HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_09232009 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 September 23, 2009
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Listed below, Respectively
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
13 Charley Stump, Director of Planning None
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
26 Everyone cited the pledge of Allegiance.
27
28 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
29
30 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 26, 2009 minutes deferred to September 24, 2009
31 meeting.
32
33 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
34 Marvin Trotter: Local physician supports that new developments of fast food restaurants and drive-
35 thru restaurants included not be allowed in all three of the Downtown Zoning Code District citing
36 health problems/risks associated with eating fried foods over time as the reason. Ukiah already has a
37 number of fast food restaurants in the Downtown area. The Mendocino County Health Department
38 has the statistics to support that eating fast food regularly poses a health risk and that maintaining a
39 well-balanced diet consisting of fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods is very important.
40
41 Staff requested clarification as to the definition of fast food restaurants and drive-thru restaurants. Dr.
42 Trotter stated that he is referring to establishments with a "fried food componenY' that serve primarily
43 foods that are high in fat and high in sugar, such as McDonald's and Taco Bell. He does not consider
44 Subway"fast food."
45
46 7. APPEAL PROCESS- N/A
47
48 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Downtown Zoning Code Workshop # 4 and General Plan
49 Housing Element were properly noticed in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah
50 Municipal Code.
51
52 9. PUBLIC HEARING
53 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop #4. Review and Discussion of Section 5: Development
54 Standards and Section 7: Historical Building Standards.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 1
1 Section 5: Site and Buildinq Standards
2 Table 4: Site Development Standards with Table 4 & 6 Illustrations, Fiqure: block perimeter
3 and lot lines
4 Paqe 16
5
6 Planning Commission: Are incentives/density bonuses a consideration for the Downtown Zoning
7 Code?
8
9 Staff: Incentives will be addressed in the Administration section.
10
11 Planning Commission: How will original lots be treated and will exceptions be made?
12
13 Staff:
14 ■ Lot Standards —The lot size and dimensions standards do not apply to existing legal parcels.
15 These standards apply to new subdivisions of property as noted in Table 4.
16 ■ Table 4 includes an exception that allows lot sizes to be smaller than the stated size when
17 development of the parcels that will be created is included as part of the project. This was
18 included based on prior experience with a form based code where exceptions to lot size were
19 not allowed under any circumstances. This exception allows the City to review smaller lot
20 sizes and associated development as one project and to determine if the lot size is adequate
21 and project consistent with the purpose and other applicable sections of the Code. By
22 allowing this type of review, the City is less likely to lose an opportunity for a quality project
23 due only to lot size limitations.
24
25 Staff: `Table 4 Illustrations' for Table 4 (Site Development Standards) exhibit the following for a new
26 subdivision:
27 • That the block perimeter is measured at the back of the sidewalk;
28 • Lot line in relation to corner lot, interior lot, lot width/depth, street frontage, alley for
29 the different building types: courtyard, rearyard, sideyard and edgyard/other.
30
31 Planning Commission: Is there an example in town demonstrating how `Table 4 Illustrations' would
32 work? How are alleys configured into the standards in terms of ineasurement?
33
34 Staff: The depiction would apply to a new subdivision or redevelopment of a lot. Alleys are not
35 factored into the block perimeter. That is the purpose of the block perimeter illustration—to insure that
36 everyone understands how it is measured.
37
38 Chair Pruden estimated that initially standard block perimeters in the Downtown were likely surveyed
39 at approximately an acre where presently block perimeters measure at approximately 40,000 square
40 feet allowing for public right-of-ways and/or compliance with other zoning requirements. Additionally,
41 common lot sizes are approximately 25 by 100 square feet. The lot standards for the DZC with the
42 exception of the alley resembles to what has been established since 1860.
43
44 Don Larsen:
45 ■ It appears the lot standards are typically representative of residential zoning.
46 ■ Questioned how corner lots should be treated.
47 ■ Recalled an instance where necessary step improvements for an old SFD were not allowed
48 because they would encroach into the public right-of-way since front building code
49 regulations differed from current standards. The stairs ended up encroaching into the
50 driveway and affected on-site circulation for the house. How would this matter be addressed
51 in the DZC?
52
53 Staff:
54 ■ The size standards are intended to be large enough to ensure that the parcel can developed,
55 especially when property is subdivided but the development is not proposed as part of the
56 subdivision of the property.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 2
1 ■ Corner lots in this city are treated as having two fronts so the front and street side setbacks
2 are the same.
3 ■ With regard to older single family dwellings and possible encroachments into the public right-
4 of-way, this would not likely be a problem with form based zoning because in most areas the
5 setback is zero so a property owner would be able to go to the property line. What often
6 occurs with older homes is that the building code requirements for stairs that have likely
7 changed since the original construction, compliance with the new requirements can result in
8 the stairs encroaching into the right-of-way which is not permissible. This often results in
9 having to modify the stairs in some way.
10
11 Staff: Asked if the `Block Perimeter' maximum standards are acceptable. Many of the block
12 perimeters in the Downtown area measure between 800 and 1000 lineal feet. The Downtown Core
13 (DC) is what is perceived as being the downtown. Table 4 indicates for a new development the
14 maximum block perimeter would be 1000 lineal feet compared to the UC or GU where the maximum
15 block perimeters would be 1400 and 1500 linear square feet.
16
17 Planning Commission: Could an anchor building in the downtown core effectively take up 2000
18 linear square feet according to Table 4 and/or the equivalent of two blocks?
19
20 Staff: This standard pertains to potentially creating a new block because the property is being
21 subdivided or possibly developed with an anchor building and/or with structured parking. In this case,
22 Table 4 allows a block perimeter of 2000 lineal feet which is the largest block perimeter allowed. The
23 anchor building and/or parking structure would need to be included as part of the subdivision in order
24 to consider the larger block perimeter.
25
26 Planning Commission: The area of between E. Clay and E. Perkins Street that extends to the
27 railroad tracks is a large parcel and has a great potential for redevelopment. It is the equivalent of four
28 blocks because there is no intersecting block. E. Church Street does not intersect. How would this
29 apply to the block perimeter standards? It appears an alley would have to be developed through the
30 entire parcel. A different standard may apply depending upon the type of development, particularly if
31 the development was an anchor building.
32
33 Staff: The block perimeter pertains just to the outside part of the parcel and does not include the
34 alley as shown in the Illustration. Alternatives to providing alleys and/or streets in order to comply with
35 block perimeter and access standards will be discussed in the Circulation section. One question that
36 arises is - When looking at a block perimeter with a certain type of development does it always
37 require a street or in some places does it more sense to have public access with no vehicles? The
38 type of access desired may depend upon the nature of the development proposed.
39
40 Planning Commission: The area in the vicinity of E. Standley and E. Smith Street also has great
41 redevelopment potential to include higher density opportunities for the Downtown area. This area
42 basically allows for a larger block perimeter (max. 1000 linear square feet for DC) compared to those
43 typically seen in the Downtown core consisting of approximately 800 linear square feet. Originally,
44 these block perimeters in the Downtown were larger, but because of allowance for sidewalk/street
45 widths such blocks are smaller.
46
47 Planning Commission: It helps to focus on a particular parcel to effectively visualize how the block
48 perimeters and lot standards would apply.
49
50 Don Larsen: The City fire department would have input as to access for their vehicles/equipment
51 with regard to large lots.
52
53 Staff: There is an alley section in the circulation standards that addresses access for emergency
54 vehicles. The City Fire Department would essentially have to `sign-off' on compliance with the
55 standards.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 3
1 Lisa Mammina: Questioned how her historical building complies with the DZC lot standards/block
2 perimeter requirements. How should infill developments fit with these standards in Table 4 since
3 some properties are less than 1000 lineal feet?
4
5 Staff: Clarified `block perimeter' refers to an entire block as opposed to a single lot. The maximum
6 lineal feet allowed for a block perimeter is 1000 linear square feet for DC zone. The lot standards in
7 Table 4 apply to new subdivisions and do not apply to existing lots.
8
9 Senior Planner Jordan asked if everyone is comfortable with the lot size standards in Table 4 as if
10 subdividing into new lot with regard to size and dimensions for the lots.
11
12 Planning Commission: Were these lot sizes and dimensions the result of an average of what is
13 existing for lots?
14
15 Senior Planner Jordan: It is her experience working with the DZC and processing subdivision
16 applications that in order to ensure a parcel that a minimum of 30 feet X 70 feet is needed in order to
17 create a parcel that can be developed. Without these minimum dimensions, it is nearly impossible to
18 provide for the necessary improvements and still get the building built in a way that complies with all
19 the standards. If land is subdivided and no development is proposed, the minimum standards in Table
20 4 must be met to make certain the land is buildable. Alternatively, if the land is to be subdivided and
21 development of the parcels is proposed as part of the project, a smaller lot size may be appropriate
22 and the City would have the ability to review the project and lot size.
23
24 Planning Commission: It was noted the lot width of 30 feet and lot depth of 70 feet are minimum
25 standards and footnote 4 states `No minimum when development is proposed and constructed as part
26 of the subdivision.' Footnote 5 states, 'No minimum lot size or dimensions required for condominium
27 projects.'
28
29 Planning Commission: It was further noted the linear feet for block perimeters represent maximum
30 square footage.
31
32 Chair Pruden asked how the standards would apply to a block, for instance between E. Clay Street
33 and E. Perkins Street, and it is less than the square footage for the DC zone, but is a legal parcel that
34 does allow for a zero lot line?
35
36 Staff: Existing legal parcels are acknowledged, but when a new subdivision is proposed the
37 standards in Table 4 would apply.
38
39 Planning Commission: The legal parcels would be too small to subdivide, but there may be an
40 interest in redeveloping or developing.
41
42 Staff:
43 ■ If no subdivision is proposed, the lot standards would not apply. If the property is not large
44 enough to meet the lot standards stated in Table 4, the property could not be subdivided.
45
46 ■ Page 17 — Table 5 illustrates the location of each building type (Sideyard, Rearyard,
47 Courtyard, Edgeyard) relative to the frontage lines and lot lines of a parcel, as well as
48 identifies uses often associated with each building type and which building type is allowed in
49 each of three zones. The building types are also shown on Tables 4 and 6 `Illustrations'
50 demonstrate how they look on an actual lot.
51 Planning Commission: The City does not really have `Courtyard' building types, but rather were
52 established after the fact when the back porches/covered storage areas of old buildings were
53 removed opening up a courtyard-like setting. Examples were discussed.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 4
1 Chair Pruden asked if the City Parking District would be allowed to continue with the DZC in place
2 and/or or will the boundaries be built into the Code? Buildings in the Downtown can be exempt from
3 providing parking because of the City Parking District.
4
5 Staff: While not confirmed, continuance of the existing City Parking District is intended to be
6 acknowledged. This will be included in the Parking section of the DZC which will be reviewed by the
7 Planning Commission.
8
9 Chair Pruden: Parking lease agreements are also common in the Downtown. For instances when the
10 First Baptist Church was remodeled, a parking arrangement was made with the Savings Bank of
11 Mendocino County to accommodate overflow parking on Sundays.
12
13 Staff: Whether or not parking must be provided in the Downtown is another issue. From a planning
14 perspective, the arrangement described above is a situation where an alternative means of providing
15 parking is made available offsite. Different options concerning parking/shared parking will be
16 addressed in the `Parking' section, including opportunities for possibly reducing parking for projects.
17
18 Paqe 18—Table 6: Principal Buildinq Standards
19
20 Planning Commission: Questioned 2 stories min/2 stories max for GU is correct and for all
21 references thereof.
22
23 Staff: Confirmed 2 stories minimum and 2 stories maximum for GU is correct, Building height, New
24 Building and all other references should read the same. Height must also meet any applicable Airport
25 Height limitations.
26
27 Planning Commission: How are stories defined?
28
29 Staff: Page 20 addresses building height and the figures illustrate the building height for building
30 types. Building height measurement must comply with the following:
31
32 1. Building height is determined by the number of stories, not including a raised basement.
33 2. Each story shall not exceed 14 feet clear.
34 3. Height is measured to the eave of sloped roof or the surface of a flat roof. The roof above the
35 eave and the parapet are excluded from the height measurement.
36 4. Building heights may be superseded by height restrictions from the Ukiah Airport Master
37 Plan.
38
39 Chair Pruden: The building setbacks for each of the three zones as shown in Table 6 for building
40 front, side and rear yards, including setbacks for shopfronts, rearyard for corner lot no alley and rear
41 with alley differ from the current setback min/max standards using such figures as 6, 10, 12 feet.
42 Should the typical setback standards of 5, 10, 15, 20 feet be maintained for consistency purposes?
43
44 Staff: Does not recommend changing the '12 fooY setback figure where applicable for shopfronts
45 as shown in Table 6 because this figure came directly from the SmartCode consultants and they have
46 professional expertise in working with the Form Based Zoning Code and providing for a good
47 pedestrian orientation/environment. It is unlikely '12 feeY is a random number and is actually
48 necessary to provide an adequate setback for outdoor activities, such as sidewalk cafes. Also, the
49 intent is to reduce the setbacks since the DZC area is more urban in nature and the 15 and 20 foot
50 setbacks are typically more suburban and residential.
51
52 Planning Commission: There was discussion how compliance with sidewalk widths/ADA standards
53 factor into the setbacks requirements for sidewalk cafe/storefronts. Table 4 `Illustrations'
54 demonstrates the location of sidewalks in relation to the lot line for the different building types.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 5
1 Planning Commission: There was discussion concerning `frontage buildout' noting the various
2 minimum percentages for the different building types in each of the three zones.
3
4 Staff:
5 ■ The setbacks apply to the building location and are measured from the property line. The
6 sidewalk is different and is located in the right-of-way. The setback for storefronts and
7 sidewalk cafes is in addition to the public sidewalk. Sidewalks are required to provide the
8 ADA width.
9 ■ Noted the remaining percentages could be used for landscaping, access, or parking. Pointed
10 out for Rearyard building developments, for instance, are allowed to build further across a lot
11 leaving more area in the back of the lot wherein the setback would be shorter as shown in
12 Table 6 and illustrated in Table 4:Illustrations. Table 4:Illustrations compares `Rearyard,
13 Sideyard, and Courtyard buildings in relation to how they would appear on a lot in compliance
14 with the building standards in Table 6.
15
16 There was a brief discussion about monitoring of sandwich board/A-frame signs that often are placed
17 in the public right-of-way on the sidewalks instead of off to the side and the problems to pedestrians.
18
19 Table 6 Addresses
20 ■ The number of buildings for principle and accessory buildings and building standards for
21 existing buildings relative to setbacks, height, and frontage types.
22
23 ■ `frontage type' as defined on page 21, Table 7: Private Frontage Types. Some of these
24 frontage types are prohibited in some of the zoning code districts, such as the arcade in the
25 GU zone. However, an arcade is allowed in the UC and DC zones. Page 21, item (f) Arcade
26 explains how this type of design would work and for what purpose. A gallery or
27 shopfronUawning is allowed in each of the three zoning districts. The associated footnote for
28 these types of design requires review of the Zoning Map for locations of`Required Storefront
29 Frontages.'
30
31 Senior Planner Jordan inquired whether everyone was comfortable with the `Frontage types' and
32 where they are allowed in the different zoning districts.
33
34 Planning Commission: Asked about the asterisk for Table 7, item (d), shopfront and awning and a
35 reference to.
36
37 Staff: Typographical error; delete.
38
39 Planning Commission: Commission Molgaard asked about a three-story building where the third
40 story encroaches over the lot line/sidewalk while the first two stories do not?
41
42 Staff: If the building is an arcade, this encroachment would be allowed for the second story. The
43 code does allow bay windows and balconies to encroach into the public right-of-way. This type of
44 design could be balcony or bay window design approach, and is a typical urban form and
45 encroachment over a sidewalk would need approval by the public works department.
46
47 Planning Commission: The Commission discussed the concept of balconies and bay-windows and
48 whether they should be allowed. They should be acceptable provided the design is in good taste.
49 Second/third story balconies/bay windows were common on Victorian buildings in early Ukiah history.
50 Over the years many of these design features were removed and stucco applied.
51
52 Planning Commission: Can a balcony extend the full width of the sidewalk or are there restrictions?
53
54 Staff: The way the Code is written would allow a balcony/bay window, for instance, to encroach
55 over the entire width of the sidewalk. Page 21 displays how street trees are affected by frontage
56 types. Street trees would be lost for the gallery or arcade type of design. Table 7 also displays the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 6
1 relationship between private frontages and public frontages for each design type and how they can
2 work for each of the three zones, as well as identifies which are allowed.
3
4 Commissioner Sanders: Do not want to lose the street trees. Should not allow the gallery and
5 arcade frontage type if it means losing the trees.
6
7 Commissioner Whetzel inquired as to the requirement for placement of street trees? For instance,
8 does the criterion pertain to linear feet or is there a specific number required per lot front?
9
10 Staff: One street tree is required every 30 feet on center. A standard could be formulated that trees
11 are required elsewhere on the site if a gallery or arcade frontage design was chosen for a building so
12 the tree requirement is not lost. Could consider requiring Planning staff or Planning Commission
13 review of projects that propose a gallery or arcade so that the merits of the project can be weighed
14 against the loss of the street trees or providing trees elsewhere can be considered as part of the
15 project.
16
17 Commissioner Molgaard recommends requiring a tree on site in another location or, in the vicinity.
18 There may well be a pocket-park in the area. Also, a tree bank could be established in lieu.
19
20 Staff: There may be many options available.
21
22 Commissioner Sanders recommended thinking of viable/feasible/adaptive tree species for the
23 discussion on trees for the DZC document. She likes native trees where feasible. She was concerned
24 that trees would not be feasible for the gallery and arcade private frontages.
25
26 Planning Commission: Many native trees are often slow growing and not suitable as street trees.
27
28 Chair Pruden suggested bringing photographs of the old Cecil Hotel for discussion to get an idea
29 how the gallery and street trees looked in terms of compatibility at that time. Also, suggested looking
30 at the Palace Hotel because this building has the potential as a matter of entitlement when it is
31 rehabilitated to add back the two-story balcony on that portion of the building that fronts State Street.
32 This balcony did not wrap around to that portion of the building on Smith Street. There are not many
33 buildings in the Downtown where this type of frontage design would apply.
34
35 Historical buildings that are being rehabilitated are allowed under the Secretary of Interior
36 Standards for Tax Credits to recreate a couple of different historical periods (1890 or 1920
37 period). The Palace Hotel could essentially put the second balcony back on the building.
38
39 Senior Planner Jordan asked if Commissioner Sanders would be open to looking at an arcade or
40 gallery project if there was some way a tree could fit to shade the frontage. It could be that the
41 building was a great project with a nice tree plan.
42
43 Commissioner Sanders agreed the project would be worth looking at.
44
45 Chair Pruden asked if the Commissioners liked Commissioner Molgaard's thought of allowing for a
46 cantilevered and/or projecting physical building on a second or third floor of a building that extends
47 over the lot line.
48
49 Planning Commission: The theoretical idea of allowing for a projected physical building on a second
50 or third floor of a building did not particularly appeal to the Commissioners. It was not the direction the
51 Commission desired to go except for possibly restoration of former storage frontage types on
52 historical buildings, such as balconies or galleries. However, if it would be worthwhile to look at a
53 project having a private frontage if it were interesting/innovative or would enhance a storefront. Table
54 7 makes it easy to understand frontage types/storefront standards and what types are allowed and/or
55 feasible for street trees for each of the three zones.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 7
1 Page 19, figures 2A-C illustrate the setbacks for Courtyard, Rearyard, and Sideyard building types as
2 determined by Table 6: Principle Building Standards based on the zoning district in which the parcel
3 is located.
4
5 Chair Pruden asked what if a building were to be three stories and each story was 12 feet high and
6 whether this is a concern?
7
8 Staff: As long as each story is under 14 feet, the project complies. The intent is to encourage the
9 14-foot height so that if the use changes over time from residential to commercial or office, the
10 building is adaptive to the change.
11
12 Commissioner Whetzel stated the Airport Master Plan can supersede height restrictions.
13
14 Staff: The maximum number of stories is three and each story cannot exceed 14 feet. A minimum
15 height restriction is not really necessary because building code industry standards would set the
16 height measurement. It is unlikely a ceiling would be less than 10 feet in height for a commercial
17 building.
18
19 Don Larsen is aware of the possibility of varying ceiling heights for residential units. The minimum
20 ceiling height for residential units is eight feet.
21
22 Planning Commission: There was a brief discussion about the ceiling height changes over time at
23 SchaYs Bakery.
24
25 Commissioner Molgaard stated it may be that a minimum height requirement for each story should
26 be established; Staff could look at other jurisdictions to see if they have set a minimum height
27 requirement and if they have, are there any problems. If Ukiah is entertaining a 14-foot maximum
28 story height to allow for adaptive reuse of the building, then a 10-foot minimum is much better than 8
29 feet.
30
31 Chair Pruden commented for three-story buildings, it is likely an elevator is necessary. Elevators are
32 very costly and it is for this reason the Planning Commission is not seeing many apartment projects,
33 even though density allows for a three-story building. Developers are finding alternative solutions to
34 avoid the cost of implementing an elevator. It is her understanding that an elevator is required for
35 three story commercial buildings.
36
37 Summary of Chanqes
38 Add footnote to density that refers to State Law density bonus provisions.
39 Consider a process to allow street trees to be planted elsewhere on site or a "tree bank" or "tree
40 receptor" sites.
41
42 Section 7: Historical Buildinq Standards, Table 10: Historical Buildinq Standards
43 All proposed modifications to buildings listed on the City's Historical and Architectural Inventory or
44 buildings that are more than 50 years old must comply with the standards in Table 10.
45 Staff advised this section has been revised because of typographical errors.
46
47 Planning Commission comments/questions:
48
49 Chair Pruden
50 ■ Add rehabilitation to `Improvement and Restoration' section. There are very few restorations,
51 but many rehabilitations to historical buildings. All restorations must be consistent with the
52 State Historical Building Codes, which provide specific definitions for restorations for
53 readaptive use.
54
55 ■ The term `windows' is rarely used with regard to historical buildings; The term used is
56 `Fenestrations.' However, the majority of the public does not use fenestrations.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 8
1 Planning Commission: Reference to `windows' in the historical building section will not change.
2
3 Planning Commission: Is there a number 6 footnote?
4
5 Staff: There is no number 6 footnote. The revisions to the Historical Building section also reflect this
6 change.
7
8 Chair Pruden: Is comfortable with the historical building section; It does not allude to the Secretary of
9 Interior standards. This standard applies to persons that are very serious about restoring a historical
10 building to its original design or who are pursuing tax credits for the restoration.
11
12 Lisa Mammina: Owns some historical buildings in the Downtown core. She questioned whether she
13 fully complied with the preservation rules for historic buildings when she refurbished her building on
14 State Street. If historical buildings are to be rehabilitated or more importantly restorations made as
15 close to the original design as possible in accordance with historical building codes, how does the
16 Fa�ade Improvement Program eligibility requirements for improvements work if the applicant is
17 seeking financial assistance for the improvements. Schat's Bakery received FIP funding for building
18 improvements when the original design and characters were changed with the building remodel.
19
20 Chair Pruden: The SchaYs Bakery should be considered a remodel as opposed to a restoration
21 because these buildings have been remodeled so many times over the years that there is essentially
22 no original design/materials left to preserve. While the buildings are historical, they have been
23 architecturally compromised over the years. The real historical significance of the SchaYs building
24 pertains to the `social' aspect. These buildings have been a social gathering place with the many uses
25 that have transpired over the course of the 20th century.
26
27 Staff:
28 • The SchaYs situation was unique. Due to the amount of the exterior being removed, the
29 project required a Demolition Permit. Demolition review is required for complete demolitions
30 or when more than 50% of the exterior is being removed, as was the case with Schat's. As
31 part of the review of the permit, the building was determined to not be a historic resource by
32 the City Council. This allowed the demolition of the exterior off the building and provided
33 more options for changes to the exterior since it had been determined not to be a historic
34 resource.
35 • With regard to Table 10 from an environmental review perspective when projects are
36 reviewed, a building that has historical value cannot be modified in a manner that impacts its
37 historical significance. This is typically accomplished by following the Secretary of Interior
38 Standards. Table 10 is primarily a reflection of these standards and most projects involving
39 changes to the exterior of buildings would most likely be required to comply with anyway.
40 • It may be that the improvements made to Ms. Mammina's building were completely
41 appropriate. Each building must be looked at individually before a determination is made. If
42 general maintenance and repairs were performed and/or the building painted, there should
43 be no concern and the description of work sounds consistent with the standards in Table 10.
44 However, if windows and/or the structural form are changed, this may be another story.
45
46 Lisa Mammina: understands the primary eligibility factor for the FIP is blight and with making the
47 appropriate findings to support that blight exists. It is highly critical that buildings are safe and if
48 improvements/renovations are made, they should be done well.
49
50 Staff: The process is not that simple. If an element to a building is to be torn down and the building
51 is more than 50 years old, an evaluation must be conducted to determine whether or not the building
52 is historic. There are times when a structural determination may be necessary to see if the building is
53 unsafe for some reason. The City has a Demolition Review Committee that reviews demolition permit
54 applications and the Ukiah City Council has the authority to make the final decision whether or not the
55 building has significant historical value and would be allowed to be demolished.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 9
1 There was a discussion how the demolition permit process works with the FIP.
2
3 Commissioner Molgaard: If the Schat's building is more than 50 years old and is historic, why was
4 the building not better preserved and the form allowed to change without conforming to the rules for
5 historic preservation.
6
7 Staff: From a historic preservation perspective, if a historical building is allowed to be removed, the
8 building cannot be recreated sine this creates a false sense of history. The building should essentially
9 be acknowledged as a loss.
10
11 Commissioner Molgaard: Disagrees with the philosophy where a historic building's design such as
12 SchaYs Bakery can be completely changed even though City Council determined the building did not
13 have historic value.
14
15 Chair Pruden: The City does not have a historical preservation ordinance in place.
16
17 Commissioner Sanders: Inquired where the Historical and Architectural Inventory of buildings is
18 housed.
19
20 Chair Pruden:
21 ■ The document is housed at the City of Ukiah and in the California Survey of Surveys and
22 likely at the federal level.
23 ■ A listing of historical and architectural buildings is available from the California State of
24 Historical Preservation. Ukiah is in the California data base and federal data base. Ukiah has
25 a rather large inventory of historical properties of which the vast majority is residential units.
26
27 Staff: Indicated a hard copy of historical houses in Ukiah is available at City Hall. To clarify, the
28 DZC relative to historical building standards is not intended to be a whole new level of regulation.
29 Compliance with these standards would likely be required as part of the environmental review for a
30 project. The standards represent a form that is to be followed concerning historical buildings.
31
32 Summary of changes:
33
34 Add rehabilitation to `Improvement and Restoration' section.
35
36 9B. General Plan Housing Element Workshop. Review and Discussion of the Draft Housing
37 Element Update.
38
39 Planning Director Stump provided a staff report and introduced the Preliminary Draft 2009 General
40 Plan Housing Element Update. He asked the Commission to review/formulate questions and provide
41 comments concerning the document for discussion at the regular October 14 Planning Commission
42 meeting. He referred to page 23 and stated one of the most important aspects of the document is the
43 housing goals and policies, implementation tasks/how results will achieved and tracking process to
44 measure the success of the tasks implemented.
45
46 Additionally, the Ukiah City Council directed staff to formulate a mobile home park residential survey
47 for the purpose of determining what issues affect mobile home park residents and what solutions
48 there may be to resolve those issues.
49
50 Planning Commission General Comments:
51 ■ Consider adding a section as to new housing law requirements for density bonuses.
52 ■ Provide more information about the City's second unit policy.
53 ■ Update language pertinent to information concerning vacant and underutilized
54 parcels/parcels having redevelopment potential in the City limits that pertain to Trinity School
55 parcels.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 10
1 ■ Existing housing converted to office space, Commissioner Sanders agreed to inventory
2 examples of these conversions.
3
4 Staff:
5 ■ Lisa Hillegas has indicated that State law recently requires an inventory of homeless facilities.
6 Also, there are some other provisions that must be included in the GP Housing Element
7 Update having to do with the phenomenon of homelessness. The State requires that cities
8 have at least one zoning district that allows for homeless shelters without discretionary
9 review.
10 ■ Is hopeful the list of skateholders will expand.
11 ■ The table addressing the current use needs to be changed for Trinity School.
12
13 Chair Pruden: Property owners sell their homes and move out of the community. Why is this
14 information not incorporated into the Housing Element Update? Would like to see a paragraph in the
15 document indicating there appears to be a lot of sales inventory/vacant houses in the community. The
16 State does not recognize this as part of the housing stock.
17
18 Staff: The State's response to the Housing Element Update should be interesting because the
19 document format and some of the language is not typical for those reviewing the document. Some of
20 the formatting of the document was taken from other cityjurisdictions.
21
22 Commissioner Helland:
23 ■ Noted corrections to attachment 2, stakeholders list of phone numbers/e-mails.
24 ■ Supports having a field trip to look at the existing multi-family sites, including vacant and
25 underutilized parcels and/or parcel having redevelopment potential and review some of the
26 property constraints to include whether the property is located in the floodplain or having
27 some other restriction.
28 ■ Would like see information concerning inclusionary housing in the Housing Element Update.
29
30 Commissioner Molgaard: Cited other organizations that could be added to the stakeholders list.
31
32 Staff: Will formulate a map and information for a self-guided tour to look at different housing stock.
33
34 There was a brief discussion identifying specific properties/parcels that would be beneficial to look at
35 in the self-guided tour.
36
37 10. OLD BUSINESS
38 10A. Revised Downtown Zoning Code Workshop Schedule. Review and Discussion of the
39 revised 2009 schedule of topics for the Downtown Zoning Code workshops.
40
41 Staff referred to revised schedule and indicated a good approach would be to review documents at
42 one Planning Commission meeting and projects for the second meeting of the month.
43
44 It will be necessary to find an alternative building to conduct the December 9 meeting because of a
45 conflict in the Council Chambers.
46
47 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
48 ➢ The CALSTAR appeal will likely be reviewed by the City Council on October 21.
49 ➢ The Red Hawk restaurant project will be breaking ground soon.
50 ➢ The former Rite Aid building is being demolished and the materials recycled as much as
51 possible.
52 ➢ The Planning Commission stipend is being reinstated.
53
54 12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
55 Commissioner Whetzel inquired about training money available for Planning Commissioners. He
56 would be willing to forfeit his Commission stipend in order to attend planning seminars.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 11
1
2 Commissioner Helland was asked by some businesses in the community about whether they are
3 paying for redevelopment fees for projects. There appears to be some confusion and whether staff
4 could provide some clarification about where redevelopment money comes from.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders would like prohibited use#7 of the City of Ukiah Stage 1 Water Emergency
7 Update dated July 2, 2009 to be addressed by staff at a future Planning Commission meeting.
8
9 13. ADJOURNMENT
10 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
11
12
13 Judy Pruden, Chair
14
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17
18
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 2009
Page 12