been the apartments that were converted to
19 condominiums on Main Street. Do not have the details about the project to make informed
20 comments about the permit process in this case.
21 ■ In terms of extensions, cited the Clara Court housing project concerning a site development
22 permit that had been approved by the Planning Commission as an example of an extension
23 granted for the building permit portion of the project because of issues with obtaining funding for
24 construction. In this case, the applicant was actively seeking funding and working on issuance of
25 the building plans. This was a different type of situation where the building permit was submitted,
26 but not issued because funding was necessary in order to begin construction. After a SDP is
27 approved, an applicant works on submitting plans and when approved a building permit is issued.
28 After the building permit is issued, applicants should be focusing on finishing the work within the
29 permit and there is a 6 month timeframe to complete the process. If after 6 months of no activity
30 or date of last inspection, if there was an inspection, the permit expires. The Clara Court example
31 was different because the building permit was never issued. The building permit had been
32 submitted and was under staff review.
33
34 Commission:
35 ■ With regard to the Main Street condominium project, there are different types of entitlements that
36 can sunset if not used.
37 ■ There have been cases where a building permit was issued, but something unforeseen during the
38 permit process surfaced, such as soil contamination or some other type of issue that prevented
39 the project from moving forward within the timeframe of the permit. There are cases where the
40 Planning Commission continued a SDP permit project several times because of project issues
41 that were unforeseen or that could not readily be resolved. The continuation was granted wherein
42 the applicant would not have to pay for another permit.
43 ■ There are also times when applications are submitted and fees are paid, but the project never
44 'gets off the ground.'
45
46 Staff: Page 88, referred to project type, Tier 2 & 3 and asked the Commission about how the language
47 'less than 1,000 sf of modification to exterior of historic building' was written. The way this language
48 currently reads is if someone wanted to change more than 1,000 sf of exterior surface area of a historic
49 building, a major SDP is required. If less than 1,000 sf is changed, the Zoning Administrator would review
50 the project. The way the language was previously written referred to the 'exterior character of a historic
51 building' and staff was concerned this language was too subjective. If the language just refers to the
52 exterior of a historic building, the word `exterior' is very clear while `exterior character' is not.
53
54 Chair Pruden:
55 ■ Would like the Commission to see projects that involve changes to a historic building.
56 ■ Should changes made refer to the `fa�ade' of a historic building?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 14
1 Staff: The definition of`fa�ade' according to the DZC would mean only that frontage facing the street.
2
3 Commission: What about changes to the back of a historic building?
4
5 Chair Pruden:
6 ■ Is not particularly concerned with changes to the back of historic buildings.
7 ■ Would be concerned about fa�ade changes to the side on a corner building and concluded the
8 language should likely read, `exterior.'
9
10 Staff: Agreed, reference to `exterior' rather than to `fa�ade' would be more in keeping with the intent of
11 Commission objectives expressed during DZC discussions about historic buildings since Ukiah has many
12 historic buildings that have exterior that is visible and where changes might be important, such as to the
13 sides or rear of buildings and not to just the front.
14
15 Commission:
16 ■ 1,000 sf is quite a bit of exterior surface.
17 • Consider a lower threshold.
18 • Most renovations to historic buildings go through the design review process because public
19 funding has been requested via the City of Ukiah Fa�ade Improvement Program. What about
20 changes to historic buildings done by property owners that can afford the improvements and do
21 not go through any level of scrutiny.
22
23 Staff: Modifications to the exterior are required to comply with the requirements included in Table 13,
24 Historic Building Standards. What if this reference is included in this section to inform people of these
25 requirements and the 1,000 sf threshold was retained?Would the Commission find this acceptable?
26
27 Commission: 1,000 sf of modification would be acceptable provided the project was consistent with the
28 standards in Table 13.
29
30 Staff: The requirement would be if the building is 50 years or older and/or on the inventory list of historical
31 structures, the standards in Table 13 apply and if for some reason, the intent of the applicant was not to
32 use those standards, the table indicates whether a minor or major exception is necessary. Table 26 can
33 reference Table 13. Requested the Commission review Table 13 to make certain these are the standards
34 that should be in place for historic structures for further discussion, if necessary.
35
36 Commission consensus:
37 ■ Reference Table 13 (Historic Structure Standards) in Table 16 regarding Project Type, Tier 2 and
38 Tier 3.
39 ■ No other changes.
40
41 Paqe 89, Section 12: Administration, Table 27: Use Permit Procedures
42
43 Commission consensus:
44 ■ No change.
45
46 Paqe 90, Section 12: Administration, Table 28: Exception Procedures
47
48 Commission consensus:
49 ■ No change.
50
51 Glossary
52
53 Commission comment `Feed Store':
54 ■ `Feed Store' is defined and included under'General Retail.'
55 • Should Feed Store be listed under Farm Supply?
56 Staff:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 15
1 ■ 'Feed store' will be defined and listed under `General Retail.' The intent is to allow this use where
2 'General Retail' is allowed.
3 ■ Most farm supply definitions include hydroponic and irrigation supplies as part uses which does
4 not appear to be the type of use intended by the Commission that is the purpose of using the
5 term `feed store.'
6 ■ Feed Store is more appropriate than Farm Supply. Farm Supply suggests much larger equipment
7 than would be appropriate in the Downtown area. Staff will work with Jim Mayfield to craft an
8 appropriate definition.
9 ■ The intent is to focus more on the retail aspect in terms of a feed store rather than farm supply.
10
11 Commission consensus:
12 ■ Page 94: Change Edgeyard to Edge Yard.
13 ■ No other changes.
14
15 Commission comment Restaurant—Formula Fast Food:
16 ■ Definition does not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog stands, or other
17 businesses whose primary function is not the sale of full meals,' and questioned the intent for
18 these establishments was to accept them as non-formula and not label them fast food. That, on
19 the other hand if these establishments were formula fast food restaurants, they would be
20 prohibited.
21 ■ Since definition allows formula ice cream stores, Baskin & Robins would be allowed.
22 ■ Franks Hot Dog stand would be allowed because it is not formula fast food and hot dog stands
23 are not included in the definition whereas a McDonalds that sell hot dogs would be prohibited.
24 ■ Essentially under this definition, Starbucks and Baskin & Robins would be allowed. Ukiah really
25 has no formula hot dog stands or bakeries. Safeway does have a deli component which is
26 branded to them.
27 ■ Okay with Baskin & Robins functioning as a small ice cream shop.
28 ■ The question is whether a Starbucks would come into the Downtown.
29 ■ There are people who do not want to see a Starbucks in the Downtown.
30 ■ City Council will review the final DZC document so the better approach may be to ask for what
31 `you' want to see so if formula franchises are not acceptable in the Downtown, it should not be
32 included in the language.
33
34 Staff: It may be the Commission is fine with the ice cream shop and a hot dog stand, but not a coffee
35 house. The entire list does not have to be kept. Commission can strike the uses that it does not want to
36 exempt from the definition.
37
38 Further Commission Discussion:
39 ■ Defer possible modification to allow for further discussion when all five Commissioners are
40 present.
41
42 11. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
43 Staff commented on the how the meetings will be conducted in December concerning evaluation and
44 final scoping of the Draft DZC before it goes to Council for review and adoption.
45
46 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
47 Chair Pruden attended the new Branches restaurant pre-opening event and stated it was filled. The
48 interior of the building is very nice and the food good.
49
50 13. ADJOURNMENT
51 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
52
53
54 Judy Pruden, Chair
55
56 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 1, 2010
Page 16