HomeMy WebLinkAbout01122011 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
�anuary 12, 2011
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 HELLAND, BRENNER, WHETZEL,
SANDERS AND CHAIRPERSON PRUDEN
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the December 16 and 20, 2010 meetings are included for review and
approval.
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. There are no appealable items
on this agenda.
7. OLD BUSINESS - WORKSHOP
A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop. Conduct a public workshop to review and
discus the completed draft of the Downtown Zoning Code including review and
possible selection of preferred Downtown Zoning Code design examples and
practice exercises using the Downtown Zoning Code with possible recommendation
to City Council
8. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
9. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
10. ADJOURNMENT
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 December 16, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
26
27 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
28
29 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 27, 2010 & November 1, 2010
30 Commissioner Helland made the following correction:
31 Page 8, Line 10-12, sentence should read: `Updating the City's Master Tree List is important since an
32 applicant or property owner has to select trees from this list when required to plant street trees and the list
33 is outdated and includes species that are not good street trees for Ukiah's climate.'
34
35 M/S Helland/Whetzel to approve October 27, 2010 minutes, as amended. Motion carried. (5-0).
36
37 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve November 1, 2010 minutes as submitted. Motion carried (3-0) with
38 Commissioners Whetzel and Molgaard abstaining.
39
40 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
41 None.
42
43 7. APPEAL PROCESS- N/A
44
45 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- N/A
46
47 9. OLD BUSINESS—WORKSHOP
48 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop Update. Conduct a public workshop to review and discuss
49 the completed draft of the Downtown Zoning Code, submit and review of Design Photos, and
50 conduct Practice Exercises using the draft Code.
51
52 Staff: Requests the Commission review, discuss and provide direction regarding the complete draft of the
53 Downtown Zoning Code. Submittal of design photos and practice exercises of the draft code will be
54 conducted at a later date.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 1
1 The changes requested by the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the document and a
2 summary of the changes were included in the staff report for each section.
3
4 Armand Brint: Thanked the Planning Commission for supporting the exclusion of alcohol outlets and
5 fast-food establishments in the Downtown. Referred to page 102 of the DZC document and noted there is
6 potentially an exemption for coffee shops in the Downtown. He requests the Planning Commission allow
7 only locally owned coffee businesses as opposed to corporate franchises in the Downtown.
8
9 Steve Scallmanini:
10 • Referred to page 102, Restaurant — Formula Fast Food, recommends inserting `and' at end of
11 sentence to subsection A.
12 • Asked for information concerning the remaining process for getting the document approved by
13 City Council.
14 • Supports having more discussion concerning `formula businesses' and `formula fast food.'
15 • Referred to the Restaurant — Formula Fast Food section that states, `Formula businesses shall
16 not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog stands, or other businesses whose
17 primary function is not the sale of full meals' and requested further discussion about this
18 language.
19
20 Commission: Asked if the Commission will vote tonight with a recommendation to Council for approval
21 of the draft DZC.
22
23 Staff:
24 • The Commission will have another opportunity to review the complete document, discuss
25 submittal of design photos and conduct practice exercises for use of the Code at the regular
26 January 12, 2011 meeting before the Commission votes to make a recommendation to Council
27 for approval.
28 • Staff is considering a process in which the Planning Commission can participate in presenting the
29 DZC document to Council.
30 • Referred to page 102, Restaurant — Formula Fast Food, subsection C and noted there was
31 considerable Commission discussion at the last meeting about whether ice cream shops and
32 coffeehouses should be allowed as formula businesses. The final decision concerning formula
33 fast food and the language the Commission recommends in the DZC document for this section
34 was deferred until Commissions Whetzel and Molgaard were present.
35
36 Commission: Questioned the difference between a Starbucks and a Coffee Critic or the candy shop
37 'Expressions' and Baskins Robins and rather these establishments can be legally distinguished between.
38
39 Commissioner Helland noted three legal challenges have been made prohibiting certain formula fast
40 food establishments across the country and the decisions were upheld.
41
42 Commission: It may be necessary to know the wording for those decisions that were upheld versus the
43 legal challenges that have not been upheld.
44
45 Staff: The Commission should decide on a preference. The City Attorney will also be looking at this
46 section of the document.
47
48 Commissioner Helland commented in response there are dozens of ordinances in cities throughout the
49 country prohibiting formula fast food establishments that have never been legally challenged.
50
51 Commission comments:
52 • Is the concern about formula fast food businesses or all formula businesses? For example, is
53 'The Gap' or Sears considered a formula business? The language on page 102 says, 'formula
54 businesses shall not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, .........' Should the language say,
55 'formula fast food shall not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog stands, or
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 2
1 other businesses whose primary function is not the sale of full meals.' The language should be
2 clear.
3 • Discussion whether to strike `coffeehouses' from this language. While it may not be difficult to
4 define franchise formula fast food would it be in the best economic interest of the community to
5 prohibit franchise coffeehouses in the Downtown?
6 • Discussion whether the best approach would be to allow only locally owned coffee shops in the
7 Downtown.
8 • Would it be economically feasible to say `no' to a franchise coffee shop, for instance, and possibly
9 wait indefinitely for a locally owned coffee shop to come to the Downtown? Some franchises are
10 owned by one person and therefore would be considered locally owned.
11 • The intent of a form based code is to allow and encourage most any businesses to come as long
12 as they are not inappropriate, such as adult entertainment, provided they meet the Code criteria.
13 • The question is whether just allowing for `locally owned' businesses and outright prohibiting
14 franchise businesses in the Downtown is an economically feasible approach. The subject of
15 'buying locally' is a whole different topic. A more effective approach would be if the City had an
16 ordinance recognizing businesses that are pro community and support employees by providing a
17 living wage and benefits.
18 • Would it be a problem if Baskin Robbins or Cold Stone Ice Cream shop moved to the Downtown?
19 • The difference is that unlike Starbucks there are not many Baskin Robbins or Cold Stone
20 creamery shops in the community. Does Ukiah need another Starbucks in the Downtown area?
21 • Baskin Robbins and Cold Stone are formula businesses. Would it be appropriate to say `no' if
22 these businesses wanted to come to the Downtown?
23 • Again, it is unlikely there would be a barrage of Baskin Robbins or Cold Stone establishments
24 desiring to operate in the Downtown whereas they are already many Starbucks establishments
25 operating in Ukiah. Ukiah should support and encourage locally owned coffee shops in the
26 Downtown. It may be that Ukiah should support locally owned businesses as much as possible.
27 • During the course of discussions concerning the DZC, there has been a lot of public testimony in
28 support of limiting/restricting `chain' businesses that include formula fast food with preference to
29 supporting locally owned businesses.
30 • The intent of the DZC document is to allow businesses to come to the Downtown provided they
31 comply with the Code requirements/criteria and not necessarily about restricting/prohibiting
32 businesses because they are formula fast food or formula/franchise as opposed to locally owned.
33 • The intent is to have businesses in the Downtown not exclude them.
34 • Should the Commission be moving from making decisions about the design aspects of the DZC
35 document to making economic decisions that may not necessarily benefit the community? It is
36 important to support locally owned businesses when possible.
37 • Why potentially strike `coffeehouses' and not `bakeries' from the bold language?
38 • Want to encourage people to spend money in the Downtown. Want to have reputable businesses
39 that pay taxes and care about the community.
40 • Is it the intent to tell every formula business they cannot come into the Downtown?
41 • Questioned if it is the economic preference to give an advantage to local businesses because
42 they have a vested interest in many facets of the community, why is this message not being
43 communicated more broadly than just with regard to `formula fast food restaurants'? What about
44 local tax accountant/CPA Judy Waterman versus formula business H&R Block? Does H&R Block
45 invest locally? If there is a commitment to give an advantage to locally owned businesses and
46 contractors, this doctrine should be communicated in the document.
47 • Noted Section 1—Purpose, subsection H, states one of the purposes is `to support local
48 businesses and create a vibrant commercial downtown.'
49
50 Staff: The question is how should the bolded language in the Restaurant — Formula Fast Food section
51 that reads, `Formula businesses shall not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog
52 stands, or other businesses whose primary function is not the sale of full meals' be treated? The types of
53 businesses listed in the bold language are excluded from `formula businesses.' Should there be no
54 exclusions? Should the language be retained or eliminated entirely? Are these potential formula
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 3
1 businesses good for the Downtown and/or would they take away from the opportunity for locally owned
2 such businesses wanting to come to the Downtown?
3
4 Commission Helland: While there are prohibitions/restrictions in cities about certain formula businesses
5 operating in their communities, the preference across the country regarding prohibition/restriction on fast
6 food and/or drive-thru establishments is about health concerns and aesthetics as it relates to litter,
7 character, traffic and pollution.
8
9 Commission:
10 • three Commissioners support the language as written
11 • one in support of deleting the exceptions to formula fast food restaurants
12 • one supports deleting 'coffeehouses'from the exceptions to formula fast food restaurants
13
14 Commission consensus:
15 • No change to the language in Restaurant—Formula Fast Food sections A-C.
16 • Retain the bold language in the Restaurant, Formula Fast Food section that reads, `Formula
17 businesses shall not include ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot dog stands, or other
18 businesses whose primary function is not the sale of full meals.'
19
20 Page 14, Table 3, Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements
21
22 Commission: While there is a definition for `feed store', this use is not listed in the `retail' section and is
23 this because the 'Agricultural equipment sales and rental' use is listed in the table even though this use is
24 prohibited in all three zones.
25
26 Staff: `Feed store' is considered `general retail' even though it has its own definition. The definition of
27 'General Retail' lists feed store as an example. `Feed store' definition does not include the sale, rental or
28 repair of farm machinery and equipment. This is separately defined as `Agricultural equipment sales or
29 rental' and covers selling supplies for farm and ranching. The definition of 'feed store' does not include
30 irrigation supplies and the like since it does not seem that this type of supply which is often associated
31 with marijuana growing operations is a use that the Commission wants to encourage downtown.
32
33 Paqe 44, Fiqure 10: Courthouse Square Renderinq
34
35 Commission: The consensus of the Commission in past discussions was to change the title of the
36 rendering to read, `Civic Building.'
37
38 Staff: The aforementioned is in reference to page 43, Figure 9: Civic Building Concept.
39
40 Commission consensus:
41 • Change title of rendering for Figure 9 & 10 to `Civic Square.'
42
43 Paqe 45, Fiqure 11, State Street Renderinq
44
45 Commission: Should `Civic Space' section be modified? The purpose of this section about civic spaces
46 pertains to the possible relocation of the County library to the Courthouse building in the event the
47 Courthouse relocates.
48
49 Commission consensus:
50 • Civic Space, modify language to read, `A square or plaza is located in front of the civic building' to
51 be consistent with `civic space' language.
52
53 The Commission commended staff for preparing an excellent document.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 4
1 Commissioner Helland highlighted minor edits/grammatical corrections to the document for staff's
2 review.
3
4 Paqe 26, Section 6, Site and Buildinq Development Standards
5
6 Commission:
7 • No reference to footnote 3, See section 12, Administration and Procedures, in table.
8
9 Staff: Clarified footnote is referenced in the `Modification to Standard' column.
10
11 Paqe 32, Section 6, Site Planning and Development Standards
12
13 Commission:
14 • Footnote 4: `Subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department to ensure adequate
15 sight distance. No exception allowed to increase height due to safety' is not referenced in any
16 section of page 32.
17
18 Staff: This footnote is used on page 33 and not page 32. Footnotes are intended for the entire document
19 and may not be referenced on every page.
20
21 Page 35, Table 10, Landscaping Standards for All Developments
22
23 Commission: Section Trees, Street Trees — spacing, Modification to Standards, does not specify
24 whether applicable or not.
25
26 Staff: Modification to Standard should read, `N/A.' The intent is to find a way to plant the trees. Will
27 include a reference in the tree section that addresses spacing.
28
29 Paqe 36, Table 10, Landscapinq Standards for All Developments continued
30
31 Commission: Replacement — tree, shrub, groundcover, `Replacement shall conform to the standards
32 that govern the original planting, approved landscaping plan, or as approved by the Planning Director,'
33 and inquired how long do the landscaping standards for maintenance apply?
34
35 Staff: They should apply in perpetuity unless no landscaping is required for a project.
36
37
38 Paqe 49, Section 9, Parkinq Standards and Procedures
39
40 Commission: Table 14, `Retail' does not indicate whether should be minor or major exception.
41
42 Staff: Should be Major Exception.
43
44 Commission consensus:
45 • It was noted section 9.030, Reduction of Required Vehicle Parking, should be corrected to read,
46 'The parking required by Table 14 may be reduced in compliance with the following?'
47 • Change Retail parking requirement to `Major Exception'
48
49 Paqe 59, Section 10, Tree Preservation and Plantinq Requirements
50
51 Commission consensus:
52 • Public Utility Damage, modify sentence to read, 'To protect existing electrical power or
53 communication lines.'
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 5
1 Paqe 62, Table 20, Landmark Trees on Private Property
2
3 Commissioner Sanders/Commission consensus:
4 • To confirm number of trees and species for the Perkins Street at Pear Tree Center.
5 • A total of 11 Coast Redwood trees were counted in the vicinity of Perkins Street and Orchard
6 Avenue. Is of the opinion these trees are within the DZC boundaries.
7 • The Elm on Perkins Street at Realty World has been removed.
8 • Willows in Gibson Creek at School Street near Henry Street too numerous to count. Initially
9 concerned whether DZC Circulation Map is accurate with regard to the discussion about future
10 parking. Confirmed the parcel of primary concern is privately owned where a pedestrian pathway
11 was a discussion consideration.
12 • California Bay listed in table, 400 Block North School Street, former Cheesecake Mama actually
13 not located in DZC boundary and should be eliminated from table.
14 • Change `Gibson Creek Drainage'to `Gibson Creek Corridor.'
15 • Staff consider providing for a better description for'Former Cheesecake Mama.'
16 • Black Oak at 400 Block North School Street is a Valley Oak and there are two of them.
17 • There are actually six Valley Oaks on Perkins Street on Romes BBQ/Dragon's Lair and Perkins
18 Street at Rainbow Ag/Romes BBQ properties.
19 • To reconfirm whether some trees listed in table are actually in the DZC boundaries in the Perkins
20 Street/Orchard Avenue area.
21 • Other trees species that were not listed in the tree section were identified and asked for these to
22 be included in the Willow tree section or riparian corridor section of the table.
23
24 Discussion about the Downtown Zoning Code Map and its accuracy relative to determining such issues
25 as to whether a particular tree species is actually located in the DZC boundaries and how to calculate
26 future plantings as parking lots and/or configurations on parcels change or even count groups of trees
27 where some are located in DZC boundaries and some are located just outside.
28
29 Commissioner Molgaard will provide staff with recommendations to the document that have legal
30 implications.
31
32 Paqe 91, Section 13, Glossary
33
34 Commission consensus:
35 Section 13.010— Purpose
36 • Change `Downtown Commercial Zoning Code'to `Downtown Zoning Code.'
37
38 Staff:
39 • Asked the Commission to submit photographs of preferred building/architectural designs for the
40 Downtown Zoning Code.
41 • Recommended that the Figures currently included in the Code be made part of a separate design
42 appendix rather than being codified in order to allow the examples to be changed over time
43 without having to go through an ordinance amendment.
44
45 Commission consensus: Amenable to the aforementioned recommendation.
46
47 Staff referred to Section 12, Administration and Procedures, Enlargement or Expansion of Use Not
48 Allowed section and noted staff has modified this section to address the Rainbow Ag discussion example
49 and asked the Commission to comment on the revised section to allow non-conforming uses of land and
50 structures to expand with approval of a major use permit and the other revision that would allow
51 relocation of a nonconforming use into a new building.
52
53 Commission:
54 • Rainbow Ag is an example of a non-conforming use of land and structures wherein a major use
55 permit would be required if the business wanted to expand to Clay Street for example.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 6
1 Staff: Clarified if Rainbow Ag wants to expand that part of the business that complies with the general
2 retail definition, a use permit is not required because this would be an allowed use. If Rainbow Ag wants
3 to expand that part of the business that is the agricultural rental and sales of equipment, then a major use
4 permit would be required.
5
6 Commission: The use table indicates agricultural equipment sales or rental is not allowed in any of the
7 three zones and asked whether this is the intent?
8
9 Staff: It is intentional and this is the reason it is a non-conforming use. Rainbow Ag currently operates
10 that part of the business under a use permit which is included in the use table as a prohibited use. The
11 revision to the non-conforming use section allows an expansion with approval of a Major Use Permit.
12
13 Commission: Does the above discussion pertain to all non-conforming uses in the Downtown area or
14 just for ag businesses?
15
16 Staff: Pertains to any use that the DZC would make non-conforming. Another example that was
17 discussed was the automotive business located in the downtown area and while it is not an attractive use,
18 if there was a desire to construct a building that conforms to code requirements the Planning Commission
19 agreed the use should be considered as part of an application for a Major Use Permit.
20
21 Commission consensus:
22 Enlargement or Expansion of Use Not Allowed section.
23 • No change
24
25 Commissioner Sanders: Asked if there could be an appendix to the document that would include
26 examples of LID designs for parking lots for applicants to look at. Page 51, subsection G, Reduction of
27 Water Pollution and Stormwater Run-Off addresses permeable surfacing for parking lots.
28
29 It was noted Ukiah has examples of parking lots that use permeable surfacing and bio-swales.
30
31 Staff: The procedure would be to provide LID examples in an appendix that would be incorporated into
32 the document by reference.
33
34 Commission consensus:
35 LID Examples
36 • Supports staff's above recommendation regarding LID examples.
37
38 Section 6: Site Planning and Development Standards, Setbacks and Layers
39
40 Commission: DZC page 30 concerning setbacks wherein staff has created new figures for building
41 setbacks and asked for clarification about the reason this was done.
42
43 Staff: New figures were created for building setbacks and layers since the previous figures did not seem
44 to provide a clear illustration of these concepts. Staff also revised the text in the table to provide additional
45 explanation of layers.
46
47 Commission consensus:
48 Practice Exercises
49 • Conduct practice exercises before recommending Council review and approve the DZC
50 document.
51
52 10. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT
53 Planning Director Stump reported as follows:
54 • The proposed Courthouse relocation project is progressing; commented on the proposed
55 architectural design and noted project issues are being addressed.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 7
1 • The City is in the second review of the General Plan Housing Element with HCD. Most of
2 comments from HCD are related primarily to statutory requirements. Staff is working on
3 responses to the comments.
4 • The City is working closely with LAFCO's planning committee regarding the Sphere of Influence
5 and corresponding Municipal Service Review in conjunction with a Concept Planned
6 Development in the Brush Street Triangle.
7 • A draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan has been released for review. Planning staff has this document on
8 disk and will provide the Planning Commission with a hard copy.
9 • The administrative draft for the Walmart Extension EIR should be available for public review
10 soon.
11 • Discussions concerning Costco are continuing.
12 • Commended Jennifer Faso and Kim Jordan for their work on the new Fa�ade Improvement
13 Program and Building Improvement Program. Planning and Community Services staff and RDA
14 persons have been working on the program changes. City Council is pleased with the revised
15 program outcome.
16 • The City is eligible for grant funding for improvements to the Grace Hudson Museum Park.
17 • Grant funding is being used to assist with construction of the Gobbi Riverside Park project.
18 • Street improvements have been completed for Babcock Lane.
19 • Other City plans are being updated that include the Water Management Plan.
20 • City is working on a recycled water master plan.
21
22 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
23 Commissioner Helland:
24 • Is pleased the City is a grant recipient for the rail trail project.
25 • Pleased to report a collaborative group including the City of Ukiah, City of Fort Bragg, County
26 health workers and other associated agencies were successful in obtaining a grant having to do
27 with climate change and greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
28
29 There was a brief discussion about Downtown revitalization and the associated goals, noting this matter
30 is ongoing and a very important element for the community.
31
32 Commissioner Whetzel has submitted some design photos to planning staff.
33
34 Commissioner Sanders: City Council adopted most of the Planning Commission recommendations for
35 continuing the tree advisory group and work is being done on the City's Master Tree List. No changes
36 were made to the City tree maintenance guideline document that was recently adopted by Council.
37
38 Chair Pruden: The economic task force is again moving forward between the Ukiah Chamber of
39 Commerce and the Main Street Program regarding ways to revitalize the Downtown and commented on
40 some of the shortfalls involved with this process. It is possible the former `antique mall' in the Downtown
41 may become a wine tasting room.
42
43 12. ADJOURNMENT
44 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
45
46
47 Judy Pruden, Chair
48
49 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
50
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 2010
Page 8
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 December 20, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
19 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23
24 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
25
26 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site verification was confirmed.
27
28 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— N/A
29
30 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31 None.
32
33 7. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
34 the final day to appeal is January 3, 2010.
35
36 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Ukiah Valley Association of Habilitation (U.V.A.H) Use Permit No:
37 10-20-UP-PC was properly noticed in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
38
39 9. PUBLIC HEARING
40 9A. Ukiah Valley Association of Habilitation (U.V.A.H) Use Permit File No: 10-20-UP-PC.
41 Request for approval of a Major Use Permit to allow U.V.A.H to operate a non-residential
42 community care facility for 13 adults with developmental disabilities at 915 South Dora Street,
43 APN 003-071-09.
44
45 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report.
46
47 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m.
48
49 Commission: Where will the trash dumpster be stored? How will recycling be handled?
50
51 James Welsh: Referred to the site plans and noted a shed located in the southwest portion of the
52 parking area will be used for storage of the trash and recycling containers. Trash and recycling containers
53 will be used instead of a dumpster. The former use had this same procedure.
54 Commission:
Minutes of the Planning Commission December 20, 2010
Page 1
1 • Was pleased to note a bike rack will be provided.
2 • Asked if the applicant would be amenable to possibly expanding the hours of operation and hours
3 for drop-off and pick-up.
4 • The recommendation for the hours of operation is 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the drop-off/pick-up
5 times staggered between 7 and 9 a.m. and 3 and 5 p.m. as opposed to specifically regulating
6 these hours.
7 • Allowing for flexibility regarding hours of operation and times for drop-off/pick-up lets the
8 neighborhood know the applicants will do what they say they will do, but without being so specific
9 to possibly generate neighborhood complaints because the applicants did not comply with the
10 hours of operation as conditioned. In this way, the applicants would not be required to necessarily
11 operate during these hours and allows them to adjust their schedule and have the flexibility to do
12 so and still comply with the project conditions in this regard.
13
14 James Welsh agreed with the aforementioned approach regarding hours of operation and hours of drop-
15 off/pick-up.
16
17 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:21 p.m.
18
19 M/S Molgaard/Whetzel to approve Use Permit No. 10-20-UP-PC with Findings 1-9 and Conditions of
20 Approval 1-21 with modification to Condition of Approval No. 2. Motion carried (5-0).
21
22 Ukiah Valley Association for Habilitation (U.V.A.H.)
23 Use Permit Findings for Approval
24 915 South Dora Street, APN 003-071-09
25
26 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
27 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
28
29 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
30 Plan as described in Table 1 of the staff report.
31 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in
32 Tables 2 of the staff report.
33 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and applicable requirements
34 of the C-N zoning district based on the following:
35 a. With an approved use permit and based on the Determination of Appropriate use the
36 proposed project is a permitted use within the C-N zoning designation.
37 b. The proposed project meets the parking requirements of the zoning code in that the
38 project will provide 7 vehicle parking spaces and 1 bicycle parking spaces.
39 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding land uses and shall not be
40 detrimental to the public's health, safety and general welfare based on the following:
41 a. The project is compatible with surrounding uses in that the proposed use is similar to and
42 less intensive than previous uses at that location.
43 b. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building Official,
44 and Public Works and any requirements have been included as conditions of approval.
45 c. The project is required to comply with all federal, state and local laws.
Minutes of the Planning Commission December 20, 2010
Page 2
1 d. The project promotes the public health, safety, and welfare by providing a needed service
2 to the community of Ukiah.
3 5. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
4 (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c), New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures,
5 which allows structures up to 10,000 square feet to be converted from one use to another in
6 urbanized areas when the use does not involve significant amounts of hazardous materials,
7 where all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not
8 environmentally sensitive.
9
10 a. The total building square footage is 3,140 square feet.
11
12 b. The business does not use large amounts of hazardous materials.
13
14 c. The location is not environmentally sensitive and no drainage courses or bodies of water
15 (such as creeks or streams).
16
17 d. The site is developed with an existing building which will be used by U.V.A.H, public
18 utilities and services already are available at the site and no expansion of the existing
19 buildings are proposed as part of the project.
20
21 9. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning
22 Ordinance:
23
24 A. Posted in three places on the project site on December 10, 2010.
25 B. Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on December 10, 2010.
26 C. Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on December 10, 2010.
27
28 Ukiah Valley Association for Habilitation (U.V.A.H.)
29 Use Permit Conditions of Approval
30 915 South Dora Street, APN 003-071-09
31
32 1. Approval is granted for the operation of a non-residential community care facility to provide
33 services for 13 adults as described in the project descriptions submitted to the Community
34 Development and Planning Department and as shown on the Site plan date stamped November
35 8, 2010 except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
36 2. This Use Permit is granted subject to the following operating characteristics :
37 � Non-residential day care services for 13 non-ambulatory adults with developmental
38 disabilities;
39 � Hours of operation 7:00 a.m. —5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday;
40 � Drop-off times shall be staggered between 7:00 —9:00 a.m.;
41 • Pick—up times shall be staggered between 3:00—5:00 p.m.;
42 • 14 employees operating from this location. 11 employees will be at this location all day and
43 three will check in get assignment and then work at various locations within the community.
Minutes of the Planning Commission December 20, 2010
Page 3
1 3. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and
2 approval:
3 a. Site plan that shows the location of one bike rack.
4 4. Sign permit is required prior to installation of any signage.
5
6 5. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on
7 the first sheet.
8
9 From the Department of Public Works (Ben Kaqeyama)
10
11 6. If the building permit value of work exceeds $102,960, of the proposed improvements create the
12 net addition of two or more plumbing fixture units to the building, the existing sanitary sewer
13 lateral shall be tested in accordance with Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Ordinance No. 1105,
14 and repaired or replaced if needed.
15
16 7. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the value of the existing
17 structure, the construction or repair of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees, along the subject
18 street frontage may be required, pursuant to Section 9181 of the Ukiah City Code.
19
20 From the Fire Marshal (Chuck Yates)
21
22 8. All applicable requirements of the Fire Marshall shall apply.
23
24 From the Building Official ( David Willoughby)
25
26 9. A permit is required to change the occupancy from an R-3 to an I-4. Provide three sets of plans
27 drawn to scale which include a floor plan and any details and section needed to show additional
28 work proposed to meet the occupancy standards for an I-4.
29
30 10. This building will need to meet all the requirements for accessibility according to the 2007
31 California Building Code, Division 1 for new buildings. This includes access from the public way,
32 accessible entrances and exits, accessible path of travel to all areas in the building and an
33 accessible bathroom for each sex.
34
35 11. Two exits are required with a minimum separation of'h the diagonal of the building or if sprinklered
36 1/3.
37
38 12. Illuminated exit signs with battery backup are required at each exit.
39
40 13. Egress illumination with battery backup is required.
41
42 Standard Citv Conditions of Approval
43
44 14. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
45 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
46 applied for and issued/finaled.
47
48 15. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
49 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
50 16. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
51 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
52 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy,
Minutes of the Planning Commission December 20, 2010
Page 4
1 and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is
2 approved and issued.
3
4 17. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any
5 future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
6
7 18. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed
8 prior to building permit final.
9
10 19. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
11 project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and
12 conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date
13 of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has
14 been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
15
16 20. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their
17 agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its
18 agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or
19 proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is
20 to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall
21 include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees
22 that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in
23 connection with the City's action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive
24 or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification
25 agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
26 remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
27
28 21. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their
29 agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its
30 agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or
31 proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is
32 to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall
33 include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees
34 that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in
35 connection with the City's action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive
36 or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification
37 agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
38 remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
39
40 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
41 None.
42
43 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
44
45 Commissioner Helland pleased with the newspaper article about changes to the Downtown by making it
46 more walkable and more pedestrian/business friendly, which will also have economic benefits associated
47 with these changes. A new study has demonstrated that lower vehicle ownership rates are associated
48 with lower mortgage default rates across all income groups so the more vehicles a person owns and the
49 more a person drives, the more likely he/she will default on home mortgage payments. Another finding of
50 the study demonstrates the benefits associated with a community providing for and encouraging
51 walkability. Furthermore, the study can determine how walkable a community is. Ukiah received a score
52 of 93 out of a 100 possible and Mendocino County received a score of 8 out 100.
53
54 Commissioner Whetzel wished everyone a happy and safe Christmas holiday.
Minutes of the Planning Commission December 20, 2010
Page 5
1
2 Commissioner Sanders:
3 • Attended the Ukiah Skate Park grand opening event and stated it was very nice.
4 • Inquired about the landscaping plans for the project and whether or not the plans discussed by
5 the Planning Commission will be followed.
6
7 Chair Pruden advised Sangiacomo Landscaping has donated their services, Releaf is paying for the
8 trees and as soon as approval has been given regarding the appropriate tree species, the first series of
9 plantings will begin weather permitting. She notified the City project manager for the Skate Park and
10 advised him the Planning Commission included landscaping conditions when the project was approved.
11
12 Commissioner Sanders:
13 • Provided the information regarding the number of trees in the Orchard Plaza parking lot relative to
14 the DZC.
15 • Was concerned that by prohibiting formula fast food establishments in the Downtown could
16 potentially have an economic impact on the City and recommended staff look at this issue more
17 closely and provide information before the complete DZC is presented to Council for review. In
18 other words, if commercial franchise restaurants are not wanted in the Downtown what would be
19 the economic impacts? Questioned if Starbucks, for example, wanted to come to the Downtown
20 is the language in the DZC that will be adopted able to adequately address this matter. She noted
21 this is the only area of the DZC where the Commission had differences of opinion. Having more
22 information ahead of time before Council reviews the complete DZC would be beneficial.
23
24 Commission noted this request may be statistically difficult and too time consuming for staff.
25
26 Commissioner Helland is aware of studies that look at the statistical economic differentials between
27 locally owned businesses versus commercial businesses, particularly with regard to fast food
28 establishments. She will provide this information to staff for review and consideration.
29
30 Commissioner Molgaard announced tonight is her last Planning Commission meeting. She thanked
31 Councilmember Thomas for appointing her to the Commission and stated it has been a pleasure to serve
32 with staff and the other Commissioners. She referred to an important document prepared by staff that
33 discusses how the City supports and encourages businesses because there is that tendency for citizens
34 to not always be happy with government and forget the great achievements government does for the
35 community.
36
37 ADJOURNMENT
38 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m.
39
40
41 Judy Pruden, Chair
42
43 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
44
45
Minutes of the Planning Commission December 20, 2010
Page 6
1 ITEM NO. 7A
Community Development and Planning Department
��ty � uk�h 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: January 12, 2011
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Review and discussion of Downtown Zoning Code (DZC) including review and
10 possible selection of preferred Downtown Zoning Code design examples and
11 practice exercises with Downtown Zoning Code with possible recommendation to
12 City Council
13
14 REVIEW OF DOWNTOWN ZONING CODE
15
16 At the December 16, 2010 Downtown Zoning Code Workshop, the Planning Commission took
17 public comment and provided comments to staff regarding the completed draft of the DZC. The
18 Commission requested additional information on one item, the legal issues and
19 advantages/disadvantages of formula businesses. The request for this additional information
20 was related to the discussion of the exclusions (ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hot
21 dog stands) to the definition of formula fast food restaurants.
22
23 Staff has provided summaries of three recent legal decisions regarding the regulation of formula
24 businesses and big box retail establishments (see attachment 1). Commissioner Helland has
25 provided information in the form of summary and web addresses (see attachment 2 and also
26 sent via email to all Planning Commissioners).
27
28 As part of this workshop, staff requests that the Commission complete their review of the DZC,
29 including the recommendation regarding the regulation of formula fast food restaurants within
3o the boundaries of the DZC.
31
32 DESIGN EXAMPLES
33
34 Staff will be providing photographic design examples at the meeting for review and discussion.
35 The purpose is to determine if there are preferred design themes that should be included as a
36 Design Appendix to the DZC. Two commissioners have provided examples. If there are
37 additional examples that the Commission would like included for the discussion, they should be
38 provided to staff prior to the meeting for inclusion in the presentation.
39
40 PRACTICE EXERCISES
41
42 As part of the workshop, development scenarios will be provided by staff. The purpose is to
43 provide the Commission and public an opportunity to use the DZC.
44
45
1
1 NEXT STEPS
2
3 Based on the direction provided by the Commission, staff will revise the DZC prior to City
4 Council review of the document. Staff will also conduct the environmental review required for
5 the Code.
6
7 ATTACHMENTS
8
9 1. Summaries of Recent Legal Decisions
10 2. Information from Commissioner Helland
11
2
