HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_12162010 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 December 16, 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 Charley Stump, Planning Director 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 - N/A
28
29 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 27, 2010 & November 1, 2010
30 Commissioner Helland made the following correction:
31 Page 8, Line 10-12, sentence should read: `Updating the City's Master Tree List is important since an
32 applicant or property owner has to select trees from this list when required to plant street trees and the list
33 is outdated and includes species that are not good street trees for Ukiah's climate.'
34
35 M/S Helland/Whetzel to approve October 27, 2010 minutes, as amended. Motion carried. (5-0).
36
37 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve November 1, 2010 minutes as submitted. Motion carried (3-0) with
38 Commissioners Whetzel and Molgaard abstaining.
39
40 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
41 None.
42
43 7. APPEAL PROCESS- N/A
44
45 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- N/A
46
47 9. OLD BUSINESS—WORKSHOP
48 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop Update. Conduct a public workshop to review and discuss
49 the completed draft of the Downtown Zoning Code, submit and review of Design Photos, and
50 conduct Practice Exercises using the draft Code.
51
52 Staff: Requests the Commission review, discuss and provide direction regarding the complete draft of the
53 Downtown Zoning Code. Submittal of design photos and practice exercises of the draft code will be
54 conducted at a later date.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 1
1 The changes requested by the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the document and a
2 summary of the changes were included in the staff report for each section.
3
4 Armand Brint: Thanked the Planning Commission for supporting the exclusion of alcohol outlets and
5 fast-food establishments in the Downtown. Referred to page 102 of the DZC document and noted there is
6 potentially an exemption for coffee shops in the Downtown. He requests the Planning Commission allow
7 only locally owned coffee businesses as opposed to corporate franchises in the Downtown.
8
9 Steve Scallmanini:
10 • Referred to page 102, Restaurant — Formula Fast Food, recommends inserting `and' at end of
11 sentence to subsection A.
12 • Asked for information concerning the remaining process for getting the document approved by
13 City Council.
14 • Supports having more discussion concerning `formula businesses' and `formula fast food.'
15 • Referred to the Restaurant — Formula Fast Food section that states, `Formula businesses shall
16 not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog stands, or other businesses whose
17 primary function is not the sale of full meals' and requested further discussion about this
18 language.
19
20 Commission: Asked if the Commission will vote tonight with a recommendation to Council for approval
21 of the draft DZC.
22
23 Staff:
24 • The Commission will have another opportunity to review the complete document, discuss
25 submittal of design photos and conduct practice exercises for use of the Code at the regular
26 January 12, 2011 meeting before the Commission votes to make a recommendation to Council
27 for approval.
28 • Staff is considering a process in which the Planning Commission can participate in presenting the
29 DZC document to Council.
30 • Referred to page 102, Restaurant — Formula Fast Food, subsection C and noted there was
31 considerable Commission discussion at the last meeting about whether ice cream shops and
32 coffeehouses should be allowed as formula businesses. The final decision concerning formula
33 fast food and the language the Commission recommends in the DZC document for this section
34 was deferred until Commissions Whetzel and Molgaard were present.
35
36 Commission: Questioned the difference between a Starbucks and a Coffee Critic or the candy shop
37 'Expressions' and Baskins Robins and rather these establishments can be legally distinguished between.
38
39 Commissioner Helland noted three legal challenges have been made prohibiting certain formula fast
40 food establishments across the country and the decisions were upheld.
41
42 Commission: It may be necessary to know the wording for those decisions that were upheld versus the
43 legal challenges that have not been upheld.
44
45 Staff: The Commission should decide on a preference. The City Attorney will also be looking at this
46 section of the document.
47
48 Commissioner Helland commented in response there are dozens of ordinances in cities throughout the
49 country prohibiting formula fast food establishments that have never been legally challenged.
50
51 Commission comments:
52 • Is the concern about formula fast food businesses or all formula businesses? For example, is
53 'The Gap' or Sears considered a formula business? The language on page 102 says, 'formula
54 businesses shall not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, .........' Should the language say,
55 'formula fast food shall not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog stands, or
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 2
1 other businesses whose primary function is not the sale of full meals.' The language should be
2 clear.
3 • Discussion whether to strike `coffeehouses' from this language. While it may not be difficult to
4 define franchise formula fast food would it be in the best economic interest of the community to
5 prohibit franchise coffeehouses in the Downtown?
6 • Discussion whether the best approach would be to allow only locally owned coffee shops in the
7 Downtown.
8 • Would it be economically feasible to say `no' to a franchise coffee shop, for instance, and possibly
9 wait indefinitely for a locally owned coffee shop to come to the Downtown? Some franchises are
10 owned by one person and therefore would be considered locally owned.
11 • The intent of a form based code is to allow and encourage most any businesses to come as long
12 as they are not inappropriate, such as adult entertainment, provided they meet the Code criteria.
13 • The question is whether just allowing for `locally owned' businesses and outright prohibiting
14 franchise businesses in the Downtown is an economically feasible approach. The subject of
15 'buying locally' is a whole different topic. A more effective approach would be if the City had an
16 ordinance recognizing businesses that are pro community and support employees by providing a
17 living wage and benefits.
18 • Would it be a problem if Baskin Robbins or Cold Stone Ice Cream shop moved to the Downtown?
19 • The difference is that unlike Starbucks there are not many Baskin Robbins or Cold Stone
20 creamery shops in the community. Does Ukiah need another Starbucks in the Downtown area?
21 • Baskin Robbins and Cold Stone are formula businesses. Would it be appropriate to say `no' if
22 these businesses wanted to come to the Downtown?
23 • Again, it is unlikely there would be a barrage of Baskin Robbins or Cold Stone establishments
24 desiring to operate in the Downtown whereas they are already many Starbucks establishments
25 operating in Ukiah. Ukiah should support and encourage locally owned coffee shops in the
26 Downtown. It may be that Ukiah should support locally owned businesses as much as possible.
27 • During the course of discussions concerning the DZC, there has been a lot of public testimony in
28 support of limiting/restricting `chain' businesses that include formula fast food with preference to
29 supporting locally owned businesses.
30 • The intent of the DZC document is to allow businesses to come to the Downtown provided they
31 comply with the Code requirements/criteria and not necessarily about restricting/prohibiting
32 businesses because they are formula fast food or formula/franchise as opposed to locally owned.
33 • The intent is to have businesses in the Downtown not exclude them.
34 • Should the Commission be moving from making decisions about the design aspects of the DZC
35 document to making economic decisions that may not necessarily benefit the community? It is
36 important to support locally owned businesses when possible.
37 • Why potentially strike `coffeehouses' and not `bakeries' from the bold language?
38 • Want to encourage people to spend money in the Downtown. Want to have reputable businesses
39 that pay taxes and care about the community.
40 • Is it the intent to tell every formula business they cannot come into the Downtown?
41 • Questioned if it is the economic preference to give an advantage to local businesses because
42 they have a vested interest in many facets of the community, why is this message not being
43 communicated more broadly than just with regard to `formula fast food restaurants'? What about
44 local tax accountant/CPA Judy Waterman versus formula business H&R Block? Does H&R Block
45 invest locally? If there is a commitment to give an advantage to locally owned businesses and
46 contractors, this doctrine should be communicated in the document.
47 • Noted Section 1—Purpose, subsection H, states one of the purposes is `to support local
48 businesses and create a vibrant commercial downtown.'
49
50 Staff: The question is how should the bolded language in the Restaurant — Formula Fast Food section
51 that reads, `Formula businesses shall not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog
52 stands, or other businesses whose primary function is not the sale of full meals' be treated? The types of
53 businesses listed in the bold language are excluded from `formula businesses.' Should there be no
54 exclusions? Should the language be retained or eliminated entirely? Are these potential formula
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 3
1 businesses good for the Downtown and/or would they take away from the opportunity for locally owned
2 such businesses wanting to come to the Downtown?
3
4 Commission Helland: While there are prohibitions/restrictions in cities about certain formula businesses
5 operating in their communities, the preference across the country regarding prohibition/restriction on fast
6 food and/or drive-thru establishments is about health concerns and aesthetics as it relates to litter,
7 character, traffic and pollution.
8
9 Commission:
10 • three Commissioners support the language as written
11 • one in support of deleting the exceptions to formula fast food restaurants
12 • one supports deleting 'coffeehouses'from the exceptions to formula fast food restaurants
13
14 Commission consensus:
15 • No change to the language in Restaurant—Formula Fast Food sections A-C.
16 • Retain the bold language in the Restaurant, Formula Fast Food section that reads, `Formula
17 businesses shall not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog stands, or other
18 businesses whose primary function is not the sale of full meals.'
19
20 Page 14, Table 3, Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
21
22 Commission: While there is a definition for `feed store', this use is not listed in the `retail' section and is
23 this because the 'Agricultural equipment sales and rental' use is listed in the table even though this use is
24 prohibited in all three zones.
25
26 Staff: `Feed store' is considered `general retail' even though it has its own definition. The definition of
27 'General Retail' lists feed store as an example. `Feed store' definition does not include the sale, rental or
28 repair of farm machinery and equipment. This is separately defined as `Agricultural equipment sales or
29 rental' and covers selling supplies for farm and ranching. The definition of 'feed store' does not include
30 irrigation supplies and the like since it does not seem that this type of supply which is often associated
31 with marijuana growing operations is a use that the Commission wants to encourage downtown.
32
33 Paqe 44, Fiqure 10: Courthouse Square Renderinq
34
35 Commission: The consensus of the Commission in past discussions was to change the title of the
36 rendering to read, `Civic Building.'
37
38 Staff: The aforementioned is in reference to page 43, Figure 9: Civic Building Concept.
39
40 Commission consensus:
41 • Change title of rendering for Figure 9 & 10 to `Civic Square.'
42
43 Paqe 45, Fiqure 11, State Street Renderinq
44
45 Commission: Should `Civic Space' section be modified? The purpose of this section about civic spaces
46 pertains to the possible relocation of the County library to the Courthouse building in the event the
47 Courthouse relocates.
48
49 Commission consensus:
50 • Civic Space, modify language to read, `A square or plaza is located in front of the civic building' to
51 be consistent with `civic space' language.
52
53 The Commission commended staff for preparing an excellent document.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 4
1 Commissioner Helland highlighted minor edits/grammatical corrections to the document for staff's
2 review.
3
4 Paqe 26, Section 6, Site and Buildinq Development Standards
5
6 Commission:
7 • No reference to footnote 3, See section 12, Administration and Procedures, in table.
8
9 Staff: Clarified footnote is referenced in the `Modification to Standard' column.
10
11 Paqe 32, Section 6, Site Planning and Development Standards
12
13 Commission:
14 • Footnote 4: `Subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department to ensure adequate
15 sight distance. No exception allowed to increase height due to safety' is not referenced in any
16 section of page 32.
17
18 Staff: This footnote is used on page 33 and not page 32. Footnotes are intended for the entire document
19 and may not be referenced on every page.
20
21 Page 35, Table 10, Landscaping Standards for All Developments
22
23 Commission: Section Trees, Street Trees — spacing, Modification to Standards, does not specify
24 whether applicable or not.
25
26 Staff: Modification to Standard should read, `N/A.' The intent is to find a way to plant the trees. Will
27 include a reference in the tree section that addresses spacing.
28
29 Paqe 36, Table 10, Landscapinq Standards for All Developments continued
30
31 Commission: Replacement — tree, shrub, groundcover, `Replacement shall conform to the standards
32 that govern the original planting, approved landscaping plan, or as approved by the Planning Director,'
33 and inquired how long do the landscaping standards for maintenance apply?
34
35 Staff: They should apply in perpetuity unless no landscaping is required for a project.
36
37
38 Paqe 49, Section 9, Parkinq Standards and Procedures
39
40 Commission: Table 14, `Retail' does not indicate whether should be minor or major exception.
41
42 Staff: Should be Major Exception.
43
44 Commission consensus:
45 • It was noted section 9.030, Reduction of Required Vehicle Parking, should be corrected to read,
46 'The parking required by Table 14 may be reduced in compliance with the following?'
47 • Change Retail parking requirement to `Major Exception'
48
49 Paqe 59, Section 10, Tree Preservation and Plantinq Requirements
50
51 Commission consensus:
52 • Public Utility Damage, modify sentence to read, 'To protect existing electrical power or
53 communication lines.'
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 5
1 Paqe 62, Table 20, Landmark Trees on Private Property
2
3 Commissioner Sanders/Commission consensus:
4 • To confirm number of trees and species for the Perkins Street at Pear Tree Center.
5 • A total of 11 Coast Redwood trees were counted in the vicinity of Perkins Street and Orchard
6 Avenue. Is of the opinion these trees are within the DZC boundaries.
7 • The Elm on Perkins Street at Realty World has been removed.
8 • Willows in Gibson Creek at School Street near Henry Street too numerous to count. Initially
9 concerned whether DZC Circulation Map is accurate with regard to the discussion about future
10 parking. Confirmed the parcel of primary concern is privately owned where a pedestrian pathway
11 was a discussion consideration.
12 • California Bay listed in table, 400 Block North School Street, former Cheesecake Mama actually
13 not located in DZC boundary and should be eliminated from table.
14 • Change `Gibson Creek Drainage'to `Gibson Creek Corridor.'
15 • Staff consider providing for a better description for'Former Cheesecake Mama.'
16 • Black Oak at 400 Block North School Street is a Valley Oak and there are two of them.
17 • There are actually six Valley Oaks on Perkins Street on Romes BBQ/Dragon's Lair and Perkins
18 Street at Rainbow Ag/Romes BBQ properties.
19 • To reconfirm whether some trees listed in table are actually in the DZC boundaries in the Perkins
20 Street/Orchard Avenue area.
21 • Other trees species that were not listed in the tree section were identified and asked for these to
22 be included in the Willow tree section or riparian corridor section of the table.
23
24 Discussion about the Downtown Zoning Code Map and its accuracy relative to determining such issues
25 as to whether a particular tree species is actually located in the DZC boundaries and how to calculate
26 future plantings as parking lots and/or configurations on parcels change or even count groups of trees
27 where some are located in DZC boundaries and some are located just outside.
28
29 Commissioner Molgaard will provide staff with recommendations to the document that have legal
30 implications.
31
32 Paqe 91, Section 13, Glossary
33
34 Commission consensus:
35 Section 13.010— Purpose
36 • Change `Downtown Commercial Zoning Code'to `Downtown Zoning Code.'
37
38 Staff:
39 • Asked the Commission to submit photographs of preferred building/architectural designs for the
40 Downtown Zoning Code.
41 • Recommended that the Figures currently included in the Code be made part of a separate design
42 appendix rather than being codified in order to allow the examples to be changed over time
43 without having to go through an ordinance amendment.
44
45 Commission consensus: Amenable to the aforementioned recommendation.
46
47 Staff referred to Section 12, Administration and Procedures, Enlargement or Expansion of Use Not
48 Allowed section and noted staff has modified this section to address the Rainbow Ag discussion example
49 and asked the Commission to comment on the revised section to allow non-conforming uses of land and
50 structures to expand with approval of a major use permit and the other revision that would allow
51 relocation of a nonconforming use into a new building.
52
53 Commission:
54 • Rainbow Ag is an example of a non-conforming use of land and structures wherein a major use
55 permit would be required if the business wanted to expand to Clay Street for example.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 6
1 Staff: Clarified if Rainbow Ag wants to expand that part of the business that complies with the general
2 retail definition, a use permit is not required because this would be an allowed use. If Rainbow Ag wants
3 to expand that part of the business that is the agricultural rental and sales of equipment, then a major use
4 permit would be required.
5
6 Commission: The use table indicates agricultural equipment sales or rental is not allowed in any of the
7 three zones and asked whether this is the intent?
8
9 Staff: It is intentional and this is the reason it is a non-conforming use. Rainbow Ag currently operates
10 that part of the business under a use permit which is included in the use table as a prohibited use. The
11 revision to the non-conforming use section allows an expansion with approval of a Major Use Permit.
12
13 Commission: Does the above discussion pertain to all non-conforming uses in the Downtown area or
14 just for ag businesses?
15
16 Staff: Pertains to any use that the DZC would make non-conforming. Another example that was
17 discussed was the automotive business located in the downtown area and while it is not an attractive use,
18 if there was a desire to construct a building that conforms to code requirements the Planning Commission
19 agreed the use should be considered as part of an application for a Major Use Permit.
20
21 Commission consensus:
22 Enlargement or Expansion of Use Not Allowed section.
23 • No change
24
25 Commissioner Sanders: Asked if there could be an appendix to the document that would include
26 examples of LID designs for parking lots for applicants to look at. Page 51, subsection G, Reduction of
27 Water Pollution and Stormwater Run-Off addresses permeable surfacing for parking lots.
28
29 It was noted Ukiah has examples of parking lots that use permeable surfacing and bio-swales.
30
31 Staff: The procedure would be to provide LID examples in an appendix that would be incorporated into
32 the document by reference.
33
34 Commission consensus:
35 LID Examples
36 • Supports staff's above recommendation regarding LID examples.
37
38 Section 6: Site Planning and Development Standards, Setbacks and Layers
39
40 Commission: DZC page 30 concerning setbacks wherein staff has created new figures for building
41 setbacks and asked for clarification about the reason this was done.
42
43 Staff: New figures were created for building setbacks and layers since the previous figures did not seem
44 to provide a clear illustration of these concepts. Staff also revised the text in the table to provide additional
45 explanation of layers.
46
47 Commission consensus:
48 Practice Exercises
49 • Conduct practice exercises before recommending Council review and approve the DZC
50 document.
51
52 10. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
53 Planning Director Stump reported as follows:
54 • The proposed Courthouse relocation project is progressing; commented on the proposed
55 architectural design and noted project issues are being addressed.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 7
1 • The City is in the second review of the General Plan Housing Element with HCD. Most of
2 comments from HCD are related primarily to statutory requirements. Staff is working on
3 responses to the comments.
4 • The City is working closely with LAFCO's planning committee regarding the Sphere of Influence
5 and corresponding Municipal Service Review in conjunction with a Concept Planned
6 Development in the Brush Street Triangle.
7 • A draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan has been released for review. Planning staff has this document on
8 disk and will provide the Planning Commission with a hard copy.
9 • The administrative draft for the Walmart Extension EIR should be available for public review
10 soon.
11 • Discussions concerning Costco are continuing.
12 • Commended Jennifer Faso and Kim Jordan for their work on the new Fa�ade Improvement
13 Program and Building Improvement Program. Planning and Community Services staff and RDA
14 persons have been working on the program changes. City Council is pleased with the revised
15 program outcome.
16 • The City is eligible for grant funding for improvements to the Grace Hudson Museum Park.
17 • Grant funding is being used to assist with construction of the Gobbi Riverside Park project.
18 • Street improvements have been completed for Babcock Lane.
19 • Other City plans are being updated that include the Water Management Plan.
20 • City is working on a recycled water master plan.
21
22 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
23 Commissioner Helland:
24 • Is pleased the City is a grant recipient for the rail trail project.
25 • Pleased to report a collaborative group including the City of Ukiah, City of Fort Bragg, County
26 health workers and other associated agencies were successful in obtaining a grant having to do
27 with climate change and greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
28
29 There was a brief discussion about Downtown revitalization and the associated goals, noting this matter
30 is ongoing and a very important element for the community.
31
32 Commissioner Whetzel has submitted some design photos to planning staff.
33
34 Commissioner Sanders: City Council adopted most of the Planning Commission recommendations for
35 continuing the tree advisory group and work is being done on the City's Master Tree List. No changes
36 were made to the City tree maintenance guideline document that was recently adopted by Council.
37
38 Chair Pruden: The economic task force is again moving forward between the Ukiah Chamber of
39 Commerce and the Main Street Program regarding ways to revitalize the Downtown and commented on
40 some of the shortfalls involved with this process. It is possible the former `antique mall' in the Downtown
41 may become a wine tasting room.
42
43 12. ADJOURNMENT
44 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
45
46
47 Judy Pruden, Chair
48
49 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
50
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 8