HomeMy WebLinkAbout03092011 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
March 9, 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 February 23, 2011 meeting 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
parry 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, an
appeal must be received by the City Clerk no later than Monday March 7, 2011 at 5:00
p.m.
7. SITE VERIFICATION
8 VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Swearing-in of Planning Commissioners.
10. OLD BUSINESS
A. Downtown Code - Process and Timeline for City Council Review.
B. Downtown Zoning Code. Review, Discussion and Possible Recommendation on
the inclusion of Design Guidelines and Low Impact Development (LID) information
as an appendix to the Downtown Zoning Code.
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.
11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
13. 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 February 23, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Jason Brenner
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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 12, 2011
27 M/S Sanders/Brenner to approve January 12, 2011 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (5-0).
28
29 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
30 None.
31
32 Public Correspondence. An email with the link to the draft `Bird-Safe Buildings' document from the San
33 Francisco Planning Department was sent to planning staff by Susan Knopf with a request to forward this
34 information to the Planning Commission. The email was forwarded to all Planning Commissioners on
35 February 23, 2011.
36
37 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
38 the final date to appeal is March 7, 2011.
39
40 7. SITE VERIFICATION —Site visit for agenda item 9A was verified.
41
42 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the
43 provision of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
44
45 9. OLD BUSINESS—PUBLIC HEARING
46 9A. Community Built Mural Permit No: 10-12-MP-PC. Conduct a public workshop for a request for
47 Planning Commission approval for a Mural Permit for the Community Built Mural at 107 East
48 Perkins Street, APN 002-229-09. Continued from the June 23, 2010 Planning Commission
49 meeting.
50
51 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report and advised:
52 • Some pages of the staff report and accompanying attachments were missing in the original
53 packet mailed to the Commissioners. Accordingly, staff emailed the complete staff report and
54 attachments to the Commissioners on February 23, 2011 and a copy of this email is included in
55 the project file.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 2011
Page 1
1 Commission:
2 • Recalled the reason the community built mosaic mural project was continued and that was
3 because the mural was problematic to the location.
4 • The theme was agricultural in nature. The Commission was of the opinion there may be alternate
5 locations more appropriate for a mosaic mural having an agricultural theme on the Mendocino
6 County Child Support Services building.
7 • The initial project was continued to a date uncertain to allow the artist/applicant time to possibly
8 look at a different location for the original mural and/or a different theme for the mural proposed
9 for 107 E. Perkins Street.
10 • Regarding the previous proposal, a letter was received from the several employees of County
11 Child Support Services indicating that they did not support the proposed mural.
12 • Requested clarification regarding the process for choosing the design.
13 • Acknowledged Elizabeth Raybee is a renowned artist and stated that the artwork is appreciated.
14 • Requested clarification about the number of side pictures that bracket the mural.
15
16 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:09 p.m.
17
18 Elizabeth Raybee, Applicant:
19 • Redesigned the mural concept with the intent of installing it at the originally proposed location on
20 the Child Support Services building.
21 • In terms of the design process, met with the Director of Child Support Services to present her
22 design ideas, which were positively received. The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
23 recently reviewed the proposed design for installation on the County building and unanimously
24 approved the project pending approval of the mural permit by the Ukiah Planning Commission.
25 • The murals will be built through a community effort to include existing students at Ukiah High
26 School or those that have already graduated as paid interns. These persons are very happy to
27 have the job of building the murals and this is a way of giving back to the community.
28 • The side pictures will bracket three sides of the mural.
29
30 Chair Pruden: The Ukiah Main Street Program design committee reviewed the proposed mural this
31 morning and had the following comments:
32 • It would be appropriate for the Indian basket to be of a Pomo Indian design as opposed to a
33 regular Native American design.
34 • Trees should be included in the design and suggested Redwood Trees.
35 • More of the squares bordering the mosaic could be more reflective of the Ukiah Valley as
36 opposed to `just Mendocino County' that could include hot air balloons, a trolley, Squaw Rock,
37 sport themes such as a soccer ball and baseball at Anton Stadium.
38 • For the smaller mosaic, include a person kayaking since no one swims in the Russian River.
39 • There were questions about the interpretation as to what the `dance circle' represents.
40 • As other questions come about, there may be more detailed revisions on some of the squares as
41 the murals are built.
42 • Consider adding a `historical building' that exists in the Downtown to one of the squares or some
43 design reflective that Ukiah has been the County seat since 1859.
44 • The aforementioned comments are merely ideas that could trigger some other types of design
45 configurations in the squares around the mural. The artist is not asking the artist to revise the
46 design of the murals.
47
48 Elizabeth Raybee:
49 • Confirmed the basket is of Pomo Indian design.
50 • The dance circle would be representative of the Ukiah Concerts in the Park where families and
51 friends come to enjoy music and dance.
52
53 Chair Pruden:
54 • Received a phone call from a concerned citizen that the murals could be a distraction to motorists
55 and a potential safety hazard.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 2011
Page 2
1 • Is interested in participating in the building of the murals.
2
3 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:24 p.m.
4
5 Commission consensus: The project is wonderful and unanimously supports approval.
6
7 M/S Sanders/Whetzel to approve Community Built Mural Permit No.: 10-12-MP-PC with Findings 1-4
8 and Conditions of Approval 1-9. Motion carried (5-0).
9
10 MURAL PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
11 A MOSIAC MURAL TO BE INSTALLED AT
12 107 EAST PERKINS STREET, APN 002-229-09
13
14 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
15 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
16
17 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
18 Plan as described in the staff report.
19
20 2. The proposed mural is consistent with criteria contained in Section 3225 (G) of the Ukiah City
21 Code, supported by the following.
22
23 A. Compatibility with surrounding environment and community in general.
24 Staff has visited and evaluated the site and has determined that the site is appropriate for
25 the proposed mural. The site contains an office building within a commercial district and is
26 surrounded by commercial uses. Additionally the theme of the mural is Mendocino Countv—
27 The Good Life!. The mural will show items representative of the area. Therefore the mural
28 would be compatible with the surrounding environment.
29
30 B. Appropriateness of the proposed mural to the site.
31 The site contains the County offices of Child Support Services and is within a commercial
32 area. The mural created by the community will represent items/themes of Ukiah. The site is
33 located in an area that will be highly visible to the General Public and therefore will create a
34 positive community feeling and " Sense of Place", as noted in the General Plan Community
35 Design Element. Therefore the mural is appropriate for this location.
36
37 C. Relationship to use of building upon which the mural will be place.
38 The site contains the County Offices of Child Support Services and the mural created by the
39 community will depicts the wonders of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley. Therefore the mural is
40 appropriate for this location.
41
42 D. Impact on motorist and traffic hazards. The mural will be visible to motorists traveling on
43 South State Street. However, the mural does not flash, rotate, blink or move. The graphics
44 also do not imitate or resemble official traffic or road signs (e.g. "stop", "go slow", "caution",
45 "danger", "warning"or similar). The mural permit application has been reviewed by the Public
46 Works Department and they did not have any comments. Therefore, the mural would not
47 have an impact on motorists and will not create a traffic hazard.
48
49 E. Advertising potential.
50 The murals will not represent an advertising message but will convey a sense of community
51 involvement and well being.
52
53 3. The proposed mural is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not cause impacts to traffic,
54 pedestrians or bicyclists since the murals will be attached to the building wall and will not extend
55 into the public right-of-way, pedestrian path, or parking area(s).
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 2011
Page 3
1 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is exempt from the provisions of the California
2 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1(a),
3 which allows alterations to the exterior of an existing building when there is with no expansion of
4 the existing use based on the following:
5
6 • The proposed project only involves minor alterations to the exterior of the building; and
7 • The proposed project does not involve an expansion of the existing use or building.
8
9 MURAL PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
10 INSTALLTION OF A MOSIAC MURAL AT
11 107 EAST PERKINS STREET, APN 002-229-09
12
13 1. Approval is granted for the proposed mural as shown in the conceptual mural exhibit submitted to
14 the Planning Department and date stamped January 13, 2011 . This Mural Permit is granted
15 only for the proposed mural addressed in this staff report and depicted in the project description and
16 shall not be construed as an approval for any additional murals or as eliminating or modifying any
17 building, use requirement.
18
19 2. This mural permit approval is granted pending property owner authorization and contingent on any
20 and all approval required by the County of Mendocino in regards to installing a mural on a county
21 owner building. Proof of property owner authorization shall be submitted with building permit
22 application.
23
24 3. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Permit has expired,
25 and any timely filed appeal has been resolved.
26
27 4. This approval shall be null and void unless the California Environmental Quality AcUFish and
28 Game filing fee of $50 payable to Mendocino County is filed with the City of Ukiah Planning and
29 Community Development Department within five (5)days of this approval.
30
31 5. No Permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
32 applicable to this application and Conditions of Approval have been paid in full.
33
34 6. All murals shall conform to the application approved by the Planning Commission and to any
35 supporting documents submitted therewith or made part of the administrative record, including
36 staff reports, maps and renderings submittals or documents any change to this approval shall
37 require an amendment to this approval.
38
39 7. This approved Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
40 project related to the Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and
41 conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of
42 approval; or if the established and use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been
43 suspended for twenty-four(24) consecutive months.
44
45 8. This approval is not effective unless and until all other required discretionary entitlements have
46 been granted, issued or approved as applicable.
47
48 9. All murals will be maintained in good condition. At any point as their condition becomes
49 deteriorated by graffiti, weathering or other means, as determined by the Planning Director, they
50 will be removed or obscured by the applicant or property owner.
51
52 10. OLD BUSINESS—WORKSHOP
53 10A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop. Conduct a public workshop to review and discuss
54 preferred Downtown Zoning Code design and low impact development examples for inclusion in
55 an appendix to the Downtown Zoning Code.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 2011
Page 4
1 Commission:
2 • Discussion about what types of photographs should be included in the appendix.
3 • While there are numerous photographs of historical buildings that are examples of pleasing
4 design and architectural character, there are not many examples of newer buildings in Ukiah
5 having quality architectural pleasing features representative of the design characteristics in the
6 DZC.
7 • Seeking local examples of architecturally pleasing buildings may be challenging.
8 • Did see some facades on different buildings that would be appropriate examples of pleasing
9 architecture in the DZC and questioned how this should be documented where a building overall
10 exemplifies an architecturally pleasing design but not for all features.
11 • Would like to avoid having to include a narrative for a particular building example having design
12 exceptions that do not fit/comply with the DZC architectural standards for buildings.
13 • There was discussion of buildings with pleasing architectural features in Ukiah, some of which
14 include the Railroad Center, Grace Hudson Museum, the Clark Construction building
15 improvement and rehabilitation project on Main Street, the apartment complex building on Main
16 Street, Full Circle building on Main Street, Beverly Fabrics building, Coffee Critic building and
17 corresponding apartments, and other examples.
18
19 Staff:
20 • When thinking of buildings as examples, think about the location where such buildings should be
21 constructed. It could be that what would work on Perkins Street may not work Downtown.
22 • Due to the location of Perkins Street, there could be more flexibility in what would be appropriate
23 design. The design for State Street, Main Street, and Downtown may be different.
24 • Suggested the Commission submit photographs of buildings they `love' and think have good
25 architecture and design elements. These photographs could be of buildings anywhere.
26 • The intent of the design examples is to provide guidance as to what the community would like to
27 see.
28 • Asked the Commissioners to please submit their photos by the morning of the March 9t" meeting
29 so that they can be reviewed and discussed at the meeting.
30
31 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
32
33 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
34
35 Commissioner Sanders:
36 • Commented on the new City electrical substation being constructed on Gobbi Street and North
37 Orchard Avenue and the negative letter written by Autumn Leaves in the Ukiah Daily Journal
38 expressing concern about health and safety of residents living in close proximity of the facility.
39 • Further inquired about the wall and the Landscaping Plan for the facility.
40
41 Senior Planner Jordan:
42 • The Planning Commission has already approved the design and materials for the wall.
43 • The RFP for the Landscaping Plan needs to be completed.
44 • Is not familiar with Autumn Leaves comments and noted the noise impacts that were reported
45 were that of the City well on the site and not the substation that is currently under construction.
46 • Would be happy to provide the interested person with the EMF study submitted as part of the
47 application and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Could also attempt to put this person in
48 contact with the consultant who wrote the document to answer any questions.
49
50 Commissioner Sanders:
51 • Is co-authoring a series of six articles with Roger Foote of the Audubon Society throughout the
52 year on bird habitat and tree care for the Ukiah Daily Journal for educational purposes.
53 • Commented on the article Mayor Rodin wrote in the Ukiah Daily Journal concerning possible
54 closure of the US Post Office on Oak Street asking the public to write letters to the Postmaster to
55 help save it and keep it open to the community. Referred to an article `U S Post Office Closures
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 2011
Page 5
1 Could Add to Unemployment Numbers' written earlier this year by Vicki Clinebell that is available
2 on a website.
3 • The Tree Advisory Group is moving forward on the revising/updating of the City's Master Tree
4 List.
5
6 Chair Pruden:
7 • Was contacted by `PR' persons from Walmart by way of an email asking if she would like to meet
8 individually with them.
9 • Does not like to meet on an individual basis with an applicant unless a staff inember is present.
10
11 There was Commission discussion about this issue wherein other Commissioners also received such an
12 email inviting him/her to meet individually with Walmart persons. The Commission questioned the protocol
13 in this regard and noted that compliance with the Brown is required.
14
15 Staff will review this matter and advise the Commission.
16
17 There was discussion about when the Commission will have the opportunity to review the Walmart EIR.
18
19 Staff:
20 • The Administrative draft is still being reviewed by Planning staff. The public will have the
21 opportunity to make comments on the draft EIR.
22 • Costco submitted a planning application and plans February 1, 2011.
23 • The Commission can look at the Walmart expansion plans if he/she desires and they are
24 available in the Planning Department.
25
26 Chair Pruden:
27 • Recently attended a Planning Commission meeting in Stewart Florida that exists on a peninsula.
28 Stewart is a beautiful city, is the official county seat and has a historical downtown. A person can
29 access City Hall by boat. The City has a Main Street Program that is concerned with streetscape
30 and other beautiful elements. She highly questioned the intent about the possible widening of the
31 main thorough faire and increasing the speed limit which already consists of four lanes that can
32 be traveled at 40 mph because more cars mean more business for the downtown. Being
33 familiar/experienced with the Ukiah Main Street Program and efforts to beautify streetscapes
34 spoke publicly on the matter by questioning the reasoning for expanding the thorough faire and
35 increasing the speed limit in terms of promoting/encouraging a pedestrian friendly environment
36 for enjoyment of storefronts on foot as opposed to in vehicles for which she was quoted in the
37 local newspaper.
38
39 13. ADJOURNMENT
40 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
41
42
43 Judy Pruden, Chair
44
45 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
46
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 2011
Page 6
1 ITEM NO. 10B
2
Community Development and Planning Department
L�lty of Zlkla�i 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
3
4 DATE: March 9, 2011
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FROM: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
9
10 SUBJECT: Review, Discussion and Possible Recommendation on the inclusion of Design
11 Guidelines and Low Impact Development (LID) information as an appendix to the
12 Downtown Zoning Code
13
14 At past Downtown Zoning Code workshops, Planning Commission has reviewed various photos
15 of buildings for consideration as part of a Design appendix for the Downtown Zoning Code.
16 Including Low Impact Development (LID) examples in the Design appendix has also been
17 discussed. As part of this workshop, additional design photos, as well as LID examples
18 provided by Dennis Slota will be reviewed.
19 Staff would like to propose an alternative approaches to the Design appendix and to the
20 inclusion of LID previously discussed that may address some of the limitations and concerns
21 raised in the previous workshop.
22 Design Appendix
23 Rather than providing photos with narrative, the design appendix could include a narrative that
24 describes the recommended design approach for the DZC. Based on comments from previous
25 workshops and the divergent nature of areas located within the boundaries of the DZC, staff
26 recommends the following:
27 ■ Review the various areas within the boundaries of the DZC and determine the possibility
28 of creating "design districts." This suggestion is based on the idea that the DZC includes
29 areas that feel and look quite different, such as the Downtown Core zoning district
30 compared to the Perkins Street corridor compared to Oak Street or Main Street. These
31 inherent differences suggest that a different design approach for each area may be
32 appropriate as opposed to a "one size fits all approach." For example, if there is a
33 "district" defined as the Historic, one approach would be to have new
34 development/redevelopment be compatible with and incorporate the scale, massing, and
35 architectural elements from historic buildings located within this district. On the other
36 hand, areas such as the Perkins Street corridor, Main Street, Leslie Street, Oak Street,
1
Downtown Zoning Code
Design Appendix and Low Impact Development
March 9,2011
1 and Stephenson Street could have more design flexibility due to their location and
2 existing development patterns and architectural variety.
3 To see this approach, please go to
4 http://cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/pdf/cpsp/architecture/architectural-quidelines.pdf
5 ■ Provide a description of the existing pattern and architectural character of development,
6 such as the pattern, form, architectural style/details, building orientation, etc. As part of
7 this description, the narrative could refer to specific buildings (by address) as examples
8 (rather than providing photos).
9
10 ■ Provide a description of the recommended design approach for new
11 development/redevelopment n each area. This could include such items as the form,
12 fa�ade articulation, massing, color, roof type, massing, proportion, symmetry.
13
14 ■ Based on a cursory review of the DZC zoning map, staff envisions no more than three
15 districts.
16 Staff requests that the Commission consider this approach and review the DZC maps (zoning,
17 circulation, special designations) and be prepared to discuss possible design districts.
18 Low Impact Development (LID)
19 Last year Dennis Slota from the Mendocino County Water Agency made a low impact
20 development (LID) presentation to the Planning Commission. The presentation included photos
21 of various examples of LID. Mr. Slota also indicated that LID needs to be customized to the
22 specific project and is not a "one size fits all" approach. This sentiment was echoed by the
23 Public Works Department, also present at the meeting. Since LID is a constantly evolving field,
24 staff recommends that rather than providing specific photographic examples references to LID
25 resources be provided. The advantage to this approach is that the project applicant can review
26 different LID approaches and technologies and determine the best fit for the specific project.
27 Another advantage is that the list can be updated as resources change. Staff will provide the
28 Commission with a list of referrals and resources at the meeting.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
2
Downtown Zoning Code
Design Appendix and Low Impact Development
March 9,2011
1 ITEM NO. 10A
2
Community Development and Planning Department
L�lty of Zlkla�i 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
3
4 DATE: March 9, 2011
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FROM: Charley Stump, Director of Planning & Community Development
9
10 SUBJECT: Downtown Code— Process and Timeline for City Council Review
11
12
13
14 Now that the Planning Commission has completed its work on the Downtown Code, Staff would
15 like to discuss options for presenting it to the City Council. Staff would like the Commission's
16 thoughts and direction on the following:
17
18 1. Public noticing
19
20 2. Introductory presentation
21
22 3. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshops/public hearings
23
24 4. Role of the Planning Commission
25
26 5. Timeline
27
28 Staff has targeted the City Council meeting on April 6, 2011 for a possible introductory
29 presentation and discussion of the timeline for unveiling the Draft Code. The Commission's
30 input and recommendations would be shared at that meeting and Commissioners would be
31 encouraged to attend and participate in the discussion.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
1
Downtown Zoning Code
Design Appendix and Low Impact Development
March 9,2011