HomeMy WebLinkAbout11132013 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
November 13, 2013
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER, 300 SEMINARY AVENUE
2. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS CHRISTENSEN, DOBLE,
SANDERS, PRUDEN, CHAIR WHETZEL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the following meetings will be available for review and approval:
A. October 23, 2013
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to
be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more
than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments.
6. APPEAL PROCESS
All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary planning
permits are final unless a written appeal, stating the reasons for the appeal, is filed with
the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. An interested
party may appeal only if he or she appeared and stated his or her position during the
hearing on the decision from which the appeal is taken. For items on this agenda, the
appeal must be received by November 25, 2013 before 5:00 p.m.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hertz Car Rental Facility Use Permit, 724 South State Street, APN 003-
031-19 (File No. 13-20-UP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and
possible action on Major Use Permit to allow the operation of a car rental facility at
724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19. This item is continued from the
October 23, 20i3 meeting,
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
B. Myszka Place Lot 2 Minor Planned Development Amendment, APN 001-
201-08 (File No. 13-26-PDA-PC). Planning Commission consideration and
possible action on a Minor Amendment to the Myszka Place Planned Development to
allow the removal of up five trees on Lot 2 of Myszka Place, 1210 Myszka Place. A
P/anning Commission pre/iminary review of this project was conducted at
the October 23, 2013 meeting,
10. PRELIMINARY REVIEW
A. Electronic Cigarettes Store/Lounge in the Downtown Zoning Code
boundaries Preliminary Review, 411 South State Street, APN 002-269-08
(File No. 13-25-PRE-PC). Preliminary review of a request on the sale of
electronic cigarettes within the boundaries of the Downtown Zoning Code.
11. NEW BUSINESS
A. December Meeting Schedule. Planning Commission review and determination of
the December 2013 meeting schedule.
12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
13. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
14. AD70URNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 October 23, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair Laura Christensen
7 Kevin Doble
8 Linda Sanders
9 Judy Pruden
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
18 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the August 14, 2013, September 11, 2013 and
25 September 25, 2013 meetings are available for review and approval.
26
27 The following changes were made to the September 25, 2013 minutes:
28 • Page 11, strike language beginning on line 50 that reads, `There is a high concentration of
29 historical materials including Indian burial grounds in this neighborhood and is of the opinion this
30 fact should had been alluded to. While this factual information may not affect the Project, it should
31 have been disclosed. The fining implies there are no burial grounds in the area when this is
32 contrary to the case.'
33 • Page 12, add a bullet to line 33 that reads, 'The Project would add to the housing stock that
34 complies with the Housing Element.'
35
36 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve the August 14, 2013 and September 11, 2013 minutes, as submitted and
37 the September 25, 2013 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0).
38
39 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
40
41 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
42 final date to appeal is November 4, 2013.
43
44 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
45
46 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
47
48 9. PUBLIC HEARING
49 9A. Hertz Car Rental Facility, 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19 (File No. 13-20-UP-PC).
50 Planning Commission consideration and possible action on Major Use Permit to allow the
51 operation of a car rental facility at 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19.
52
53 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report and noted:
54 • The Commission has been given a revised copy of the site plans (incorporated in the minutes as
55 attachment 1).
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 1
1 • No modifications will be made to the interior of the building.
2 Senior Planner Jordan:
3 • The applicant did not request a car washing occur on the site.
4 • Asked the Commission to specifically address the applicanYs plans for detailing/washing and/or
5 repair of vehicles.
6 • Washing the cars on-site requires review from Public Works related to water treatmenUdrainage
7 and the like.
8
9 Commission:
10 • Site is constrained in terms of parking for customers and employees.
11 • Sees that parking for the car rental use is inside the building.
12 • Determined the building will have a roll-up door.
13 • Car washing on-site would be problematic.
14
15 Commissioner poble:
16 • Asked if an assessment was conducted related to the five proposed parking spaces in front of the
17 building for compliance with City code requirements as far as backup space because it appears
18 parking spaces 13 and 14 do not provide sufficient backup space such that persons will have to
19 back out onto the sidewalk to exit the parking lot.
20 • Would like to know how much space there is behind the back of the parking stalls and the
21 sidewalk.
22 • Is the Planning Commission being asked to approve one less parking space and/or non-
23 conforming parking design?
24 • How did staff come up with five parking spaces?
25
26 Senior Planner Jordan:
27 • The normal backup space for a parking stall is 24 feet. The existing parking spaces do not comply
28 with this requirement. When Hospice leased the building the same parking conditions existed and
29 in some respects they were worse because they had more customers and employees than Hertz
30 will have.
31 • Planning Commission is essentially allowing an existing non-conforming condition to continue.
32 • Related to the parking, it may be that the use addressed in the staff report is not clear. While the
33 use itself requires ten or 15 parking spaces, the zoning ordinance does not include a parking
34 requirement for rental car facilities. The required parking is for employees, customers, and
35 visitors, not for parking rental cars. Accordingly, if 15 spaces are being required for the use, there
36 would be no parking available for the rental cares. What staff is suggesting is that five parking
37 spaces are required for employees, customers, and visitors and the remaining parking spaces
38 would be for the rental cars.
39 • Based on information from the applicant, the rental car business would have no more than two
40 employees on the maximum shift, almost all customers are dropped off, and customers are not
41 allowed to leave their vehicles on-site. Therefore, two spaces would be for employees and three
42 would be for customers. This leaves the remaining spaces within the building for the facility itself.
43 There should be a condition that says vehicles for the business cannot be parked outside of the
44 building so these spaces remain available to customers, employees and visitors.
45
46 Associate Planner Faso:
47 • Did not measure the distance behind the parking stall and the sidewalk because the parking lot is
48 existing.
49 • The site plans identify the parking for the Project. The Commission should likely defer to the
50 applicant concerning parking and the dimensions from the back of the parking stalls to the
51 sidewalk.
52
53 Commissioner Sanders:
54 • Would diagonal parking help with safety and backup?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 2
1 • Is concerned about safety and using the sidewalk to maneuver in the parking lot. Would like to
2 know about other parking lot configuration options for the five parking spaces.
3 Senior Planner Jordan: Is not certain that diagonal parking spaces would fit on the site. The
4 Commission may want to defer to the applicant in this regard.
5
6 Chair Whetzel:
7 • Will ventilation and/or exhaust fans be installed for the indoor parking?
8 • How will car washing and/or detailing be handled for the facility?
9
10 Associate Planner Faso: Defer aforementioned question to applicant.
11
12 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:15 p.m.
13
14 Commission:
15 • Asked about another Hertz operation that sells equipment located on the north end of State
16 Street.
17 • Has Hertz operated in another location?
18 • Asked if some kind of ventilation system is a consideration for the building?
19 • Determined there is one curb cut and this is the reason diagonal parking will not work for the site.
20 • The project is a `retrofit' and what typically has occurred at this site for a long time is that people
21 backup from the parking stalls onto the sidewalk in order to exit the parking lot and access State
22 Street.
23 • There is some off-street parking available.
24 • Is fine with minor detailing of cars such as vacuuming, washing windows and/or other types of
25 minor maintenance/general clean-up of vehicles so no additional condition of approval is
26 necessary in this regard.
27 • Has no problem with adding trees to the property where feasible.
28 • Pleased to see the applicant fully complies with the square footage of signage allowed. In fact,
29 the applicant is under the square footage allowance for signage on this building.
30
31 Matt Lundbeck, Construction Manager for Architectural Construction Services, Inc.:
32 • Related to parking lot measurements would have to defer to his staff architect. Will provide this
33 information to the Commission.
34 • A ventilation system will be added.
35
36 Anthony Urroz, Applicant:
37 • Related to parking, the normal inventory of cars will be mostly full-size or smaller. Will not have
38 any large cars or trucks with the long beds unless specially ordered.
39 • All car washing/maintenance and the like will be handled off-site.
40 • The other Hertz operation is an entirely different entity.
41 • Hertz once operated at the Airport. The staff for the proposed new operation is the same as when
42 it operated at the Airport.
43
44 Commissioners Doble and Sanders:
45 • Not in favor of people having to back-up onto the sidewalk to exit the parking lot.
46 • Inclined to support other parking solutions, but needs more information.
47
48 Commissioner Pruden:
49 • Does not favor the color palate selection. White is too bright and creates glare on sunny days.
50 • An off-white color would be a possibility.
51 • Questioned why the applicant chose a white awning?
52 • Has observed related to the parking issue, there is an alley to the south of the building that could
53 be of possible use. The alley is underutilized and could safely be used for egress and ingress.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 3
1 • A solution for a retrofit project would be to designate that only a compact car can park in the five
2 parking spaces. A compact car will not have to back-up onto the sidewalk.
3
4 Senior Planner Jordan:
5 • Compact spaces are 8 ft. by 16 ft. so there is a 2-foot differential from the standard parking stall
6 size.
7 • Providing for only compact parking is not a solution since City code allows 30% of parking spaces
8 to be compact.
9
10 Commissioner poble:
11 • Would like to see the Project move forward.
12 • Approves of back-filling vacant buildings, but does not support back-filing of such buildings where
13 parking continues to be a problem.
14 • Would like the applicant to come back to the Commission with some alternative solutions to the
15 parking situation for review.
16 • Would be open to possibly reducing the parking accommodations even more to make the parking
17 work in terms of safety and maneuverability.
18 • Is concerned with approving a project where the dimensions are not known from behind the
19 parking stalls to the sidewalk and with basically saying it is okay if the Project does not comply
20 with City code parking standards.
21
22 Matt Lundbeck: The color scheme and accompanying yellow sign is the corporate branding for Hertz
23 Rental Car.
24
25 There was Commission discussion concerning Condition of Approval 14 because any site that does
26 commercial car washing requires containment. Given the site constraints, does not see how power
27 washing could be done. There is no space for a car washing type of operation on the site.
28
29 Staff:
30 • Condition of Approval 14 is a Public Works requirement and is of the opinion this project
31 condition needs to be called out under the operating characteristics as to what the applicant can
32 or cannot do.
33 • Is requesting the Planning Commission determine what the applicant can or cannot do as part of
34 the operating characteristics on the site and make certain the necessary findings are in place for
35 what operations are allowed. The applicant has indicated there are no plans to wash cars on the
36 site.
37
38 Commissioner poble:
39 • There are commercial standards required for air exchange via a ventilation system.
40 • Suggests formulating a condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit a compliant air
41 exchange analysis relative to the parking garage for the car rental facility. This could be open
42 ventilation, fans or the like or whatever is required to get safe/adequate air exchange to happen.
43 The matter of providing appropriate ventilation may already be an OSHA requirement where a
44 condition of approval is not necessary.
45
46 Commissioner Sanders:
47 • Referred to the letter from Architectural Construction Services, Inc., dated October 10, 2013,
48 language that reads, `No maintenance would be performed on site other than washing and
49 general cleaning of cars' and would like to this to be clarified because the letter does talk about
50 washing cars on site.
51 • Acknowledged the condition of approval for the one street tree from the street tree list proposed
52 for the southeast corner of the property, but has concern about the location.
53
54 Anthony Urroz: The only maintenance that will be performed on the site is the cleaning of trash and
55 some touch up cleaning work. Confirmed there will be no `car washing' on the site. This procedure and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 4
1 maintenance is done off-site. Cars are sent to a maintenance facility in South San Francisco or
2 dealerships for general maintenance/repairs.
3
4 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:46 p.m.
5
6 Staff:
7 • Want to clarify that if the car rental facility was an allowed use and the required number of parking
8 spaces was provided, there would be no discussion of the parking situation since it is an existing
9 condition on the site.
10 • Confirmed that a Use Permit runs with the property for the use approved in the use permit.
11 • Staff is fine with whatever the Commission recommends.
12 • Related to the concern for the street tree such that if the applicant wants to look at some
13 alternative parking scenarios should also include the location of the street tree on the site plans
14 so it is understood how it would interact with any backing up of vehicles onto the sidewalk. It may
15 be the applicant should consult with Public Works to determine where the street tree should be
16 planted because of the curb cut and utility issues.
17
18 Matt Lundbeck:
19 • Related to the five parking spaces, the shortest back distance is approximately 13 feet to the
20 sidewalk.
21 • Elaborated on the dimensions related to the parking stalls and backup space for a normal size
22 vehicle.
23
24 Staff: Regarding the required parking spaces for the customers and employees, the southernmost
25 parking space that has the least amount of backup space could be designated compact. The other four
26 parking spaces have to be standard. The Project includes five parking spaces for employees, customers,
27 and visitors. The remaining spaces are for the rental car use. Again to clarify, the number of compact
28 parking spaces allowed for a project is 30% of the required parking for a project.
29
30 Commissioner poble:
31 • Would like to know about the minimum number of parking spaces that could be allowed for the
32 Project rather than trying to reconfigure the parking lot.
33 • Will not approve a project with 15 feet of backup space. The backup space for spaces 13 and 14
34 is less than parking spaces itself.
35
36 Staff: Would like to know the minimum number of parking spaces the Commission is comfortable with for
37 employees and Hertz customers. What is known from the applicant is that there are two employees on
38 the maximum shift and that people are typically dropped off at the facility so it might be that four spaces
39 would be adequate.
40
41 Chair Whetzel:
42 • Does not like the present parking lot configuration. Suggested making space 14
43 compacUemployee only.
44 • Does not want to eliminate a parking space.
45
46 Commissioner Pruden:
47 • Does not want to eliminate a parking space.
48 • Suggested making space 12 handicap rather than 13 and make spaces 13 and 14 employee
49 parking because spaces 13 and 14 have the least amount of backup space. Spaces 10 and 11
50 could be used for Hertz customers.
51
52 Staff: In order to approve the Use Permit, the Commission is required to make a finding that the Project
53 is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons. Two Commissioners have expressed
54 concerned about the present parking lot configuration and backing up over the sidewalk in order to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 5
1 maneuver out of the parking lot. It may be the applicant can re-design the parking lot for the Commission
2 to review at another meeting.
3
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • Supports reducing the number of parking spaces.
6 • Is of the opinion there are alternatives to the parking scenario that have not been discussed.
7 • Parking space 1 could be employee parking. Parking spaces 13 and 14 could face southerly
8 rather than perpendicular like they are now. Parking spaces 10 and 11 could become the one
9 ADA space. To this end, while the backup would be reduced from what is allowed for standard
10 parking spaces, it would not be directed toward the sidewalk. However, is of the opinion would
11 need to see a design on a site plan.
12 • Suggested also in terms of the ADA space could do a flip flop. Related to spaces 13 and 14, one
13 of the ADA spots could be closest to the building.
14 • It could be that space 12 could be handicap.
15 • Not comfortable with spaces 13 and 14 and cannot support approval of the Project the way the
16 parking lot is presently configured and having to back up onto the sidewalk.
17 • The opportunity exists to restripe the parking lot to be safer and more efficient even if one space
18 has to be eliminated.
19 • In order to make a sound and informed decision would need to see a revised site plan for the
20 parking.
21 • Would support approval of the Project if the parking situation worked in terms of safety and
22 appropriate maneuverability.
23
24 Commissioner Pruden:
25 • Supports making space 12 handicap.
26 • Asked if eliminating space 14 would improve the situation and make space 12 handicap and
27 make space 13 compact.
28
29 Staff:
30 • Would need to review what the backup standard is for an ADA space.
31 • It is great the Commission is willing to consider reducing the backup space, but is of the opinion
32 would need a revised plan from the applicant for review by the Building Official to review,
33 specifically the ADA space to make certain it is in compliance with accessibility requirements.
34
35 Commissioner poble: Is it under the Commission's purview to reduce the backup space to 20 feet.
36
37 Staff: The aforementioned should be acceptable because the Commission is approving an existing
38 condition but would need to review City code to confirm. Depending upon how the Code is written
39 sometimes an existing condition cannot be made better; it needs to be made to comply with the code
40 requirement.
41
42 Commissioner Sanders:
43 • Asked about the location for bicycle parking.
44 • Would like to see the building 're-tenated' right away, but cannot support the current parking lot
45 configuration, particularly space 14, due to safety concerns related to backing up of vehicles.
46 • Is of the opinion the Commission should not perpetuate an unsafe parking scenario.
47 • Would like to see a re-design of the parking lot.
48
49 There was Commission discussion about the best location for bicycle parking.
50
51 There was further Commission discussion about possible reconfigurations of the parking lot that might
52 work better for the Project in terms of safety, maneuverability and compliance with City standards.
53
54 Matt Lundbeck: Is fine with a re-design of the parking lot.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 6
1 Commissioner Pruden: Would like to see the `very white' color palate for the building toned down. The
2 color selected for the commercial building is too bright and would create glare. Would suggest the color is
3 off-white.
4
5 Commission consensus:
6 • Supports this use on the site, but need to address the backing up of vehicles.
7 • Supports the applicant revise the parking proposal to address the backup distance issue onto the
8 sidewalk for Commission review.
9 • Requests the applicant provide for some color alternatives for the building for review by the
10 Commission.
11
12 M/S Sanders/Doble to continue Major Use Permit 13-20-UP-PC to a date certain of November 13, 2013.
13 Motion carried (4-0).
14
15 Break: 7:02 p.m.
16
17 Reconvene: 7:05 p.m.
18
19 9B. Myszka Place Lot 2, APN 001-201-08 (File No. 13-23 Prelim-PC). Planning Commission
20 consideration of an application for preliminary review to allow removal of two trees located on Lot
21 2 of Myszka Place.
22
23 Senior Planner Jordan gave a staff report and noted:
24 • A Planned Development (PD) amendment would be required in order to allow two trees to be
25 removed. A minor PD amendment can be approved by the Planning Director if it does not change
26 the density of the Project or intensity of the development. The tree removal would not change
27 these things. However, since trees are a very sensitive issue for this community, the Planning
28 Director is of the opinion it would be more appropriate for the Planning Commission review this
29 minor PD amendment.
30 • Referred to three documents given the Commission at places. These items are `General Plan
31 Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (incorporated in the minutes as attachment 2) that
32 may be applicable to the proposed tree removal, a summary of the approvals for Myszka Place
33 that required the trees to remain and/or identified the approved building envelope (incorporated in
34 the minutes as 3), and a letter dated October 11, 2013 from a public member containing
35 information about the trees on the property(incorporated in minutes as attachment 4).
36 • This parcel is not located in a very high fire hazard severity zone.
37 • The parcel is not located in the Hillside District.
38
39 Commissioner Sanders: Requested clarification if there are three trees marked for removal?
40
41 Chair Whetzel:
42 • Has no problem with the removal of the trees.
43 • Noticed some of the trees are growing too close together.
44
45 Commissioner poble:
46 • Asked if there are plans to replace the two trees that are proposed for removal and the possible
47 location of the replacement trees?
48 • Looking at the hillside location from the street, the area looks well forested.
49 • Is of the opinion, there is an opportunity to plant other trees on the site. Does not want to dictate
50 where the trees should be planted.Would support replacement of the Redwoods Trees.
51
52 Commissioner Pruden:
53 • Has no problem removing the Deodar Cedar.
54 • Redwood trees are not a fire and/or safety hazard if properly pruned.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 7
1 • Has some concern removing the Redwood Tree. Redwoods are colony trees and as such would
2 like to see a construction protection zone in and around the tree being removed because there
3 appears to be many young Redwood seedlings. These young Redwood trees should not be
4 damaged by construction crews when the one tree is removed and that precautionary measures
5 need to be taken in this regard.
6
7 Julie Fetherston, Applicant's Daughter and is representing the applicant:
8 • Clarified the applicant is requesting the removal of two trees.
9 • However, when looking at the building envelop, there are actually three trees in close proximity to
10 the proposed garage. Two of these trees are within the 20-foot setback of the garage.
11 • Confirmed there are plans to replace the trees as a mitigation measure.
12 • Applicant has been looking at the City's Master Tree List for selection of street trees.
13 • Applicant intends to plant extensive landscaping.
14
15 Commissioner poble:
16 • Are there tree protection measures in the Development Plan for the Myszka Place subdivision?
17 • Would it be acceptable for the applicant to bring back a landscape plan concept for the
18 Commission to review?Would like the plan to identify the locations for the two replacement trees.
19 The plan can be essentially be anything the applicant is willing to offer by way of landscaping.
20
21 Staff:
22 • The Myszka Place subdivision was approved in the 1990s so it is unlikely there were tree
23 protection measures required for the project. The parcels created by the subdivision were subject
24 to specific Conditions of Approval and a Development Map. The map defined the building envelop
25 for each lot and also indicated which trees were required to remain.
26 • Tree protective fencing is a standard condition of approval and this could be applied to the
27 project.
28 • Recommends since the PD amendment needs to come back to the Commission for formal
29 review, a conceptual landscaping plan be included as part of that application that shows the
30 removal of the two trees, street trees, location of the replacement trees, and the size and species
31 to be planted.
32
33 Commissioner Sanders:
34 • Appreciates the applicant participated in a preliminary project discussion.
35 • Appreciates the letter concerning the Project.
36 • Understands that the grove was planted and was not there historically/naturally.
37 • It appears the area functions like a basin and as such talked with a neighbor who was concerned
38 about removal of the trees.
39 • While tonighYs discussion is a pre-application review, recommends the applicant talk to the
40 neighbors about the Project so that any issues involving the neighborhood and applicant
41 concerning the proposed tree removal can be worked out ahead of time before Planning
42 Commission review of the PD amendment.
43 • Would like to see a condition of approval drafted for protection of the trees we want to retain
44 during site development.
45 • Understands the rationale for having to remove two trees and appreciates the applicant's
46 willingness to plant new trees and/or other types of vegetation.
47
48 Julie Fetherston:
49 • Is amenable to providing tree protection during construction.
50 • Will consult with an arborist concerning protection of the trees.
51
52 Staff: Referred to the 11" x 17" project exhibit provided by the applicant that shows the approved building
53 envelope, building footprint, trees proposed to be removed and tree to remain and asked the Commission
54 if it would be acceptable for the applicant to add information to this existing exhibit for the formal
55 application Information to be included on this plan which would function as the conceptual landscaping
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 8
1 plan would be the location and species of the replacement trees and street trees, and the size and
2 number of trees to be planted.
3
4 The Commission was fine with the aforementioned recommendation concerning adding information to the
5 exhibit.
6
7 Kerry Vau, Realtor for Applicant:
8 • The applicant cannot move forward on the process of purchasing the property unless the
9 Commission gives support of the trees being removed.
10 • Would be amenable to talking to the neighbors and ask about the one neighbor who expressed
11 concern about removal of the two trees.
12
13 Commissioner Pruden: Is okay with removing the one Dedora Cedar and one redwood tree, but the
14 concern is not to damage the colony of redwoods when the one redwood Tree is removed. To this end,
15 recommends the applicant consult with an arborist to make certain the root systems of the existing
16 redwoods are not damaged when the one tree is removed. Redwood trees are colony trees and the
17 removal of one tree has the potential to affect the others in the colony.
18
19 Commissioner poble:
20 • The other concern is replacement of the two trees removed.
21 • Recommends talking to neighbors because it is better to have more people in support of a Project
22 rather than opposed.
23
24 Commission consensus:
25 • Supports PD amendment to Myszka Place — Lot 2 based on the information presented at the
26 preliminary review.
27 • Okay with the tree removal to accommodate the building with protection of existing trees to
28 remain and the replacement of trees removed at a ratio of at least 1:1.
29 • Should have an arborist review the removal of the trees to ensure the removal does not damage
30 the grove of redwoods.
31 • Provide a planting plan using the same exhibit submitted for the preliminary review and identifying
32 the species of trees that would be planted, the location, and size.
33 • Recommend the applicant talk to the neighborhood about the tree removal.
34 • Support for the removal of the trees could change if new information comes to light or if there is
35 opposition to the removal of the trees from the neighbors/community at a formal hearing.
36
37 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
38 Senior Planner Jordan: Discussed upcoming Planning Commission agenda items including the Costco
39 Project draft EIR agendized for the November 21St meeting and corresponding dates that would
40 work during the upcoming holiday season.
41
42 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
43 Commissioner Sanders:
44 • Asked about the status of the possible code enforcement violation related to the Blue Drug
45 property.
46 • Asked about the status of the previous request for reinstallation of playground/recreational
47 equipment for the Duane Hill Apartments on Clara Avenue and Orchard Avenue because the
48 project is in violation of its conditions of approval for the Site Development Permit and has made
49 inquiries as to the status of compliance with the conditions of approval for the apartments. Stated
50 will inquire as the status of compliance with conditions of approval for the project until the
51 required recreational facilities are repaired and consistent with the conditions of approval.
52
53 Staff will follow-up Duane Hill Apartment concern and report back to the Commission. Related to the Blue
54 Drug eyesore issue and possible street encroachment violation recommends the public make a formal
55 complaint to the City Police Department since this department the lead for code enforcement violations.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 9
1
2 Commissioner Pruden: Pumpkinfest was a big success and well attended.
3
4 12. ADJOURNMENT
5 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2013
Page 10
SITE SUMMARY KEYNOTES � � � °
SITE AREA 0 NEW PARKING STRIPPING
� > -
1 °`
w �
I N Q
APN: 003-031-19 0 EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN � o �
~ ? �
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 4,650.00 'SQ.FT. 03 NEW ADA PARKING STALL � � �
I = _
OFFICE AREA 1,485.00 'SQ.FT. 04 EXISTING GATE TO REMAIN - - - - _ _ � � Q
' EXISTING TIRE STOPS TO REMAIN ' — Z F
OUTDOOR AREA 1,750.00 SQ.FT. — — _ �
05 _ o ,
— � � v E o �n d .o
06 EXISTING 6'-0" HT FENCE TO REMAIN - - - - _ � J " ° ° �' � � N
w ._ ` ,�
� � � � I Q � � O O � N
PARKING GARAGE AREA 3,150.00 'SQ.FT. 07 LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE — — — — _ _ °` ° �- °' °' `� �
- - _ � � ° - a
H � � � � y o V
PARKING REQUIRED Og LINE OF SIDEWALK — — — — — _ _ � " V "' " '" "" N
W ro
� J � � � � •y N
BUILDING AREA @ 1/500 9 STALLS 09 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN - - - - _ _ _ _ _ � � _ 3 ^ ^ °- N �
� Q � ^ o
OUTDOOR AREA @ 1/2000 1 STALLS �
a o 3 a � c� r. c�
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 10 STALLS �
I z
PARKING PROVIDED 14 STALLS � o Q O
>-
r
I � �
I � Q �
1 � � z
� w
I o � o
I � � �
I � � �
� � Q
EXISTING I � o
BUILDING � I�I w
1 � �
I 0°
W �
— _ — — — _ — — — _ — � � � � � � N
� � — � — — I w
t 144'-3" � �, _
� - - _ _ --0 I � �
- - - � o
Ww
� W =
❑� J CO p ~W
wZ�n¢ J �wOO=J�Z
>��_ � W v� ��J�O
I W U W❑ = H W Z O�=U�
N �Z ��O(n w fn Z U
r — — — — — — — — — — — �— — — — — — — — — — — —� — �— — — — — — — — — �
- - - - - - - - - - � w�wa=pu'��o~� wo�
I – �aaa'�woo=UZa�w�M
I ^ I �cn�>O 2 a��w a z a w w o
���� �U' a W a'F�W a'd'H��LL(nLLJ N
I - ° 7 I � az�WaQO�O�wQWJ=Z
�� �a �o °�Q�u�izov�
� � � � _-� � ���w�z w O��a>p�U w¢
+� I O CANOPY AREA I �w�,Z=~�omao~�,wZ=
m m�W z��O a�a�Z�a�
� a¢ui�ax��o�az3inw>
�wQa�c�av��oc�¢zc�a
O Oxwww�w`!�O–z��0U0
z���cc¢ccocn�¢¢oU¢U
�
' � 10a:
��
12'-6" 25'- '
� �
�i �
; _ 11 �
� __ ... � �
�
i -
;�, - � ..
� �✓ $ �a
� _ �i O O ,_� �
� � OFFICE AREA � � ° i �v
f 1,488 SQFT 12 0� � �
�
�
° ��� o �
I 0 ;' I � I �
��-I O� O O � Z O
� � I
� PARKING GARAGE - z Q �
_ f 3,165 SQFT � ' � �
- O� O � 13 , - i m
6, I � o �
f49'-6» _ » 24'-0" 19'-0" °O 30'-6" 4'-0"� 19'-p» r � �
� M
– � � w
N Q
� �
O O
I
O 6, O � 14 o t 12'- "
� �
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �
�
��' z
0 0
�- > „ __� � �
f93 -3 � -E �
- � w
o � � o
�
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N f134�_8�� � aaaaaaa �
I
I
1
I
1
I M
I �
� ,
I � �
I = �
I
1 � � �
EXISTING �
I o o �
BUILDING j �� z � �
� z m �
EXISTING I � � �! � �
B U I L D I N G � 0' 2.5' 5' 7.5' 10' 15' 20' 30' W � z J � U
� I�I I�I `� � =� w = o �
(� QO � (� �
� � (B � (6
� SCALE: 1"=10'-0" �o � 1 N `1
I � (n � l` �
I
I
�
0 0
I �
� w
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � g o
� Z
I m �
� HERTZ APPROVAL SIGNATURE N Q
I /� , z � �
I V m
� � U � m o
I SIGNATURE DATE ~ � J � Y
z
� U
� � � U � � 2
� PRINT NAME � � � � � v
� Sheet Number:
' A1 . 1
SITE PLAN ,�
� 1/16" = 1'-0"
\\crosrv1\currentproj\Hertz\N00011_Ukiah, CA\08 Construction Drawings\N00011_A1-1.dwg- Oct 22, 2013- 11:18am -ACS
Myszka Place Lot 2
General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures
Pro�ided at places at 10/23/2013 meeting.
Goal OC-24:Replace aging trees with new trees.
Policy OC-24.1: Develop a program to ensure continued healthy tree propagation.
Implementation Implement the program to replace aging trees giving preference to native species.
Measure OC-
24.1(a):
Goal OC-25:Maintain and enhance the City's canopy of shade trees.
Policy OC-25.1: Protect existing healthy mature trees to maintain shade and area attractiveness.
Implementation During the short-term planning period, utilize the Land Development Code or enact an ordinance
Measure OC- identifying important shade tree areas and providing for their long-term management and
25.1(a): health.
Implementation Establish a requirement for public notice and hearing when trees are to be removed from
Measure OC- undeveloped public, private,and redeveloped property—except for recreational purposes or in
25.1(b): relation to agriculture—as part of the design review program.
Goal OC-29:Maintain and enhance the"urban forests"which create a sense of urban space.
Policy OC-29.1: The development review process shall incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the urban
tree canopy.
Implementation The Land Development Code shall incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the urban tree
Measure OC- canopy.
29.1(a):
Implementation Review construction and landscaping site plans to ensure that healthy trees are not removed
Measure OC- unnecessarily.
29.1(b):
Policy OC-29.2: Cultivate an understanding of and appreciation for the social,environment,and aesthetic values
of trees.
Implementation Make available information on sound urban forest management practices.
Measure OC-
29.2(a):
Goal EG-5:Site design shall incorporate shade trees for energy conservation.
Policy EG-5.1: Encourage minimum canopy coverage of all paved area on a lot.
Implementation The Land Development Code shall include in its design requirements the requirement that all
Measure EG- new development shall provide a canopy coverage of 50%at the maturity of all paved areas on
5.1(a): the lot.
Goal CD-4:Seek uniform,attractive landscaping standards for non-single family residential development
throughout the Valley.
Policy CD-4.1: Establish and enforce landscaping standards in all non-single family residential, multi-family
residential,commercial,and industrial development and all redevelopment projects.
Implementation Create a combined City-County landscape program to ensure uniform standards and
Measure CD- requirements for new non-single family residential, multi-family residential,commercial,
4.1(a): industrial development,and all redevelopment projects.
Policy CD-4.2: Encourage planting of native trees and plants.
Implementation The landscape standards in the land Development Code shall include provisions for street
Measure CD- canopies and streetscape enhancement.
4.2(a):
Policy CD-4.3: Require landscaping that will result in the creation of new street canopies.
Implementation The landscape standards in the Land Development Code shall include provisions for street
Measure CD- canopies and streetscape enhancement.
4.3(a):
Implementation The City and County shall cooperate to permit planting of canopy trees within the rights-of-way
Measure CD- to improve or enhance the streetscape.
4.3(b):
Goal CD-12:Conserve the character and architecture of Ukiah and Valley neighborhoods.
Policy CD-12.1: Maintain and improve Ukiah's streets, lighting,trees, landscaping,and parks in a manner that
enhances the City's beauty and historic fabric.
Implementation Establish public design standards for street furniture and landscaping that enhance the
Measure CD- streetscape and general fabric of the City.
12.1(a):
Myszka Place
Supplemental Information
Ordinance 920: Planned Development Approval
■ Condition 7H: Tree removal only as shown on the Development Map
Resolution 91-55: Tentative Subdivision Map Approval
■ Condition 12: Setbacks as shown on the Development Map
■ Condition 23: Tree removal as shown on the Development Map
Resolution 93-54: Final Subdivision Map Approval
■ Condition 3: Tree removal as shown on the Development Map (environmental
mitigation measure)
■ Condition 6: Setbacks as shown on the Development Map (Planned Development
condition of approva�
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone: Myszka Place is not located in the Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone.
_ ,
l
October 11, 2013 ��
. ��,�
�cr ��
To Whom It May Concern : � 212�13
����
F�
RE: 1210 Myszka Place
It has been called to my attention there is interest in the purchase of the above listed property by
Rich and Karen Keehn . Since that property (on a larger scale) was purchased by my parents in the
1930's, you might be interested in some historical perspective.
When purchased, there existed a vineyard covering the property. This was replaced by the present
home now owned by Tom Hill . The redwoods in question for the lot the Keehns are purchasing were
among many trees planted in the 30's and 40's enhancing the property and helping with erosion control .
The redwoods are not native to that property.
The Keehns would build a nice home but there are too many trees to complete a plan for �
construction . Whereas I would hate seeing these trees cut down for sentimental reasons, to retain
them on a small lot is impractical . •
I hope you will consider their plan positively.
Sincerely,
�I"/�!L ��. <'_�9 � ' l�I�f�7L/'r. .
Wanda Myszka Mannon
1 ITEM NO. 9A
2
Community Development and Planning Department
e�ty � ukah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
3
4 DATE: November 13, 2013
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FROM: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
9
10 SUBJECT: Request for approval of Major Use Permit to allow a Hertz Car Rental Facility to
11 operate at 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19
12 File No. 13-20-UP-PC
13 Continued from the October 23, 2013 meeting.
14
15
16 RECOMMENDATION
17
18 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested Use Permit based on
19 the draft findings included in attachment 1 and subject to the draft conditions of approval
20 included in attachment 2.
21
22 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
23
24 At the October 23, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the Use
25 Permit application for the proposed Hertz car rental facility to be located at 724 South State
26 Street, APN 003-031-19. The Commission was generally supportive of the use and the fact that
27 only five parking spaces would be available for customer and employees in the front of the
28 building. However, a few concerns were raised related to the configuration of the existing
29 parking. After considerable discussion the Commission came to a consensus that they needed
3o more information and asked the applicant to provide revised plans and continued the item to
31 November 13, 2013.
32
33 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
34
35 The Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide the following information. The
36 applicant's response is noted in italics along with staff's analysis.
37
38 1. Provide a revised site plan that shows alternative parking configurations that allows for
39 more back up space.
40
41 The applicant submitted two parking plans which are included as attachment 4.
42
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
1
1 Option 1-A: Five vehicle parking spaces are provided at the front of the building and
2 nine spaces are provided inside in the building for rental cars. The parking spaces in the
3 front of the building include two 90 degree front-in compact spaces and three 90 degree
4 standard size parking spaces. The code requires that a minimum of 24 feet be provided
5 for back up space. This option shows a range from 24 feet to 26 feet for the back up
6 space.
7
8 Option 1-8: Five vehicle parking spaces are provided at the front of the building and
9 nine spaces are provided inside for rental cars. Two 90 degree parking spaces including
10 the ADA van accessible space are orientated in a north /south direction. Three 90
11 degree parking spaces are proposed across the front of the building. A minimum of 22
12 feet and a maximum of 26 feet is provided for back up space relative fo the parking at
13 the front of the building.
14
15 Planning staff prefers option A based on the fact that this option appears to meets the
16 parking space dimensions and provides adequate back up space. Furthermore this
17 option does not require the vehicle to back up over the sidewalk or back up directly onto
18 State Street.
19
20 Both options have been reviewed by the Building Official and Public Works Department.
21 The Building Official preferred option 8 and the Public Works Department preferred
22 Option A (see attachment 3).
23
24 Staff requests that the Commission determine which parking option would be
25 appropriate for the site and the proposed use. Section 9086 (h) allows Planning
26 Commission to provide relief from the parking requirements through the discretionary
27 review process.
28
29 2. Provide color alternatives to the proposed white awning and building.
30
31 The applicant has proposed a gray alternative (see attachment 4).
32
33 3. Provide a revised site plan that shows the location of the required bike parking.
34
35 The applicant has indicated on each option of the parking plan the location of the
36 required bike parking (see attachment 4).
37
38 Based on the required vehicle parking, two parking spaces for bikes are required. The
39 applicant submitted two revised site plans that show the proposed location of the
4o required bike spaces. Option A shows the bike spaces in front of the building on the
41 north side. Option 8 shows the bike parking in the area between the ADA space and the
42 building. Staff prefers option A however is concerned that the bike parking may block the
43 front walkway and suggests that the bike space be located at the northern most point of
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
2
1 the sidewalk. Staff requests that the Commission determine which location is appropriate
2 or if there is a more appropriate location.
3
4 4. Revise the site plan to show the location of the new street tree.
5
6 The applicant has revised the site plan to include the location of the new street tree (see
7 attachment 4).
8
9 Please refer to the October 23, 2013 staff report for the complete project analysis.
10
11 USE PERMIT
12
13 In order to approve a Use Permit, the findings included in Zoning Ordinance section 9262(E) are
14 required to be made. The required findings and staff's analysis are included in the table below:
15
Use Permit Anal sis
Use Permit Findin s Staff Anal sis
The proposed land use is consistent The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as described in
with the provisions of this Title as well Table 1 of the October 23, 2013 staff report.
as the goals and policies of the City
General Plan. The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordnance as described in Table
3 of the October 23,2013 staff report and the table above.
The proposed land use is compatible The project approved with conditions is compatible with surrounding
with surrounding land uses and shall uses based on the following:
not be detrimental to the public's • The project site is located within an existing commercial area
health,safety and general welfare. and is surrounded mainly by commercial uses.
• The parcel immediately adjacent to the west of the project site is
developed with a multifamily residential unit; however,the living
units are not located directly behind the project site.There is at
least 49 feet between the structure on the project site and the
nearest residential unit. Furthermore there is a detached carport
structure with no opening on the rear elevation between the
project site and the residential units.This would create a barrier
for the residential uses.
• The proposed project would occupy a building which was
previously used for retail sales. The proposed use is anticipated
to be less intensive then the past retail sales at this location
based on the fact that typically car rental facilities function more
like a professional office in terms of number of customers and
the fact that the majority of customers arrive by appointment.
• The hours of operation would be consistent with retail business
and professional offices in the area which normally operate 9:00
a.m.to 6:00 P.M.
• The proposed project would provide 15 parking spaces which
given the operating characteristics of a rental car facility would
be adequate.
• The proposed project would be similar in intensity to a light
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
3
Use Permit Anal sis
Use Permit Findings Staff Analysis
retail business and/or a professional office.This is based on the
fact that customer arrival would be staggered throughout the
day and are typically set by appointment.Given the function of a
Hertz the average number of customers on the site at one time
is three and typically there are only two employees on a shift at
a time.
The project will not be detrimental to the public's health,safety and
general welfare based on the following:
• The site was previously used for retail uses therefore based on
the fact that the previous retail use operated at this site without
issues and that the proposed retail car facility is similar in
intensity to retail the proposed project would not be
detrimental.
• There is typically no noise related to this type of business.
• The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police
Department, Building Official,and Public Works and any review
comments from these departments have been included as
conditions of approval.
• The project is required to comply with all federal,state and local
laws.
• The project is consistent with the Airport Master Plan C
compatibility zone requirements as noted in Table 2 of the staff
report.
• There is adequate parking on the site for the proposed project.
Five(5) parking spaces are provided at the front of the building
and nine 9 spaces would be provided inside the building.The
front spaces would be available to customers and employees
and the parking within building would be used to park the rental
cars. See parking analysis in Table 3 of the staff report.
From the Plannin�Commission
• Given that the project site is located in an existing commercial
area and that the nearest residential units are at least 49 feet
from the rear property line of the project site. Minimal
maintenance of the rental cars would not be a detriment to the
surrounding neighborhood. Minimal maintenance is limited to
vacuuming, hand washing windows and removing trash from the
rental vehicles. A draft condition of approval has been added.
• No auto repair or washing of the renal vehicles is allowed on the
site. This is based on the fact that the project site is small and is
not equipped with a water containment system. A draft
condition of approval has been added.
1
2
3
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
4
1 ATTACHMENTS
2
3 1. Draft finding for Use Permit
4 2. Draft Use Permit Conditions of Approval
5 3. Memo from Building and Public Works
6 4. Revised plans submitted by applicant date stamped November 1, 2013
7
8
9
10
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
5
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2
3
4 DRAFT USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW A
5 HERTZ CAR RENTAL FACILITY
6 TO OPERATE AT
7 724 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-031-19
8 FILE NO: 13-20-UP-PC
9
10 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
11 the application materials and documentation, and the public record.
12
13 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
14 General Plan as described in the staff report and Table 1.
15
16 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as
17 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
18
19 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility
20 requirements for the C zone based on the following:
21
22 A. The proposed project would be a rental car facility. Intensive retail uses are normally
23 acceptable uses in the C zone. The proposed project would be similar to a low
24 intensity retail use and therefore the project would be allowed in the compatibility
25 zone C.
26 B. Compatibility Zone C allows 150 people per acre for non-residential uses, therefore
27 given that the site is .22 of an acre the maximum density cannot exceed 33 people
28 (.22 acre site X 150 people/acre). The applicant has indicated that the proposed
29 rental car facility would have approximately 3 employees on a daily basis and it is not
30 anticipated there would be more than 4 customers in the store at any one time
31 C. The size of the parcel is 9,438 square feet (.22 acre). The footprint of the building is
32 4,650 square feet which leaves 51 % of open land for this parcel exceeding the 15 %
33 minimum recommended for the C zone. Based on a field survey it is staff's opinion
34 that the proposed project is similar to other existing development in the C zone.
35
36 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to public health, safety and
37 general welfare based on the following:
38
39 A. The site was previously used for retail uses therefore based on the fact that the
40 previous retail use operated at this site without issues and that the proposed retail
41 car facility is similar in intensity to retail the proposed project would not be
42 detrimental.
43 B. There is typically no noise related to this type of business.
44 C. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building
45 Official, and Public Works and any review comments from these departments have
46 been included as conditions of approval.
47 D. The project is required to comply with all federal, state and local laws.
48 E. The project is consistent with the Airport Master Plan C compatibility zone
49 requirements as noted in Table 2.
1 F. There is adequate parking on the site for the proposed project. Five parking spaces
2 are provided at the front of the building and nine spaces would be provided inside
3 the building. The front spaces would be available to customers and employees and
4 the parking within building would be used to park the rental cars. See parking
5 analysis in Table 3.
6
7 From the Planninq Commission
8
9 G. Given that the project site is located in an existing commercial area and that the
10 nearest residential units are at least 49 feet from the rear property line of the project
11 site. Minimal maintenance of the rental cars would not be a detriment to the
12 surrounding neighborhood. Minimal maintenance is limited to vacuuming, hand
13 washing windows and removing trash from the rental vehicles.
14 H. No auto repair or washing of the renal vehicles is allowed on the site. This is based
15 on the fact that the project site is small and is not equipped with a water containment
16 system.
17
18 5. The project approved with conditions is compatible with surrounding uses based on
19 the following:
20
21 A. The project site is located within an existing commercial area and is surrounded
22 mainly by commercial uses.
23 B. The parcel immediately adjacent to the west of the project site is developed with
24 a multifamily residential unit; however, the living units are not located directly
25 behind the project site. There is at least 49 feet between the structure on the
26 project site and the nearest residential unit. Furthermore there is a detached
27 carport structure with no opening on the rear elevation between the project site
28 and the residential units. This would create a barrier for the residential uses.
29 C. The proposed project would occupy a building which was previously used for
3o retail sales. The proposed use is anticipated to be less intensive then the past
31 retail sales at this location based on the fact that typically car rental facilities
32 function more like a professional office in terms of number of customers and the
33 fact that the majority of customers arrive by appointment.
34 D. The hours of operation would be consistent with retail business and professional
35 offices in the area which normally operate 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 P.M.
36 E. The proposed project would provide 13 parking spaces which given the operating
37 characteristics of a rental car facility would be adequate.
38 F. The proposed project would be similar in intensity to a light retail business and
39 /or a professional office. This is based on the fact that customer arrival would be
4o staggered throughout the day and are typically set by appointment. Given the
41 function of a Hertz the average number of customers on the site at one time is
42 three and typically there are only two employees on a shift at a time.
43
44 6. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
45 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3, conversion of small structures
46 and Section 15301 Class 1, Existing Facilities based on the following:
47
48 A. The total building square footage is 4,650 square feet.
49 B. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials.
50 C. The location is not environmentally sensitive and with no drainage courses or
51 bodies of water (such as creeks or streams).
1 D. The site is developed with an existing building and parking lot, utilities and
2 services already are available at the site and no expansion of the existing
3 building footprint is proposed as part of the project.
4
5 7. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the
6 Zoning Ordinance:
7
8 A. posted in three places on the project site on October 11, 2013 ;
9 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 11, 2013;
10 and
11 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on October 13, 2013
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1 ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
4 DRAFT USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW A
5 HERTZ CAR RENTAL FACILITY
6 TO OPERATE AT
7 724 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-031-19
8 FILE NO: 13-20-UP-PC
9
10
11 1. Approval is granted for operation of Hertz Car Rental Facility at 724 South State Street,
12 APN 003-031-19 as described in the project descriptions dated October 10,2013 and
13 shown on the plans submitted to the Community Development and Planning
14 Department, date stamped °i,�a�t��2�� November 1, 2013 except as modified by
15 the following conditions of approval.
16
17 2. The use permit is granted subject to the following operating characteristics:
18 A. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
19 through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday and closed on Sunday.
20 B. The business shall have five employees with three per shift.
21 C. No rental of large equipment or trucks.
22 D. No auto repair shall be performed on site.
23 E. No more than ten rental vehicles on the site at one time.
24
25 3. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff
26 review and approval:
27
28 A. The location of the bike parking shall be shown on the site plan and a detail that
29 shows the type of bike rack shall be included. Inverted "U " style rack is
30 preferred.
31 �. L�ea#�s�-e�erx�la�e° ^'�
32 C. The area located in the front of the building directly in front of the access way to
33 the interior parking shall be marked with No Parking.
34 D. Location of new street tree.
35
36 4. The bike rack required by condition 3A shall be installed prior to occupancy and is
37 subject to staff approval.
38
39 5. Prior to installation of any signs, application for and approval of a sign permit from the
40 Planning and Community Development Department is required.
41
42 6. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as
43 notes on the first sheet.
44
45
46
47
1 From the Planninq Commission
2 7. At time of building permit the applicant shall submit a compliant air exchange analysis
3 relative to the parking garage. The analysis shall demonstrate that there is
4 safe/adequate air exchange in the parking garage.
5
6 8. Minor detailing of rental cars is permitted on site. Minor detailing includes vacuuming,
7 hand washing windows and interior cleaning of vehicles. No washing of renfal cars is
8 permitted on site.
9 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv)
10
11 9. A building permit is required with plans designed by a California licensed architect or
12 engineer.
13
14 From the Fire Department (Kevin Jennings)
15
16 10. Two Class 2-A fire extinguishers shall be provided, and shall not be obstructed or
17 obscured from view. Location shall be determined by the Fire Prevention Officer prior to
18 installation.
19
20 11. Exit signs shall be provided.
21
22 12. Exit signs shall be internally or externally illuminated at all times. Signs shall be
23 connected to an emergency power system that provides illumination for not less than 90
24 minutes in case of primary power loss.
25
26 13. Egress doors shall be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or
27 special knowledge or effect. Exception: The main exterior door or doors are permitted
28 to be equipped with key-operated locking devices from the egress side provided a sign is
29 posted on the egress side stating "This door to remain unlocked when building is
30 occupied ".
31
32 From the Department of Public Works ( Ben Kaqevama)
33
34 14. A street tree with grate shall be added to the southeast corner of the property, subject to
35 staff review and approval.
36
37 15. If the building permit value of work exceeds $110,519 or the proposed improvements
38 create the net addition of two or more plumbing fixture units to the building, the existing
39 sanitary sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No.
40 1105, and repaired or replaced if required.
41
42 16. If additional plumbing fixtures are proposed, City of Ukiah sewer connection fees shall
43 apply, and shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
44
45 17. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the value of the
46 existing structure, the construction, repair or upgrade of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, along
47 the subject property frontages, may be required, pursuant to Section 9181 of the Ukiah
48 City Code.
1
2 Standard City Conditions of Approval
3
4 18. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Use Permit
5 has expired without the filing of a timely appeal. If a timely appeal is filed, the project is
6 subject to the outcome of the appeal and shall be revised as necessary to comply with
7 any modifications, conditions, or requirements that were imposed as part of the appeal.
8
9 19. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
10 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have
11 been applied for and issued/finaled.
12
13 20. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
14 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
15
16 21. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
17 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or
18 Federal agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building,
19 electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect
20 at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
21
22 22. In addition to any other condition imposed, any construction shall comply with all
23 building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and
24 ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
25
26 23. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit Amendment shall be provided to and be
27 binding upon any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
28
29 24. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be
3o completed prior to commencement of services allowed by this use permit amenement.
31
32 25. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
33 project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations
34 and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the
35 effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted
36 has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
37
38 26. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and
39 their agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the
40 City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim,
41 action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the
42 purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application.
43 This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses,
44 attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
45 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this
46 application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part
47 of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be
48 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the
49 agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
50
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C C ENTS
DATE: November 4, 2013
USE PERMIT#: 13 20 UP PC
OWNER/APPLICANT: Hertz
PRQPERTY ADDRESS: 724 S. State St.
FRQM: David Willoughby(Building Of ' zal)
Building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits wi11 be required for the change
of occupancy and the praposed wark. 3 sets of plans are required if there are no
structural changes (if structural changes then 5 sets and 2 sets of calculations if
needed). '��
The following comments are intended to aid the applicant in realizing some of the items
required to be incorporated in the building and plans when submitted for the building
permit. This is not a plan check for the permit.
• Both plan A and B appear to meet the accessibility requirements far the
parking and the path of travel from the public way. Plan�1is preferable if the
space between opposite parking spaces is adequate for ingress and egress of
the parking stalls.
Jennifer Faso
From: Ben Kageyama
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:37 PM
To: Jennifer Faso
Subject: 724 South State Street- Hertz parking plan
Jennifer
Based on the twa proposed parking plans, designated by Sheet numbers A1.1-A and A1.1-B, I believe that the plan A1.1- ;
A will be difficult to maneuver cars into the garage opening due ta the tight turn. Therefore, I recommend plan A1.1-B.
Ben
Benjamin Kageyama, P.E ,
Senior Civil Engineer '
City of Ukiah, Public Works Qepartment !
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CR 95482 '
phone: (707}463-6284 fax: (707)463-6204 !
email: bkaqeV�m�cx.citvofuk�ah:com
1
SITE SUMMRRY KEYNOTES � --- -- _.�
SITE AREA m �w e�+c smx�c ..—_,..,,.,,,,,�, �' -.." �-- -- ._�, � � _
APN'003-031-19 � .F,%ISitllG WRB 70 HEtMN��... �°"��""'�„",^"'�••-�...�„� � `
TOTAL BUILDING AREA � 4,650.00'SQ.FL . � ,����� �� � � .. ' � '- :�
OFFICE AREA� � 1,485.00'SQ.FT. . � ,�.�E7tlSTk1C C�1E'1'0 REµ�R7... . � ( _
OUTDQOR AREA 1,750.00'SQ.FT. � ��MOUN�3-eKE R�qt ( _ '
0
� .�Ei05iING 8'-0'M FENCE TO�1. . � � ' e o� �e .
PARKING GARAGE AREA 3,150.00'SQ.FT. m �UNE UF.CANOPI AB6VE � : � a� o .°:.� �o �� �
PARKWGREQUIRED�.. �..:;PROPERIY.LRtE .. . �� ° � ^^�� �� �°" . ..
. . .. . .. � "' 1 .��Q�< �- ;
BUILDING AREA @ 1/500 9 STALLS � E705TING 7RFE TO R6AW7 � � . _ ° ���"" `" �.
OUTDOOR AREA @�1/2000 ���� 1 STA�LS� � .t�M'KM PA1N OF 7NRfEi- � EXISTING � . ' K = �a LL � �' .
u_�
TOTACPARKWG REQUIRED 10 STAL�S � NEw 3 WMt+ACi P�avt�+fi St,W. BUILDING
PARKWG PROVIDED 16 STALLS ' ��� �( ..
.. . � :� �� ...
-_._ � .. � .���� �
"" �' �"' � ,r� ti44'-3. . � .� ��� .
-- �r
-^...-.�..,�,�,..,,,,,� --,... ,.✓ _____--__�� . . � �E a .
----.... `- ' ��a
----_r�`�„� � N��
�
- - - - - -�- -� - - - - -�- -4.,�—o- - - -� —a- - - - � � ��@
—-- .% r
( , ' . - - - - - --, � ....� �^' ��"
f o � `�
'� I CO� �-° � � , ,t � ,��
_ � � � �.
_ — _
ii ..._.....__ "'_' �At�Y ARF} � � �,,�-��",i . 7 , 3 . F--i .
� � o / � � ��� � A ��°, �<
� — — — �
,-- -, m \�
,
f �o ,,� _ ,
.----_.--�° i \ ^ y
l o
� R �� � �� 5 j
.. . . �, �� 5'� 2B`�78'-0', '� i ..�25- ... i �1� �..... 9 9r�• g�-8'. . �'.��� � s .� , ...
f
� � � � � �
. �, _ .. . .^ .\ . .. .. 3 ...
, Iy, f.` _� i � � �
�, �o� `- — -- - � � �
,
i r � n
..� /// w a
:h ��i • . .. � � � .� � 0 � �
�' � = 0 � '�j � �� � �
�� � OFFICE AREA � _� ; � 'H
/ � ' t 1.�86�SRFi °
__. - -- ' ------ . _ "
o. j o � r,;. , o....... . . B,_2R,.% :.9, O. _. 9r_O. 5,_4. � .
* � / (j k
� ' .��/ PARIf@Ms GARAfaE �O w L � .... ....
,,r ..__.....-- � � t 3.176 SQFT '_ .- g°'��N Vd:.. ��✓'� I ( .
! . ; ON �� �-`. 15. .
o � k � 73 x t4 =
�, � � � 11 =( � � �� � U i � ,,,-PROPOSED�'fl'�E �
`J PROPOSE
348'-6" -, 'a� ... 24'-0' 19�_0• : �I{ 30�_s• ; a•€ �'c" . ,�_,�`°o � i , BY UNDI.ORD
......._--- - -- . m
�, �� k� a � �
i .� ; ('�� ti � � j
'y! O'� \:/ �� 4 � p r
�m � 1 e ,r'
4 ____
�
i . � --__. °/ i
' :r
0
_..,.. � � � _._.. � � � .� � � � � � � � ..� ...... . .. .. � . .. � �� m m .
� - w
r/` � ,, o rv ¢ ....
�_f . . . .. : a �
�
t93'-3' ' J,r' m ......... . . .. .. .�t . ....
. . . .. . � _..�___
. m
o E
i a
_ � �. � � 3134�-6� .... . . � . ' 2� - .
' U � Q
a z,�
� 0 � �
m w
tt.a` o ............
' � w
' tt
'
EXISTING �
m
BUILDWG �
m
�
EXISTING t �
BUILDING � o �'
�
� Z z °'�
� g m ��
d HZW-�d
� �- �w= oU
..� ._.,. � � �. .�. �. _ _. ._. � ._ .s. .�. _ � .m. ..� � ..� _._.. � � _..�. _ � _ _.__ � �.. _. �. .�. � _._, � � �. ..� (n °a�.c GA.c �.
;OY��C
o�%7�h�
0' 5' 10' 15' 20' 30' 40' 60' �
� � � �'ll�■111�1� �
1 s �
0 0
1 z =
N Q
SCALE: 1"=20'-0° � ' �
�- _ �
y � Y
1 C7 4 O [ u
a " a o s
'hee,s Nunpsr� �
�! \� t�� ! \ ��.. .
SITE SllMMARY KEYNOTES -
_.. ..�. W �
SITE RREA G:J r�w v,u�s� `` -- -...., .�- -�� I �
APN:003-031-19 � DRSIMdG t�70 REMAt7 � � � "" '^— -.,_., � ` �
TOTALBUI�DING�AREA. 4,650.00'SQ.FT, m .�NE1M MM PMKMG SfMl � i `� :
OFFICE AREA .1,485.00'SQ.FT. 0 ..D�SiMiG GA7E.1U REM�9i . ; �. . � � _ .
OUTDOOR AREA 1,750.00'SQ.FT. � :.��►��5-��� . . .. .. ' � '� ... . .
� � � 04S1A1G 8'-0'HT FEt10E'N RElA4N : .. .. . . � � :
� E o rn —�
PARKING GARAGE AREA 3,150.00'SQ Ft'.. � � .t�E OF C�Pf+�01'E � � . ° �a : ��a � . ��° .
PARKING RE4UIRED � -PROPERIY lBff � ' e^ � °V
w � <a . :
BUILQING AREA @ 1/500 9 STAI.LS � .. E70S11NC 1REE 70 RE'MVH � - � � e ' � ' ' m'
a�
OUTDQOR AREA @ 1/2000 1 STALLS � [i� ..t�X'�M PA1H�OF 1RAV0.� .. ' � ° ' ���� � � .��
< e e d W u��
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 10 STAILS �' ���m�'1'o RD4W EXISTING �
PARKING PROVIDED 15 STALLS m oa�+c sia+e��iu r+�+w � BUILDING �� Q `�
�
+ I--
_._ 1 0'_iz
--__ w
--_ ,--- ----- �,
-- -�-_. -- � B.��
'°`° ____
� �
� �
.�8 .�744'-J' ' �'��
�`�`—� �. ._._ __, ,/ """_�•;■=_ O i o
"��;— � >' �,� ' � �
' � `
� �
— — — — — — — W!m
� --- - �- —° -�- � a— — — o —n— — — — 0 ��N
I ', \�- - -`- -_- - - - - '"° � r'' �t
; o �-�`� � � 'J r r�' ��
� � _ � � �-� _� / � �I
Q
� t °'
— — — — — —
� �
'" ---- ' / � . I .. Z6'-2' .. .
,
LL ,;
� � �
� � o
�F� O _ _ � ..�_. __ _ __
. '.w°=.�1 ' R? / � D ...____�t� — ------._....-- — 's �
. � --� ,j B•y•18�_�. . . 9� i ..... ..25,_. � ...'0..� 0 1 � � .�... `�..: . ...
/ _ , /
1
l °� � ( � � g
9' / °' _
j' �r ' i � ------- � o' -
_ �
�
� , f l _. • � Y��� nr�,�.. v_s
•� _ ---_ .p . t7 .
- � o
i 8
-� i t ', �� � � i ;, �-,,,
�. �o ' o�x�,+rs�n ? x---- �
_. _ :t.1.188 SCFT i ��� '
o ; _O J," . . . . ' .�19' 0 2Y_3. � ..
_� � o �; q
� ` -' a � '' ° Q � ;� i �'
* �
�.. . . �i ... PAR1tlNG..G�4RM,E ' ........ �.�� ..::. .:�. ....... j . r..� . _ . ....�
..� �� t 3,176�SQFT. � . _,J ---- .... - ... �
_._...- ---- - �
� — -
G
.- ( 'N d `�`�. � � ' � � <n
i � I . I ON --� cQt�}
..O O --� � �: �
�' �; c, � � ..i . f � i� y ° 13� 14 � ��`���
�
td9'-6" -" 24-Q' 19 0' :� �� . 3d=6• �' B• ,� �, A: .
..._....._..------ �-� � --�— � ' i t'-0' ' 8'.:�' � 9'-� 9'-0" '`
i� o � � � t .. $ ..
CU� ; (O r I'��x �; _
i €.� E
.
� � �
_ � � T � � ^ �. � �m ..� � o �... � � i ; ; �
o � �
� .. . . .. . .. � . � � o o .���
g�/� . �-.-�' � ______...:.
t93'-3' � ' � /-� E .
! E
0
O ' U
i � n
U
� �. � �. � �_ __ _. � tt34�-6�. _ ' a z o
- - �� . � ' _ = s '�.
E U
> — cn
m m w
... ' tt n`. ❑ ........
>
� �
'
� m
EXISTING � �
BUILDWG � � '
� �
EXISTING I o
BUILDING � Z z° a�i�
� � � �rn
/ w.�
t W �W=aU
� a�r�s
� m�'yJ�y
. . �.... �.._ ��. �_. �_ ..�. _..._ .�� ._.�_ ...�..,.,�. ...� �. �.,.m �.... �s ..� � �. _�. .o_ �� �. �. .� ....�.....� �_ .._.._ _.� � �o. a� �.. ...�. �� �_. � � �Cn h� ...
l �
� o
0' 5' 10' 15' 20' 30' 40' 60' � � °
I■�I I■�i I�I I��u��V'VIV�V�uuu� ° `
■ 1 N _ � �
� � � n
_ � s4 �
SCALE: �"=20'-0" P - � N a � _
�;
�'haFtNumae�
A���. 1-6 ������
E o
....r.�wv...+*e.,mr.Y...�.:..w.».ar..✓.:.�ww�:,�. t- v .
• �a
s 'v.a a..m .
- 3�.�� �a �• .
w �� � p �
t �. (
� C 4�
� a \ .`� j i �� ��i £'. i.d 4 W K�� }��* _. .
T
. �. . ,,:r a.., . _
u. !1 �[
� A�� LL
�
< ` s a
,�<... ,.»..., _) �
a�t; ��€ ��f � ��
' �� . .: .�: � C."?
� �i �
� �
; � Y� (�� x ..� £ � .
' ; � ���„ - . .
�£;� � �
� . ��.A.'. :
�': .. ... (� ,.
? ........... ........ '.. ........ . � � � . ...... . ....
� _
(.) i
� r
F- .i
Q ,�
�:n
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATIpN PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION � �
.. � � . . . NTS � � .
. . . . . . . . . . �' �.
�---� � _�PROPOSER NEW SIGN .
.EXlSTING ME(AL.ROOF r CX(STING�COftRUGA7E6 4iETAL�� .. � .} �7' 6' -.. �����-��� � E%IST(NG kWNING:�- 12-Q i-EX)STING STOftEERONT �-EXISTING�CORRUGATEQ META! ��
, 3.73'�-8" �'- ..___ 'r_ . .
�' � P_ � r` j �' TYP_
w
� ;
, t 15'D"— � t 75 0" i ; ,' ,
.� ' � '�� ;.. � • i t 72'-ib`— - .
.. . . . . .... .... . ........ ...... " � ��� . ..EXISTING�GATE. . .. ... . .... ......... ......... ........ ..... ... .. .. .
0
�
l � \ � � .� � � �
,�t �.� + ea �, t �t� 1 a I
� j� �b: F � jY� �I �! I (
,.tM� ,a�� ,.,��.�. ,rt ;
� � � � �,
, , , . > , r r , .;,�� +.
, , . �
� � i
; . .� i �� � �, ..
�'
'
' t . . � ; . . i . _ ......
Q � <
LEFT EGEVATION FRONT ELEVATION � � '
, ,�e._�,_o. q. �e•_ ,�—o• 3 � _ .
�
0
U
� _
U _
Z n
� �
. . . a � � Va Y . .......
� � � M . .......
M
t 17 6"�- ;"'EXIS7ING METAL ROOF �-EXISTING CQRRUGATE6 FIEikL � � t �J'-fi" �-EXISTING IAETAI ROOF ,--EXISTING CORRUGRTEO MEiAL �
#
� �� t 75 6' /�15' 0" �- .- �
_7 _ _ �J �
� r , �
_ r O
Z
� p (n
� F . _.. ._ I ___ :, : , ... .0 m (0 V'
I
I � I �' ( ; E ; ;,k � I � ;� I Z "W��
,�
� ,z� �d
�' �'��� � � � � ' � � � j � � I r�f�` ( �� � � � I ' u' 'K,c<O.�
W
�:��4N� � �! ( ' I � � i i i I� i � 'Q��:Y
�•, � �;`tn�n�
ti�. !' I I ! � p'
w �
w
8 z
RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION N "<
„8._,._o. 6 ,,e„_,._o. 5 >
A3.0
1 ITEM 9B
Community Development and Planning Department
G��ty Of u�a�i 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707) 463-6203
2
3 DATE: November 13, 2013
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Request for approval of Minor Amendment to the Myszka Place Planned
10 Development conditions of approval to allow the removal of two trees
11 1210 Myszka Place, Lot 2, APN 001-201-08
12 File No. 13-26-PDA-PC
13
14
15 RECOMMENDATION
16
17 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested minor Planned
18 Development Amendment based on the draft findings included in attachment 1 and subject to
19 the draft conditions of approval included in attachment 2.
20
21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
22
23 An application has been received from Karen Keehn requesting Planning Commission approval
24 of a minor amendment to the conditions of approval for the Myszka Place Planned
25 Development. The amendment request includes the following:
26
27 • Removal of 3 Redwood trees
28 • Removal of 1 Blue Atlas Cedar
29
30 The applicant originally wanted to only remove two trees (1 Redwood and 1 Atlas Cedar). One
31 was located partially within the building envelope and the other within in five feet of the building
32 envelop. However based on comments received from a certified arborist, the request now
33 includes removal of two additional redwood trees (see attachment 3).
34
35 As part of the project the applicant is proposing to plant the following new trees (see attachment
36 6, planting plan).
37
38 • 24 " Cornus nuttallii ( indigenous dogwood) and/or Cornus nuttallii X florida (native cross
39 dogwood)
Myszka Place Lot 2
Minor Planned Development Amendment
File No.:13-26-PDA-PC
1
1 • Redbud (Cercis occidentalis)
2 • Pictacia chinensis street trees
3
4 As suggested by the Planning Commission during the preliminary review on October 23, 2013,
5 the applicant reached out to the neighbors and hosted a "Q & A" meeting. The purpose of the
6 meeting was to answer any questions the neighbors might have regarding the proposal to
7 remove the trees. The open house was held November 10 (see attachment 5, invitation to
8 neighbors).
9
10 The Zoning Code allows minor revision or modifications that do not increase the density or
11 intensity of the project and which would not adversely affect off-site property to be approved by
12 the Planning Director. In this case the Planning Director felt that since the community, as a
13 whole places a high value on trees, and that the General Plan has many goals and policy
14 related to the preservation of trees it would be appropriate for the request to go to the Planning
15 Commission. Based on this the Planning Commission is requested to review this minor planned
16 development amendment request.
17
18 BACKGROUND
19
20 In 1991 the Myszka Place Planned Development was approved with conditions of approval that
21 included a development map. The development map defined a building envelope for each lot
22 and identified specific trees that were required to remain (see attachment 6 ). All of the lots
23 within the Planned Development have been developed with the exception of Lot 2, which is
24 located on the northwest corner of Myszka Place and Highland Avenue.
25
26 Since the original development plan was approved more than 20 years ago, one of trees
27 required to be retained has grown into a portion of the building envelope, another tree is now
28 located closer to the building envelop and two of the trees are in poor health. For this reason
29 the applicant is requesting approval to remove the trees.
30
31 The following approvals for Myszka Place required that the trees remain and/or identified the
32 approved building envelope.
33
34 Ordinance 920: Planned Development Approval
35 • Condition 7H: Tree removal only as shown on the Development Map
36
37 Resolution 91-55: Tentative Subdivision Map Approval
38 • Condition 12: Setbacks as shown on the Development Map
39 • Condition 23: Tree removal as shown on the Development Map
40
41
42 Resolution 93-54: Final Subdivision Map Approval
43 • Condition 3: Tree removal as shown on the Development Map ( environmental mitigation
44 measure)
45 • Condition 6: Setbacks as shown on the Development Map (Planned Development
46 Conditions of approval)
Myszka Place Lot 2
Minor Planned Development Amendment
File No.:13-26-PDA-PC
2
1
2 On October 23, 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary application to amend the
3 conditions of approval for the Myszka Place Planned Development. The Commission was
4 supportive of the amendment based on the information submitted as part of the preliminary
5 review (see minutes included in packet). The Commission had the following comments. The
6 applicant's response is noted in italics.
7
8 • Asked the applicant to consult with a certified arborist.
9
10 The applicant consulted wifh a certified arborist and has submitted the arborist's letter.
11 The arborist agreed that removal of the trees would be appropriate given their close
12 proximity to the building envelop and a/so recommended that two additional trees be
13 removed. She further stated that the removal of the three redwood trees would not
14 impact negatively on the redwood tree that would remain. In fact the removal of the
15 three redwood trees may contribute to a healthier more sustainable grove in the future
16 (see attachment 4).
17
18 • Requested that the applicant submit a planting plan.
19
20 The applicant has submitted a proposed planting plan and description of proposed
21 planting (see attachment 6).
22
23 • Advised the applicant that the formal application would involve a public hearing and
24 therefore recommended that the applicant reach out to the neighbors and advise them of
25 the proposal to remove the trees.
26
27 The applicant sent a letter to all the property owners within the 300 feet of the project
28 site, to invite them to a "Q & A " meeting (see attachment 5). The purpose of the
29 meeting was to inform the neighbors that an application has been submitted to the city
3o requesting approval to remove the trees and to answer any questions they might have.
31
32 SETTING
33
34 The project site is located at the northwest corner of Highland Avenue and Myszka Place. The
35 undeveloped lot is covered in grasses and multiple large trees. The existing trees include
36 fourteen redwoods along with a cedar, fir, spruce and pine trees. The project site is zoned
37 Planned Development (PD) and is surrounded by the following:
38
39 ■ North: Single Family Homes zoned Planned Development (PD) and Single Family
40 Residential - Hillside (R-1-H)
41 ■ South: Single Family Homes zoned Planned Development (PD) and Single Family
42 Residential Hillside (R-1-H)
43 ■ East : Single Family Homes zoned Single Family Residential ( R-1)
44 ■ West : Single Family Homes zoned Single Family Residential — Hillside (R-1-H)
45
46
Myszka Place Lot 2
Minor Planned Development Amendment
File No.:13-26-PDA-PC
3
1 STAFF ANALYSIS
2
3 General Plan. The General Plan land use designation of the parcel is Rural Residential (RR).
4 This designation applies to single family residences, residential dwelling on large parcel and
5 estate residential lands. The actual uses allowed are determined by the zoning of the parcel
6 (such as Residential, Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial or Planned
7 Development). Table 1 below provides an analysis of the General Plan goals and policies that
8 appl to the proposed pro'ect.
Table 1: General Plan Consisten
Goal/Polic Staff Anal sis
O en S ace
Goal OC-24: Replace aging trees with new trees. If the amendment to remove the two trees is approved
the applicant would replace the trees with new trees.
OC-24.1: Develop a program to ensure continued Based on this there would be continued tree
healthy tree propagation propagation in the area which is consistent with the
OC-24.1(a) : Implement the program to replace aging General Plan Goal.
trees giving preference to native species
Goal OC:25: Maintain and enhance the City's canopy of The trees that would be removed would be replaced at
shade trees. a rate of a minimum of 1:1. With the planting of the
new trees the city's canopy of shade trees would
OC-25.1: Protect existing healthy mature trees to continue to grow and therefore would be consistent
maintain shade and area attractiveness. with the General Plan.
OC-25(a): During the short-term planning period, utilize
the Land Development Code or enact an ordinance
identifying important shade tree areas and providing for
their long-term management and health.
OC-25.1(b): Establish a requirement for public notice
and hearing when trees are to be removed from
undeveloped public, private, and redeveloped property
—except for recreational purposes or in relation to
agriculture—as part of the design review program
Goal OC-29: Maintain and enhance the"urban forest" With the planting of the new trees along with the
which creates a sense of urban space. proposed landscape for the new single family dwelling
the"urban forest"would be enhanced.
OC-29.1:The development review process shall
incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the A draft condition of approval has been added that
urban tree canopy. required protective fencing to be installed during site
construction to ensure that the remaining trees are not
OC-29.1 (a):The Land Development Code shall damaged and continue to survive.
incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the
urban tree canopy. The applicant consulted with a certified arborist and
any recommendations from the arborist have been
OC-29(b): Review construction and landscaping site included as a condition of approval.
Myszka Place Lot 2
Minor Planned Development Amendment
File No.:13-26-PDA-PC
4
Table 1: General Plan Consisten
Goal/Polic Staff Anal sis
plans to ensure that healthy trees are not removed
unnecessarily.
OC-29.2:Cultivate an understanding of an appreciation
for the social,environment,and aesthetic values of
trees.
OC-29.2(a): Make available information on sound urban
forest management practices.
Ener
GoaI:EG-5 :Site Design shall incorporate shade trees for The planned development was approved with the
energy conservation specific building envelops which took into consideration
the existing trees and the use of shade trees. Given that
Policy EG-5.1: Encourage minimum canopy coverage of the lot has been vacant for over 20 years and the
all paved area on a lot. existing trees have grown in order to best utilize the site
removal of two of the trees is requested.
EG-5.1(a):The Land Development Code shall include in
its design requirements that all new development shall
provide a canopy of 50%at the maturity of all paved
areas on the lot.
Communi Desi n
Goal CD-12: Conserve the character and architecture of The removal of the two trees would not be detrimental
Ukiah and Valley neighborhoods. to the character and architecture of the neighborhood.
As noted previously the removal of the trees would
CD-12.1: Maintain and improve Ukiah's streets, lighting, enable the applicant to design a home that would be
trees, landscaping,and parks in a manner that enhances enhance the neighborhood which would be consistent
the City's beauty and historic fabric. with the General Plan .
CD-12: Establish public design standards for street
furniture and landscaping that enhances the
streetscape and general fabric of the City.
1
2 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan. The project is located outside of the Airport Master
3 Plan area, therefore, the project is not subject to compatibility zone requirements.
4
5 Zoning. The zoning of the project site is Planned Development (PD). As previously noted, the
6 project site is lot 2 of the Myszka Place Planned Development which was approved in 1991. As
7 part of the conditions of approval, a development map was approved that defined the building
8 envelope for each lot along and identified specific trees that were required to be retained. All
9 future development on this lot would be required to maintain the approved building envelop.
10
11 Rezone Planned Development Amendment. Per Z.O. Ordinance 9168(6) changes to an
12 adopted development plan technically require approval of a "rezoning". The table below includes
13 the required findings along with staff's analysis.
Myszka Place Lot 2
Minor Planned Development Amendment
File No.:13-26-PDA-PC
5
1
2
Table 3: Section 9168 (c)
Findings for Rezone Planned Staff Analysis
Develo ment
The proposed minor amendment to the The Project is consistent with the General Plan.See General Plan
Planned Development is consistent with the Section above.
General Plan.
The proposed minor amendment to the The Project is consistent with the purpose of Article 14, based on
Planned Development is consistent with the the following:
purpose of Article 14, Regulations in Planned
Development Districts. . The purpose of the approved planned development was
to create lots for single family homes. Lot 2 has been
vacant for more than 20 years. This amendment would
Z.O.Section 9165: The purpose of the allow the removal of two trees which would enable the
Planned Development Combining Zone is to construction of a single family home.The final build out
allow flexibility in design and development in of the subdivision would maintain a well-planned,
order to promote economic and efficient use creative,quality development.
of land,•to increase the level of urban
amenities;to preserve the natural
environment;and to provide for phased
completion of development projects. It
generally provides a method for deviation
from standardized zoning requirements to
foster well-planned, creative, and quality
development.
The proposed minor amendment to the The proposed Planned Development shall be compatible and
Planned Development conditions of approval complementary to the existing and potential development in the
shall be compatible and complementary to general vicinity based on the following:
existing and potential development in the
general vicinity of the project site. • The surrounding neighborhood is developed with single
family homes the removal of the trees would enable the
construction of single family home which would be
similar to the surrounding neighborhood.
• The construction of a new single family home would add
value to the neighborhood because the lot would no
longer be vacant.
• The applicant would plant new trees to replace the trees
that would be removed.
• The applicant would be required to plant street trees at
time of site development.
3
4 Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Development Plan. Per Zoning Ordinance 9168
5 (6) changes to adopted planned development plans may be approved under the same process
6 applicable to the original approval. Furthermore the zoning ordinance includes specific criteria to
7 be addressed in order to determine consistency with the purpose and intent of the Planned
Myszka Place Lot 2
Minor Planned Development Amendment
File No.:13-26-PDA-PC
6
1 Development Article 14. Criteria for Precise Development Plan is included in Z.O. Section 9167
2 (F) and is shown in the table below with staff analysis.
3
Table 4: Section 9167 F
Criteria for Planned Development Rezone Staff Analysis
with Precise Develo ment Plan
User Im act and Needs
Circulation Needs and Impacts The project involves the removal of two existing trees. Circulation
would not be impacted.
Parking and Traffic Needs and Impacts The project involves the removal of two existing trees. Parking
and traffic needs would not be impacted.
Utilities and Public Services Needs and City services are available for the project site.
Impacts
Noise Needs and Impacts There would be not long term noise impacts as a result of the
removal of the two trees.
Odor Needs and Impacts N/A
Objectionable odors are not typically associated with the removal
of trees.
Private and Common Space Needs and N/A
Impacts
Trash Collection Needs and Impacts N/A
Security and Crime Deterrence Needs and N/A
Impacts
Energy Consumption Needs and Impacts
Design Needs and Impacts The original Myszka Place approval included a Development Map
that identified the building envelope for the parcel. Plans
submitted for building permit would be required to demonstrate
that buildings and structures are located within the approved
building envelope.The Myszka Place approvals do not include
design standards or require approval of a site development
permit.
Relationship to Physical Features:The N/A
location of the building and structures shall The original review and approval would have addressed this
respect the natural terrain of the site and requirement. It is likely that specific building envelopes and
shall be functionally integrated with any retention of specific trees were required in order to comply with
natural features of the landscape to include this finding.
the preservation of existing trees,where The Project would result in the removal of two trees required to
feasible. remain as part of the conditions of the original approval for the
Myszka Place PD. The applicant has proposed to plant trees to
replace the trees to be removed. The replacement ratio would be
a minimum of 1:1. Planning Commission has the authority to
increase the tree replacement ratio.
Consistency of Architectural Style:All N/A
buildings or structures shall be harmonious The Myszka Place PD does not include design guidelines or
and consistent with the proposed require the approval of a site development permit for
Myszka Place Lot 2
Minor Planned Development Amendment
File No.:13-26-PDA-PC
7
Table 4: Section 9167 F
Criteria for Planned Development Rezone Staff Analysis
with Precise Develo ment Plan
architectural style regarding roofing,exterior development of the individual parcels.
materials,windows,doors,texture,colors,
and other exterior treatment.
Balance and Integration with Neighborhood: N/A
The overall design shall be integrated and The Myszka Place PD does not include design guidelines or
compatible with the neighborhood and shall require the approval of a site development permit for
strive to be in harmony with the scale and development of the individual parcels.
bulk of the surrounding built environment.
Building Design: The design of the buildings N/A
and structures shall strive to provide The Myszka Place PD does not include design guidelines or
innovation, variety, and creativity in the require the approval of a site development permit for
proposed design solutions. All architectural development of the individual parcels.
elevations shall be designed to eliminate the
appearance of flat facades and box like
construction.
Density: For residential projects,every effort The removal of the trees would not result in a change to the
shall be made to achieve the maximum density approved for the Myszka Place PD or lot 2 . The removal
density possible pursuant to the underlying of the trees would allow the construction of a single family
zoning district. dwelling.Which is consistent with the purpose and density of the
planned development.
1
2
3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
4
5 The proposed amendment to the Planned Development conditions of approval is exempt from
6 the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
� Section 153061(b)(3) the General Rule, that CEQA app/ies on/y to projects which have the
s potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
9 certainty that there is no possibility that the acti�ity in question may have a significant effect on
10 the en�ironment, the acti�ity is not subject to CEQA. The project will not have a significant
11 effect on the environment based on the following:
12
13 • The project involves the removal of four existing trees. Based on consultation with a
14 certified arborist removal of the trees would not negatively impact the remaining trees.
15 • All future development on the lot would require a building permit.
16
17
18 PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
19
20 A notice of public hearing was provided in the following manner:
21
Myszka Place Lot 2
Minor Planned Development Amendment
File No.:13-26-PDA-PC
S
1 • posted in three places on the project site on November 1, 2013 ;
2 • mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site November 1, 2013; and
3 • published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 3, 2013.
4
5 As of the writing of this staff report, two letters of support have been received in response to the
6 notice (see attachment 6).
7
8 DECISION TIMELINE
9
10 The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). The
11 PSA requires that a decision be made on the project within 60 days of the application being
12 deemed complete. This application was submitted to the Planning and Community Development
13 Department on October 29, 2013 and was deemed complete on November 5, 2013. As such, a
14 decision must be made on the project no later than January 4, 2013. The applicant may request
15 a onetime extension of the decision timeline. The next regularly scheduled Planning
16 Commission meeting is December 11, 2013.
17
18
19 ATTACHMENTS:
20
21 1. Draft Findings for Approval of amendment to Planned Development
22 2. Draft Conditions of Approval
23 3. Project Description dated October 29, 2013 and November 6, 2013
24 4. Letter from Arborist dated November 1, 2013 and supplemental email dated November
25 6, 2013
26 5. Letter sent by applicant to surrounding neighbors
27 6. Public Comments
28 7. Site Plan and Planning Plan dated October 29, 2013
29
30
31
Myszka Place Lot 2
Minor Planned Development Amendment
File No.:13-26-PDA-PC
9
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2
3
4 DRAFT FINDINGS TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO THE MYSZKA PLACE PLANNED
5 DEVELOPMENT
6 1210 MYSZKA PLACE, LOT 2
7 APN 001-201-08
8 FILE NO. 13-26-PDA-PC
9
10 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
11 the application materials and documentation, and the public record.
12
13 1. As required by Z.O. Section 9168 (c) (a) the proposed project, as conditioned, is
14 consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the purpose of the Zoning
15 Ordinance Article 14, Regulations in Planned Development Combining Zone Districts as
16 described in the staff report and Table 1.
17
18 2. As required by Z.O. Section (c) (b) the proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible
19 and complementary to existing and potential development in the general vicinity of the
20 project site as described in Table 3 of the staff report.
21
22 3. The proposed project as conditioned is consistent with the applicable requirements of
23 the Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report.
24
25 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the criteria required for approval
26 of a planned development with development plan based on the analysis included in
27 Table 4 of the staff report.
28
29 5. The proposed amendment to the Planned Development conditions of approval is exempt
30 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
31 CEQA Guidelines Section 153061(b)(3)the General Rule, that CEQA applies only to
32 projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
33 Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question
34 may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
35
36 6. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the
37 Zoning Ordinance:
38
39 A. posted in three places on the project site on October 29, 2013 ;
40 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 29, 2013;
41 and
42 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 3, 2013
43
44
45
46
47
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
4 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO THE MYSZKA
5 PLACE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
6 1210 MYSZKA PLACE, LOT 2
7 APN 001-201-08
8 FILE NO. 13-26-PDA-PC
9
10
11 1. Approval is granted to allow the removal of four trees located at 1210 Myszka Place,
12 Lot 2, APN 001-201-08 as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning and
13 Community Development Department date stamped November 7, 2013 except as
14 modified by the following conditions of approval.
15
16 2. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around trees that are in proximity of
17 construction activities during site development. The protective tree fencing required
18 shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in height and secured with in-ground posts. The
19 fencing shall be located 5 feet from the dripline of the tree. The approved tree
20 fencing shall be installed prior to construction/grading activities and shall remain in
21 place until construction has been completed.
22
23 3. At time of building permit for site development the required tree fencing in condition
24 of approval No. 2 shall be shown on the building permit plans and is subject to staff
25 review and approval.
26
27 4. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and
28 their agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless
29 the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from
30 any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or
31 entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this
32 application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs,
33 expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person
34 or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
35 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active
36 negligence on the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this
37 indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of
38 competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and
39 effect.
40
41 5. Any Planned Development Combining Zone/District created after the effective date
42 of Article 14 of the zoning ordinance shall expire after three (3) years from its
43 approved date by the City Council if actual construction has not occurred. A one
44 year extension of the three (3) year time period may be granted by the Planning
45 Director if substantial progress has been made towards securing a building permit.
46 All requests for an extension must be made in writing, and shall detail the progress
47 made towards implementing the project and securing a building permit. If any PD
48 Combining Zone/District expires, the zoning (or its current equivalent) which existed
49 prior to the adoption of the PD District shall be in full force and effect.
50
1
2 6. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
3 regulation, specification, or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or
4 Federal agency as applicable.
5
6 7. All construction activities shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
7 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the
8 Building Permit is approved and issued.
9
10
� - � � � �
��f4c�e��,��n� �� --
�ECEIVED
October 12, 2013 � � r � 0 ���3
PLANNING COMMISSION �
City of Ukiah �� ��
IK/W�GQ�
To Whom It May Concern : '.
My husband, Richard, and I would like to build a new home in Ukiah on the remaining vacant lot (#2) at
1210 Myszka Place. This properly has changed owners several times since the development's final
approval in 1993 and is again for sale. It is the only lot that remains having no home. Since we opened
escrow a few weeks ago, we became aware of problems posed by a few trees on the property. As yo�
can understand, we do not want to buy the property unless we are assured we can build which would
require the removal of a couple of problem trees. Because these trees have more than doubled in size
during the last 20 years, they are now on or within the approved building envelope. We understand it is
the policy of the city to infill approved sites and believe we can work togetherto resolve any difFiculty.
For me personally, building there means returning to my childhood neighborhood ( 1020 W. Perkins).
Wanda Myszka Mannon and I have been friends since early childhood and were little girls when her
father planted the above mentioned grove of trees. Although the trees are not indigenous or "heritage
trees", we the share neighborhood's appreciation of them and respect the city's desire to protect them
according to the development's guidelines and the General Plan.
To that end, I have drawn approximately 20 plans trying to fit the house footprint within the perimeters
drawn on the approved map, aligning the garage with the existing driveway and saving all trees in the
grove. No matter which plan, there remain two trees that wou �d be against the garage wall, their roots
invading the foundation and their canopy's extending far overthe building, posing a real fire danger. We
propose removing these trees (as marked ) and mitigating their removal by planting other trees (26"
boxes) farther west in the grove opening to include various dogwood, Chinese pistachios and Japanese
maples. The home is positioned to "face" the grove which is the focal point adding beauty, privacy and
shade. The remaining landscaping wili feature draughttolerant plants.
ln addition to meeting or exceeding all city codes, our home is designed for one level with the exception
of a third bedroom/bath above the garage for a caregiver, guest or studio. The level portion will '
accommodate anyone who is disabled including 3` doorways and bathrooms designed for wheel chairs.
My husband has advanced Parkinson's, dementia and is disabled . Building here will locate us within
walking distance of town and closer to services and facilities. We also have two daughters who live
� nearby, one on Clay and another on Oak Park Ave.
ftichard will be having major spine surgery October 15 at the San Francisco VA; his recovery process is
unknown . Therefore we have asked our agent, Kerri Vau and one of our daughters, Julia Fetherston to
represent us at your hearing . Julia has a Masters degree from Cal in Environmental Biology/California
Oak Woodlands and ran the Master Gardener's program in Ukiah while working for U.C. Extension
Service; she should be able to address any questions you might have.
RespectFully,
�
K ren Schilder Keehn
?Caren � RicharcC9Ceehn*P.O. Box 7ooi Boonvi�Ce Road, 21kia�i, CA. g5482 * 707 463 3460 * �s(zeehn@�rnaiC.cam
,, .
P�
November 6, 2013 ��
Ukiah Planning Commission �����
City of Ukiah ��i� o� ����
RE 1210 Myszka Place ���
��
To Whom It May Concern :
This letter is to amend our request for tree removal at 1210 Myszka Place, a property for
which we are currentiy in escrow contingent upon our ability to build . As you know, this
property has been approved for building a single-family residence since 1991 .
During the Planning Commission hearing on 10123, we were asked to hire a licensed
arborist and get their professionai opinion whether removal of the two trees would
adversely impact the remaining redwood trees in the colony. The Planning Department
provided us names of two licensed arborists. We contacted both, then hired Criss Tree
Care, who was willing to change their work schedule to accommodate us before the
November 13 public Planning Commission deadline. Heather Criss (USA Cerfified
Arborist 959�A } spent considerable time at the home-site both before and after we met
and subsequentiy sent a written report that is included .
We originally requested removal of one redwood and one Blue Atlas Cedar that are
on/inside the building envelope. However, in her report, Mrs. Criss recommended that
we also remove a second , smailer redwood tree approximately 5-7 feet south of the
larger tree. Although presently outside the building envelope, she pointed out that
"construction there would be too close to this tree to allow for growth in the future as well
as the root system pushing up foundation or pavement" . She does not betieve that
careful removal of these 3 trees will have "a significant impact on the health or structure"
of the remaining trees in the redwood colony as their root system is well established and
extensive.
There is a third redwood tree in the center of the grove that has a large wound and
spindly growth. Mrs . Criss recommended this tree be removed to maximize the health of
fihe remaining dozen redwood trees. This sick tree does not impinge on the building
envelope and its removal is optional . '
As a result of her recommendations and discussions with local nurseries, we believe the
trees originally selected to mitigate tree removal should be changed as follows: 1 j leave
the existing oak in the center of the grove instead of replacing it with an Acer rubrum ; 2)
plant two 24" boxes of indigenous dogwood (Cornus nuttallii) and/or a native cross
dogwood f Cornus nuttallii X florida) instead of ptanting a Ginko biloba and Pistacia
chinensis, The dogwood trees would be more suitable to the site, the existing root system
and filtered-light canopy. If there is sufficient room, we will plant native redbud (Cercis
occidentalis) .
Respectf�lly,
� � J . ��j � � � � !
,- �_..
� � ��L2% v � �
Ky�ren Schilder Keehn
/
� � ° ,�ai���1�r��nf �
� � SS
:;s; ;.� r ,�h � .�'_ ;�;�
��
� �
;
707 349 2113
11792 E1k 1�Iountain Rd
Upper Lake, CA 95485 �
November 1 , 2013
Karen Keehn,
Re: Property on North corner of Highlands Ave and Myska Place, Ukiah CA
95482 '
There is a grove of fourteen Coastal Redwood Trees (Sequioa
sempervirens) on the SW corner of the lot. There is one tree from this grove and
a Blue Altas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica f. gluaca) that have been approved for
removal. '
I would recommend that the Redwood tree, just South of the tree
mentioned above and just outside of the building area, should be removed as welL
The construction there would be too close to this tree to allow for growth in the
future, as well as the root system pushing up foundation or pavement when in
close proximity to the trunk.
There is also a small diameter Redwood tree in the center of the grove, just
to the west of the trees discussed above that has a laxge wound on the South side
from the ground up the trunk. It would be my recommendation that this tree be
removed as well before it becomes an issue. There are very few branches on this
tree as it has been shaded by the larger trees . The branches help give girth to the
trunk and support the structure of the tree, as the tree growns taller, the trunk
diameter is most likely not going to increase in proportion to the height, the wound
would further compromise the structure.
Although the removal of these trees will have an impact on the remaining
trees, in my opinion it will not be a significant impact on the health or structure of
theses trees . There will be more resources available from the shared root system
for the remaining eleven trees. Considering the size of the lot in this residential
� area, the remaing grove of eleven trees is still substantial.
Heaher Criss
ISA Certified Arborist 9592A
,
� /.
Jennifer Faso
From : Criss Tree Care <treewalker73@aol .com> .
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:07 PM
To: Jennifer Faso .
Subject: Re: 1210 Myszka Place
�
Jennifer,
I will bring the map in tomorrow morning or email it tomorrow morning with the trees highlighted .
Explanation of the impact the removal of trees would have on the grove of Redwoods:
Each of the trees make energy from the activity in the canopy (their leaves). Most of this energy is
used for the growing process of each tree . Some of the energy is put into the root system for storage
or shared through the common root system with the other trees. The removal of the tree would
eliminate the contribution of those trees. (Each tree would be able to provide for itself individually, as
long as the environmental conditions in the soil provided enough water and nutrients. ) I don't think
the removal of two or three of these trees would in any way lessen the life of the grove. There would
be less competition for water, nutrients and sunlight in that area .
I have the office and business phone listed below, but my personal cell phone number is 707 349-
0475 if you have any further questions.
Thank you ,
Heather Criss
Criss Tree Care
707 349-2113
707 275-0442 Office/Fax
,
��tfic��h�t�r�f � ��
November z, zo13
Dear
We are writing to invite you to an informal open house on Sunday, November soth between y.-5
o'clock at the home of our daughter, Julia Fetherston, 7og Clay Street, to meet us and ask any
questions you may have prior to the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, November
�3tn
The reason for this invitation is that my husband, Richard, and I are in escrow to purchase a
vacant lot at izio Myszka Place in Ukiah where we would like to build a home . Since you are a
homeowner within 300' of this lot, you may know it is part of a single -family residential
development approved by the city of Ukiah in 199i. The lot has had several owners, none of
whom built on the lot in part due to the grove of redwood trees that cover nearly 30% ofthe
property.
I grew up at sozo West Perkins St. and was a child when the trees were planted by Charles
Myszka whose family were friends with mine . The trees are not indigenous nor are they
"heritage" trees and have grown a great deal in the zz years since the lot was originally sold .
Now, several trees are on, inside or next to the approved building envelope ofthe home site . At
the request ofthe city planning department and the Planning Commission, we hired a licensed
arborist to visit the site, examine the grove and tell us whether there would be any damage to
the remaining colony of redwood trees ifthe trees in question were removed . Attached is a
report written this week by the arborist, Heather Criss, Criss Tree Care, for your information .
We are mindful of the neighborhood 's pleasure these trees provide; we too value "the grove"
and have drawn preliminary plans to position the house so the grove becomes the landscape
design . We have been in agriculture for 43 years farming winegrapes in Hopland and believe we
have the experience to be good stewards ofthe trees .
We hope you canjoin us and look forward to meeting you . Our daughter, Julie, has her
master's from UC Berkeley in Environmental Biology with a specialty in California oak
woodlands and will also be present to answer any questions . If you are unable to come, please
feel free to call me at 463 346o with any questions you may have .
Sincerely,
Karen Schilder Keehn '
November z, zoi3
Kathleen F. AzarnofFTTEE
3451 Road I
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
Dear Ms . Azarnoff:
<
�r ��'c�chr�t�nt #
���
N �/��'
�V o� �
November 5, 2013 �413
C/n,
City of Ukiah Planning Department ��Uqry�,�!y�
300 Seminary Ave . s���
Ukiah, CA. 95482
Ref: Planned Development Amendment to Allow Removal of Trees 1210 Myszka Place
City File Number 13-26-PDA-PC
Dear Planning Department:
Wg are neighbors to the proposed development on the corner of Highland and Myszka Place, and� we
wa,nt to express our support for the proposed project. The removal of a limited number of trees in
ord�r to accommodate the proposed house seems reasonable to us. When this subdivision was
approved by the City in the early 1990's we assumed that the lots were proposed to be developed for
,,, ,
'sii't�e family houses. This is what is being proposed and it fits well with the existing neighborhood.
�il1�t� livere impressed by the fact the family proposing this project brought it to the City of Ukiah Planning
�il�nmission for input prior to the official public hearing. This shows that they are concernec! abou�
public input and want to be good neighbors. Please approve the project as they are proposin� i�.
Thank you for .your consideration .
Respectfully,
r—,
, �
� _,�':" •.
�� � �°� �� � •�- ��%/
..���- - , ,: � �-c�! c� ��
Corinne Olson Ernie Olson
1133 W. Church Street
Ukiah
i'
, ; /�
��� ' � '�� " `" t, � �'1/l-o-r -Pi'�
� � �2� �� � � �
�
Tom MonPere Gail MonPere
1129 W. Church Street
Ukiah
i � vv v � i v vv . —r—ru r, . � .
r
W
o�
L . S . �Vlitchell Architec� t , Inc .
� uilding r� rchitect & Land Planner
��
November 5, 2013 �,�
Np� ��i�
NIr. & Mrs, Richard Keeha ���� �
P.O. Box 7G7 - " . . �'� '�`°�
L:l�iah, C�. 95482 .
.
�
Re: 1210 Myszka Place — Tree Removal Hearing ;,, : ',
File NumUer: 13-2G -PD:�-PC ��.: �
, r,
' � Dear T�•Irs. Keehn:
Than�t }'ou for talcing the time to write a lettcr to the neighborhood. I am a trustee for a
special needs rxust r�at o�vns proper� �vithin the 300' xadius. I do not lire in chat are1, but �
did grown up ncarb� and am �ery Eamiliar v�nth Che site and its surround.ings . In fact I har• e
dri�%en past the site t«,ice since tbe artide appeared in the liDJ and slowed to surves the
siruation. I just wanted to take the time to thank pou for the let�er and to lend mti� f�milies
support to your request Good luck �vith the Planning Commission and tvith �our project.
S:ncerel�,
Laa•rez�ce S. Mitchell, AL.�
t�rchitect, G138G0 (1130. 15)
ti1i tcn c11. 110513.Ke ehn.LT1t
� l35 \C' IiGT GONR7 STRI.i1: 1' • l" KIAfi � CA • 9i � R ? - 5 .lf, i - .
I' IICINL : ? U1 - -16 ? - S ' 7A • L� P.!i ; iD % - 4G2 - ISU
1 ITEM 10A
Community Development and Planning Department
L�ity of Zlkah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: November 13, 2013
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Review of Electronic Cigarettes Store/Lounge in
10 Downtown Zoning Code boundaries
11 411 South State Street, APN 002-269-08
12 File No. 13-25-PRE-PC
13
14
15 REQUEST
16
17 An application for preliminary review has been received from James McKenney requesting
18 Planning Commission consideration and comments on a proposal to open an electronic
19 cigarette (E-Cigarette) store within the boundaries of the Downtown Zoning District. The
20 Planning Commission is asked to determine if this type of use within the Downtown Zoning
21 District would be allowed, permitted or prohibited.
22
23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
24
25 The proposed location for the business is 411 South State Street, APN 002-269-08, which is
26 located on the east side of South State Street between Clay Street and Seminary Avenue. The
27 business would sell E- Cigarettes and e-liquids flavors (see attachment 1, project description). It
28 is described as a retail business— No smoking lounge or vapor "bar" would be included.
29
30 BACKGROUND
31
32 E-Cigarettes are a new product that are growing in popularity. Given that they are new to the
33 retail industry there are still a lot of questions related to their use and regulation. It is still not
34 clear how they fit into a land use category. Based on the project description submitted by the
35 applicant e-cigarettes are a tobacco less, smokeless item. However they have similar
36 characteristics to a cigarette in that they do contain nicotine.
37
38 When staff was asked if this type of business would be allowed we were not sure how to define
39 the use. In the Community Commercial (C-1) District it seemed clear that it would be a retail
40 use and would be allowed, in Heavy Commercial (C-2) retail would require a use permit. In the
41 Downtown Zoning District it was not as clear. Smoke shops are defined as "an establishment
42 that sells tobacco or tobacco products for on-site or off-site use" and are clearly not allowed.
43 However, based on the definition of E-Cigarettes it is not a tobacco product.
Planning Commission Preliminary Review
E-Cigarettes
411 South State Street
File No.13-25-PRE-PC
1
1
2 Many cities have moved to place a temporary moratorium on this type of use until they have a
3 better understanding of what the product is and how it is used, and what are the possible
4 impacts to a neighborhood.
5
6 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
7
8 General Plan
9 The project site is designated Commercial on the General Plan Land Use Map.
10
11 Zoninq Ordinance — Uses
12 The project site is zoned General Urban (GU). Retail uses are an allowed use. Smoke shops
13 are prohibited. Below is the definition for both uses from the Zoning Code (section 9232.3) and
14 attachment 3 includes the retail use table from the Downtown Zoning Code.
15
16 RETAIL: Premises available for the sale of inerchandise and food service.
17
18 SMOKE SHOP: An establishment that se//s tobacco or tobacco products for on-site or
19 off-site use or products defined as drug paraphernalia by Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 7
20 of this code. Examples include hooka shops and head shops.
21
22
23 Attachments:
24
25 1. Project Description dated October 28, 2013
26 2. Proposed Floor Plan
27 3. Downtown Zoning Code Retail Use Table
28
29
30
Planning Commission Preliminary Review
E-Cigarettes
411 South State Street
File No.13-25-PRE-PC
2
� - I � E���
a ���fir��nt # �� �
_. OCT 2g �013
d
" Mendocino E-Cigarettes" Preliminary Proposal C11ypfi
�'UINV�N A�
The name of this proposed business is simply Mendocino E-Ci�arettes . E-cigarettes are electronic
cigarettes, which are a substitute for traditional cigarettes. E-�igarettes do not contain tobacco and do
not produce smoke when inhaled . An e-cigarette consists of a battery and a metal, glass, or acrylic
cartridge or tank, which is filled with a flava �ed e-liquid containing vegetable glycerin, flavoring, and
nicotine . This liquid is heated to a relatively low temperature and is vaporized, producing no smoke . The
e-liquids come in 8 different concentrations of nicotine, from 24 mg., the amount in a typical cigarette,
down to 0 mg. '
Since their introduction to U .S . markets in 2007, many consumers have switched over from
traditional cigarettes to e-cigarettes to avoid the consumption of tar, carbon monoxide, and 4,000 other
chemicals that are found in traditional cigarettes . Consumers and non -consumers alike also appreciate
that there is no smell and no smoke produced by e-cigarettes, eliminating the known health risks of
second-hand smoke . Consumers immediately benefit from consuming e-cigarettes over traditional
cigarettes because they are not consuming tar, carbon monoxide, or thousands of other chemicals that
are used to spray tobacco crops or added to tobacco cigarettes . Many consumers have also
successfully used e-cigarettes to wean themselves off of nicotine altogether by gradually moving to
lower nicotine levels in the e-liquids.
E-cigarettes are not subject to U .S. tobacco laws because they do not contain tobacco . They are
considered a regular retail good and there is no need for a tobacco license since e-cigarettes are not a
tobacco product. The e-cigarette tanks, cartridges, and batteries are not considered drug paraphernalia
under UCC Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 7 . Mendocino E-cigarettes would clearly not be. categorized as a
Smoke Shop because it will not sell any smoking accessories or tobacco products . Several retail
e-cigarette stores have opened in Sonoma County over the last several years and have received very
positive responses from the community.
With over five million Americans dying from tobacco-related illnesses each year, the public is
generally well-informed about the harmful effects of tobacco products . Even long-time smokers are
enthusiastic about e-cigarettes as an alternative, or as a means to quit smoking altogether. I have
spoken to many of the other downtown business owners about this proposed business, and they have
been supportive across the board . Customers over the age of 18 and with valid ID will be able to sample
a limited number of e-liquid flavors free of charge to determine which flavors they enjoy. The store will
not employ a lounge-style atmosphere for sampling the products. The products can only be sampled
with employee assistance, and loitering will be actively discouraged . The point of allowing customers to
sample the products is simply to make sure customers are satisfied with the product ahead of making
their purchases, much as customers can sample hand lotion before purchasing .
The store would carry hundreds of e- liquid flavors in bottles that range in size from 5 ml , to 30
ml ., at nicotine levels of 24 mg., 18 mg., 16 mg., 12 mg., 8 mg., 6mg ., 4mg ., and Omg. The bottles would
be kept behind the counter and could only be accessed by store employees . Two six-foot long glass
cases would display the e-cigarette batteries, cartridges and tanks . These products could be easily
, ' ' i j
� �
>
�
a
viewed by the customers, but they would likewise only be accessible by store employees, who would
remove the products from the case and show the customer how to use them properly. The windows of
the store will not be covered and the store will be brightly lit. The floor plan consists of several glass
display cases that will form a backwards L-shape on the left side of the store; a four-foot long counter
on the right side of the store, parallel to the back wall where the products could be sampled; and one or
two locked glass tower cases to display the e-liquid products. �
In addition to being a viable alternative to tar-filled cigarettes that produce second-hand smoke
and contain hundreds of carcinogens, consumers who use e-cigarettes also save hundreds or thousands
of dollars as compared to purchasing traditional cigarettes. Based on numerous conversations with local
residents and local business owners, I am confident that Mendocino E-cigarettes would be both
successful and well-received by the Ukiah community. 411 S . State St. is an excellent location and size
for a small retail store and an e-cigarette store will be an asset to the Ukiah community. I would like to
request that this preliminary proposal be considered at your November 13, 2013 meeting, and hope that
it will be approved without delay in order to open the store in time for the busy �Christmas retail season .
Thank you for your time and consideration .
Sincerely,
lames McKenney, business owner and long-time Ukiah resident
415 S. State St . Ukiah, CA. 95482
Ph : 707-367-0966
_.. . _ . _�,-__..-�.�-�-• -�._ _ 7 -. -. •�.- - r . ; , �- l � 7� I � �T - .,�.. i _.._ _ _ —. _---� �
� , i � ' � � � j-. �� i , ,G�"t T:? _$�__. ..�'
� � � rr��t � � � . . ., � �. �.. .. ;..... ._ _ _ -,
;
� ; , � . . _ . : . , .. .._... . �.... .� . . I. ,... . ,.�. t _ ; ._ _._�..... _ .. . ` ; f� � s
_ F� ,
, .._ . _ � _. ;., _ . . _, _. . .. . , ; .
� �� , ,
, , .
._ � ' ' ,
, � i � t r , ; ; � . � � �
; , ; � i
; � ��. > � � Q� - --'• -- -- .
i � ! I i : •
�
' � ' ' '
; i � �
� '
3 �
' —'_ � j
�. 3
^ _ 1 � ,
�..._.._.,. >..._._.L...__?.��....._ , . � �o ; � ; E q� .,.� .' �
G i
�
r..._..�. t -•
;....__.... ..� { : � . � . .
{ f ! j i 7 i i � � �4� � � _. I � ��.�.—^._._ ' y�W ��� � ...'.
; � i ; � ' ' ,_ _ _. ...._._s._-__.�__... . , — ----
� i _.�. � ,__ ....t _._._ � _..�.._ i
. �
_ _ _ .__,.., .__�.
.�_ ._..
.
�.. ..,... / � -._, f: t � t
_} _ _.. .�.. •-�-- �
; .
, :, : � � � : � I � r.. ... ..... ... .
, , - ._ �. � . . ..�.......,.....
_
. , . � _.... _,.. .....
, i ............_ ,............. .....�,..., ........ ....;.,. � .,.... _ .. �
,
' � ' 1�., .._.., �._.,.......� . .,.._...... .....�.,M� fi ..�..
,
� � , .� . ..�.� ..� .
t
. .... �
.3.... ........ ........._,,.... �
} ' . 1 __ .. "_ _ _ _ .�.. .....
: ; e 5 � ; i � ( i ! ; . _�.�...__ 1 _ _.
. .. .
, ( . _ _ .�_
, . ,..........._�_ __._...<__.. _ �' .
... ....
/ _ _
,. .....
, _...._....�`-...-±�.'I , �.�_. _�__ ._......_ ......__....s : , -.-j-. _`�` i .. � f � , _
_ . _.... ; � : - . � _ ____ ,
; i � f ! ..;.�__ i � � _ ' i _. _ .� ...i____. i ____�____ ;_._ �.`__ ..�...... . ....
� � } ;
� . ; . �..
.._._.�
_ __. ... �
,___. �--�--�- : r^......� -��"" � � ; - '� �—. i f � ; , ._ .
! ;
� , n .._ ; : F ; i � �' i � _ . _.__._;._.._..._�._...___t._._.._._ � .i
� � ! ` � � ^ -- ' - -.. _ ._ _ _. .....-- - -"' i_._ .... .. _ .. .
� : � ._...�.. ....___. � __.-'*-
i ..._..... .
� � � __..... ._. __... _._i.. � ..}.___... . : __ � i..�_ � --/"*,'- �_' � � t .
.�... ._ ._ ._ .._ _a-......_�----�' •
..
, ' ' i I � . � t _ ! % ` .
� , r � �
, , . , : : ' ; � . _ . . � _ ._ .. . i......, .. .: ... .
. . . . i . ._ .__ . q ... . . .�...� ,.....
� � ! � �_..._ s._._. ..._ ....... ..,. .....M... _ . ....�_....... _ �...... . . . f?� . - � , i i � '_..
e _.��.. ... . _.. _ ,,. ... �
� .�_ a . Q�,.- ��,° � �
$. . . ... . { . �_, _...., i s .
i 4 i � 1 . l # � , . � . . . .,i.,.._.._1. ,.._._ _� . . °f ... __�,, ._.. ...�... � ! .__
, , � , . � ... . ... � . , :
, : ; . . __. .. ! .. .. � . . .., . ...# _. . . ' . ...`._ ` ' • � _ ; f . 4 .
_ . ....._ .. _... . .. . .
�. . i . _ .. �. .. . 4 ; ' �. . } ..� : i
i ? ' i ! l ''s ! } V I._ ' 3 i .� ' .. _—�, —_ ..�,. _ �,__..i_-- � -- �
. . } . ��
: � ! : � _. _._..�. �_.__ _.._._. ' —r---- .: . - .. a ' N;
' ---._.�......�..—,..�....,.
_; . .. .__t----'-{----; � , , � -� -�- �_r__-_ i�---�-; k ` � i { ! � � � :
, ; , i � .... __ .,,. .
.
; � ; 4 _ .�� : , l ._...,� . a _.�_
� � ...� �._ .__..._ .�...�___ �.._�._. _..... ... ._. _ ; . _-- -- , � ,
� _.
. . _..
�. _. � .
, ._ �_. �...... . �.� ' �` _.Ir � ' ' �° � !
. .
� } i
' _ ..... ..... . . .
` , , � ' , , . __ _
, .
..
. : ; { .
j ,
.
.. .. -
j , G �s�
� : lr._ ,...4.....__'_.I.� ' _,...__.�._.....� . � � 'r' +Y�
..._ .
i
....,, .......��......,�. , t ' .
� i�.---..� _._._..:_.__..,,...�_�._ I �
. . ...... . .. , , � .. _ jT
1 ! t ; � F � � � ' ' �.�. � ^ �Q�J
� _ � % . ...�......_.....�_. ....� -.� _ _.._�. .,_._._ ..�_
__ l.. . � . .... ;�. �.. . � . .
� � _�. _.... . _ .,t . . . .
� ; } i _._ .__ •. _._ _ ...._ ... �. .. ... .
, . . . „� ._ ' ..-.......,�:......_._.. . ..1... ,a.._. ..��. ._ ._..�i � # i ...t._.
`.. . ... . �._ .. , _ :
^ - � v
... . ._. .p. .. . .........�.._.._ . . , � .
i . . � � � � � I ' {
c (
; � '• , � ._..._..�.__.._...�- - w • s'-.._,...,.... .. .. .:...� . ._ ..._.._�... ....... ..h... . � .. ....� . _. . .
_„ � _ --..�.._..... ..
. ; 1.. ... _... �__. ' .�.. � _ , �.
� ... �-- __.._.... _..._..... ; - ` � -'�: �e
�__ .�.,.
_..._..... .._..._....:..._.._. y , 1
, :
� .. ....._.�. , i
� � ti • t i ^ � � � '_.�_' "' ' _ '
� ` t ,.__�. � ".-P°-
� ���..�.�.._�� - �_ f �
i [ ' i � � L. ....�.�,._ _. � W. , ' . � ... :
. .
. � .
; . , . .. _. ._ ..
, � _ � �.__ __ r...__. ; _
, �_._ __
. .�__ __a.�._._t�. � _ _ : ; ; � ` � -- --- ' � t __. v
I i � __;_- _ _iq 4 ._ � �_._._. ..,�.._ � .�.� _..�_ .
; ; ; - ;
i ... . .......:.. ...._.._s.._--- ..d __ ---Y--- — , (`)' � ; ;
i i f � • •�� ;1 , V � �..-�.._..._.._ ! m �-.- ....L...._._i___.. _r,...__... i ... . a .. .
f � � �
{ ' { �
. . , 1
i . , ..__. : _....�.. . .�__._�--.- --- i �_.�_ � , , f
' .�_�_�. �_.,� . _- � � �,�" ; . � ' - -` -�--' -- -- ' --.. � --;-�
� �
! , ; ; ; , , �_ _. _.;_._ --� -;.. .... _ . .
' _ __.�.._.___. _..�_ . � , ; _ ; . , _ ; �--s- ; ' �- { . , � �...
? ' � ar. � 2 �� �, � j .�.� ; ! ' i _ i � F._._1__�_ -�- --�- - --
,
;
: : • �—. , - - ;
� - - _
a .___._ , .- . ,, . , �
! -�-- , � ' ' � � � ; ' T i i
! , � ; � __ � . �.�...�..—. � _ , —; ... .y�._�.._ .. . .. _._ ' 4 ..
�
� ' f � �
: ;.._..._.__ , ; ��I � �� � � > � �
r.. . ......_, f----' , /� . . � s � s ( i '
; �. ; . . , ; � • � _ . ! � .._ � T _ _–;---
' ; i ; . . _ —
-j_ � -- -- ? .
, . ,
�. . . .: . . . ..� i � , ! � ; �
i , � f , � � �f `'� , i� f �1 ' _ }.__...�1.�.... i- --._�_ 1
� ; _ _ _, i ; , � -� � ;
, ;
, . .
: ,
. . h_.�_'.��_�: ..��_.�� �� � , F � : , .
�
•
�
' � � ' i ; � . I � } i } i—_- �--. _ _._i�_._.�._.. � _. .
I ' ' `
� �� , , � ,
,
.
, � �
w_ ` ...
, � � � ; ,
, ----€ ` : ' , ' ( `
� ~� ; : � � ; s ' _._;_ + �- ' - i---�- � -----,----- ----. _ -
, ,� � , ---- , � � r � j rt � j
, , �
�_ .. � � � ; �
i - ; � D � ' ' i � ' . . —
...._. ... ._ �.._._'F-- � -- }
t 1 ` � �.__ I f �
.�, �.w _�_. _. �. � s ..�._ !_.... i _ ._ _ .
--1 —,— � D � ` _. _
' { � � , 1 _ t ��T I
,
..�: , - � � : � , ,
! _� :. k • � � � 4 ��_ .. _i.__.��'� '_ .... .
. •} !
• 1 : ' � ,._.,,,_ t......__. ... ..,�--F_�._f 1� � �
� � .__„_, , . � ",. - .
S �- ... . � .�� �- ! �yi � � { : ` ` , �- � ' �
_ �
. . , ,,, . : ' I
. , _. ._. .___. _..
� � �_�___. .._.�... . _
..;. _.
� ... _ – ' --- -- -�-- --
� °
. . .�_. _ . .
� .�...._ �..._._ �_.. _. � .._.. �..�...
� _�._.�__. .__.�. -� 4 , �--- :
_ _' __ _ � , --�- ��- ; � j j � � ;
r , � _ . � _ , ; � � ._.� .. --�---�----�.�- -; - = � . .
____;�___ ; � _..,_.
._�.`_ .�_L�__ .� � ; ; -; . ' ; . ; _ ..
; � � ) � � . c # � i �--�---_-�-_ ._G... .
( I I � �, .._ '_. ._...�7_". ��..."_..{- ; ; i I � ;
..�
....1__.� � + { ' � :
E : I Q � � .._.
; � � !f � � _�.._.;._._._�..._.....�... .
; : � a t ,
, I _.. �__..__ .___..�_.._� � : ' q I � � i , �
.....j_ ........_,-_ ___.r - E p ; j ; j , , � ;
�
;
� I ! ; � ' � � � ; ; ; E _ _ E��_�_______�__,i -- I -- �--?--..._..�........_ --- -
� 1___. -_ � .. _ . .. -�-- - - -•-�•----�- -� ` � � i i �
{ ; . . ; , ;
,_ ; -�.-._.r.---*--"f"'_'-�-'-__..i_._ 'j� , � _ � : i � . ._ � __ ._� _.. _ . . . , . . � .
-� �___.- � , , , � i ; ' { � �
; � � '
, . � , . � - ----� ---�-- . ,
.
, , _ . . !.
i �-
>
# _ _ - - _ � .
; � _. ,�. ._.. . .� , . _ . ._ _ . ._._ ._ � .... � � ; � ;
... . . i. t �_ .. � ;.
w.
� . . .. ,. . . .. . ;- _�__� t ; � i � 3 ! ' � � . ' �__t__
_.} ' , t�-- , ; ! I � _ .. ___1..... .�_. . ..
� � : � s � � .__�_ ,.. _ ..�_ �. ._. ..�.. � . �.� _...i__ � ;-- 4-___._, , ._�� . _ ;
. _�. . . _., . _f.. _ w.� �.��. _.�., , ..�.. ��.._ , � w�__ ,
; � ; � _ �� � � -►_-�. __�_ _ �. . _
- -- ; ; - � ----�- ���� , i
� �I ; 2 . � � .... .. _ � .
� : 2 13 , .. _ �. . . .> .
, 4 m_ .,...�.. � ._w� .._�.. �
` ,�.,r.... ,�._,..�...� _�.W .11..,..,.. ..w
.....
�__ It
,�... �._ .._.,. . . .1..�
.......... . i • # •� � 1 � � I � a Iv- .....�... ' __. .. ...
......�. _.....N...j.Y.��. .c
+ , r .. '��"'
. � 1
� —_ . � —..._ _ �_...
. • i ...� -T - , .
� :
� { 4 ..__ ....� _ ....�.. .
�..� ._s. _�-....__.;—. - -- - - - ....-- -... ... . .. _. ..E_ � �- __ �
, ,
: + : � ;
: ; , pLpWy , _ �..��..,_... _ ..� .
, iN DE ..... 'L_...o._.
.
: ; ; ; : . • ...__ �.. . .... .... ... _ � ,
_ .. ._ _.. _.�.
_
__
_._ .._..._�_. .. . � ..�..� ....�. .. •
_
��� .
_ -� _ ---. .�.__ ..�. __�, w _� i ...i... � � ` i �
�.
..�.... .._ , .� � ; ._ �
;
�
,
� .....�...
; i � � i , i j
: � S � , � , - � -- -- - -�- -... ..
. ; ' � , j 1 , t ; -- ....._ _
-�--�-_—.t-
, ` --s—
.
: �
. : t j ._._..,_.�....,...._..y..._.....,�—_- � � .
, � �,__� _T _. _.._.., _.... _......_._� , , .._;-.-1- _i. �.
_ . . ._ _ . _l. .
. . + .. _. __�-----fi-.__..� __..�._. , . � , ; � � � � � � i �
, , , ,
� � � � � I �..�.. � ' �....._..�....r .a__�-----�-1---�--- , ; _ _�._._ -_�-_-t-___._�____...�- _ -�. .__ _
: � , , -_ ��"_ � � _ .
_ . __ .__. __ __...__..,..__._. .
����� . ,� �
_ . l���n� �
Downtown Zoning Code �`°""a"��
Retail Uses
Table 3: Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements '
Use Categories and Specific Uses (1) General Urban Urban Center powntown Core Additional
A Use Allowed by Right GU UC DC Zoning
AC Use Ailowed Accessory to a Principal Use Requirements
MIUP Use Allowed with a Minor Use Permit bY
MAUP Use Allowed with a Major Use Permit
Code Section
- Use Prohibited
RETAIL (2)
_ _ _ _ . .
Adult cabaret - - -
Adult entertainment business MAUP MAUP MAUP UCC §9176(D)
Alcoholic beverage sales - - -
Artisan shop A(3)(4) A(3)(4) A(3)(4)
Bar, cocktail lounge, night club - MAUP MAUP
Farmers market - certified A A A
Fueling, gas station - MAUP -
Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores - A(3) A(3)
General retail A(4) A(4) A(4)
Grocery/specialty food store A(4) A(4) A(4)
Mobile Food Vendor MIUP MIUP MIUP
Mobile Food Vendor - Stationary MIUP MIUP MAUP
Outdoor sales estabiishment MIUP MIUP MIUP
Restaurant, cafe, coffeehouse A(4) A(4) A(4)
Restaurant - formula fast food - - - Section 5.090
Restaurant - outdoor dining (on-site) AC AC AC Section 5.070
Restaurant - sidewalk cafe (in the right-of-way) AC AC AC Section 5.080
Second hand store, thrift store MIUP MAUP MAUP
Shopping center - MAUP -
Smoke shop - - -
Specialty food and beverage sales with tastings A A A Section 5.150 —
1. A business license may be required. Contact the City of Ukiah Administrative Office to determine if a business license is required.
2. Site Development Permit may be required (see Section 12: Administration and Procedures).
3. A Minor Use Permit is required to exceed 5,000 gross square feet of floor area or 100 lineal feet on the ground floor (street level) frontage when a Storefront
frontage type is required by Figure 9: Special Designations Map.
4. A Major Use Permit is required to exceed 15,000 gross square feet of floor area on the ground floor (street level).
5. A Major Use Permit is required to exceed 5,000 gross square feet or 100 lineal feet on the ground floor (street level). :
6. Allowed accessory to a residential use.
7. Aliowed accessory to a single-family residence.
8. Allowed accessory to an allowed or permitted restaurant use.
9. Allowed on floors above the ground floor or behind a ground floor use. A Major Use Permit is required to allow on the street frontage of the ground floor.
10. Allowed accessory to a principal building and subject to the requirements of Table 7: Standards forAccessory Buildings.
11. Allowed accessory to a principal use and consistent with the requirements of Table 9: Development Standards for All Land Uses.
1 ITEM NO. 11A
Community Development and Planning Department
L�ity of Zikah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: November 13, 2013
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Schedule for December 2013
10
11 The Planning Commission has regularly scheduled meetings on December 11t" and December
12 25th (Christmas). Staff requests the Commission determine if it will hold one meeting in
13 December or if it will hold a second meeting in December on a non-holiday.
14
15 At this time, staff has tentatively scheduled the public hearing for the Costco site development
16 permit for the December 11th meeting and recommends no other items be agendized for this
17 meeting. Staff anticipates that one additional meeting may be needed in order for Planning
18 Commission to hold a public hearing on projects currently being processed by the Planning
19 Department or in the event the Costco site development permit requires a second public
20 hearing. At this time the following dates are available based on council chambers and staff
21 availability (Note: the City is closed for holidays on December 24, 25, and 31) and the expected
22 timing of project readiness for public hearing:
23
24 ■ Tuesday December 17`" at 6 p.m. in the City Council chambers; or
25
26 ■ Thursday December 19th at 6 p.m. in the City Council chambers.
27
28 Staff requests the Commission reserve one or both of these dates for a possible second
29 meeting in December. In the event that one or both of the dates above are not necessary, the
3o meeting would be canceled.
31
32
1