No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05132015 - packet CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 13, 2015 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 WATT, HILLIKER, CHRISTENSEN, CHAIR WHETZEL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the following meeting are included for review and approval: A. March 11, 2015 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, the appeal must be received by May 25, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE 9. PUBLIC HEARING A. Gilbert Mixed-Use Site Development Permit and Use Permit, 676 South Orchard Avenue (File No. 37). Consideration and possible action of a request for approval of a Site Development Permit and Use Permit to allow mixed use development (single family residence, small wool processing mill, and operation of a food truck) at 676 South Orchard Avenue, Ukiah. 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. 10. NEW BUSINESS A. Draft General Plan Housing Element - Senate Bill 2 (2007) Compliance, Discussion and Direction. Discussion and direction of alternative approaches to complying with Senate Bill 2 (2007) in regard to the Draft General Plan Housing Element Update. 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 March 11, 2015 3 Minutes 4 5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT 6 Mike Whetzel, Chair 7 Christopher Watt 8 Mark Hilliker 9 Judy Pruden 10 Laura Christensen 11 12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT 13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively 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 February 25, 2015 meeting are included for 25 review and approval. 26 27 Commissioner Pruden made the following correction: 28 • Page 16, line 16, sentence to read, 'Is fine with removal of the Liquid Amber along the fence line.' 29 30 M/S Pruden/Hilliker to approve February 25, 2015 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0). 31 32 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 33 34 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this 35 meeting, the final date to appeal is March 23, 2015. 36 37 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission. 38 39 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- Confirmed by staff. 40 41 9. PUBLIC HEARING 42 9A. AT&T Wireless Communications Cell Tower Site Development Permit and Use Permit, 300 43 Seminary Avenue (File No. 266). Consideration and possible action on a request for approval of 44 a Site Development Permit and Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a wireless 45 communications cell tower (two alternatives/options) on the Ukiah Civic Center property, 300 46 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah. 47 48 Planning Director Stump gave a project presentation and provided photo simulations to demonstrate 49 the location and appearance of the proposed new cell tower on the Ukiah Civic Center property as 50 provided for in attachment 8 of the staff report and PowerPoint presentation: 51 • Requests the Planning Commission consider the two proposed alternatives 1) 100-foot tall mono- 52 pole; 2) 105-foot tall mono-pine/'faux' tree. 53 • AT&T provides for a project description in attachment 3 of the staff report. 54 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 1 1 • The existing cell tower is used primarily for public safety, but AT&T leases space on the tower for 2 cell service where the intent of the project is to remove the commercial equipment from the 3 existing cell tower that would leave the City's public safety equipment on the existing tower. The 4 existing tower would then be designated for Police Department public safety equipment with room 5 for expansion. The new tower would be for a commercial wireless telecommunications facility 6 (WTF)for AT&T and US Cellular. 7 • The Ukiah Police Department currently collocates public safety communication equipment with 8 AT&T on the existing cell tower at the Ukiah Civic Center. The existing cellular tower structure 9 capacity appears to be `maxed out' at this time which counteracts the opportunity for cellular 10 companies or public safety to place additional equipment on the tower should expansion be 11 necessary in the future. 12 • It is also necessary for Public Safety to be the sole user of a tower to eliminate potential conflicts 13 of managing the infrastructure on the tower. 14 • The Police Department has been managing the licensing agreements with the cellular companies 15 related to the tower for eight years and more fully explained the history/background of the existing 16 cell tower as provided for on page 2 of the staff report. 17 • The staff report talks about project issues/environmental impacts/concerns related to radio 18 frequency emissions, historic and architectural inventory/historic significance, ground disturbance 19 and setting, site and neighborhood compatibility, compliance with the Ukiah Municipal Airport 20 Master Plan and/or other issues. Attachments 5, 6 and 7 of the staff report provide 21 information/responses to the project issues/environmental concerns. 22 • Talked about the Mono-Pine design approved for the Elks Lodge property on Hastings Road that 23 was approved by the Planning Commission. 24 • The DRB reviewed the proposed Project and voted to recommend approval of the mono-pole 25 alternative rather than the `flaux' tree mono-pine alternative. Most of the DRB members favored 26 the Mono-Pole alternative because of its utilitarian appearance with the notion `a cell tower is a 27 cell tower' and it should not be disguised to appear as a tree. Staff disagrees and supports the 28 Mono-Pine alternative because it would blend in with existing mature trees on the site and would 29 help to screen the existing tower from Dora Street. 30 • Staff recommends approval of the Mono-Pine alternative. 31 32 Commissioner Hilliker: 33 • Asked about the longevity/maintenance of the Mono-pine and the possibility of deterioration over 34 time with debris (such as pine needles) and/or other tree elements/materials falling off. 35 36 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m. 37 38 Commissioner Pruden: 39 • Has knowledge mono-trees are made well and are durable. 40 • Cited the Hastings Road cell tower and another cell tower in Windsor and noted the Planning 41 Commission preference for the Hastings Road cell tower project was for the mono-pine to be a 42 Redwood rather than a pine tree. Is of the opinion the mono-tree poles are aesthetically a good fit 43 for cell towers as opposed to a mono-pole. 44 • Preference for the new cell tower would be `faux' Redwood tree on the Ukiah Civic Center 45 property. 46 47 Commissioner Watt: 48 • What is applicanYs design preference? 49 • What is the difference in cost between the two alternatives? 50 • How long before the existing cell tower exceeds its design/useful life and needs to be upgraded? 51 • When was the original cell tower constructed at the Ukiah Civic Center? 52 • Are there samples available of the coding that would be used on the mono-pole? 53 • Why not incorporate a lattice structure for the new cell tower? 54 55 Frank Schabarum,Wireless Site Development Specialist, applicant representative: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 2 1 • Does not have specific information as to longevity, but understands the materials (pine needles, 2 bark etc.) are made to be durable and explained how. Mono-pines have become recently popular 3 for cell towers. Because mono-pines are a relatively new product there is not much case study in 4 terms of documenting longevity. 5 • Client preference is essentially two-fold; AT&T preference would be a mono-pole, is cost driven 6 and the infrastructure, i.e., antennas for instance, align/fit better on a mono-pole than a mono- 7 tree. Explained in more detail placement and location of the various antennas on the facility. If the 8 Commission went with the mono-pole alternative would have to separate the antennas to `keep 9 the profile down.'As the situation currently exists, cannot put additional antennas on the structure 10 because it is not strong enough to handle additional weight. Client would be willing to proceed 11 with whatever the Planning Commission's preference is so as get the project approved. 12 • Does not have expertise in construction costs so cannot comment on the cost differentials. 13 • The cell tower is a mechanical structure so if maintained/managed properly the longevity 14 increases. Alternatively, if a facility is neglected and not maintained, the life expectancy will be 15 shortened considerably. The removal of weight from the tower to alleviate stress like that which 16 has been occurring increases its longevity. To this end, the antennas have been lowered to half 17 the height. However, as a non-structural engineer does not have the professional expertise to 18 adequately address the longevity of a cell tower from a technical perspective 19 20 Planning Director Stump: 21 • The original cell tower was constructed in 2001. 22 23 Frank Schabarum: 24 • Provided some coding samples to staff and noted the coding would be a painted flat finish. 25 Referred to the simulated photos and noted the mono pole could be painted `galvanized or having 26 a flat gray finish.' 27 • Related to why not using a lattice structure, the intent is `to keep the profile low' and make it more 28 streamline. Also, there is a limited amount of space in the landscape area to `post a round hole.' 29 A lattice structure requires four posts. A lattice structure would likely be `too industrial looking' for 30 a civic center application. 31 32 There was discussion concerning the materials board displayed for the proposed Hastings Road mono- 33 pine project. 34 35 Planning Director Stump: 36 • The sample board concerning the mono-pine for the Verizon cell tower on Hastings Road had 37 bark dadding. 38 39 Commissioner Pruden: 40 • There are only a few companies that `dress' cell tower poles so the work will likely have to be 41 sub-contracted out. 42 • The intent with regard to the cell tower on Hastings Road was to get it to look like a Redwood tree 43 as much as possible. 44 45 Commissioner Hilliker: 46 • Related to the project description, understands the existing lattice tower is `fully loaded' where the 47 intent for the Ukiah Police Department is to continue to use this facility and asked about 48 maintenance costs relevant to condition assessment. The project description indicates according 49 to assessment there are items requiring immediate attention and items requiring scheduled 50 maintenance. Would there be maintenance costs where the tower tilts above 60 feet? The 51 structural engineering company responsible for the Assessment recommends either replace 60% 52 of the tower structure or replacing the tower altogether and would the City be responsible for 53 these maintenance costs? 54 55 Trent Taylor, Ukiah Police Department: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 3 1 • The Project involves facilitating the relocation of the U S Cellular antennas, hardware and other 2 associated equipment to the new monopole. With the removal of all AT&T and US Cellular 3 equipment AT&T will convey tower ownership to the City of Ukiah Police and Public Safety 4 organizations to they can have autonomy in the sole use of the tower. 5 • Has had the `tilY assessed and this condition essentially pertains to more of a `twisY having a 6 curve such that when US Cellular came onto the tower in 2006 they poured concrete down the 7 legs of the tower and this caused the 'twist' to the tower. There has been no structural problem 8 associated with this condition. When AT&T wanted to do some upgrades, during assessment it 9 became apparent the City's ability to expand would then be limited in the future and that the tower 10 would not effectively fit the needs of AT&T so the plan would be for the City to take possession of 11 the lattice tower and AT&T would continue to use the lease space on the `shelter' that is there 12 collocated with the City. 13 • In talking with a cell tower/radio expert the technical equipment the Police Department and Public 14 Safety organizations in general would put on the existing lattice tower is fine. It is the cellular 15 company equipment that is heavy and creates potential structural issues for the tower. With the 16 cellular company equipment off the tower allows an estimated 25 to 30 year life expectancy for 17 the tower with very low maintenance because of the type of equipment the Police Department 18 would be putting on it is much lighter. The tower expert indicated the Police Department would 19 not be able to `max out' the tower with the type of equipment it uses. The City will have to 20 maintain the tower if there was a problem. The addition of concrete to the tower reduced the 21 likelihood to collect moisture and the potential for deterioration inside the tower. 22 • In addition to Police/Fire Department equipment on the tower, the City has infrastructure for the 23 `networking' equipment. Does not foresee any changes in the future that would require bigger or 24 heavier antennas on the tower. 25 26 Commissioner Watt: 27 • Was consideration given to possibly upgrading the existing cell tower? 28 29 Trent Taylor: 30 • The aforementioned was a consideration. The problem is where the tower is located there is a 31 base where the foundation base for the tower is engineered for the size of the tower. To construct 32 a large tower that holds more capacity the base would have to be enlarged outside the perimeters 33 of the leased area and there is not sufficient room between the City buildings without doing some 34 major remodeling to obtain the necessary base that is required. To accomplish this would need a 35 temporary solution for having to take down the City's radio/communication equipment in order to 36 keep operating 24/7. There is no place to temporarily put the equipment. There was discussion 37 about using a portable tower where this approach did not seem feasible. In talking with City staff 38 concluded that while having multiple towers could be an issue, the best solution is for the City to 39 have sole ownership of the tower. As such, the consideration was directed toward installation of a 40 new mono-pole. 41 • The tower was initially installed by Edge Wireless because the City and Police Department could 42 not afford to upgrade its infrastructure that was necessary at that time. It was a good deal for the 43 City and Police Department to get a tower constructed the City could collocate on. However, 44 collocation was been problematic for the Police Department because every time someone does 45 something to the tower, inspections have to be done to determine that none of the public safety 46 equipment has been compromised through some inadvertent maintenance-related task or 47 upgrade where new equipment is added. 48 49 Commissioner Christensen: 50 • Inquired whether both alternatives are `equal' with regard to being able to expand or add 51 equipment in the future should there be a need? 52 • Found it interesting the majority of DRB members support the utilitarian alternative of a mono- 53 pole rather than the proposed mono-pine alternative. Is of the opinion, a mono-tree tower would 54 look better. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 4 1 Frank Schabarum: 2 • Confirmed both alternatives would require a structurally engineered facility that can handle 3 additional collocations and/or other City public safety equipment so there would not be a reason 4 to come back to address further structural issues. Talked about the technical aspects related to 5 adding equipment to a mono-pine tower. 6 7 Chair Whetzel: 8 • Related to police/fire frequency line-of-site asked with the mono-pole in close proximity to the 9 existing tower is there the potential for any 'blanking/communication interference' with the new 10 tower in the way of the existing tower? 11 12 Trent Taylor: 13 • Discussed the potential for 'blanking' with the radio and cell tower expert that services the City's 14 equipment and noted there will be a requirement in the agreement that allows for some baseline 15 testing should the new cell tower project be approved. At this point, the City is at the lowest 16 potential for any interference type of scenario with the cell company collocating on the tower. The 17 cell company made some changes to their system and moved their antennas down on the tower 18 so they are not at the top of the tower like in the photo rendering. The City had equipment right 19 next to the cell company at the top of the tower. The cell company is not on the same frequency 20 range as the City Police Department so this should not result in any interference; However, there 21 is always the potential in this regard. 22 • On many of the mountain top cell tower and radio sites, there may be three or four towers within 23 very close proximity and possibly even closer than the existing City lattice tower and proposed 24 new tower scenario. Towers can be set up to have no interference between one another. 25 • Generally cellular activity does not interfere with Police Department `UHF'type of radio equipment 26 and explained in more technical detail about setup precautionary measures that are taken to 27 prevent potential interference. The City's radio communication expert will be watching for any 28 possible interference. 29 30 Commissioner Pruden: 31 • Referred to the Verizon cell tower project on Hastings Road and noted the Planning Commission 32 approved the project at the maximum height possible for compliance with FAA regulations and/or 33 for compliance with other related agencies or City standards such that no light could be put on the 34 top of the facility. 35 • Talked about her experience on the Planning Commission for past cell tower/wireless 36 communication facility projects in connection with the public's concern regarding radio frequency 37 emissions and the measures taken to mitigate some of the concerns. 38 • Supports a Redwood tree tower. 39 40 Frank Schabarum: 41 • Related to the preference for a mono-Redwood tree instead of the mono-pine/'flaux' tree would 42 like to see some flexibility on the 105-foot tall height where the intent is to keep the antennas in 43 proper alignment and still provide for a more natural tapered top above the antennas rather than 44 the current more rounded crown, but understands asking for flexibility regarding the height is not 45 an option because the FAA has already given approval for a 105-foot tall mono-pine tree 46 alternative. 47 • Will review the Verizon Wireless project on Hasting Avenue for information concerning the vendor 48 and/or other relevant/necessary information that may be applicable. 49 50 There was discussion concerning vendors. 51 52 Commissioner Watt: 53 • Preference would be to go with the 100-foot tall mono pole alternative. Sees the backside of the 54 Civic Center as 'industrial' in nature with the Fire Department training tower and/or other similar 55 type of infrastructure in this location. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 5 1 • Notices `fake'trees for cell towers time after time. 2 • Does understand there is footprint problem in connection with the mono-pole/mono-pine 3 alternatives.Would like to see a tower with a smaller footprint. 4 5 Commissioner Hilliker: 6 • Preference is the mono-tree tower and would support the concept of a mono-Redwood. 7 8 Chair Whetzel: 9 • Preference is the mono-Redwood that resembles the approved Verizon Wireless cell tower 10 project on Hastings Road. 11 12 Commissioner Hilliker, Pruden, Christensen, and Chair Whetzel consensus: 13 • Add a new condition of approval that reads, `The cell tower tree shall be a Redwood or similar 14 design with bark cladding to a distance of approximately five feet above the initial branches. The 15 design shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval.' 16 17 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:35 p.m. 18 19 M/S Pruden/Hilliker to approve AT&T Wireless Communications Cell Tower Site Development Permit 20 and Use Permit (File No. 266-SDP-UP-PC) with Findings in attachment 1 and Conditions of Approval in 21 attachment 2 with the addition of a new condition of approval, as referenced above. Motion carried with 22 the following roll call vote: 23 24 AYES: Commissioner Pruden, Christensen, Hilliker and Chair Whetzel 25 NOES: Commissioner Watt 26 27 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT 28 Planning Director Stump reintroduced Assistant Planner Michelle Johnson and introduced new Principal 29 Planner Kevin Thompson. 30 31 Principal Planner Thompson: 32 • Is pleased to be aboard with the Planning Department. 33 • Provided background information about his work history, education, and experience. 34 35 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT 36 Commissioner Pruden: 37 • Noted the sign advising of a wireless communication facility in the Methodist Church is no longer 38 around and asked staff to check on this. 39 • Talked about the historical telescope featured in Observatory Park and the plan to allow it to 40 permanently remain in Ukiah where it has always been and should be. 41 42 12. ADJOURNMENT 43 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:56 p.m. 44 45 46 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 47 48 AT8�T Site Development Permit and Use Permit 49 Planning Commission adopted Findings and Conditions 50 51 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE PERMIT FINDINGS 52 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 53 MONO-PINE CELL TOWER 54 AT THE UKIAH CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY 55 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 6 1 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the 2 application materials and documentation, and the public record. 3 4 1. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with 5 the goals and policies of the General Plan as described in Table 1 of the staff report. 6 7 2. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with 8 the Zoning Ordinance as described in Table 2 of the staff report. 9 10 3. The location, size and intensity of the mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the project would not 11 create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic because no work would be performed in the 12 public right-of-way, the nearest street is 150-feet away, and the proposed tower would be located 13 within an existing landscape planter. 14 15 4. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed tower would be located a minimum of 150- 16 feet from nearby Streets and surrounding land uses, would not conflict with the existing parking 17 lot, and therefore would not create hazardous or inconvenient conditions. 18 19 5. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project would not remove significant 20 amounts of landscaping and would act as landscaping to help separate and screen the existing 21 tower and Civic Center complex. 22 23 6. The mono-pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project would not cut out light and air on 24 the property, or on the property in the neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of 25 buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof, because it would be located in a large 26 parcel over 150-feet from neighboring development. 27 28 7. The project will not destroy any natural land features or creeks because none exist on the site. 29 No trees must be removed from the property and the mono-pine "faux" tree alternative would 30 provide a "tree"to the site that would help screen the existing tower from Dora Street. 31 32 8. The Mono-Pine "faux" tree alternative of the proposed project will provide a creative approach to 33 cell tower design consistent with a recently City approved cell tower on Hastings Avenue, and 34 would not result in a box-like structure. 35 36 9. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would not be detrimental to the public's 37 health, safety and general welfare because: 38 39 A. The site is located in an area with a mix of zoning districts, including Residential, Public 40 Facility and Commercial. This has created a mix of uses in the area, including single- 41 family and multi-family residential, religious uses and offices. There are other wireless 42 communication facilities/devices/towers in the vicinity of the proposed project. 43 44 B. The mono-pine "faux"tree alternative would appear like a tree and blend in with other tall 45 trees in the immediate neighborhood. 46 47 C. The mono-pine "faux"tree alternative would help screen the existing tower from views 48 from Dora Street. 49 50 D. The applicant has provided an RF evaluation (Radio Frequency— Electromagnetic Energy 51 Compliance Report, EBI Consulting, January 14, 2015). This report indicates that the 52 proposed facility is meets the FCC requirements for RF emissions, and does not pose a 53 threat to the public's health, safety, or general welfare 54 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 7 1 10. The project has been reviewed by all City Departments including the Police, Fire and Public 2 Works Departments, and none of these Departments have identified any potential impacts to the 3 public's health, safety or general welfare. 4 5 11. Based on the following, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the 6 environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act 7 (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3 — New Construction of small 8 structures, and 15300.2(f) Exceptions/Historic Resources. 9 10 o Historic Siqnificance: As discussed above, and based on the findings contained in the 11 submitted cultural resources investigation, staff has concluded that neither proposed 12 alternative would adversely impact the historic Civic Center property. Section 15300.2 of 13 the CEQA Guidelines allows projects that involve historical resources to be exempted 14 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act when it can be determined 15 that the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the 16 historical resource. Based on the cultural resource investigation provided, staff believes 17 that the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the 18 historical resource. 19 20 o Radio Frequency Emissions: Local authorities cannot deny the wireless facility based on 21 health concerns when the facility meets the Federal Communication Commission's 22 regulations concerning radio frequency emissions. The applicant has provided an RF 23 evaluation - Radio Frequency — Electromagnetic Energy Compliance Report, EBI 24 Consulting, January 14, 2015 (attachment 7). The report indicated that the radio 25 frequency electromagnetic field that would be generated is far less than the maximum 26 standard established by the FCC. As such, the FCC has determined that there is no 27 environmental impact related to RF emissions and as such the local authority is 28 preempted from using RF emissions in their evaluation of the project and the associated 29 environmental review. 30 31 o Ground Disturbance and Settina: The proposed tower (either alternative) would be 32 placed in an existing small landscape planter adjacent to the existing tower behind the 33 Civic Center, which is property that has been substantially paved and built upon. The 34 project would not disturb or impact and watercourses, trees, natural features or sensitive 35 habitats. 36 37 38 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 39 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 40 MONO-PINE CELL TOWER 41 AT THE UKIAH CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY 42 300 SEMINARY AVENUE, UKIAH 43 44 1. Approval is granted to allow construction of a 105-foot Mono-Pine cell tower as shown on the 45 plans date stamped December 19, 2014 and as described in the revised project description 46 submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department and date stamped 47 November 19, 2014. 48 49 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial conformance with the plans 50 conditionally approved by the Planning Commission. 51 52 3. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 53 p.m., unless specifically approved by the Public Works Director. Construction is prohibited on 54 Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah, unless approved by the Public Works 55 Director. Interior construction is exempt from these hours provided that construction noise is not 56 audible at the project property lines. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 8 1 4. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on 2 the first sheet. 3 4 From the Building Official 5 6 5. A Building permit is required for the project and shall be secured prior to commencement of work 7 pursuant to the requirements of the California Building Code. 8 9 From the Fire Marshal 10 11 6. There is an existing GFI receptacle in the planter strip on a steel post in the general proximity of 12 the proposed new tower. This outlet location must be maintained, moved if necessary, but 13 maintained. 14 15 7. If it becomes necessary to provide access for construction equipment during the installation in the 16 vicinity of the apparatus bay, notification must be provided well in advance to Division Fire Chief 17 Kevin Jennings (707-463-6271). 18 19 From the Public Works Department 20 21 8. All work on City Property shall be by a licensed and properly insured contractor. The contractor 22 shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise affecting this area. 23 Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction costs. 24 25 Standard Conditions 26 27 9. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges 28 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full. 29 30 10. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, 31 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal 32 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, 33 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building 34 Permit is approved and issued. 35 36 11. A copy of all conditions applicable to the Site Development Permit and Use Permit shall be 37 provided to and be binding upon any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest. 38 39 12. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior 40 to building permit final. 41 42 13. This Site Development Permit and Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation 43 process if the approved project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with 44 these stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years 45 of the effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permits were granted 46 has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months. 47 48 14. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit and Use Permit shall be 49 granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Site Development Permit 50 and Use Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone 51 requirements except to such specific purposes. 52 53 15. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to 54 project construction: 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 9 1 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430, 2 Fugitive Dust Emissions. 3 4 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and 5 building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, 6 particularly during windy days. 7 8 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control 9 fugitive dust. 10 11 D. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous 12 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour. 13 14 E. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly 15 covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end 16 of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City 17 Engineer. 18 19 16. Any future lighting for the project is subject to Planning Department review and approval as part 20 of the building permit required for the lighting. Any lighting shall comply with the following 21 requirements: 22 23 ➢ International Dark Sky Association approved fixture or equivalent; 24 ➢ Design compatible with the structures on the site. 25 ➢ Downcast, full cutoff fixture(s); 26 ➢ Pole height similar to any existing poles. 27 ➢ No light impacts or spill-over to adjacent properties. 28 29 17. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents, 30 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, 31 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding 32 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set 33 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be 34 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted 35 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's 36 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the 37 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void 38 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall 39 remain in full force and effect. 40 41 18. The cell tower tree shall be a Redwood or similar design with bark cladding to a distance of 42 approximately 5-feet above the initial branches. The design shall be submitted to the Community 43 Development Director for review and approval. 44 45 46 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2015 Page 10 1 ITEM NO. 9A Community Development and Planning Department 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 plannin�@cityofukiah.com " '�""`�"`�"'�"' (707)463-6203 2 3 DATE: April 16, 2015 4 5 TO: Planning Commission 6 7 FROM: Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner 8 9 SUBJECT: Request for approval of a Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow a 10 mixed use development that would include a single family home, Food Truck, 11 and Wool Mill. 12 676 South Orchard Avenue, APN 002-320-53 13 City File Number: 37 14 15 16 RECOMMENDATION 17 18 Staff recommends Planning Commission approve the Use Permit and Site Development Permit based on 19 the findings included in attachment 1 and subject to the conditions of approval included in attachment 20 2. 21 22 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 23 24 An application has been received from the property owner, Matthew Gilbert, requesting Planning 25 Commission approval of a Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow mixed use development at 26 676 South Orchard Avenue, APN 002-320-53 (see attachments 4 and 10; Project Description and Project 27 Plans). The site is currently developed with one single-family home and detached garage with covered 28 concrete pad.The Project includes the following: 29 30 ■ Continued use of the main building as a single-family home; 31 ■ Conversion of the garage to a wool mill (see attachment 4; Project Description); 32 ■ Conversion of the covered concrete pad south of the garage into an enclosed expansion of the 33 wool mill; 34 ■ Construction of an addition to the wool mill on the west elevation; 35 ■ Relocation of the existing cargo container to comply with zoning setbacks; 36 ■ Use of the existing cargo container to store products and materials associated with the wool 37 mill; Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 1 1 ■ Addition of one cargo container to provide additional storage for products and materials 2 associated with the wool mill; 3 ■ Operation of a food truck in the south portion of the parking lot/front yard with outdoor 4 seating; 5 ■ Modifications to the parking area and landscaping, including striping to provide 8 standard 6 parking spaces and one van accessible parking space; and 7 ■ New exterior paint for the Wool Mill. 8 9 The Project site contains mature trees. The preferred location of the cargo containers is under the mature 10 oak tree located on the north side of the parcel as shown on the site plan. Mr. Gilbert a registered 11 professional forester, identified four potential locations for the storage containers and prepared an 12 analysis of the benefits and limitations of each of the locations proposed (see attachment 4; Project 13 Description). 14 15 The Project Description includes alternative locations for the proposed food truck and discusses the pros 16 and cons of each alternative. The preferred alternative is the location shown on the site plan. 17 18 In order to allow the wool mill to be developed in phases as dictated by financial resources and demand, 19 the Project includes a phasing plan as described on page 2 of the Project Description. 20 21 A color board of the proposed paint for the exterior fa�ade of the proposed wool mill will be available at 22 the meeting. 23 24 BACKGROUND 25 26 The site is currently developed with one single-family home and detached garage. The site also includes 27 a metal cargo container that was placed on the site by the previous owner without the required 28 planning approvals and in a location that does not comply with the required side yard setback. 29 30 Prior to the purchase of the parcel by Mr. Gilbert and the proposed mixed use project, the site was 31 approved by the City for use as a single-family home with commercial office use located in the main 32 building. The office use was limited to a maximum of 400 square feet. 33 34 Design Review Board (DRB) Review: The City Code requires the Design Review Board to review and 35 make recommendations to the Planning Commission on all site development permit applications. The 36 DRB reviewed the Project October 9, 2014 at March 12, 2015. At the meeting, the DRB was supportive 37 of the proposed mixed use development that would include the existing single-family home, 38 modification and expansion of the existing garage which would be used for the commercial processing 39 of wool, one food truck with outdoor seating, new signage and modifications to the parking and 40 landscaping. DRB approved the Project (4-0); as presented with the recommendation that the facade 41 be considered 'influx' at this point and that the applicant bring some other design options to the 42 Planning Commission and to make it clear the DRB was not 100% in favor of this particular aspect of the Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 2 1 Project and provided the following comments and recommendations (see attachment 6; DRB Minutes 2 Excerpt). 3 SETTING 4 5 The subject property is approximately% acre and located on the west side of Orchard Avenue, north of 6 Gobbi Street. The parcel is surrounded by the following uses: 7 8 ■ North: Residential, a daycare/private school, and low intensity commercial uses 9 (primarily office) zoned Community Commercial (C1); 10 ■ South: Commercial uses, south of Gobbi Street the electric substation, church and 11 residential uses zoned Planned Development-Residential (PD-R) 12 ■ East: Various commercial uses, including restaurant, lodging and office zoned 13 Community Commercial (C1); and 14 ■ West: Mobile Home Park zoned High Density Residential (R3). 15 16 17 STAFF ANALYSIS 18 19 GENERAL PLAN. The subject property is designated in the Ukiah General Plan Land Use Element as 20 Commercial (C). This land use designation provides a location for a variety of types of businesses that 21 include retail, service businesses,general commercial, shopping centers, shopping malls, public facilities, 22 places of public assembly, parking lots, and residential uses. The proposed project consists of single 23 family home, Food Truck, and Wool Mill as part of a mixed use development; is consistent with the goals 24 and policies of the Commercial General Plan designation. Specific uses that are allowed in C-1 are 25 determined by the zoning ordinance. TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS General Plan Goal and Policies Staff Analysis General Plan Vision Goal GP-1: Promote, attract or assist in developing The proposed wool mill will add value to the existing sheep industry businesses, particularly those that add value to by providing a large scale woolen mill that has the ability to produce resources already found or processed in the Ukiah high quality artisan yarns that is currently being shipped overseas. Valley. Goal GP-2: Promote business development, The applicant is a local resident and has been involved in the Sheep emphasizing local ownership of businesses in order to Industry in the Ukiah Valley for many years.The single family home keep capital and growth within the community. located on the project site would serve as the applicant's residence. Policy GP-2.3:Identify those characteristics that support The Wool Mill is expected draw customers inland from surrounding local substantiative businesses, and take the steps areas with their sheep pelts to be processed instead of being necessary to maintain and enhance such characteristics shipped to the east coast as is currently done. This could potentially overtime. provide an increase in retail, sales, dining, medical services and professional services; ultimately bringing and keeping capital in the Ukiah Valley. 6oal 6P-25: Ensure aesthetic qualities in the design and The proposed project was reviewed by the Design Review Board on Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 3 TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS construction of the community. October 9, 2014 and March 12, 2015. At the March 12, 2015 Policy GP-25.1: Establish a design review system that meeting the project was recommend to the Planning Commission incorporates specific aesthetic quality standards for with a 4-0 motion.The Project is located outside of the boundaries development. of the Downtown Design District; therefore, the Project was reviewed for compliance by the design review board with the design guidelines that apply to commercial projects outside of the Downtown Design. Based on the analysis in Table 3 below staff has concluded the project below is consistent with the Design Guidelines for Commercial Projects outside the Downtown Design District. Open Space and Conservation Goal OC-21: Support diversified farming for local The local sheep industry provides meat, cheese, wool and land benefits and food supply. management through grazing for local wineries and orchards. Policy OC-21.1: Organic farming shall be encouraged as an economic and knowledge resource, as well as to promote self-sufficiency for local food supply. Goal OC-29: Maintain and enhance the "urban forests" The proposed project has been removed by the following which create a sense of urban space. departments; Planning, Building, Fire, Police, Electrical and Public Works. Policy OC-29.1: The development review process shall The proposed plans do not include the removal of any trees. incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the urban tree canopy. Implementation Measure OC-29.1(b): Review construction and landscaping site plans to ensure that healthy trees are not removed unnecessarily. Goal OC-22: Conserve and replenish valley oaks in the There are two existing Valley Oaks identified on the tree details for Valley. the proposed project;the applicant is not proposing to remove any trees for this project. Policy OC-22.1: Maintain, protect, and replant There are two existing non-conforming storage containers located stands of Valley Oaks. on the project site; as a condition of approval the applicant will be required to relocate the storage container to an area that meets the Implementation Measure OC-22.1(a): When reviewing setback requirements for accessory structures. The applicant has proposals for development, require that all valley oaks indicated on page 9 of the project description that steps would be on the project area be identified, and ensure that all taken to ensure minimal impact to the mature oak trees. reasonable efforts have been undertaken to protect the trees. Goal OC-23: Native plant landscaping shall be The project landscape currently has 13 mature trees;the applicant is encouraged. proposing two 8 foot long galvanized metal planters in front of the food truck. Policy OC-23.1: Define standards that include native Staff is recommending and will include a condition of approval that plant landscaping. the proposed plants for these containers be native and drought tolerant consistent with the landscaping requirements set forth in Implementation Measure OC-23.1(c): Landscaping the Downtown Design Guidelines for Commercial Projects located Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 4 TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS standards for new development and redevelopment outside the Downtown Design District. projects shall be applicable to all but individual single- family residential development. Compliance with landscaping standards shall be required as a condition of discretionary approvals or a condition of issuing a building permit. This implementation measure does apply to single family residences located within planned developments or subdivisions for which landscaping standards where incorporated as conditions of project approval. Noise Goal: NZ-2: Reduce industrial noise impact through the The applicant has submitted a Noise Analysis (see attachments 4 enforcement of appropriate building and land use and 10; Project Description and Project Plans). The following codes. reviewed the Planning Application and did not have any comments Policy NZ-2.2: Ensure adequate analysis of noise regarding noise impacts: Design Review Board, Planning impacts when reviewing project permits. Department, Building Department, Police Department, Fire Implementation Measure NZ-2.2(a): As a part of an Department,Public Works and the Electric Department. application for any new construction for industrial Based on the submitted information the proposed project would facilities, the City shall require an estimate of noise not exceed the Noise level for Commercial zoning districts levels from stationary sources as measured at the established in the Noise Ordinance and is required to comply with property line. the Noise Ordinance. Policy NZ-2.3: Land use designations shall follow State of California noise and land use compatibility guidelines. Implementation Measure NZ-2.3(a): New development of noise-sensitive uses shall not be allowed where the noise level from non-transportation noise sources exceeds the noise level standards of Table IV.2-3 as measured immediately within the property line of the new development, unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development design to achieve the standards. Energy Goal EG-1:Create land use patterns which facilitate the The proposed project is mixed use and would include a single family conservation of energy. residence, Wool Mill and Food truck.The project would be located in a dense urban area close to shopping;work and is within walking Policy EG-1.1: Locate shopping, employment and distance to parks and public transit; and would minimize vehicle recreation opportunities within walking or bicycling traveled miles and conserve energy. distance of proposed and existing housing. Implementation Measure EG-1.1(b�: The Land Development Code shall allow for mixed-use developments. Housing Goal H-2: We want to provide housing for all economic The Project would not remove any housing;it would incorporate the segments of the community. existing single family residence into a mixed use to provide housing and increase local businesses. 1 2 3 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan: The Project parcel is located within the boundaries of the Ukiah 4 Municipal Airport Master Plan and, therefore, subject to the compatibility requirements of the Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 5 1 applicable airport compatibility zone. The parcel is located in compatibility zone B-2 2 (Extended/Approach Departure) Infill. Below is a summary of the applicable B-2 Infill zone 3 requirements: 4 TABLE 2: B-2 INFILL ZONE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS B2 Compatibility Criteria Staff Analysis Low intensity retail and office uses are normally The proposed project would include a single-family residence, wool acceptable uses in the 62 compatibility zone. mill and outdoor dining which is similar to the residential,commercial and professional office uses that currently surround the proposed project. Therefore the use is consistent with uses which are allowed in the 62 compatibility zone. The maximum density is 90 people per acre for non- The project site is 21,365 square feet (0.49 acres) the maximum residential uses in the 62 In-Fill area. density would be 45 people per acre;with an estimated 22 people on site the proposed project does not exceed the maximum densities allowed by the Airport Land Use Plan 62 compatibility Zoning. None of the proposed buildings exceed two-stories,and is in conformance with CLUP standards for B2. Therefore, the project is consistent with the safety compatibility criteria set forth by Airport Land Use 62 Compatibility Zoning based on the following staff analysis. The applicant has indicated the total people on site is estimated to be: . -. �- Employees at the Wool Mill 4 people Customers at the Wool Mill 2 people Inhabitants in the house 4 people Employees food truck 2 people Customers food truck 10 people Total: 22 people Minimum 30%"Open Land"is recommended. The parcel size for the proposed project is 21,365 square feet;the total proposed development is 4,684 square feet leaving 78°/o(16,681 square feet)of"open land". This is applied to the entire area with a 62 This exceeds the recommended 30%"Open Land"by 58%. designation not just the project site. 5 6 Based on the staff analysis in table 2; the proposed project is consistent with the Ukiah Municipal 7 Airport Master Plan B-2 (Extended/Approach Departure) Infill Compatibility Zone. 8 9 Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Community Commercial (C1). The C1 zoning district is 10 intended to promote, and provide flexibility for commercial development, and to encourage the 11 establishment of community-wide commercial serving land uses. The C1 zoning district is consistent 12 with and implements the Commercial general plan land use designation. 13 14 The proposed use is similar in nature to a machine shop or cabinet shop, which are allowed uses in the 15 C1 zoning district with approval of a use permit. Through the use permit process, Planning Commission 16 has the authority to apply conditions to the project or require changes in the project in order to ensure 17 compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses and to address impacts related to the use. Therefore, Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 6 1 the proposed wool mill has been determined to be appropriate as a permitted use with Planning 2 Commission approval of a use permit (see attachment 5; determination of appropriate use). 3 TABLE 3:ZONING ORDINANCE AND SITE ANALYSIS Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis Setbacks,height(ZO.Section 9085J The Project complies with the building height and setback requirements. Parking Vehicle Parking: (ZO. Section 9086D) (Z.O. Section Existing Parking. 9198D2J Proposed Parking. The Project includes three different uses (single- Single-Family Home:2 onsite parking spaces family home,wool mill with storage,and food truck). Outdoor Sales Establishment: 3 parking spaces The parking required and provided for each of these uses is provided minimum,additional parking spaces may be required below: as part of the Use Permit depending upon the nature � � ._� _� � . � �_� of the use •-.. Single Family Home 2 2 Wool Mill (processing, assembly, treatment, Wool Mill 6 4 packaging and distribution): 1 parking space for each (4 for employees on max employee on the maximum shift, plus required space shift for any office area, plus a minimum of 2 spaces for plus Z for customers) Wool Mill Storage 1 0 customer parking plus one space for each vehicle Outdoor5ales 3 2 operated from or on the site. Total Parking: 11 8 As shown in the table above,the Project does not provide the parking required for all of the uses proposed for the site. Planning Commission has the authority to modify the parking requirement through the discretionary review process provided a finding is made that there is a unique circumstance related to the use of the property that would result in a reduced parking demand. The zoning ordinance also allows 6 bike parking spaces to be provided in lieu of one required vehicle parking space. Bike Parking: The number of bicycle parking spaces 1 space for each 10 vehicle parking spaces is required. Based on 11 required shall not be less than ten percent (10%) of required vehicle parking spaces, 1 bike parking space is required. the number of required off-street automobile parking spaces. Such safe bicycle parking shall be located convenient to the entrance(s) to the use. (Z.O. Section 9086(E)J Landscaping Landscaping shall be proportional to building The project site is currently landscaped with lawn along the street elevations.Z.O.Section Z0.Section 9087(D1aJ frontage; includes 13 trees, shrubs, flowering bushes, and perennial planting.The applicant is proposing to two new 8 feet long galvanized planters as a barrier between the food truck and the parking lot.There are two mature liquid ambers along the street frontage that act as screen between the street and house; and a mature oak on the south side of the proposed Wool Mill. As proposed the landscaping is proportional to the building elevations Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in The landscape plans were reviewed by the DRB. The majority of the Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 7 TABLE 3:ZONING ORDINANCE AND SITE ANALYSIS Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis Ukiah's climate without excessive irrigation. Native property has existing landscaping. The species proposed for the two species are strongly encouraged. Z.O. Section ZO. new 8 foot galvanized planters would be viable in their environment Section 9087(D1b) and grow well in Ukiah's climate. The project is subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Planning Commission has the authority to modify the proposed landscaping plan. All landscape plantings shall be of sufficient size, The size, location, and amount of landscaping provided are sufficient health, and intensity so that a viable and mature for the size of the project and consistent with is typically required for appearance can be attained within a reasonable short development projects. amount of time. ZO.Section ZO.Section 9087(D1c) Deciduous trees shall constitute then majority of There are(2)mature English Walnut Trees,(1)Plum and(1)Apple tree trees proposed along the south and west building located on the west building exposure they are deciduous however exposures; non-deciduous tree species shall be they are not on the Street Tree List. restricted to areas that do not inhibit solar access. ZO.Section ZO.Section 9087(D1eJ Parking lots shall have a perimeter planting strip with The landscaping plan includes trees, shrubs, flowering bushes, and both trees and shrubs. perennial planting though out the project site. The perimeter of the proposed parking lot is paved the Planning Commission has the authority to modify the required elements of a landscaping plan "depending upon the size, scale, intensity, and location of the development project." In this case the existing parcel is developed with a single family home that sits on the south east side of the project site; a detached garage (proposed wool mill) on the north west side, pavement on the north east adjacent to the single family residence leaving the south west of the parcel small when compared to other commercial parcels adjacent to the site and in the general vicinity. A minimum of 50% of the landscaped area shall be The landscaping plan includes trees, shrubs, flowering bushes, and live plantings.Z.O.Section 9087(D1i) perennial planting which make up at least 50%of the landscaped area. Landscaping plans shall include an automatic An automatic irrigation system is not proposed by the applicant; the irrigation plan and lighting plan. Z.O. Section only proposed new landscaping is the 8 foot long galvanized planters 9087(D1jJ the applicant has proposed to water the planters as needed with the outside water faucet(see attachment 4,Project Description page 17). The project is subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Planning Commission has the authority to modify the proposed landscaping plan. The applicant is not proposing to add or change any lighting. All landscaping shall be adequately maintained in a The standard condition of approval for landscape maintenance has viable condition.ZO.Section 9087(D1kJ been applied to the Project (see attachment 3,; draft Conditions of Approval). Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls The proposed project has less than 12 parking stalls; therefore is not shall have a tree placed between every four (4) required to comply with this standard. parking stalls within a continuous linear planting strip, rather than individual planting wells, unless clearly infeasible. Parking lot trees shall primarily be deciduous species,and shall be designed to provide a tree canopy coverage of fifty percent (50%) over all paved areas within ten (10) years of planting. Based upon the design of the parking lot,a reduced number of trees may be approved through the discretionary Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 8 TABLE 3:ZONING ORDINANCE AND SITE ANALYSIS Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis review process.Z.O.Section Z.O.Section 9087(D1e) 1 2 Noise: The City of Ukiah Noise Regulations prohibits any person to Sound Level A,decibels 3 operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning Zone Time 4 apparatus, or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to 5 create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property R1&R2 10 pm to 7 am 40 6 line of any property to exceed the ambient base noise level by more R1&R2 7 pm to 10 pm 45 7 than five (5) decibels between seven o'clock (7:00) P.M. and seven R1&R2 7 am to 7 pm 50 8 o'clock(7:00)A.M. R3 10 pm to 7 am 45 R3 7 am to 10 pm 50 9 The noise generated by the proposed use will likely be comparable Commercial 10 pm to 7 am 60 10 to a machine shop. Nearly all the noise generated will be from Commercial 7 am to 10 pm 65 11 machinery within the building. Noise should rarely be perceptible Industrial(M) Anytime �o 12 anywhere more than about 20 feet from the shop building, which is 13 roughly the distance to the nearest parcel boundary (see attachment 4; project description and 14 attachment 10, Noise Impact Map). Courtesy of Christian Davies,C&M Acres Alpacas and Fiber Mill, Ramella 32 inch carder Carolina Specialties single head pindrafter Within the same room i Through a 2x6wall Within the same room Through a 2x6wall Distance Decibles � Distance Decibles Distance Decibles Distance Decibles 0 ft. 87 i 2.5 ft. 60 0 ft. 85 2.5 ft. 58 i i 20 ft. 54 20 ft. 54 15 i 50ft. Same as Ambient 50ft. Same as Ambient 16 The original equipment manufacturers are no longer in business and technical documentation is not 17 obtainable. Another mill (C&M Acres Alpacas and Fiber Mill) has similar equipment and reports that at 18 50 ft. from the equipment through a 2x6 wall, the decibel level is similar to the ambient level. Based on 19 this best available information, the project will not significantly alter the decibel level at any of the 20 property lines. Further assuring us of this are several factors which will provide additional, though 21 unnecessary sound insulation. These are; 1) we placed the bathroom against the west wall, between 22 the residential properties and the equipment, and 2) there is a wooden fence between the mill building 23 and the property line providing an additional sound barrier. 24 In order to complete an Ambient Noise Level Measurement on the equipment for the proposed Wool 25 Mill Project; the equipment would need to be present on the property.The applicant is not proposing to 26 purchase the equipment until after the project is approved. Based on the information submitted from 27 the applicant regarding C&M Acres Alpacas and Fiber Mill (which uses similar equipment) the maximum Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 9 1 decibels for the proposed are below the maximum allowed and is consistent with the zoning 2 requirement; a Condition of Approval will be added addressing potential noise issues in the future. 3 Sign Ordinance: The parcel includes an existing 8 feet tall by 8 feet wide freestanding sign structure. 4 The property owner proposes to reuse this sign structure for the sign for the wool mill and the food 5 truck as shown in the Project Description (see attachments 4 and 10; Project Description and Site Plan). 6 No other signs are proposed as part of this project. The proposed dimensions and square footage of the 7 signs are: 8 Wool Mill Sign 3 ft.X 5 ft. 15 sq.ft. Food Truck Sign 1 ft.X 8 ft. 8 sq.ft. Total 23 sq.ft. 9 10 Location of Signs:The proposed sign would be located on the north side of the driveway and is 11 consistent with the requirements for sign location. 12 13 Design Guidelines. The Project is located outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Design District; 14 therefore, the Project would be reviewed for compliance with the design guidelines that apply to 15 commercial projects outside of the Downtown Design District (see attachment 7; Design Guidelines). 16 Table 4 below includes the applicable Design Guidelines for the Project along with staff analysis. 17 TABLE 4: DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Site Planning Site Features Site design is compatible with the natural There are no natural features on the site. The project involves the environment, and incorporates the major existing conversion of a garage to a Wool Mill, Food truck, landscaping and features. parking lot modification and the addition of new signage for the Wool Mill and Food Truck. The Project would retain existing landscaping and trees on the site and add two new 8 foot galvanized metal planters in front of the food truck creating a buffer between the parking lot and the outdoor eating area. Coordination Facilities are shared and coordinated with adjacent The project site is located within an established commercial corridor. properties. The existing buildings are located along the western portion of the site with the Food Truck along the street frontage to encourage Setbacks are compatible with character of adjacent pedestrian access. There will be two new 8 foot galvanized metal frontages. planters in front of the food truck creating a buffer between the parking lot and the outdoor eating area. This proposal is consistent Setbacks are minimized to enhance the pedestrian with the character of the adjacent frontages and in fact will enhance environment. the neighborhood. Compatibilitv Uses are functionally compatible. The proposed mixed use that includes a single family residence; conversion of a garage to a Wool Mill; addition of a Food Truck; parking lot modification and new signage will enhance the existing use on the site. The project site is located within an established commercial corridor, including The Henny Penny Restaurant, Children's Preschool, Hotel, Single Family Residence, Department of Motor Vehicles, and United States Post Office. Based on the above, Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 10 TABLE 4: DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS the use will be functionally compatible with the existing uses in the neighborhood. Parkin�Lots Decrease visual prominence and reduce heat island The total paved area on the lot(parking lot and cement walk around effect. the house) is approximately 5,930 square feet. As a result of the existing developments there are not many opportunities to decrease the visual prominence of the parking lot. The property is currently paved from the walk way along the residence south across the property line, east to the sidewalk. There is a grass area in front of the existing residence with two existing mature liquid ambers along the street frontage. A small portion of the grass to the north is the proposed location of the food truck;the applicant is proposing to the put two 8 foot galvanized planters in the parking lot in front of the food truck to act as a barrier between the parking lot and pedestrians (see attachment 10,Site Plan). Bicycle parking close to building entries for security; The plans include provisions for a bike rack that holds 6 bicycles on covered if possible the North East corner of the parcel near the sidewalk. The applicant expects the bike parking to be used primarily by customers of the food truck and has proposed a pedestrian path from the bike rack south to the food truck(see attachment 10,Site Plan). Visual Appearance There are no proposed changes to the single family residence. Site and building are visually attractive from neighboring properties, traffic and corridors, and The existing garage (proposed wool mill) requires a fire wall to be public spaces. added to the front exterior of the building. In order to hide the fire fall three fake facades have been proposed(see attachment 9;facade photos). DRB approved the Project (4-0); as presented with the recommendation that the facade be considered 'influx' at this point and that the applicant bring some other design options to the Planning Commission(see attachment 6;DRB Minutes Excerpt). Walkable and Bikeable Communities The proposed project includes the installation of one bike rack with The project provides connections for walkers and parking for five bikes. bicyclists to the surrounding community. There is an existing sidewalk along Orchard Street that will provide Sidewalks provide convenient and safe access. easy accessibility for pedestrians to the proposed food truck. is provided. Four street trees would be planted on Perkins Street in Entrances provide convenient access. addition to the existing four street trees. The proposed project is mixed use and would include a single family residence,Wool Mill and Food truck.The project would be located in a dense urban area close to shopping; work and is within walking distance to parks and public transit; and would minimize vehicle traveled miles and conserve energy. No pedestrian pathway is proposed. The applicant is requesting approval of a modification to the requirement to provide a pedestrian pathway through the parking lot(see above). Maintenance The standard condition of approval for landscape maintenance has Demonstrate consideration of site and building been applied to the Project. The project would also be subject to the maintenance. City's Commercial Property Maintenance Ordinance. A condition of approval has been included that requires the Project Proponent to prepare a "Trash Disposal Plan" (see attachment 3; draft Conditions of Approval). Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 11 TABLE 4: DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Landscaping Scale and nature of landscape materials is appropriate Landscaping is proposed along all property lines of the project site to the site and structure. and the project is required to comply with the landscaping requirements of the C-1 zoning district. The project is generally Street trees selected from Ukiah Master Tree List consistent with these requirements; however, the applicant has required. requested modifications to specific landscaping requirements (see above). Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the modifications,the project would be consistent with this finding. Signs Signs are compatible with architectural character of The property owner proposes to reuse the existing 8 feet tall by 8 buildings. feet wide freestanding sign structure for the wool mill sign and the food truck sign.The proposed sign was reviewed and approved(4-0) by the DRB at their regularly scheduled meeting March 12,2015. Lighting Lighting harmonizes with site, building design, No lighting is proposed. architecture,and landscaping. Lighting minimizes effects on adjacent properties,auto and pedestrian movement and night-time sky. Visibility and Universal Design The site and its elements are accessible to people at The proposed project would be subject to the accessibility differing stages, ages and circumstances of life; requirements of the building code and will include ADA parking and accessible primary and interior entrance and routes. access pathways as required. 1 2 Use Permit. In order to approve a Use Permit, the findings included in Zoning Ordinance section 3 9262(F1) are required to be made. The required findings and staffs analysis are included in the table 4 4 below: 5 TABLE 5. USE PERMIT ANALYSIS Use Permit Findings Staff Analysis The proposed land use is consistent with the provisions The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as described of this Title as well as the goals and policies of the City under General Plan above. General Plan. The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordnance as described in Table 2 above. Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 12 The proposed land use is compatible with surrounding The project approved with conditions is compatible with land uses and shall not be detrimental to the public's surrounding uses based on the following: health,safety and general welfare. • The project site is located within an existing commercial area and is surrounded mainly by commercial uses. • The proposed projects are less intensive less than surrounding uses since the amount of traffic generated will be less than the existing surrounding uses. • The hours of operation would be consistent with other business in the area and is consistent with the hours of operation of the previous business. The project will not be detrimental to the public's health; safety and general welfare based on the following: • Through the use permit the operational characteristics will be regulated, therefore the project would not be detrimental to the surrounding uses. • 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 62 compatibility zone requirements. 1 2 Site Development Permit: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9261(b), a Site Development Permit is 3 required for all new commercial construction. Table 5 below shows the specific findings that are 4 required before the Site Development Permit can be approved along with staff consistency analysis. 5 TABLE 6: SITE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS Zoning Code Site Development Permit Findings Staff Analysis The proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives, The Project is consistent with the General Plan as described above in and policies of the City General Plan. Table 1. The location, size, and intensity of the proposed The proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern based on the following: vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern. • The proposed project would upgrade the existing development on the site, and add a pedestrian walkway from the food truck to the parking lot.The Project is required to comply with current ADA accessibility requirements which would likely change the location and configuration of existing accessible parking spaces and pathways. This would improve the pedestrian traffic pattern for some people. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the The Project would not change the existing access and circulation to relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on the site; staff is recommending directional arrows to help with site adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or circulation (see attachments 1 and 3; draft use permit findings and inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding draft conditions of approval). uses. Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 13 Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for The project site is currently landscaped with lawn along the street purposes of separating or screening the proposed frontage; includes 13 trees, shrubs, flowering bushes, and perennial structure(s) from the street and adjoining building planting.The applicant is proposing to two new 8 feet long galvanized sites,and breaking up and screening large expanses of planters as a barrier between the food truck and the parking lot. paved areas. There are two mature liquid ambers along the street frontage that provide screening between the street and house; and a mature oak on the south side of the proposed Wool Mill. As proposed, the landscaping is proportional to the building elevations The proposed development will not restrict or cut out The project complies with the C1 height and setback requirements light and air on the property,or on the property in the which are developed in order to ensure adequate light and air and neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or separation of uses. The project would not cut out light or air or use of buildings in the neighborhood, or impair the hinder the development or use of building in the neighborhood based value thereof. on the following: The project is appropriately designed as required by C1 zone development standards. The project received preliminary review by the Design Review Board and requires formal project approval by the Planning Commission. This process ensures a quality project that would not impair the value to properties or development.The Project has been conditioned to provide a "Trash Disposal Plan" in order to ensure that the site and area remain well kept and free of debris and trash. The improvement of any commercial or industrial Property zoned Single family Residential(R1)is located to the West of structure will not have a substantial detrimental the project site.The Project would upgrade the building, project site, impact on the character or value of an adjacent and add new landscaping. The Project has been conditioned to residential zoning district. provide a "Trash Disposal Plan" in order to ensure that the site and area remains well kept and free of debris and trash. Based on the above, the Project would not have a substantial detrimental impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district. The proposed development will not excessively The proposed project would renovate and upgrade an existing site. damage or destroy natural features, including trees, The site is comprised primarily of impervious surfaces (parking lot shrubs,creeks,and the natural grade of the site. and building) and does not include any water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat,or other environmentally sensitive areas. The Project includes modifications to the parking lot which would not change the grade. The Project site includes existing landscaping and 13 mature trees. The Project would add two new landscaping planters to the site and no trees would be removed. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation The Project would upgrade the existing fa�ade on the garage, to the architecture and design of the structure(s) and including adding a fake fa�ade to the garage (proposed wool mill), grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like varied wall height, and base and access colors, as well as updated uninteresting external appearance. signage. These features help to break up the existing building which is consistent with this finding. 1 2 Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual: The Project is exempt from the Low Impact 3 Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual) adopted by City Council on June 18, 2014. The 4 Project qualifies as "Effective Date" which is exempt from the LID Manual (see attachment 8; Low 5 Impact Development Technical Design Manual). 6 7 8 9 Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 14 1 2 PUBLIC NOTICE 3 4 A notice of public hearing was provided in the following manner: 5 6 ■ posted in three places on the project site on April 30, 2015; 7 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on April 30, 2015; and 8 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on May 03, 2015. 9 10 As of the writing of this staff report, no correspondence has been received in regards to the project. 11 12 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 13 14 The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15 15301, Existing Facilities, which allows additions to existing building and installation of replacement 16 signage; Section 15303 Class 3(c), Conversion of existing small structures from one use to anther 17 provided the building does not exceed 10,000 square feet and Section 15311, and Accessory Structures, 18 which allows new signs based on the following: 19 20 A. The Project includes mixed use development that would include a single family home, Food 21 Truck, and conversion of a garage to a Wool Mill. 22 23 B. The Project is consistent with the Commercial general plan designation and all applicable 24 general plan policies as well as with the Community Commercial zoning designation and 25 regulations based on the analysis in the staff report. 26 27 C. Based on review of the project by Public Works,the Electric Department, Police Department and 28 Fire Marshal,the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 29 30 D. The Project is a development site comprised primarily impervious surfaces(parking lot and 31 building). The site and surrounding area are not environmentally sensitive. The Project does 32 not include the removal of any trees.There are no wetlands, creeks, or water bodies on the site. 33 34 E. The Project includes two new 8 foot galvanized metal planters;there is existing landscaping on 35 the property and 13 mature trees. 36 37 F. The Project includes the installation of two (2) new signs on an existing 8 foot by 8 foot free- 38 standing sign structure. 39 40 41 DECISION TIMELINE 42 43 The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). The PSA 44 requires that a decision be made on the project within 60 days of the application being deemed Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 15 1 complete. This application was submitted to the Community Development and Planning Department on 2 March 03, 2015 and was deemed complete on March 13, 2015. As such, a decision must be made on 3 the project no later than May 12, 2015. The applicant may request a onetime extension of the decision 4 timeline.The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is May 13, 2015. 5 6 7 ATTACHMENTS 8 9 1. Draft Use Permit Findings 10 2. Draft Site Development Permit Findings 11 3. Draft Use Permit and Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval 12 4. Project Description date stamped March 03, 2015 13 5. Determination of Appropriate Use 14 6. Design Review Board Minutes Excerpt from March 12, 2015 15 7. Design Guidelines Commercial Development Outside the Downtown Zoning District 16 8. Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual Application Determination 17 9. Photos 18 10. Project Plans date stamped March 03, 2015 19 11. Department Comments 20 Gilbert Mixed-Use Use Permit and Site Development 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 May 13�h 2015 Planning Commission File No:Munis 37 16 ATTACHMENT 1 1 2 DRAFT USE PERMIT FINDINGS 3 4 GILBERT MIXED-USE USE PERMIT 5 676 SOUTH ORCHARD AVENUE/APN 002-320-53 6 MAY 13T"2015 PLANNING COMMISSION 7 FILE NO: MUNIS 37 8 9 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the 10 application materials and documentation, and the public record. 11 12 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General 13 Plan as described in the staff report. 14 15 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in 16 the staff report. 17 18 3. The project approved with conditions is compatible with surrounding uses based on the 19 following: 20 21 A. The project site is located within an existing commercial area and is surrounded mainly 22 by commercial uses. 23 B. The proposed projects are less intensive than surrounding uses given the amount of 24 traffic generated will be less than the existing surrounding uses. 25 C. The food truck hours of operation would be consistent with other business in the area 26 and is consistent and the hours of operation for the wool mill will not increase customer 27 traffic;the majority of traffic would be from the 3-4 employees. 28 29 4. The project will not be detrimental to the public's health , safety and general welfare based on 30 the following: 31 32 A. Through the use permit the operational characteristics will be regulated, therefore the 33 project would not be detrimental to the surrounding uses. 34 B. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building Official, 35 and Public Works and any review comments from these departments have been 36 included as conditions of approval. 37 C. The project is required to comply with all federal, state and local laws. 38 D. The project is consistent with the Airport Master Plan B2 compatibility zone 39 requirements. 40 E. The proposed project will include a painted pedestrian pathway from the south, east 41 corner across the parking lot to the food truck for increased pedestrian safety and has 42 been added as Conditions of Approval 5h; 43 F. The proposed project will include directional arrows to distinguish the encourage 44 vehicle flow of traffic; and distinguish the parking lot from the outdoor dining area and 45 has been added as Conditions of Approval 5i; 46 47 1 ATTACHMENT 1 1 5. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 2 Section 15301, Existing Facilities, which allows additions to existing building and installation of 3 replacement signage; Section 15303 Class 3(c), Conversion of existing small structures from one 4 use to anther provided the building does not exceed 10,000 square feet and Section 15311, and 5 Accessory Structures,which allows new signs based on the following: 6 7 A. The total building square footage is 21,365 square feet. 8 B. The Project includes mixed use development that would include a single family home, 9 Food Truck, and conversion of a garage to a Wool Mill. 10 C. The Project is consistent with the Commercial general plan designation and all 11 applicable general plan policies as well as with the Community Commercial zoning 12 designation and regulations based on the analysis in the staff report. 13 D. Based on review of the project by Public Works,the Electric Department, Police 14 Department and Fire Marshal,the site can be adequately served by all required utilities 15 and public services. 16 E. The Project is a development site comprised primarily impervious surfaces (parking lot 17 and building). The site and surrounding area are not environmentally sensitive. The 18 Project does not include the removal of any trees.There are no wetlands, creeks, or 19 water bodies on the site. 20 F. The Project includes two new 8 foot galvanized metal planters;there is existing 21 landscaping on the property and 13 mature trees. 22 G. The Project includes the installation of two (2) new signs on an existing 8 foot by 8 foot 23 free-standing sign structure. 24 25 26 6. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning 27 Ordinance: 28 29 A. posted in three places on the project site on April 30, 2015; 30 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on April 30, 2015; and 31 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on May 03, 2015. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 2 ATTACHMENT 2 1 2 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS 3 4 GILBERT MIXED-USE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 5 676 SOUTH ORCHARD AVENUE/APN 002-320-53 6 MAY 13T"2015 PLANNING COMMISSION 7 FILE NO: MUNIS 37 8 9 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the 10 application materials and documentation, and the public record. 11 12 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General 13 Plan as described in the staff report. 14 15 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in 16 the staff report. 17 18 3. The proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic 19 pattern based on the following: 20 21 a) The proposed project would upgrade the existing development on the site, and add a 22 pedestrian walkway from the food truck to the parking lot. The Project is required to 23 comply with current ADA accessibility requirements which would likely change the 24 location and configuration of existing accessible parking spaces and pathways. This 25 would improve the pedestrian traffic pattern for some people. 26 27 4. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to 28 traffic on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or 29 surrounding uses. 30 31 a) The Project would not change the existing access and circulation to the site; staff is 32 recommending directional arrows to help with site circulation (see attachments 3; draft 33 conditions of approval 5i). 34 35 5. Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the 36 proposed structure(s) from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up and 37 screening large expanses of paved areas. 38 39 a) The project site is currently landscaped with lawn along the street frontage; includes 13 40 trees, shrubs, flowering bushes, and perennial planting. The applicant is proposing to 41 two new 8 feet long galvanized planters as a barrier between the food truck and the 42 parking lot. Therefore sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of 43 separating or screening the proposed structure(s)from the street and adjoining building 44 sites, and breaking up and screening large expanses of paved areas. 45 b) There are two mature liquid ambers along the street frontage that act as screen 46 between the street and house; and a mature oak on the south side of the proposed 47 Wool Mill.As proposed the landscaping is proportional to the building elevations. 1 ATTACHMENT 2 1 2 6. The proposed development will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on the 3 property in the neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of buildings in the 4 neighborhood, or impair the value thereof. 5 6 a) The project complies with the C1 height and setback requirements ensuring adequate 7 light and air and separation of uses. The project would not cut out light or air or hinder 8 the development or use of building in the neighborhood based on the following: 9 10 b) The project is appropriately designed as required by C1 zone development standards. 11 The project received preliminary review by the Design Review Board and requires formal 12 project approval by the Planning Commission.This process ensures a quality project that 13 would not impair the value to properties or development. The Project has been 14 conditioned to provide a "Trash Disposal Plan" in order to ensure that the site and area 15 remains well kept and free of debris and trash. 16 17 7. The improvement of any commercial or industrial structure will not have a substantial 18 detrimental impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district. 19 20 a) Property zoned Single family Residential (R1) is located to the West of the project site. 21 The Project would upgrade the building, project site, and add new landscaping. The 22 Project has been conditioned to provide a "Trash Disposal Plan" in order to ensure that 23 the site and area remains well kept and free of debris and trash. Based on the above, 24 the Project would not have a substantial detrimental impact on the character or value of 25 an adjacent residential zoning district. 26 27 8. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including 28 trees,shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site. 29 30 a) The proposed project would renovate and upgrade an existing site. The site is 31 comprised primarily of impervious surfaces (parking lot and building) and does not 32 include any water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or other environmentally sensitive 33 areas. The Project includes modifications to the parking lot which would not change the 34 grade. The Project site includes existing landscaping and 13 mature trees. The Project 35 would add two new landscaping planters to the site and no trees would be removed. 36 37 9. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the 38 structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external 39 appearance. 40 41 a) The Project would upgrade the existing fa�ade on the garage, including adding a fa�ade 42 to the garage (proposed wool mill), varied wall height, and base and access colors, as 43 well as updated signage. These features help to break up the existing building which is 44 consistent with this finding. 2 ATTACHMENT 3 1 2 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3 4 GILBERT MIXED-USE USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 5 676 SOUTH ORCHARD AVENUE/APN 002-320-53 6 MAY 13T"2015 PLANNING COMMISSION 7 FILE NO: MUNIS 37 8 9 10 1. Approval is granted for operation of a small wool mill and food truck including: light 11 manufacturing, retail food sales, as described in the project description and shown on 12 the plans submitted to the Community Development and Planning Department and date 13 stamped March 3, 2015, except as modified by the following conditions of approval. 14 15 2. The use permit is granted to operate a Wool Mill and Food truck facility that includes the 16 following uses: 17 18 a. One Single-Family Residence; 19 b. Wool Mill; 20 c. Food Truck; and 21 d. On site storage is limited to: one (1) 40 X 8 feet wide shipping container and one 22 (1) 20 X 8 feet shipping container; for storage associated with the Wool Mill 23 24 3. The use permit is granted subject to the following operating characteristics: 25 a. The Wool Mill shall operate 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 26 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; 27 b. The food truck hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. (or sunrise, whichever is later) 28 to 7:00 p.m. (or sunrise, whichever is earlier), 7 days a week; 29 c. The Wool Mill shall have a maximum of four(4) employees per shift; 3o d. The food truck shall have a maximum 2 people per shift 31 32 4. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff 33 review and approval: 34 35 a. New location for the existing 8 foot by 40 foot non-conforming storage container; 36 b. Approved location for the proposed 8 foot by 20 foot storage container; 37 c. Specs for the proposed bicycle rack that holds 6 bicycles; subject to staff 38 approval; 39 d. Plant pallet for the proposed 8 foot long galvanized planters; 40 e. Elevations with the approved fa�ade; 41 f. Trash Disposal Plan; 42 g. Directional areas for circulation; subject to staff approval; 43 5. Prior to occupancy the following shall be completed and are subject to staff approval: 44 45 h. A pedestrian path; painted as identified on the site plans approved March 03, 46 2015, subject to staff review and approval; 47 i. A new bicycle rack for six bicycles, shown on the building permit plans shall be 48 installed, subject to staff review and approval; ATTACHMENT 3 1 j. The parking lot shall be striped for 8 parking spaces, subject to staff review and 2 approval; 3 k. The new six foot fence for screening the storage containers as shown on the 4 building permit plans shall be installed, subject to staff review and approval; 5 I. Painted directional arrows as shown on the building permit plans shall be 6 installed, subject to staff review and approval. 7 8 6. If complaints are received related to noise the business owner shall take measures to 9 install sound attenuation devices, subject to staff review and approval. This may include 10 a reduction in hours of operation, or potential loss of Use Permit. 11 12 7. Prior to installation of any signs, application for and approval of a sign permit from 13 the Planning and Community Development Department is required. 14 15 8. No outside display of items shall be permitted. 16 17 From Environmental Health (Brian Hoy 234-6625� 18 19 Complete food facility plans including manufacturers' material and equipment technical 20 specification sheets, a proposed food menu and a major plan review fee for a permanent food 21 facility will be required to be submitted to the Mendocino County Environmental Health Division 22 for review and approval. 23 24 From the Electrical Department (Jimmy Lozano 467-5774) 25 26 27 1. Applicant/Owner - Will need to verify size of service panel (i.e. 200A, 400A) for the 28 proposed Wool Mill Building. 29 30 2. Will also require a service panel with Test-By-Pass facilities. Applicant was sent copies 31 of the COUED metering requirements for residential and commercial applications as a 32 reference. 33 34 3. Applicant/Owner - Will need to verify voltage requirements (i.e. 240/120V, 208Y/120V or 35 480Y/277v) for secondary service feeding the proposed Wool Mill Building. 36 37 a. Voltage requirements will need to be verified for the new service panel, whether 38 or not the applicant requires 1-phase or 3-phase power. 39 40 4. Applicant/Owner -Will need to determine estimated power demand load/kVA and load 41 calculation information for the proposed service panel/project. 42 a. Connected kVA and Load calculations - will help facilitate the size and/or number 43 of transformer(s)to be used on the project. 44 45 5. Applicant/Owner - Will need to determine whether or not to have an overhead service or 46 underground service to the new service panel. 47 a. Should the applicant decide to have their service undergrounded, they will be 48 responsible for purchasing of conduit, trenching and installation (per City of Ukiah 49 specifications). 50 b. Should the applicant decide to underground, a utility easement for any secondary 51 electrical equipment and conduits extended into the property (i.e. service panels). 52 Easements must be officially recorded and a copy submitted to the City of Ukiah. ATTACHMENT 3 1 c. Should the applicant decide to go with an overhead service, this will necessitate 2 that the new service be at a minimum height of 16' over the driveway/parking lot. 3 The height of the service weather head entrance will ultimately be dependent on 4 several factors, height of new roofline and/or building code requirements. This 5 option only takes into consideration if the new overhead service is run from the 6 COUED utility pole at the NE end of the property. 7 8 6. COUED -Currently does not have 3-phase power at the current address for the 9 proposed project at 676 South Orchard Avenue. 10 11 a. 3-phase power could be brought into the proposed location, but the applicant 12 would be responsible for the additional cost to build a transformer bank (i.e. two 13 or three overhead transformers) mounted on an existing utility pole at the NE end 14 of the property. 15 b. There is one (1) existing I-phase transformer on a COUED utility pole at the SE 16 end of the property, which currently serves ten (10) customers and may need to 17 be upgraded in order to serve the new projected load requirements. Should the 18 applicant request I-phase power instead of 3-phase power it would most likely be 19 upgraded to a larger transformer in order to serve the existing ten (10) customers 20 and the applicant's proposed Wool Mill Building. As an example; the existing 21 transformer is a 1-phase 50kVA 240/120V configuration and the new transformer 22 may be upgraded to a I-phase 75kVA 240/120V or a 1-phase IOOkVA 23 transformer configuration. The size will largely depend on the loading information 24 provided by the applicant. 25 c. The new device would have to traverse over the existing homes roofline by a 26 minimum of 8', in order to maintain G.O 95 Standards and any applicable 27 building code standards as well. 28 d. The service panel must be in accord with current EUSERC standards. The 29 contractor/developer shall submit service equipment specification sheets with 3o appropriate EUSERC references for City approval prior to purchase and 31 installation. Contact Steve Beaman, Metering Services Technician, City of Ukiah, 32 (707) 467-5779 regarding the panel requirements. Mr. Beaman will be your 33 contact for any metering/panel related issues. 34 35 7. COUED -Will install all secondary conductors from transformer/utility pole to service 36 panel/s and terminate as necessary. 37 38 Standard Citv Conditions of Approval 39 40 9. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, 41 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have 42 been applied for and issued/finaled. 43 44 10. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges 45 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full. 46 47 11. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, 48 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or 49 Federal agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, 50 electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in affect 51 at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued. 52 ATTACHMENT 3 1 12. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon 2 any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest. 3 4 13. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be 5 completed prior to building permit final. 6 7 14. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved 8 project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations 9 and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the 10 effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted 11 has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months. 12 13 15. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and 14 their agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the 15 City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, 16 action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the 17 purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application. 18 This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, 19 attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity, 20 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this 21 application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part 22 of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be 23 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the 24 agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 , ' At#achment # � __.______________r . Use permit application for 676 S. Orchard Ave. Project Description: Our proposed use for 676 S. Orchard Ave. (APN 002-320-53) will continue the existing mixed use of the parcel. The approximately 1900 square foot house would remain residential,the garage,formerly used as commercial storage,would become a worsted wool mill, and a food truck would be parked in the parking lot. Presently the garage sits on a 40 foot by 40 foot cement slab. The northern half of the slab is a 20 foot by 40 foot(800 square feet) enclosed garage. The southern half is a 20 foot by 40 foot(800 square feet) is an attached covered (but not enclosed with walls) shop area. We propose the rebuilding and expansion of the garage so that it is one contiguous roughly 2080 square foot shop building. It is proposed to keep the existing 40 foot long and 8 foot wide shipping container and add one 20 foot long and 8 foot wide shipping container next to it(where the previous landowner had one)for storage. They are in the back of the lot and, partially obscured from view by the tree which overhangs them and will be further obscured as the landscaping along the fence line matures. Table 1-Square Footage Details Building/Use Approximate Approximate Square Footage Dimensions Existing Enclosed Garage 20 feet by 40 feet 800 square feet Enclose Existing Unenclosed Shop Area 20 feet by 40 feet 800 square feet New Construction 40 feet by 12 feet 480 square feet Total Wool Mill Building 40 feet by 52 feet 2080 square feet Existing Shipping Container 40 feet by 8 feet each 320 square feet New Shipping Container 20 feet by 8 feet 160 square feet Total Woo) Mill Shipping Containers - 480 square feet Total Wool Mill Square Footage - 2560 square feet RECEIVED MAR 0 3 2015 1 BUILDING/pI�.A OF�AH NNiNG DEpqRTME1V'�' r Phasing Plan: We intend to complete all of the construction promptly and install the second shipping container when necessary, probably in several years. Budgeting considerations however might necessitate that we postpone the construction for a time. Use/Building Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Approximate Approximate Approximate square footage square footage square footage Square footage Single-family home 1,900 sf - - 1,900 sf Existing enclosed garage 800 sf - - 800 sf Use existing unenclosed g00 sf - - 800 sf shop area (1) Enclose Existing Unenclosed Shop Area - 800 sf(2) - (2) Addition to Wool Mill _ 480 sf - 480 sf Building First Shipping Container 320 sf - - 320 sf Second Shipping _ _ 160 sf 160 sf Container Food Truck with outdoor 224 sf truck tables (3) (3) 224 sf plus tables(2) Total 4,044 sf 480 sf 160 sf 4684 sf 1. During phase one,the activities that will occur in the unenclosed shop area will primarily be sorting of materials. This does not create any appreciable noise or smells. 2. This is existing square footage that is being enclosed, not new/additional square footage for the use. 3. Actual timing(phase)of the food truck is dependent upon Building Code, Fire Code,and Environmental Health requirements and costs and improvements required for compliance. The existing space is unsuitable for employees to work in primarily because it lacks a handicapped accessible bathroom. Until construction is complete (Phase 2) all work in the mill will be done by the mill owners. 2 J Operational Details—Wool Mill. A worsted wool mill like this processes raw sheep wool and other animal fibers(Ilama, alpaca, etc.) into useable products like batting,sliver, roving, combed top and yarn. These processes include: • Scouring—Washing the raw wool or other fiber in hot soapy water to remove the lanolin and dirt. • Drying—Putting the freshly scoured wool on racks with warm air flowing across them to dry. • Carding—Clean wool is put through the carder. The drum on the carder is clothed with wire bristles like the bristles on a dog brush. These lay all the fibers parallel and make the sliver or batting. When the fiber being taken off of the carder is bunched together into an untwisted rope, it is sliver. When the fiber is layered into a wide mat, it becomes batting. • Pindrafting—The pindrafter further aligns the fibers and stretches the sliver to make roving. • Combing—By using a machine called a French comb to produce combed top, 100%of the organic debris(such as chaff and pieces of grass) and short fibers are removed.The fibers are aligned perfectly parallel to each other.This process is often optional but is necessary to produce fine gauge, consistent yarns. Based on a discussion with C&5 Waste Solution, because this organic debris will be intermixed with short wool fibers it needs to be disposed of in the garbage. There will be small enough quantities that a standard garbage can will be adequate for disposal. • Spinning—A single ply yarn is made by the spinner which takes either roving or combed top, stretches it to the desired yards per pound and twists it into a single ply yarn. This is generally not a saleable product because it is not strong enough. • Plying/Twisting—A plied yarn is made by twisting two or more single ply yarns together. It is done in such a way that the twist on the singles counteracts exactly the way the singles are twisted together so the yarn will not untwist itself during use. When a single ply yarn and a plied yarn have the same weight„the plied yarn is stronger and more even. • Winding-The yarn is then wound into a skein (on a skein winder)or cone (on a cone winder)for the customer. Hand weavers and knitters will want their yarn put into a skein as this lets them better feel the yarn and its qualities. Those who use greater quantities of yarn will want their yarns on cones because it is more convenient for dealing with large quantities of yarn. 3 ti Though the mill will likely focus on producing yarn, it will wholesale any and all of the products it is capable of producing(there will be no onsite retail). It will also contract with other individuals and entities to process their fiber into yarn or one of the intermediate products. What products are in highest demand and each machines capacity will dictate how many hours each machine operates each day. Probably all the machines will not operate simultaneously. The noise generated by mill will probably be comparable to that of a machine shop with nearly all the noise from machinery within the building. Noise should rarely be perceptible anywhere beyond the property line. Based on discussions with people who have similar operations,the two loudest pieces of equipment will be the carder and the pindrafter which can be heard from 30 and 50 feet away respectively. Please see the attached Noise Impact Area and Surrounding Uses map for details on how this noise will impact the surrounding areas. Delivery of purchased raw materials will occur irregularly, primarily during the spring. On average it will likely occur several times a month and will involve pickup,car,or van-sized vehicles.There will be no need for semi-truck access for loading or unloading of supplies or product. Standard sized packages are burlap sacks of wool that weigh several hundred pounds and can be maneuvered by two people by hand, or one person with a hand truck. Loading of finished product for delivery will occur more frequently and in smaller batches probably into vehicles such as passenger cars, pickups or vans. Both loading and unloading can occur during off peak hours when there are vacant mill parking spaces. Most customers who contract with the mill will probably to ship their raw material to and from the mill. Some, however,will prefer to deliver it in their own vehicles. Because most of these people are employed,they will generally come when they aren't working such as the evenings or weekends. These times coincide with off-peak times when mill parking spaces are expected to be available. We expect about 30 people per year to drop off and/or pick up their raw materials or ordered products, mostly in the spring and summer. Hours of operations might eventually include two shifts between the hours of 5 AM and 10 PM with the potential from some Saturday work between 9:OOam and S:OOpm. The room where most of the equipment will be located will have no west facing windows, and since we do not expect the noise from operating equipment to be heard by the neighbors, operations here are not expected to impact the neighbors. The only west facing window will be in the scouring room,which is not likely to be used at night. If nighttime use does occur,this window will be covered up as necessary to keep interior lights from impacting the neighbors. There will not be significant noise generated in the scouring room. A shift with the mill running at maximum capacity is expected to have 3-4 employees. The mill will be a wholesale facility and will not have customer access except for dropping off raw fiber and picking up processed products. The two proposed shipping containers will store raw wool,fibers and unsold finished products. 4 Operational Details—Food Truck The food truck will be a mobile truck or trailer with maximum exterior dimensions of 28 ft. long, 8 ft.wide and 12 ft.tall. Here are three examples of what it could look like. ��. - �. _ � ��S' -- - - - _.... �-.:. � �..:-. - - ��-{ - E J 1 �� il i S � y, •�' T +� � �,, ^y �J C � w`�a �� • The restroom in the wool mill will be available for employees and operators of the Food Truck. • In order to keep the parking lot and street clean, a minimum of 5 ft. of the lawn area will be covered with gravel,decomposed granite, pavers, or some similar material that will keep the tires from becoming muddy. • Hours of operation will be limited to 7:00 AM (or sunrise,whichever is later)to 7:00 PM (or sunset,whichever is earlier), 7 days per week. • The mobile truck or trailer will need to be serviced before each day of operation at an off site commissary. • As mapped on the site plan,the flow of traffic in the parking lot and the pedestrian area in front of the food truck will be separated by two galvanized metal planters on either side of the handicapped accessible path of travel. Each will be a minimum of 8 feet long, have a minimum of 3000 pounds of rock in the bottom and a minimum of 8 inches of soil planted with ornamental plants on top of the rock. The barrier and overall look of the planters will 5 . � � mesh well with the fa�ade style and will add a decorative space while efFectively blocking errant cars from the area designed for food truck customers. These planters will provide far more protection to pedestrians that can be found in similar recently approved projects in Ukiah such as the Home Depo food truck(that lacks any barrier between the serving area and the driveway) and the outside eating area in front of Petrona (which lacks any barrier substantial enough to stop an errant car from the immediately adjacent lane of traffic). • The food truck is a big vehicle, but because maneuvering into position will occur off of the street, it is not expected to impact the flow of traffic on Orchard Avenue. Details—Parking Lot • The parking lot will provide 8 parking spaces(one of which is van accessible) and a minimum of 6 bicycle parking spaces. 2 will be available for the single family residence, 3 for food truck customers and 4 for mill employees with 5 of the bicycle parking spaces counting as one parking spot. • Wheel stops will be maintained on the property line to keep people from driving into the neighbor's parking lot. Landscape Plan: Please see the landscape plan map to see the details of the existing landscape. Except for the addition of 2-8 foot planters, no changes are proposed. s r Table 2-Tree Details Map Key Species DBH Comments 6 A Liquid Amber 19 in. 6 B Liquid Amber 23 in. 7 C Magnolia 7 in. Has multiple stems. 11 D Cypress Tree 19 in. 11 E Cypress Tree 16 in. 13 F English Walnut 14 in. There is significant rot present in the trunk. 13 G English Walnut 11 in. There is some rot present and it is lacking a complete crown. 13 H English Walnut 9 in. Growing through the fence. 14 I Plum 11 in. 15 J Gravenstein Apple 13 in. Lower stem is hollow. 16 K Valley Oak 11 in. 16 L Valley Oak 25 in. 24 M Black Walnut 12 in. There is extensive rot through the stem and it lacks a full crown. If it becomes a safety hazard it will be removed and replaced with a deciduous fruit tree. Lighting Plan: No changes to the exterior lighting are proposed. Grading Plan and Site Contours: No grading is proposed. Elevation change on the whole property is 2-3 ft. 7 1 ('. Single Family Residence: No changes are proposed with regard to the existing 1900 square foot single family residence. It is not proposed to include it as part of the wool mill's operations. Figure 1-Single Family Residence Floor Plan F � Kitchen Dining Room ,�, 0 Living Noom v 0 � w 0 r ___ Stairs y 1 Pantry/6uestroom Porth Stairs � � Stairs 5 i " 0 i � 5�a��5 F W H/AC I ILaundry I Laundry Room �hute� � -- � 0 � r Library/Guestroom Bathroo m Nook 1 Counter toilet Shower : Stairs F Hallway I __ yLaundrychute Closet : ��P I 0 6oards �Shower E-Bookshelf O i ' �. v r Bedraom I � I I ;, � � 8edroom ° � °� I � � o I �° ° u I � " I 2 I I 8 . � Shipping Container Discussion: We propose the use of two shipping containers for storage (the existing 8 foot by 40 foot container and a new 8 foot by 20 foot container) placed in the northwest corner of the property as mapped on the site plan. In choosing a location for them,we were careful to consider all potential impacts to the area, surrounding uses, aesthetic quality of the area,the trees they are beneath,and that they fulfil their intended purpose. These containers are needed because we hope to operate the wool mill using primarily the seasonally available local fibers. In order to accomplish this goal, it is necessary to have cost effective on-site storage facilities. We could accomplish this in one of two ways, building a bigger building or using the existing shipping container and adding a second for sufficient capacity. Building a bigger building is not economically feasible,so using the two shipping containers is proposed. We have identified four possible locations(which are mapped below) and will discuss each option in turn. The Preferred Option: This location is north of the mill along the north property line 10 feet from the rear property line as mapped below. (Note, we propose moving the existing shipping container east approximately 5 feet from its current location which is approximately 5 feet from the rear property line). One of the plan submitters is a Registered Professional Forester(RPF), license#2972. As such, the state of California deems him qualified to manage trees and forests. He has designed the placement of these containers in a way that will have minimal impact on the mature oak trees they are beneath. There are two ways that a container could potentially negatively impact the trees roots beneath it. The first is that by disrupting natural airflow to the surface of the soil,the soil will become anaerobic, changing the balance of soil organisms within it and retarding root growth. The second is that any soil compaction,though unlikely to damage a mature root, might make it harder for new roots to penetrate the soil. It is proposed to lift the container 4-6 inches by placing a treated board, partially buried railroad tie or cement piers under each end of the container. This will allow air to circulate ensuring the health of the soil beneath and reducing any potential zone of compaction to a negligible area. Furthermore, although silt loam soil such as this is not prone to compaction, a truck big enough to deliver shipping containers has a high ground pressure and will only deliver or move the shipping containers when the soil is not saturated to limit the soil compaction that could occur. The reasons this location might be chosen are; • It does not impact the other uses on the parcel at all. • Though underneath the drip line of the oak trees, if done as proposed, installing the containers will have no significant impact on the soil or roots. � A truck could easily move and deliver shipping containers to this location so no tractor will be needed to drag them which will reduce the risk to the building and trees. 9 . � • The containers are well away from the parking lot and will not be readily visible from the street. As the proposed vegetation matures,what little visibility there is will be greatly reduced. • It is a convenient location which will well serve its intended purpose. The reasons that this location might not be chosen are: • It is possible that soil compaction could be caused by the truck delivering and moving the shipping container. This can and will be mitigated by only having shipping containers delivered or moved when the soil is not saturated. We have chosen this alternative because it is the option that has the least overall impact on the site and existing vegetation and because it best serves its intended purpose. Option 1: This location is immediately south of the single family residence as mapped below. The reason this location might be chosen is; • This location places the containers away from the mature oak trees and would therefore have no impact on them. The reasons that this location might not be chosen are: • It is located a long distance away from the mill building where the material will be used so it would be extremely inconvenient. • It is in close proximity to the residence in part of the back yard that is expected to be used for residential purposes and will therefore have a negative impact on that use of the parcel. • It is taller than the fence in front of it so it would negatively impact the aesthetics as observed in the front of the house. • The two most feasible ways to get the container there would be to remove a mature magnolia tree and two fences so that a truck could back over the sidewalk and lawn, or to drag it with a tractor around the back of the mill building which would run the risk of damaging several trees trunks and root systems. We have rejected this location because the containers located there would poorly serve their intended purpose and the negative impacts are significant. 10 . � Option 2: This location is immediately west of the mill building as mapped below. The reasons this location might be chosen are; • This location places the containers mostly away from the mature oak trees and would therefore have little direct impact on them. • It is close enough to the mill building that it would be somewhat practical for the storage of wool. • It would be nearly completely hidden from the front of the property. The reasons that this location might not be chosen are: • It would require the removal of much of the crowns on the walnut trees. • The only feasible way of getting it there would be to drag it with a tractor, which would put the building,the trees, and the roots that are near the surface at risk. • It would be visible from all parts of the backyard and would have a negative impact on the residential uses of the backyard. • This location is where the grease trap is to be located so an alternate location for it would need to be found. All other locations for the grease trap are further from the sinks and plumbing which would cause design challenges. We have rejected this location because the containers located there would negatively impact the site design,the residential use of the parcel and because there is no clear evidence that it would have less impact than the preferred alternative. Option 3: This location is north of the mill along the north property line within a few feet of the parking lot as mapped below. The reasons this location might be chosen are; • It does not impact the other uses on the parcel at all. • Though underneath the dripline of the oak trees, if done properly installing the containers will have no significant impact on the soil and roots. • A truck could easily move and deliver shipping containers to this location so no tractor will be needed to drag them which reduces the risks to the buildings and trees. 11 4 � . � r • It is a location which,though not as convenient as the preferred option,would serve its intended purpose. The reasons that this location might not be chosen are: • With the container being in close proximity to the parking lot, it would be much more visible from the parking lot and street and reduce the aesthetic quality of the area. • Approximately the same amount of ground under the mature oak tree is impacted by the shipping container as compared to the preferred alternative so there is no apparent reduction in impacts. We have rejected this location because when compared to the preferred alternative there is no clear benefit, it would be much more visible from the street and would have significant impacts on the aesthetic quality of the area. ure 2-Container Options Considered ; � Prefered Afternative Option 3 ` � ► -- O "'S �00�MI�� � Option2 �0 d �J'21VICE �a �--,.•--��Y'�' � � I c � — '`�-�`� I�I � +7 Sin�le Family Reside� ce �, I � � � � � n Y, „ . e � r E,j..x.�e�'.^�"�". - , Option 1 ' ~�'-�'� t - ---- .. �:%1� .�.�$Q 0 �0 z� 4� .91ldistahcessndlxa�oxsareb�seHouAerialPhom, wkic� prixt date: 9fZOJZ014 �� Feet i � � � I � � � I may or msy notbe precise. See si�pPax for precise loaa�ous $y j�FG , 12 6 � � . � Food Truck Location Discussion: To ensure that we chose the best possible location we considered the two apparent options. The preferred option is mapped on both the site plan and the Food Truck Options Considered map below. The Alternate Option is mapped only on the Food Truck Options Considered Map below. The Preferred Option This location is located between the mailbox and the house with its longitudinal axis oriented roughly east-west. The reasons this location might be chosen are; • It makes use of a preexisting hard surface suitable for handicapped access avoiding the need for building a new sidewalk. • It makes minimal use of the existing lawn so that it can be a pleasant place to eat. The reason this location might not be chosen is; • Customers are standing between the food truck and the driveway. However,the risk to pedestrians has been mitigated by moving the food truck partial onto the lawn so there is more space, and installing planter boxes that will keep pedestrians from inadvertently stepping into the driveway. The Alternate Option This location is located between the mailbox and the house with its longitudinal axis oriented roughly north-south. The reason this location might be chosen is; • It moves the food truck and those ordering well away from the driveway. The reasons this location might not be chosen are; • A large portion of the lawn would be occupied by the food truck reducing the ability to provide space to eat a meal while enjoying pleasant landscaping. • The picnic table would by necessity be moved further south closer to the residence's only ground level windows increasing the impact that the food truck use would have on the residential use. • Without building a new portion of sidewalk, access to the food truck would only be possible by walking across the portion of the lawn that has exposed roots which would pose a tripping hazard. Installing a sidewalk would cause extensive damage to the liquid amber's root system. 13 n � �. After considering this option we have rejected it because the preferred option makes better use of the existing infrastructure, impacts the residential use less and provides a more enjoyable space to eat. gure 3-Food Truck Options Considered � 7 _ } —.. _._.... . _____ —�_ -�.—. � � � -� ��, '� . I _ i � � '� C f O < i 8 �' _ - ;.,. �, � Prefe.r.'a � _ , ,r�:j� � ' -- - __ -- - Q- � �' �yt���'i � _ ` �' �' _•- (� -- - L '�'�: Single Family Residence Legend _,-_ -. k�:' - �D Existlng Fence ;"?• QTree canopy S �' � E Q Property Line �N� � � � •. p N � �� 2� 4OP!'I77I [IQfI': 9IZ8IZOI-I :ll(dislancer nnd locutinns ara bnsed soli \F�6 1:240 Feet� � � � � I 1 1 � �n:leria(Phuto, mhich mqr or mur not bc prcnsc B►• NIFG ti Multiple Use Discussion: This plan proposes three separate uses for this parcel, a single family residence, a commercial manufacturing facility, and an outdoor food truck. All three uses,though occurring in close proximity to each other can occur simultaneously without degrading each other. This is meant to be a discussion of the spatial distribution of these uses and what impacts each use might have on the others. The residential parts of the property are the single family residence,the portion of the backyard to the south of the mill building and residence, and to a lesser extent,the front yard. The privacy of the backyard is protected by the design of the mill building. The windows on the southern wall are designed to be big enough to allow light entry, but high enough to bar mill employees of casually looking into the backyard. Front yards in general certainly have many residential uses. This particular front yard however fronts a busy street with much pedestrian and vehicular traffic which severely limits its uses. If a resident wanted to enjoy a pleasant environment, host a party,or children wanted to play,the front yard would not be suitable. The only presently suitable use for the front yard of which the plan 14 � F submitters are aware, is to display attractive landscaping. Displaying attractive landscaping and serving food from a truck, rather than being considered mutually exclusive, should be considered mutually beneficial since that attractive landscaping would serve the food truck as much as the residence. Most of the living space in the single family residence is located more than 2 feet higher than the level of the parking lot and the two most exposed windows are well screened by mature camellias. These factors bar the casual observation of the inside of the residence by those in the parking and food truck areas providing a sense of privacy with few curtains. The food truck and the wool mill are located on opposite sides of the property and are therefore unlikely to impact each other except where the three uses overlap on the parking lot. The parking lot provides an adequate number of spaces(seven regular spaces, one handicapped van accessible space, plus a minimum of 5 bicycle parking spaces)to serve all three uses. None of the three uses are expected to draw vehicles larger than a pickup or van and are therefore unlikely to cause parking issues for the other uses. The wool mill will produce some noise while operating, please see the attached Noise Impact Area and Surrounding Uses Map. The only other use that is close enough to be impacted is the single family residence. The site is located on a busy street near the post office and several hotels. Besides the general traffic noise,the post office and hotels tends to generate diesel truck traffic late at night and early in the morning(from mail deliveries and truckers parking in front of the post office who are staying at the hotels). Any additional audible noise the mill generates is not expected to change the noise level in a meaningful way. Details-Fence: Please see the site plan for the existing configuration of fences. No changes are proposed. 15 4 � Details—Sign: It is proposed to allow for the continued use of the existing 8 foot tall and 8 foot wide sign frame for both the wool mill and the food truck sign. The actual layout of the Food truck sign is unknown since we do not yet know who the vendor will be. The actual details of the food truck sign will be subject to a subsequent city permit. Please see below for a diagram details on the sign details. Figure 4—Sign Food Truck Big� Here � � -.� 1 ��� �) 1 � WOOL �r FIBER �n�. a Family Mill .7 -�! �b,,'—�� ,M ;`.=� I � � �r��S� "i F',.�cl:`,y' {�� 6Y6 Sioatb O.dw.2 lQa.�w. (707)97E-914d �) L ��- —�'�. J 16 h • A . Details—Irrigation Plan: The established landscaping on the front of the property needs no irrigation except during the hottest weeks of summer. From a water conservation standpoint,it would be inappropriate to install an automatic watering system since this would apply water throughout the year, not just when required. There is an existing sprinkler system with manual valves and faucets readily available to water when needed. The proposed planters will be freshly installed and planted and will not have established vegetation,so perhaps an automatic watering system would be useful for the first year. To install an automatic watering system however,additional trenches through the asphalt to the planters would need to be dug increasing the likelihood that the surFace in front of the food truck will not be even enough to provide appropriate handicapped access. Since there is a faucet within 30 feet of both planters, in the long term manually watering is preferred from a water conservation standpoint,and using the existing faucet will help maintain the existing asphalt in good condition,we propose to forgo an automatic watering system in favor of a hose. RECEIVED MAY 0,g 2015 CTTy pF UKIAH BjJII,DINGI PLANNING°>FPARTMENT 17 Michelle Johnson From: Matthew Gilbert <shearingmatt@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday,April 24, 2015 12:07 PM To: Michelle Johnson Subject: Re: Noise Attachments: EquipmentDecibleLevels.xlsx The modem milling equipment is manufactured for a scale of production that far exceeds what we are planning to produce here at the mill,so the older commercial equipment is what is appropriate to use. The equipment manufactures that produced our equipment are no longer in business and we have not been able to find any technical data on decibel levels associated with running the equipment. The best data available was obtained by tallcing to mills with similar equipment. Shari from Morro Fleece Works reports that her carder can be heard outside 30 feet away and he pindrafter 50. Christian Davies from C&M Alpacas and Fiber Mill gave me very similar results says that she was reading a similar decibel level at those distances with the equipment running as she was without. These distances roughly correspond to the distance our equipment will be from the properiy line leading us to the conclusion that any noise coming from the mill will not change the decibel level off of the parcel. This does not take into account that the wall acing the property line will be new solid 2x6 insulated construction or that we placed the bathroom against a portion of the back wall adding a second sound barrier. In the unlikely event that a neighbor is extremely sensitive to sound and wants us to be far quieter than a decibel meter can read or the sound ordinance requires,it would be simple for us to store bales of wool against that back wall (adding 3-6 ft.of insulation),rebuild the back fence to make it have 2 solid layers of wood,or plant a tall dense hedge against the fence. I'll look for that map tonight. From: Michelle Johnson <mjohnson(c�citvofukiah.com> To: "shearinQmattCcilvahoo.com"<shearinqmatt(c�vahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:21 AM Subject: Noise Good morning Matthew, I know we have had the discussion regarding noise; however I can't seem to find it in the project description. Can you please provide a brief discussion similar to the one given at the DRB meeting? In addition at one point you provided a map identifying the noise buffers, if it is accurate and to scale can you please email me a copy in 11 X 17? Thank you -Michelle Michelle Johnson Assistant Planner City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 (707)463-6206 www.citvofukiah.com 1 � !� � Z O �D O m ' Cr Z D� O � CZ n �o m �m ��n �� z n� � � � -Di m 00 �z ' D n n O � v D Z n m � � _ w 0 io � m �� n z -� n n r � z � � � � r n Z � n � � � � 0 r -n m 1 �� m ��r N ��A N � � � o Z�S �w � ��Z tn ;go �o� ,—A j yzD V 0 v+ O OmZ DWZ � W a � �N� n r�r1 8 y �V° 1— "�� n�,a Z � �Z� �o o G� I� �iv_ Z�Ul � ��� �r O Y• � �Am O�C � � ygm 3�' O n O�� N w C � ��� ; � ' gr 1 � � r �. - ���+���= - - - - ��;��:^,.;-�;�,;,_..._ - _ _ � � ����;.��,�-�-�;.;� �� I a � � ` N� N� � � � � a - a �� � � -n v m v v 'O ao m � v v � ar � m L . . u • - • • i.i i� L `O ['7 (7 V x x �y 7 x x x x _ . � n . . ' � � X � � m � � - d c�+� M m M in u�'i � � �7 E a a �, �, ,� L v w v a Y 0 � � � � � t C C C C t_ u o 0 0 0 � C 'o � � � � c Q 01 m m m ro � m u u u u � � � o � �p � � u u � a�. � .-�� N CI OI 01 O1 � O C O.0 O.0 O.0 O u u u u O V 7 V 7 V 7 V 7 N N � d C O C O C O C O � � � � E NE � E �NE v v � y � L � L �O L U L L �t � 10 O 10 O f0� f0 O UI N U O1 O1 N Ol � UI N N Gl G! � � � Y �S� y Y Y Y Y � � "' U a E n E"n E'a E'n -O J �p �+ O 1!1 O UI O UI O N ..�. .�. N t L L O L O L O L O L O O C N 0 y L L L L L L L L .0 � f0 f0 y � � � U � U j U j U Ot Qt � O � Q � N � f0 � N � N J J U' C V �' 7 � C C C C C �' Z Ot Qt G1 Ol 01 O1 � � C •�-• C C C C C C C C 3 O C C C � C Y C U1 C � C � C .�. X � ��� O � O O � O � O � O � p � p � w � � � � g ` f � � � � � � � � � � � � 0 3 / ��� c u � i � C C C C O C O C O C O �O �O C y p � �U �U y U y U �U �U p� � C U C L C Ot C Ot C 01 C O1 Gf L Of C .. O N N � N C �0 C N C 10 C O C O C � C O E� Eim E N E N E:N E:N E� E� �a � w w a x w x d x v x y x y x ° �n d �/j a� a .� aw aw aw aw Hw F- w E¢ � C � �Y- (�] ��_ � O O o o v o o� � M o� t N � � � N �O N �O � N N� � C [� � O In ('](7�O .m- (") [")(7�O � � � ^ � C O O �N �N N m v �N N OD 0 � �O � N�O N N� O N N N� � � 0 Z f7 I� P f7 ("7 �O�O �7 � (`7�O�O � L Q� O O �O O O O O O � V N N P N N m �7 O�N N GD y N �O �O N�O �O N N �O N C � ui ao� c['�i.�o � o; o�ri� v � a L O O (")O O O.- O O O O� � C � Q �T N �N �N N m �7 m N[V �p V -- �O �O N�O �O N N �O N t C L Z In M l�[�f7 �O(']�O lLl �O N �O('7� � N � p ` O O �O O O�� v O�t O �� O � d N N �7 �T ��N N �7 �1 W�N OD E � l2] S � �O �O N �O �O �O N _ _ N N �O N i' ' N f0 L �O N L ■ � � O N � � f'] �O lLl � (7 P (")O� ['7 P O � �O O O ['7 O O O O�O �O O(") O O�O �O �7 y IJ� + } C N N � �7 V CO �� � V�7 CO � � � � �• � �O �O N�O�O �O N N N N N �O N N N N � L � N � Z E � �° � °� L l� W P O 117 �O (7 V L� � � �� � � � � ll') ln ln �D �O �O �O �O �O �O � � � �O �O �O �O �O � m 3 3 n E 7 Z � � mEa o ` � �� � � � � a a ' � � �� 'C�o �� L ' ' .�n O � .�.'� � ■i � � a N =� � � � � L � r � � N N LSZL'EBL'008 wo��s�ies�nnnnn� ��L£5 IM uos�peyy peoy euaa�ESZS dnoi�6ull���S11e5 E 115 7 SBOIZ •ani3�a�P aq ol panad nied�o sl�npad y�ns a�e�da�01 aq peys uoi3e6i�qo R�uo s,�aml�e;nuew •pieda�d ly6ia�;'pa�ani�ap si 1�ed�o l�npad ay�(y)y�npad ayl;o asn ayl e�! pa��adxa�eann�ew�ou wa�3ou pue diysuew��onn�o�ei�a�ew ui l�a�ap e wa;pal�nsa�am�ie;s3!(£):apew a�am suoi�e�yipow�o suoi3eial�e ou(z):pasnsiw lou sem` i�npad ayl(l)�leyl papinad a6�ey�lnoyll�n pa�e�da�aq pim poi�ad iey3 uiyllrn ani]�a;ap aq ol puno;;oa�ayl Ued�o i�npad�(uy •sp�o�a��no�(�o;sdi�s sa�es�no�( uie�ai asea�d •asey�md;o a3ep wa;�eaR auo�o poi�ad e�o;diysuew��onn pue s�eua�ew ui i�a}ap wa�aa�;aq ol�awnsuo�is��y ay�o�l�npad siyi que��enn aM �A1Ntl2lHVM •s3uapi»e puna6�(e�d�o uei�lsapad�ei3ua3od pione ol se os 3�npad siyl a�e�d ol/(1lpqlsuodsa�s,�asn pua ayl si 11 '�a�nl�e;nuew ay3 ;o�aluo�puoRaq si l�npoad siyl;o luawa�e�d •��npad siyl;o 1�a�6au�o'a�ueua�uiew alenbapeui'asn�adadwi'�uawa�e�d alei�daddeu��o luawy�elle 3�a��o�ui ay�wa;6ui;�nsai'�eluappui io�i�a�ipui'l�anp�aylaynn'sso��o a6ewep�(l�adad'�(infui�euosaad�o;A3l�lqei���e pue�(ue wiepsip�(�ssa�dxa�a��as pue�ainl�e;nuey� �9NINatlM •aan�o��noa6 ay�nno��e o�'S21f10H Z a0�a1fOl llfl�Ol NOIltllltllSNl 3H11�3f8f1S lON Od •saoy�ue ay�o�s�nu/s��oq pue saaysenn y�inn aan�as pue a�inap ay��unoW •p� •sa�nuiw OZ�noqe ao�uapaey o��noa6 ay�nnoll`d '6 •;na6 ssa�xa .i �`..� �:N• �.��� ay;anowaa o�a�qissodwi�(��e�i��ead aq " : �-: . ., - - - II!^^�!'suapaey�noa6 ay�a�up•�noa6 ssa�xa ' ' ' = ' ' " � � ay�anowa�o��(ennpea ay��o a�e�ans ay�ysenn'a�e�d ui si aoy�ue ay�a�up •g • •paainbaa�i�noa6 ppy•do�ay�o��(enn ay���e a�qisin si�noa6 ay�;ey�aans a�eua'aoy�ue ay�aanno�no�(sy •� •punoa6 ay�ylinn ysn� si aoy�ue ay��o do�ay��i�un punoa6 ay�o�ui �.�rn__- _ �. .... _ .. _.._ ._ . aoy�ue ay;anup�(��ua6'aauawey e 6uis� •g •(aauao�e}}o�n�) aasuadsip e se 6eq�o�diZ e as�•�(aessa�au = �!11�1aa:nno�}o��noa6 ay�nno��y•do� ay;o��i 6ui��y'a�oy ay�o��noa6 ay��(�ddy •5 - -_- -- •anod o��(peaa aae no�(;noa6�o�unou.ie ay1 xiva�(�uo os'sa�nuiva s��oq ao�y�ua�nn:aawwey'��iap-aawweH s�ool • 5� uiylinn uapaey ��iM�noa6 ayl •�(�ua�sisuo� �ww6�)„9 x„8/�'x!q II!ap��uosew . aa3eM . �t�an�s e aq p�noys�noa6 ayl •aa�enn�o zo � si�qap woa�speaay��oy�ue 6ui��a�oad�o;(peay xay)i�oq„Z • •xoadde y�inn 6eq�enpinipui y�ea xiW 's6eq �noa6 6uisuadsip pue 6uixiw ao}s6eq�i�se�d a;eaedas{, • a�eaedas�o�ui aapnnod�noa6�ua�ua�a�eaedas •� •1noa6 '- •-. �o aeap uiewaa�snw�oy�ue ay��o speaay�ayl •� •�i punoae eaae ay}pue a�oy ay�ueap 'Z . da e o�' unoa6 �!q xaoi�(iian�as Sbl ;,9�1� P P �oy�ue aad auo'6uo�„SZ'Z Silo9 • ayl o;ae�n�ipuadaad a�oy„g/�e��iaa •� (�oy�ue aad zo S•�)lnoa9�uawa� • •�noa6�ua�.ua�e�o asn ay�awnsse suoi��na�sui ayl •_ •. • '. �I133tVVtivl1�lSV1 O1 03H'JIS?0 AldWls . ,. „ suoi��na�su� uoi�e��e�su� SRPdS S� ATTACHMENT 5 1 Planning and Community Development Department G��ty Of u�a�i 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 planninq(a�citvofukiah.com (707)463-6203 2 3 DATE: May 27, 2014 4 5 TO: 676 South State Street Determinations File 6 676 South State Project File (Munis 37) 7 8 FROM: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development 9 10 SUBJECT: Determination of Appropriate Use for a Wool Mill 11 676 South Orchard Avenue /APN 002-320-53 12 13 14 The property located at 676 South Orchard Avenue is zoned Community Commercial (C1) and 15 developed with one residential building and detached garage with attached covered area. The 16 owner of the property would reside in the residential building and is proposing to establish a 17 wool mill in the existing garage as described in the attached project description. 18 19 The allowed uses (section 9081) and permitted uses (section 9082) do not specifically list "wool 20 mill" as an allowed or permitted use. Pursuant to section 9082, cabinet shops, and machine 21 shops are permitted uses (allowed with a use permit). The zoning ordinance does not include a 22 definition of "machine shop." The zoning ordinance definition of "cabinet shop" refers to the 23 definition of "manufacturing, light," which is defined as "manufacturing of finished products or 24 parts prepared predominately from previously prepared materials, including processing, 25 fabricating, assembly, treatment, and packaging, and incidental storage, sales, and distribution 26 of such products, including agricultural processing but excluding basic industry." 27 28 The site is developed with a single-family home and detached garage. The single-family home 29 would be occupied by the owner of the wool mill and the garage would be converted to a wool 3o mill and expanded to accommodate the wool mill use. With approval of a use permit, mixed 31 residential and commercial land uses are allowed on one parcel when they are found to be 32 compatible. 33 34 Zoning ordinance section 9088, Determination of Appropriate Use, allows the Planning Director 35 to determine if the use is appropriate for the Zoning District, either as a right or subject to a use 36 permit. In making the determination, the Planning Director shall find as follows: 37 38 1. That the use would not be incompatible with other existing or allowed uses in the C-1 39 Zoning District. 40 41 2. That the use would not be detrimental to the continuing development of the area in 42 which the use would be located. 43 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 Determination of Appropriate Use-Doggy Daycare May 27,2014 1 ATTACHMENT 5 1 3. In the case of determining thaf a use not articulated as an allowed or permitted use 2 could be established with the securing of a use permit, the Planning Director shall find 3 that the proposed use is similar in nature and intensity to the uses listed as permitted 4 uses. All determinations of the Planning Director regarding whether a use can be 5 allowed or permitted in the Community Commercial (C-1) Zoning District shall be final 6 unless a written appeal to the City Council, stating the reasons for the appeal, and the 7 appeal fee, if any, established from time to time by City Council resolution, is filed with 8 the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. Appeals may be 9 filed by an applicant or any interested party. The City Council shall conduct a duly 10 noticed public hearing on the appeal in accordance to the applicable procedures as set 11 forth in this Chapter. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council may affirm, 12 reverse, revise or modify the appealed decision of the Planning Director. All City Council 13 decisions on appeals of the Planning Director's actions are final for the City. 14 15 Findings for Determination of Appropriate Use: Operating a wool mill at 676 South Orchard 16 Avenue has been determined to be appropriate as a permitted use, subject to Planning 17 Commission approval of a use permit, based on the following. 18 19 Finding 1: Properties zoned C1 are located to the north, south, and east of the site. A 20 mobile home park zoned R3 is located to the west of the site. The equipment for the wool 21 mill would be located within the building. The wool mill would receive few small deliveries 22 primarily by passenger vehicle and would not include retail sales on the site to customers. 23 Noise associated with the use would be similar to a machine shop and cabinet shop which 24 are permitted uses in the C1 zone. At the property line, the noise is anticipated to be 25 negligible. As part of the use permit process, conditions of approval can be applied to the 26 project to ensure any potential noise impacts are addressed. This could include limitations 27 on hours of operation, keeping the doors closed when working with noise generating 28 equipment, requiring all work to occur indoors, and locating noise generating equipment as 29 far as possible from residential uses. 30 31 The use is low intensity in nature based on the number of deliveries/pick-ups and the type of 32 vehicle used for pick-up and delivery, the number of employees, and the volume of wool 33 processed. The immediate area includes the US Postal Service, restaurant, office, motel, 34 and retail. The hours of operation, number of employees, and hours of operation would be 35 similar to surrounding commercial uses and can be restricted as necessary through the use 36 permit process to ensure compatibility with existing and allowed uses in the C1 zoning 37 district. 38 39 Finding 2: The site is developed with a residential building and detached garage. The site 4o also includes an unpermitted shipping container. The residence would continue to be used 41 as a single-family home by the owner/operator of the wool mill and the garage would be 42 expanded and used for the wool mill. The owner has requested the continued use of the 43 unpermitted shipping container for storage. The use of the shipping containers would be 44 considered as part of the use permit process. The Planning Commission has the authority 45 to require the removal of the shipping container, allow the shipping container to remain and 46 to require screening, or to require no changes and allow the continued use of the container. 47 Review of the use by the Planning Commission through the use permit process would 48 ensure that the wool mill would not be detrimental to the continued development of the area, 49 since the Planning Commission can apply conditions of approval to the use permit as 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 Determination of Appropriate Use-Doggy Daycare May 27,2014 2 ATTACHMENT 5 1 needed to address any impacts and to make the use compatible with the surrounding area. 2 In addition, the wool mill would locate a new business in an area zoned for commercial 3 uses, proximate to freeway access for clients, and would provide 24 hour "eyes" in the 4 neighborhood since the owner would reside on the property. 5 6 Cabinet shops and machine shops are allowed with approval of a use permit. As noted 7 above, the zoning ordinance does not include a definition of "machine shop." The definition 8 of cabinet shop refers to "Manufacturing, Light" which is provided below and includes 9 agricultural processing. 10 11 MANUFACTURING, LIGHT: Manufacturing of finished products orparts prepared 12 predominately from previously prepared materials, including processing, fabricating, 13 assembly, treatment, and packaging, and incidental storage, sales, and distribution 14 of such products, including agricultural processing but excluding basic industry. 15 16 The zoning ordinance allows cabinet shops and machine shops with approval of a use 17 permit and the operating characteristics of machine shops, cabinet shops and the wool mill 18 would be similar in nature, and any impacts related to the use can be controlled through the 19 use permit, the use would not be detrimental to the continuing development of the area. 20 21 Finding 3: Cabinet shops and machine shops are permitted uses in the Community 22 Commercial (C1) zoning district pursuant to section 9082. As noted above, the zoning 23 ordinance does not define machine shop and the definition of cabinet shop refers to 24 "Manufacturing, Light." The use involves the cleaning, treating, and processing raw wool. 25 The use is similar to a cabinet shop or machine shop in terms of the number of employees, 26 deliveries, hours of operation, and noise. Furthermore, all of these use partially processed 27 materials to fabricate finished products and often include processing, fabricating, assembly, 28 treatment, and packaging, and incidental storage, sales, and distribution as part of their 29 business. 30 31 In addition, the definition of manufacturing-light includes agricultural processing and 32 specifically excludes industry-basic both of which are defined below: 33 34 ■ AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING: The processing, treatment or remanufacture of 35 agricultural products on a commercial basis. Typical uses include wineries, packing 36 and canning plants, feedlots, and livestock auction yards. 37 38 ■ INDUSTRY, BASIC: Processing of raw materials and manufacture of product 39 predominately from extracted or raw materials, or a storage (or manufacturing) 40 activity involving flammable or explosive materials or involving processes with 41 potentially hazardous or commonly recognized offensive conditions. Typical uses 42 include rock, sand and gravel processing and lumber mills. 43 44 The wool mill would be a less intensive form of agricultural processing that would create 45 a finished and usable product through the cleaning and processing of wool. The wool 46 mill would be less intensive than light manufacturing that the use would process sheared 47 wool, the animals are not located on the site, the use is small in scale being located in 48 an expanded and converted garage, and the number of employees would be very small 49 at the start-up phase and may be limited to only the property/business owner. 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 Determination of Appropriate Use-Doggy Daycare May 27,2014 3 ATTACHMENT 5 1 Additionally, the wool mill would not be considered basic industry which involves the 2 extraction or processing of the raw material with examples rock, sand and gravel 3 processing and lumber mills. 4 5 Conclusion: The proposed use is similar in nature to a machine shop or cabinet shop, which 6 are allowed uses in the C1 zoning district with approval of a use permit. Through the use permit 7 process, Planning Commission has the authority to apply conditions to the project or require 8 changes in the project in order to ensure compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses and 9 to address impacts related to the use. Therefore, the proposed wool mill has been determined 10 to be appropriate as a permitted use with Planning Commission approval of a use permit. 11 12 13 Attachment: 14 15 Project Description date stamped February 27, 2014 16 17 676 South Orchard Avenue/APN 002-320-53 Determination of Appropriate Use-Doggy Daycare May 27,2014 4 ATTACHMENT 6 G�tty of Z1►E,ialz City of Ukiah, CA Design Review Board 1 2 MINUTES 3 4 Regular Meeting March 12, 2015 5 6 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue 7 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Liden called the Design Review Board meeting to order 8 at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3. 9 10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Tom Liden, Alan Nicholson, 11 Howie Hawkes, Colin Morrow 12 13 Absent: Nick Thayer 14 15 Staff Present: Michelle Johnson,Assistant Planner 16 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner 17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 18 19 Others present: Matthew Gilbert 20 Sara Gilbert 21 StephanyWilkes 22 23 3. CORRESPONDENCE: 24 25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the March 3, 2015 meeting will be 26 available at the April 9, 2015 meeting for review and approval. 27 28 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 29 30 The DRB is required by the City Code to review and make a recommendation on all Site 31 Development Permit applications. 32 33 6. NEW BUSINESS: 34 6A. (Revised) Gilbert Mixed Use Project, 676 South Orchard Avenue (File No.: 37) 35 Review and Recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for 36 a mixed use development that would include the existing single-family home, modification 37 and expansion of the existing garage which would be used for the commercial processing 38 of wool, one food truck with outdoor seating, and modifications to the parking and 39 landscaping at 676 South Orchard, APN 002-320-53. The Project also requires Planning 40 Commission approval of a Major Use Permit to allow mixed residential and commercial 41 use of the parcel. 42 43 Assistant Planner Johnson: 44 • The Project includes the following: 45 ■ Use of the main building as a single-family home; 46 ■ Conversion of the garage to a wool mill (see project description); 47 ■ Conversion of the covered concrete pad to the south of the garage into an 48 enclosed expansion of the wool mill; 49 ■ Construction of an addition to the wool mill on the west elevation; 50 ■ Relocation of the existing cargo container to a location that complies with zoning 51 setbacks; 1 ■ Use of the existing cargo container to store products and materials associated 2 with the wool mill (see project description attachment 1;and photos attachment 3 4); 4 ■ Addition of one cargo container to provide additional storage for products and 5 materials associated with the wool mill (see project description attachment 1; 6 and photos attachment 4); 7 ■ Operation of a food truck in the south portion of the parking lot/front yard with 8 outdoor seating;and 9 ■ Modifications to the parking area and landscaping, including striping to provide 8 10 standard parking spaces and one van accessible parking space. 11 • The applicant has revised his project based on the DRB comments from the initial review 12 of the Project as well as comments from Planning staff. 13 • Attachment 1 of the staff report is a full project description prepared by the applicant. 14 • Attachment 3 of the staff report is the revised site plan. 15 • The document `Mendocino Wool and Fiber Inc.' is an update/response to the permit 16 application that addresses the `Incompleteness Letter from Planning staff, dated October 17 22, 2014 and is incorporated into the minutes as attachment 1. 18 19 Matthew Gilbert, applicant commented on his revised project: 20 • Project involves three uses: 1) Single Family Residence; 2) The garage to be remodeled 21 to a wool mill; 3) Food truck that fronts S. Orchard Avenue. 22 • Explained how the three uses would work harmoniously on the property. 23 • Referenced the `Mendocino Wool and Fiber Inc.' document that provides a very detailed 24 list of all the project changes to specifically address all the project concerns. 25 • Of importance is the issue raised about the trees/bushes proposed to be planted along 26 the edge of the parking lot in front of the shipping container where it was the opinion of 27 the DRB the species selected would grow too slowly to effectively screen and would not 28 enhance the existing tree in this location. Acknowledged the aforementioned portion of 29 the property is actually the 'prettiest.' A wooden fence will border the back edge of the 30 parking lot and is of the opinion this is a good choice from an aesthetics standpoint. 31 • Related to the issue that the pedestrian circulation to the food truck does not appear to 32 be safe, is specially addressed in response to the Incompleteness Letter in the 33 'Mendocino Wood and Fiber Inc.'document on page 5. 34 • While the photo rendering of the site and accompanying uses is not entirely accurate, it 35 provides an idea of what the site will look like when the project is complete. 36 37 DRB questions/comments related to: 38 Pedestrian Circulation and Food Truck 39 On-site Traffic Circulation 40 Signage 41 Noise Impacts 42 Existing Travel Trailer 43 Planter Boxes 44 Front Fence 45 Bicycle Parking 46 47 Member Hawkes: 48 • Asked about the food truck and whether it will remain stationery on the site? 49 • Related to the photo rendering of the site, asked if the site would look more or less like 50 the picture? 51 • Requested clarification the wool mill industry is a labor intensive process. 52 • Finds there are many ways to mitigate sound. 53 • Likes the metal planters that look like cattle feeding/water troughs. 54 Design Review Board March 12,2015 Page 2 1 MemberMorrow: 2 • Will the wool mill use generate traffic on site and/or will it be light traffic? 3 • Will people be coming to the site to drop off the wool? 4 • Asked about noise impacts and how the ambient level can be measured. Further asked 5 about the information from a comparable wool mill having similar equipment that 6 reported at 50 ft. from the equipment through a 2 x 6 wall, the decibel level is similar to 7 the ambient level and inquired where this testing was conducted. Was the wool mill 8 located in rural setting versus and a dense industrial area? 9 • Requested clarification the ambient levels are comparable. 10 • It is likely the project should be conditioned to address noise complaints requiring the 11 applicant to explore mitigation measures. 12 • Requested clarification the planter boxes will shelter the seating area although this is 13 indicated differently on the site plans and commented it might be beneficial to do 14 something by either moving the planters in and around the seating area or put bollards in 15 this location to prevent vehicles from coming right up where people are sitting and 16 eating. 17 • Asked about the location of a bicycle rack. 18 • Asked about sewer connection for the food truck and/or will the truck be serviced offsite? 19 20 Vice Chair Liden: 21 • Asked about the travel trailer on the site? 22 • Signage on the site would be much more effective without having a double sign for the 23 food truck and the regular sign for the wool mill. Is of the opinion double signage is 24 confusing and looks somewhat `cluttered.' Is there a way to put a sign on the truck? Is of 25 the opinion having the truck sign as a secondary sign included with the wool mill sign 26 draws from the wool mill sign. Would like to see separate signs and have a really nice 27 looking sign for the wool and fiber company without the truck sign. Supports having a 28 sign for the wool and fiber business and a sign on the food truck that essentially 29 emphasizes the separateness of the businesses. 30 • Would like more information about the wool mill equipment related to potential noise 31 impacts. 32 • Will the fence along the front property line be replaced? 33 34 Member Nicholson: 35 • Related to signage while wanting to maintain some type of continuity between the wool 36 mill and the food truck uses may want to consider how to keep the message clear about 37 the separateness of the businesses. As it is, the food truck use dominates the wool mill 38 use even though the Wool mill sign is larger. May want to integrate the signage in some 39 fashion that maintains continuity but indicates there are a number of businesses 40 operating on the site rather than having the signs compete with one another. 41 • Asked about the sign process. 42 • How did the grease trap get to the rear of the property when the sewer line goes out the 43 front of the property? 44 45 Matthew Gilbert: 46 • The food truck will be rented out to a vendor and will not be a permanent structure on the 47 site. 48 • The rendering shows the concept and placement of the buildings/food truck/planter 49 areas/signage/parking and/or general layout of the site. What is not demonstrated well in 50 the rendering is that there is actually space between the planters and the food truck 51 where people can circulate, but is clearly shown in the revised site plans. The driveway 52 isle is supposed to be a 24-foot minimum and has been widened. 53 • Confirmed traffic for the wool mill will be light. There will be three or four employees that 54 will come and go per shift. Design Review Board March 12,2015 Page 3 1 • People will access the site to drop off wool, but it will be infrequent. 2 • The wool mill industry is labor intensive, but the associated equipment is what makes the 3 process work effectively and commented on the process. 4 • Referred to page 2 of the `Mendocino Wool Fiber Inc.' document that addresses the issue 5 of noise and noted based on the best available information, is of the opinion the project 6 will not significantly alter the decibel level at any of the property lines and explained the 7 factors/measures taken and/or in place to help mitigate noise. The wool mill that provided 8 the information cited in the `Mendocino Wool Fiber Inc.' document was the only source he 9 could find that would give him noise data related to operating similar machinery and 10 reported that at 50 feet from the equipment through a 2 X 6 wall, the decibel level is 11 similar to the ambient level. Confirmed the wool mill that supplied the noise information is 12 located a rural area (100-acre ranch). 13 • Related to ambient levels, while comparable, it is likely the ambient level on S. Orchard 14 Avenue would be significantly higher than what the rural wool mill experiences. 15 • No one lives in the travel trailer and is used for storage. 16 • The truck sign could be on the truck, but the disadvantage of this is when the tree is fully 17 leafed the truck cannot be effectively seen northbound. 18 • It may help to put the food truck sign and the wool mill sign in the same frame. 19 • The food sign does not necessary have to be on the truck but rather a sandwich board 20 sign on the sidewalk next to the mailboxes. 21 • The sign for the food truck could be put between the fence and the sidewalk. 22 • Related to information regarding the wool mill equipment, the equipment manufacturer is 23 no longer in operation so he is unable to get technical manuals that address the decimal 24 level. Based on the information received from the comparable wool and fiber mill 25 business noise would pretty much end at the property line so any neighbor on the other 26 side of the fence would not hear any noise. 27 • Questioned how a decimal level test can be conducted without the equipment being 28 functional until the project is approved. 29 • Referred to the revised site plan (attachment 3) and noted most of the back wall that is 30 closed to the neighbors is the bathroom so it is like having another room with an extra set 31 of walls. Confirmed there will be new 2 x 6 wall construction and well-built so noise 32 should not be an issue. In the event noise is an issue, can take measures to mitigate the 33 sound. 34 • The front fence is pre-existing and intends to replace it in another phase. 35 • Related to the planter boxes and seating area could implement a wheel stopper to 36 prevent vehicles from coming upon and/or backing up in and around the seating/dining 37 area. 38 • It was noted site plan keynotes #9 on the revised site plans indicates the designated 39 bicycle parking area. 40 • Explained the reason for the location of the grease trap and confirmed there will be a 41 solid waste line extending underneath the building. 42 • The food truck will be serviced offsite. 43 44 Assistant Planner Johnson: 45 • There could potentially be zoning issues associated with having a sandwich board on the 46 sidewalk. 47 • Related to the issue of potential noise impacts has knowledge it is possible to conduct a 48 decimal check for compliance with City noise standards by using a special machine. The 49 measuring of decimal levels will likely be required for the Wool Mill project before the 50 project is reviewed by the Planning Commission to make certain the project is consistent 51 with City noise standards and not cause potential noise impacts to the neighborhood. If 52 the noise standards are not properly met, will have to look at mitigation measures to 53 offset the sound impact. Design Review Board March 12,2015 Page 4 1 • Does not have an answer about how to conduct a decimal level test without the 2 equipmentfunctional. 3 • The applicant would have to go through a sign permit process separate from the mixed 4 use project.Would like input and a recommendation from the DRB regarding the signage. 5 • Explained the applicant worked with the Public Works Department regarding his project 6 needs related to sewer, etc. 7 8 DRB questions/comments related to: 9 Building Facade 10 11 Vice Chair Liden: 12 • Asked about plans for the facade of the wool mill building. 13 • Looking at the color rendering, sees the facade as having a western theme and 14 questioned whether this should be the approach. 15 • It may be the problem is the color of the building. 16 • Recalls that Chair Hise at the initial DRB review of the Project talked about material 17 features that could be added to enhance the appearance. 18 • Asked if the roof was pitched would the siding match/work? 19 • Because the wool mill building is a fake facade having that`stepped western appearance' 20 is not certain a fake pitched roof facade would look more fake. While the building will 21 feature a fake facade is of the opinion that the stepped western looking facade kind of 22 works with perhaps a different color scheme. 23 • Asked if Member Nicholson would like to see the Project again if there was a change in 24 the design. 25 26 Member Nicholson: 27 • The initial discussion concerning the facade by the DRB acknowledged there was too 28 much distinction between the buildings and was not pleased with the appearance of the 29 building during this discussion concerning the building facade/shape. There was 30 significant opposition to the square western facade where the preferred elevation was to 31 have a pitched roof that reinforced architectural compatibility of the existing house. 32 • Is of the opinion the square western facade reinforces the inappropriateness of this 33 architectural design. While there are a few of these western facade designs for buildings 34 in town that essentially do not fit well with the existing `fabric'finds the proposed elevation 35 does not match any of the buildings in the neighborhood and cannot support the western 36 facade design. The roof is out of design context with the residential building on the site 37 and buildings in the neighborhood. Does understand the reason for the design concept 38 since the wool mill building is a factory and a western facade design works with that of an 39 industrial use so having a disharmonious design separates/distinguishes the industrial 40 use from the residential use. 41 • Preference would be for the building not to have `the steps,' but rather have a `box' 42 design. This design would be more in keeping with the post office building and motel in 43 the neighborhood. 44 • The issue is not the color of the building but rather the shape. 45 • Recalls at the initial DRB discussion of the Project Chair Hise said the buildings should 46 either match architecturally or not. 47 • Sees the proposed design working adequately in Covelo, Anderson Valley, but not on 48 Orchard Avenue in an urban setting. 49 • Is okay with a pitch roof appearance and finds this design would match with the storage 50 container design. 51 • Whatever occurs for the wool mill building the facade is a false front that is visually 52 apparent. Better approach would be to have flat facade that extends to a pitched top that 53 meets building code requirements. Design Review Board March 12,2015 Page 5 1 • Referred to attachment 2, City of Ukiah Commercial Development Design Guidelines 2 Project Review Checklist for Commercial Projects outside the Downtown Design District, 3 Page 2 Visual Appearance, says, `buildings are visually cohesive, compatible and 4 complementary(scale, proportion, design, style, heights, mass, setbacks)'and `buildings 5 exhibit variety and distinctiveness (but avoid overly obtrusive or over monotonous 6 designs, or strong contrast with adjacent buildings, creative use of natural and recycled 7 materials, metal discouraged unless creative and consistent with Guidelines),'and noted 8 these questions are supposed to be addressed. Cannot say `yes' to these questions 9 relevant to the stepped facade. While the proposal exhibits variety and distinctiveness 10 finds the facade visually not cohesive, compatible or complementary to the neighborhood 11 and therefore, cannot support the stepped western facade, as presented. 12 • The Planning Commission will make the final decision about the Project. If the applicant 13 has an alternate plan he would like to take to the Planning Commission would be fine 14 with not seeing the Project again and let the Planning Commission decide. His 15 recommendation is not to use the proposed design. Recommended the applicant talk to 16 Planning staff about alternative design concepts. 17 18 Stephanie Wilkes: 19 • Asked about a facade alternative. 20 • The building would be easy to'square off.' 21 • Could prepare something with three different facade designs. 22 23 DRB noted the aforementioned alternative cannot occur because of the need for a firewall. 24 25 Member Hawkes: 26 • Asked about the firewall and its effect on the elevation. 27 • Talked about the concept of a pitched roof. The barn-look would be an acceptable design 28 on the site and for the wool mill use. 29 • The fake stepped western facade would likely work, but should likely have a different 30 color scheme. 31 32 MemberMorrow: 33 • Having the buildings with somewhat distinctive designs sets the character as being more 34 'industrial'than the other residential uses on Orchard Avenue. 35 36 Matthew Gilbert: 37 • Referred to the site plans the concern of the DRB at the initial review of the Project was 38 whether or not the wool mill building would be distinctive enough from the residential unit. 39 • His intent was to have to separate and distinct building elevations. 40 • Finds that the western facade architecturally flows with the post office across the street 41 that has a square shape. 42 • Recalls the DRB's initial discussion concerning his project was that the wool mill building 43 should `sort of' match the residential unit, but not really. 44 • Talked about the design requirements in connection with the firewall and noted the 45 parapet must be three feet tall above the eve. 46 • Related to having a squared-shape building, would result in 15 feet of free standing wall 47 and questioned whether this would work. This would somehow have to be tied back into 48 the roof. 49 • Related to the architectural design of the wool mill building for him was not necessarily 50 the industrial component of it, but rather that wool has been around and a major part of 51 Ukiah for a long time. The intent was to make the building look as though the wool mill 52 has been around for a long time. 53 54 Assistant PlannerJohnson: Design Review Board March 12,2015 Page 6 1 • Applicant has photographs of other facade design concepts that could be used on the 2 wool mill building. 3 • The project can be brought back for further review if this is the preference of the DRB. 4 The facade is a significant element and a major component of the Project. 5 6 Member Hawkes: 7 • Supports DRB approve the Project with recommendations to the Planning Commission. 8 9 M/S Hawkes/Nicholson DRB approve the Project, as presented with the recommendation that 10 the facade be considered `influx' at this point and that the applicant bring some other design 11 options to the Planning Commission and to make it clear the DRB was not 100% in favor of this 12 particular aspect of the Project. (Motion carried 4-0). 13 14 Member Nicholson: 15 • Applicant did a good job describing the Project both graphically and with the narrative 16 that fully explains the intent of the Project. 17 18 7B. Jared Hull Use Permit for Single Family Residence — Hillside Project, 315 Janix 19 Drive (File No.: 707): Review and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Use 20 Permit to construct a 1,997 square foot single family residence and 795 square foot 21 attached garage at 315 Janix Drive, APN 001-040-73. The exterior would include earth 22 tone painted stucco siding, a metal roof, and landscaping. The site is accessed by an 23 existing private asphalt paved road. Since the property is located in the Hillside District, 24 Planning Commission review and approval of a use permit is required for new 25 construction. 26 27 Assistant Planner Johnson: 28 • Referred to the staff report and accompanying attachments 1, 2 and 3 that provides a 29 project description, visual renderings that are intended to show what the Project would 30 look like from the Valley floor from Alex Thomas Jr. Plaza, copies of the proposed color 31 schemes and materials, site plans, and hydrology report. 32 • Explained the history of the Hull/Piffero subdivision. 33 • The applicant is not present. 34 35 The DRB acknowledged the Project but did not review the Project and/or make comments in 36 detail. 37 38 DRB: 39 • Asked to see a colors and materials board. 40 • Requested the applicant provide more information about the Project details as to 41 elevations, water/sewer infrastucture, colors/materials, landscaping, etc. and with 42 possibly visiting the site with the applicant and have a discussion. 43 • Would like more information regarding the Hillside zoning district regulations concerning 44 development. 45 • Asked about how many of the remaining lots of the Hull/Piffero subdivision are buildable/ 46 can be developed. 47 • Provide accurate visual renderings/simulations showing the location of the proposed new 48 residents and what it would look like from various locations on the Valley floor. 49 • Requests applicant come back to the DRB for a more comprehensive look at the Project. 50 51 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: 52 Asked if the DRB would be willing to have another special meeting on March 26, 2015 at 3:00 53 p.m.to review preliminary plans for a new Chapole restaurant in the City. Design Review Board March 12,2015 Page 7 _ �:. �� �' 1"': ,7�'..:i�dk i�'�_'� .f� City of Ukiah - Commercial Development Design Guidelines Project Review Checklist COMMERCIAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT The foilowing Checkiist is intended to assist developers, staff, policy boards and the pubiic in determining project consistency with the Commerciai Development Design Guidelines. Please refer to the Guidelines for the full te� and illustrations, as the Checklist does not supersede or substitute for the Guidelines. The information in parentheses provides examples af ways to achieve the desired effects, recognizing that it is impassible to reduce the art and practice of design into a checklist of individual elements. "Architects, project designers and applicants are expected to make a strong and sincere effort to comply with the Guidelines and contribute to the improvement of the City's physical image. Project applicants, with the assistance of their architect and building designees, are expected ta put fo�th a convincing and creative effort when planning development and designing buildings." (Guidelines, page 1). Discussion of Desiqn Elements• Applicants are requested to discuss the following issues in their project application submittal, or the application may be deemed incomplete. . 1. How does the project design contribute to the irnprovement of the City's physical image? How does the project exhibit creativity? 2. What architectural style(s)/period is-represented by the project design, if any? 3. After completing the checklist below, explain how the project complies with the various factors below. 4. Are any of the criteria below not met? If so, why not? COMMERCIAL PROJECTS OUT5IDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT Yes No N�q Yes-consistent;No-Not consistent or more information needed;N/A-not applicable Site features(p.19) • ❑ ❑ ❑ Site design is compatible with the naturat environment, and incorporates the major exi5ting features(trees, landscoping, city creeks,riparion hobitat, lot shape,size, relotionship to surrounding area). Coordination{p.20) ❑ ❑ ❑ Facilities are shared and coordinated with adjacent properties. ❑ ❑ ❑ Setbacks are compatible with character of adjacent frontages. ❑ � � Setbacks are minimized to enhance the pedestrian environment. t �. ATTACHMENT# � . COMMERCIAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT Yes No {V/A Yes-consistent;No-Not consistent or more information needed;N/A-not applicable Pedestrian access(p.19) � p ❑ Site has pedestrian orientation,consistent with uses,design and architecture. ❑ ❑ ❑ Pedestrian elernents are attractive and functional (waikways link parking to building entrances and other watkways p/anters, street furniture, outdoor seating, pedestrian oriented signs,low level lighting providedj. � ❑ ❑ Parking areas with 12 0�more stalis: defined sidewalk ar marked pedestrian facilities in landscaped areas or separated from traffic lanes required. Parking(ots(p.22) � � ❑ Decrease visual prominence and reduce heat island effect (locate behind buildings, divide into smaller lots, avoid large unbroken expanses of paving; emphasize screening, shading, landscapin y). Landscaping(p.22� � p ❑ Scale and nature of landscape materials is appropriate to the site and structures. ❑ ❑ ❑ 20% of gross (ot area landscaped / 50% live plantings; landscape redevelopment or reuse projects to e�ctent feasi6le (Plants are of type, spacing and sizing to reach maturity within reasonable time. Nardy, drought tolerant, low maintenance species adapted to Ukiah climate are emphasized,parking/ots trees also withstond heat,pottutants. Deciduous trees used on south and west Automatic irrigation required for new commerciat development.Street trees selected from Ukiah Master Tree List/p/antings per Standard Planning Detail required on private lot or public right of way.J � ❑ ❑ Parking areas with 12 or more stalls: 1 tree per 4 stalls within continuous linear strips. Perimeter planting strips use trees and shrubs. Focus on deciduous trees achieving 50% shading within 10 years. ❑ ❑ ❑ Parking lots generally:Perimeter planting strips,Street trees selected from Ukiah Master Tree List required. Signs(p.21) � � ❑ Signs are compatible with architectural character of buildings (signage does not dominate site, uses compatible colors and material,lighting is restrarned and harmonious,sondwich boards are creative/subdued color/minimal copyJ. Lighting(p.20j � � ❑ �ighting harmonizes with site, building design, architecture and landscaping (light;ng form,function, character,fixture styles, design and placement; lighting does not interfere with pedestrian movement). Energy conseroation(p.21) � � ❑ Active and passive solar and other renewable energy design and devices are used (building orientation, landscaping, lighting, heating and cooling, photovoltaic system-ready or insralled). ❑ ❑ ❑ Devices are unobtrusive and complement design(solar panets flush with roofJ. Visual appearance (p.20� � � ❑ Buildings are visually cohesive, compatible and complementary (scale, proportion, design style,heights,mass,setbacks). [] ❑ ❑ Buildings exhibit variety and distinctiveness (but avoid overly obtrusive or overly mon�tonou 2 �, , � hTTACHMENT # � 'COMMERCIAL PROIECTSOUTSIDE DOWIVTOWN DESIGN DISTRICT Yes No N jA Yes-consistent;No-Not consistent or more information needed;N jA-not applicable designs,or strong controst with adjacent buildings, creative use of naturat and recycled materia/s metal discouraged unless creative and consrstent with Guidelinesj � � ❑ Variety of architectural features encouraged tied to comprehensive design theme (arches roised parapets, cornices, eaves, windows, balconies, entry insets, roof ongles and pitches, wal relief features). ❑ ❑ ❑ Building exteriors campatible with surrounding properties (compatible materiats, colors quality,coordinoted but not the same as surrounding properties,avoid strong or vivid co/ars unles they fit within local context, concrete blockfexposed concrete on visible walls finisi�ed in aestheti mannerJ. ❑ ❑ ❑ Visible fences compati6le with project and visually attractive (compotible colors, moteriais styles;wire fences,high barriers and use faradvertising discouragedJ. ❑ ❑ ❑ Site and buildings are visually attractivefrom neighboring properties,traffic and corridors and public spaces (service areas ond devices screened, integrated and compatible with sit features;common marl6oxes architecturotly consistent ond located close to bur(ding;above criteri is applied to areas visible to pubtic view,�rear and side views are visuatly interesting, coordinate and we!l-maintainedJ. Maintenance(p.22) 0 ❑ ❑ Demonstrate consideration of site and building maintenance. Other Considerations A variety of site and building design issues have increased in importance ta the public and policy boards since the Guidelines were written in the early/mid 1990s. Some of those are expressed below. The Checklist will be modified from time to time. Yes Na N/A OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Walkable—bikeable communities ❑ ❑ ❑ The project provides cannectians for walkers and bicyclists to the surrounding community (provides walking/6iking facilities on the site, connects to nearly walking/biking facitities,provides shortcuts for walkers/bikers,project is located within 1/4-1/2 of other p/oces to walk). � ❑ ❑ Sidewalks provide are convenient and safe access (sidewalks sufficiently wide, without obstruction; curbs, shade, lighting provided;buffers betweerr walkers and troffic provided; safe and direct street crossings for wolkers). ❑ � Entrances provide convenient access (entrances adjacent to street minimol setbock, routes and occessways are well marked,sidewalks provided uninterrupted access to entrances,safe bike porking is tocoted close to entrances). Green building(incorporating green building elements}* ❑ ❑ ❑ Sustainable site ❑ ❑ ❑ Water efficiency 3 � ' � � ATTACHMENT � ❑ ❑ ❑ Energy � � 0 Materials and resources � � � Indoor environmental quality Visitability and universa) design (the site ond its elements are accessible to people at differing � � � stages, ages and circumstances of life: accessible primary and interior entrance and routes, accessibie kitchen and bath space and devices,for dwellings-accessible bedroom,common room, and devices). * See Green Building Council LEED and other guidelines for detailed measures: http•//www usabc or�/DisplavPa�e.aspx?CatesorvlD=19 * http://www.nrdc.org/buildinggreen/strategies 4 � �' F K'���?��'it`��?�'4� �� ----- ________.___._ Public Works Department �� � 300 Seminary Avenue � �� �.r7,� ��. � ni 5� y �� Ukiah, CA 95482 V Email: bkaaevama(a�citvofukiah.com �� Web: www.citvofukiah.com : Phone: (707)463 -6284 j�,� w _ Fax: (707) 463-6204 Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual Applicabilifiy Determination Project information PROJECT NAME: APPLICATION NUMBER: SUBMITTAL DATE: c�ol ����� +��x�t c.,��� � m��s�� 31�1a�� PROJECT ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP� AP NUI�ER(S): c-�tP Sa,�.�n c�c�-�21 �vA G�t.c� c� •32r� �5 APPLICANT(OWNER/DEVELOPER)NAME: PHONE N0: FAX N0: E-MAIL ADDRESS: I�ba,''ll'� �'���°�l �-' S�2z►'i �r�� APPLICANTIAUTHORIZED AGENT ADDRESS: CITY: STATE/ZIP: l.Q'1�Y t�[/W�►' � li'1'„�+�^,'• 1 '�/` ��[/ EN6INEER NAME: PHONE N0: FAX N0: E-MAIL ADDRESS: n � ENGINEER MAILING AD�RESS: CfTY: STATEIZIP: �TYP OF PROJECT(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT I�USE PERMIT ❑ SU6DIVISION ❑ GRADING PERMff ❑ BUILDING PERMIT ❑ OTHER Staff Use Onl Exem t Pro'ects check all that a I A licable Pro'ect T�i er Notes Effective Date:Projects submitted prior to June 19, City Council adopted resolution 2014-27 directing staff to � 2014. implement the Low Impad Development Design Manual as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)Permit No.CA0025054 at its meeting the night of June 18,2014 with the resolution effective upon adoption. Therefore,the resolution applies to projects submitted on or after lune 19,2014. Maintenance:Routine maintenance activities that are This exemption includes activities such as overlays conducted to maintain original line and grade,hydraulic and/or resurfacing of existing roads or parking lots as capacity,and ori inal purpose of facility. well as trenching and patching activities. Emergency: Emergency redevelopment adivities The Regional Water Quality Control eoard must agree required to protect public health and safety. that the activities are needed to protect public health and safety to qualify for this exemption. Public Utilities:Projects undertaken to install or reinstall This exemption applies to public utilities,such as sewer public utilities and do not include any additional street and water,only, or road development or redevelopment activities. Reconstrudion by Public Agencies: Reconstruction This exemption applies to public agency wok only. projects,undertaken by a public agency,of street or "Reconstruction"is defined as work that replaces surface roads remaining within the original footprint and less down to subgrade. Street width is measured from face- than 48 feet wide. of-curb to face-of-curb. Pedestrian and Bike Paths: Standalone pedestrian pathways,trail,and off-street bicycle lanes. �. �"``' ' - Staff Use Onl Pro'ects that Tri er/Non-Exem t Pro'ects check all that a I : _ � "IicaWe� .��' ' " er � ....._.. ... ._ �� . .. -�:� fiiotes. -_ Size:All development that creates or replaces a Reroofing of an existing building is considered a maintenance combined total of 1 acre or more of impervious activiry and is exempt. surfacel. Parking Lots: Parking lots with 25 or more parking spaces or 10,000 sf of new or replaced impervious surface. Street,Road,Highway,Freeway:Street,road, Overlays,resurFacing,trenching,and patching is considered a highway,or freeway construction or maintenance activity and is exempt. reconstruction,creating or replacing than "Reconstruction"is defined as work that replaces the road surface 10,000 square feet or more of impervious down to subgrade. surFace. Number of Dwellings:All development that includes four(4)or more dwelling units. Impervious Surface :Industriai parks, � commercial strip mails,retail gasoline outlets, restaucants,or aGtomotive service facilities , creating or repiacing 10,000 square feet or ' ' � more of impervious surfacel. 1. Impervious surface is defined as an area that h�s been modified in such a way as to redyce storm water runoff capture,treatment and percolation into underlqing soils. For example,such surfaces include rooftops,walkways,plastic liners,and parking areas. Permeable pavement shall be considered impervious if they have subdreins. Structural areas that are covered under a green or eco-roof shall not be considered impervious surFace. ' ' �ROIECT EXEMPT FROM LID DESIGN MANUAL ❑ PROJECTTRIG6ER5�IS NOT EXEMPT FROM�LID DESIGN MANUAL PUBLI ORKS STA �SIGNATURE�: DATE OF DEfERMINATION: � � �a �� ; � , �: e� ' t:'. � 1=�'� �}-' �_ v `� 'k~ " .. 5' ��•'" �;i 11�, - . -��� ;;' �:", ��� • 3 • i=, Y;4� ,;�:.�`� . s ,',-., � ��:';�.�it�� n.�.~r`" .:�. ;�; ' ;��:r:f �.,'~ .� .. IY �" - ,���: :�:"•;•• _ i�^�,��`� � y;: . •:r�- `•:� - ... . ':t�. ;:.� :- ' i;�•���.::• _ ; _ _ - - � T��r�-J, - �=''-�F��''-��- ' _ . ,- � .�';' y�.` ,� �:... . _�,�.. _.� ,�,.f:.,:��:� '-.... . _F, ... �.�,��;'3 . - k?���. . �,, �_� �.��_.�. ��:_ , r F��. �. • , � .t � . �� � !�;,�, �. . - • - -„��� -�----� '. �;:.;:;;. ; .• ' . .' .-.- -- _ •d,r:��;,`: . . ' � .;-�A'<'�'�' ` � _ . �,1 _`e . }_ . , �,w , . . _��� ; �• � `s ' ^_ ___.-.�.•� � _. Y • . $ __ — ----�f' w�l.c.A � � , . . ., � .. "°v;%�• ' - - . . '�.v .;r ` _ . �;Ar+ i�:,' �".r • . � . . ` . ,�..',f''.�,�, . Ar �..a�. • , �,ir�:r31.''•;:+''� , . . - ' . . - - --- - `e 4. • � �..o • i. .. rf'.�.. r ' � , `V:r,� ' . ��� .._� ,�, . � � ' , � ` ,� . , - + I:' ' ` i -- "4 �� . . . ��•a� � ` ' . , If ,� �� . f . '`t i �• .=a:.�:��+�."�y�'"_ _�_-"�'`. f � . L . . r . T�r' ;�l 1�',.�9w!{ . � ' r • ry 7 : r; { _� . °;A�'� , -R'� ��A ' � r .-_�• .. i�;� ��`'' =1 9�'���Vf —��� . ...����. ,t ^`�'��✓• �-,�µ " �. ""T '* "" ^"].... � `',� �'� �. � !r'rf�� _ �� 1) ... -_ - . �: ��`�;�• rr �-I- . � � .'i ' .. }��.. �� . -� .. .. . � • ' � � ' �� . . :� ��_ �� " . � �( I� ��f. � 1 . ' ' .`� . t. ;���:`'v a ,.! : • -, _ ,'•`'�;� �'��e�'',; "y���,�1 ' ����`. •. :,,,. ,� � � - °����'1 '� �sh:r� :�ti - N,�, '3�.. _ - '� i }1, �'- . " ' . ' Lp. �1J-�} ` _.�Ci� T I' • . . � � t 1 •� ��. ',,� � - , �; � � �,i � :,� �i '��:�. ���� � ,� 'y li ; ,r�y5.. Y �Y��,_ ;�,;•`7� r. ' ' ���� �� .i���'r�� R - •,�-.�+'. L�i-•`� '�.-. Fi .S��;,:�'••.7'ti�.r.��.:^ _ .-_: ��:tq'>�=^ Y �y+;.ry . �` `',�,:;'.`s."..�.�.�•` �':+•Z. ��;=��i� '- rl r . " . .' vti. l��`: � fi�'�+�i'.:::::-� - r�.�d� •� � °�I. `1•� n- „�,� ���j,-�."}.1;'�;r� ��'` ��•::.g!�. �s�=:�'+' �"°3' r�5 ..•� _i.��i4'•�� �. r� • .d.�,.:.. ^ .� ,.,�„y �. - f .3'`, ' '-5 •�'ii.3�►'n_,u��. i..��{'l•i'1'i� • �, ',c'.r`:'�;'._'+��n ,'..�"i'^.'-3�^t'' . - � .} � °z .�.�wa..:'4-��- 1'�� • �-�n:4 . r sa� ��`.:1 � I `�a. �� _,,�•�z r��°� � � . q.;_ ,y. �•_1-�:,:���-.�-� :!` �, ,,:. €'1 '�--:�°' , '� z� 4. .�F. ;� � r�. �. �;:9.�: � ,.{.� �.;.�.�. :��.�x�, '�, •� • �, � '�:� ,�}_ � • f��'r -,, .T:-_..--�. I `:' :...:� t.���. �.j,:p"':��Jr„ • - ��:. i;,y,.+ •.��a u ,� �I. �).'-" �� �r�„ r��k �, ' �!--� k�►t�° e � ` �`. `� _ - — �� - � `, _ " � _ �-' . --'� y � _ -- _ ` ,,_ '� .� '. l '�R ��1A. i }S - '� f+i, . . •_;� �i'. � � �y^ I; - . "1. . ,�: . .. , -� . . . . µ. ` ��L� ++ .._ .' t� ' ' -. `4' ... ;'�- � . 'k �y.'... .f. � � ' _ • ��• 5,�1�~ �j„�� ' . '' .. . 5�/!.`f!�; ' '� a�•r�5', �.� . - . ��R,..P�,' o " ...d�,r'��� - - � ���-.,7F.::'� .fi� r:� ' . . . . - =p�.i••�• . ��3-.}�,{(,:. _ •. f... �:�£: ` n;Yyi."�t•� _ l � ';� ti. . :" r^ ,,_ ' : .. _.. ;.. . .. . t-_ . }�.. � �C:'�. . . '' . `�`°1. ;- '"[��•1 � . `�`'__ �� '�;�:�...^.,4, - - �� .. l-.:. Y:, . �,. a , ..,�.t� � .i . - ' . :�Y ' . . . . . � ��� , � - •. r � � � , � �` ' � ' ._ - -� � �• . — ___f' �l..r_aA.� � .� '��'�it, , �v .,A ,v, . Y'�Y�� i• - • . ' - - ^1•. . ' " '1,� ";;'• - - . , �' �� _ ,Ft'.� ' ; - �f . `;* � ; ~ � • . __ ��� t: ; r . _. .y � �I �, . .�' f � . { lj I I ' 1 '1 _ .'�� �' � : ,Yi����J� � � �i .- ' ' . . � _ =-�-;1•,��...s�'w-__—_-°P: I 'y �!`� - , ��:a'�°'�; � L .,r'�;'� .i�� i �-. �, ' r'��•.•!�: � ,�. �c \�t'L�.• � �: _ ,_ �I �, 'y-l�� — — `.L -.. '1 - � �;4, � - ._ �.; �. � �� ;, . � `! , �� ��s _ l� ` �`;` '��� 9a � 'i. �.. � � � . x � r, n l• r'F� j ��' ° 'n:.°'.�'. _ .� ��lS�l� :�'+�!'_J� � ~ ,r °;�•�'�' t` - - j �k��`^. . �I ti�,� i r� f � '�.�M1��. { � 1�' � _ ' •. �; 1 • `y t� � ,{' ��' ; � f 4 � � l � �_ ..� f �. V _ -�� �i� _ ��� 4 � ` �.S � i^_�`�' _ � � •� •��'f�'� '��' y^��'`�� . . .'� + +1.�, �.•• . � � s-. �;�i'�,'s� ;'* � :x.- • '�w�� �'�,y-,. . _ L�+ 14' ��.� � ��.���� ��1:5-!�^.� _ ��'�ai: t' y_� ;{; �. �•L i.��r�`Y��.yi.%-�,yy.�S' . ,�] '7.���• .�;:�. + ' x�r'-� ti.`•n. . �'� �i+�`�"'t���'1L/�i r` a�-.. �'- ' �'•�.i � � i+'::,,.:;�_��� ti�'�i'�F•• ,�jy, �.K t.�'.-,� i�:� w�'�i•.-. -'�' 'y' ��^y�=-r,ir�''i'•, �:, r�";�:`=� .x,,. ."H r� . „s„ .��� ... ��, -.. y•'` _,�:'��}�.-"'`,�r'�`�;r....,;'� 1��v-� :�.'•r;:..,. � —4V,� `�"-f'Y . .. y . . � •�' .� �-�''*.§^', ,� �x'�=�'a• :;' , ` � ''�.."- : '�"y��; .��;,'"�.. :.��A F, t' � � .�`�'1� .;y'•. � ^N_ •� 'l:� F-�. '� .�?!�'o •., .1�'��1�_.'.'�I2` :l.:r Y.ti- "• i. ._y�.:s •� Er °' }�i T`�•, c t�e - ',iy. n'.� . '�'`�ci�''t�g,�,la'��{��� - ��.^ �1�� � `� ' .�, .�:7".'i�'" . �` � ;�f+ �i�. '" ..:+? y� M1�s y�. , �'V�.. • -jr •Z._�~y��r. I k': } h.� ;"�r �1+- -i. �'"n'r�r i�._*� - - �., _ z� =}� ' .' � _ .�;-;;��,�. � - - _ _ ` �.. �,�'_, r. _ �- _ �;_ S 'r } . . ,. '+� �1- . ..� - = ,. ��;':. �e � 4` �� . �� '��I _ ; � - �.�, ' r ��i yi� ' ,y, , =�•:`• , • . . �- � `?,'�?�, s. ., _ 'V' ' -. .ri .ti;"'"'�""v. • ;q�:'='r��;:.,f;.�. ^,°� • `[y!f., ', �ff'�' • �.'}L�•• .. . ' . _. °,�` :�:;�' . ������ � _ " � _ , -. : ,�. ,. f — �--.� � y�•�' t `'`;,t� ~ Y .� �- ... ��_ . - ' � - .ti�R.i'ntrY,. '. . - . :�. . - „- rri' _�>, ` , - � , � .. � � � . � � , , ,y _ . � " _ .�_.____��^"• • �/ . � . . . --- ...—__ • A�r'r.A�.. ' .. � ` . � ., . _ .-?_�: . - - r . � .. ..,��' . . � . ,�r. k� � . � � ., , i . . f `— � • , `. ' ,� �' t �. f� ' � � _ _ , r �� - ► � � '� r :� _ i, �a� �' - • �{ � , , �; �.�i;�, �.� . �� � . ..... -�-����r�"- "_-_ '___�y �i ���7� ti { �'���•' � E R.Sf'1T�_ . �� ��1 f ' '. ^'� 1 p�;�;1 �� � � ' r�<. t.. f y i. `�:�:Lx.., �J • i; ,��i,yfa%�;r -- - \r ' . _ 1 . fx- � . is� ^�'� �4 �-- - - - �� �4 ' � �+ S - � -"•Y' • - �'�e3i �� � ;*' �., - ^ � ' : .. I�i F� VY•I �.�_y�, � -�.� � . � - - ,� '+n�,, - .,._�;, " i�.'�'�:.1` . : �.� � 'i. ���c, .'�i . ,P. ::���f '�i �.{~'r y�I. . . ' • i�� �t i.� - ' i � 4 � f; e �- �r * i � . f l� I I � � _ ; � I�; �, � i . t3rL+;:;iY+ •4• � I ���3 � :.. '�t1. � '' �'C'' �� 5 . .��.• k � � �, . ;''1 • � � :`'!'' . VC�7 'r�,�.'.. �3';•'r'"'� .�.'e h[!�.. � ]�1%�' '=Z.' �." �_„'`- �� � ;s x � _�_'�t i,ay.�':r,,:'�`. '�'.���=<'w-•;'^}� _ _ f:a.�: {..�.-��-�y�.:w-'+ . �� ti�,}E r. ��. „�.'i � +.T^. . -� C•�ic1'�•,:� - �[, • �'�' �• �'���x�'':•r:`�• �+''" � .ra�(;;.�,t�•'� ° r - _•�,.� ..:,�+���y.��..i=.`_,/�.'v; .��'.:�i;°�4 .'�t`'. ��i__i'^':�"'-��Y_� ��¢:_ Y .. � . '� : - .`.�� • �.'.� ��•. ;��, '�-^. . 7..A a y�,��. -i '�.,. ,� y�=Y�y,y,a.^s..S� :(•-J_..+ . ��''4 p* .r •' .�,�' _� `.,,_.� �! � : .�'`.. � ,�, , � �•� `({J!�• `•VY;. r�'..�����,]{ �.�_ .�` .��`. •�. - �' � �V 'Sw '��f• -��r. `���,t t`'� e�'�--- r 'Y� �. �• •Ye�1'y j':y����•�:��' �.�.L.r �a�;. '`�• "�'Q :f�:{X� } �':T� la .f '� �•'.�� y g�� ' , • "'>,r. :���;F .. ��a; _i;;',`'{'{f��.:� +, .�.. .. •''�'' `��'.'wl. ( .}.�""� �� � . . �. ��ti��..� i: �.� - �!� 1•? .3J,'� / ;•� '" �`t�y. � = 4 ��c'��� — _ ::,..,� ,. � _ ��. ,� � _ __ _ � . � � ,`�_ _ L �! �.� r . _•. . • � i ,_ .. � y T ♦ 1 � ' __ . � �I�1r �.� - :� � ' • F,�~ . , , . � � .. � • �•, . . • � � � :r''�`, � . � - •��.. • - . .�. . . . . . � . ' ' . _ � � . � � � ��' ' `" . " . , _ . . ' �� . - ' .. • . , . . � F -� . - ' -�V;7t . . . - � , �. �r• . _ . � 1i- _ �_,,. �p•k� . . � �?-`�%'- .. � � . ��'� . � � . . � . � ' ' � ' . - ' „' _ _�� >> : - ... : ` . � I1 ., � . . _ Y : ., .. . ._1 . : � =� r - . . � . � ; _ , . � . . , . , _ . - � „ � • �� � :y`�.�� � . . �''�{: . � . • i' . . i � � r_a . � • � '+� , i"�• � z* - ' • �7. :��� -:,: . :� - _;.�^;, - � � � t t�. . ;'� • �,.. _ _ ��� `:. . . _ ` . _'; , ,` . _ �►; �r. _ .�' . . 'f' �,� ��,�` _ - �-�:: � � � � ��� � ' . - - �-- - .- . --- �:.. — — — .r 1' '' I I `. - � . r � � i 1 , .,� . I • ` �, i �L �;. . _ , . � — ,�a � �� ,,r ;� �,�_. ;�• � ' � i..� � � • �. . . ^'7�` + �� r � ` Is� I 1 � J , . � f { �� i • _ �'� � �� � � (i � t � `��'`y' '. � yi Yhi✓1 :. �. � , � It'�b�u� i � � • i � ��! ��i . � • 4 • � .� �� � i� � � �� � , � �' �;,,f _ � r - �?�.s�i•�r����s� --.. .__...��',,s .._.._..___.._. .._.__._...... - - -- -..:�.�.��. •_ '� � �'i' _!N �•�F_ "" � - � �:. � i , : , � � r � -.J �-:�.� . T , . .,�,.. �,�� ; t; . , ,- . . � .*�-x,;; : �.�� _F , r�. 'y .r' ' L T ' J • ,`, , .� �� , '�� �. . � �. • : • : , ?�-�;,'' '��.�;.� . � ,ki ;' ''i�1 ��A� �` _� ; .M,j/ . • ' �� �.:,' � _. � ;`d � ''r � • r" ��.s�:��'�� a -.h -Q :. _ .. ! /', , + i r- I '; � :y� '��'�-.,� -�' -- •-- _.. •!i,� �� �l. �Yj,�,'�� y � . ' .. �',�.tr. � `c •�� r �� 1 � �'� i:•.;�.;, ;.'i .�u v�'.�� ' ,� 1 , � �,. i . . .., � .,� ,,k:,.n �� �,�frl. ,... ,' . `�i`_ \1'�r.� I .1 -'..r�?..i t a( . � � � , 1 'r. ��k��r•y' �t `.):� . ^� "� •`• . ' • '�"�.,t:". `' , ` , y � i •, :�,�. .';,`,,;i��. ., .r;��: . � .. ",� � •-7"7-t,-, 1'�+'1. �'��-"• 4. , xs� y.��. _ •' . , ' - . , ,���':. •r_,N��{ . ,r�4. ' ,.�^ •,'� +`1�S i•_ . . �•s.l;���``�.�,�.'C' ' _ ... • . �!� � .f� � - ,� : y �;•�' _ . � �a� �'��r�.;.� , - . .. . µ r " ,�,� 7�.,5�` ' • , F . ;�:����',^ .��k _ ,"� . A,' I!��=������'�• r'�'� '�4 ' ,°�' �� � t ' /.' • � ' y+! ti �M 1 1^'�1y ,� � V . a `�. .��i-'' ��`�1n.,,?�.':�T• �# � �_'� + -�� ` r t ,.�, ��.T�rV����r��.,_ - _ f�� ' .� ��y ,� .�5��� `.�. 1 � ,, n��,=;�,✓. � ��F �.. ,� .�� 'l, r,r ri-. '. ,� � ,b•t .�.,.���.��aT�g��.'i�l ` p ... ,- �-- � � .• `. . . � ,��, . '�1�.1�,�:4lSF'i• � . '`�� �� • Y 4S�r� `, �t'+R� i `y` .�'. � � �'���`' ,�'�i�"1..����, k'S '. \ �':;. � . +;T` • %.r , `r� � `�� �t'�i�a"�0p�'� �i '."'� �`'' �::• . � •,� �?f:.';, �� ,V� `��1�� ! lrt 4 �• � — �, : . '. •' �►'`. ��. '•a � . � ' �� �!�,�'������;.. � ��� � J �. �� ��: ' �.s �. •i.�'� 1 '.i�r�i 't��•�. .�� .�. �'iN '� � '+��a ,; • , , �y., :� '��il:` � • ��rt��'�,.�a11y:� • 'v ..�:t': . ��r � 'V'�,i,�i'� ;r. �� ' - '.'Si� � �Cl�' . ` � _ ,F,,��•� ,,+�'{` • . . '` .�r,�t���� y, ��� � � 4Z:fj.����\\, r �.�,ft'. :•`.��'�c��y�. y`� ' ..,�1(' •�� , . � , ••� r���`�•.•�t�,','; �' ���-;� • � , R�� �`���.�.'a bt',�'+���` .H': : '.�'+�.�'�: `' ��. �'yl�, �..�� f� �i''• ' ':�y, .�'�l�:i" ,}5���1� '�'o� - ',� ��{, �•7 pa. �F.:� !_ �1 ti.k. ,�i '.�f'�~ � 'i �����"ft'��.1�L� �,r�..i,�1� ' - - S . ��;;.�1 . �r.\ f',1`�;t'��,�� .-r -� � '�-' �'..,,a.��~t,��,'�,, � ��l`` ` ' = "�.+���' . . - .. �r.�i �����i,���A.'� .- - _" . ., � `y �• � � � )I`���'- �� . � '_pl�i�`. _.'�ii�_7`` _' w ' ."_" __"'" '� . , . ~. r � :5�r ,y. t• '� . . , . t ;I 1�� .!'• � ' � . _ � - , ' l•{� � *�.''+�L.� .C. i .'�,y'x��. �'. '� T ._ . �.� 1 � .. y% '1't�v' �,1�`'�.•H�,i -- — � ;r� ' "r. 1:�;1'�:��''���J, . ii �,� . - s1�' , '` � "��t..', �"����� •`I ,:� �...�;� ;i r4� �� .:�, C„F - . . i �,� � -,t O , LOT 130'-0"WIDE _ .. . � -� -..._ I � .�..C+�-•[�.0�-8��9�{3.�p��B-�C)-�i���g������g.��. -g����}�. • � /� �r � VI I � {3�'d�-a��i3�p�p'�p'�.�p'�O. O � 'o 0 D "'� I � O � I'ti m � tn m z � I , � � � . ' � II � n � j � � � � ' Z I � o � ;_RZ,.:�' � u ' , � � � m � 0 3��N��,a 3�� . �� � �'' o o N'(�z?: � I � dNld?�- m °; o O"+• � � r�9" A ��_�. m; � 4 � � 'u � �.E o y q r � '�D�i� ��� I ; � Z ;OZ�" Si I m � m � ,ljmZ,' r� � � �� -ry��: ��� � �� b �a ' '�Z � �. I � `- a .6• ��t � o on�: d � � I I , __ � � _ _ 2 'T°� I I m � � �. � cDi ��—Z+ II b w �� �� e� �` m �Z e � � frl O � {m� � �� a��l X �, `� v I � ��, � p�` y � r.•_ , Z CA +�.zs�-�o• � II � "�j CI� � SETBACK TO PROPERTY LINE I � � O Oo � � � ��Zr� _, a 1 � �p , I � G� m �� � p, ti. � �I � �' •-,� � � 'I��i o � � �' � � � _ ]�lrl O r � � � � � � _ � � , - 1 � ''I 55'-5"SETBACK TO PROPERTY LINE � � 7{►- - — , I � /` 0'.0" ..120'-0 m � `� I � � � � � ro m �� , .�.` . �:�` � � �' S �_� ° � � � ;_ � � , � �I� r--. �� ��,�- � °• �� � ..,�,� � � �� o �`I �� �' � I : � ° m ° -- -- —��r� � �!' -- ^' I: � I �Xo \ II a � II m ' � ' I i �.� • . I;s'I�-.•.-- _ -�� � �I I�,``, i� : ll 8 � _ ,�i'�. _ °. �� � o i � / ' I I y . � � � � � � �I � p 1 s,_o� I I Z ' ��""�� � I� ��_ ' _ _� _ I � � W � ,nr � � �:� . .. � v I ' m I o '�' i . �m � I i�. �' D II � o i:''I - � � � � � �° ��� rv — , � �i A z4�_o"WIDEI- -- i1- ; I , Ol �� i� 4 j�� � � AISLE � �� � �; �,� +�; �m I I� , • N v � ti , �Z ' I � I � �I � ��. � '1 �C�: ' m�. � � r.- _m I I i I �' � � --- i F•• �� - � N `� I� y +,_zs,_5„ _, , ,..r..�, : i,�;_: - - . ,, .- �:�� D , SETBACK TO PROPERTY LINE �� _ ��.i � � I � �� 1 .�..��...�.��� . . _', � 1 �� � O � - - 1 , b v � I ti � � �•�F ' •' � ''i � � 2 I - I II � r -�i p . . '. — -�- - ' • -�. ` m G) I � ° ' , •r . /F'� � m I � � q �O. L.��•��f.—. .. :_ .��__� � � � _ _^ I m r o �� I ! � � ��! m I II � �i l 1 � / , I 'o o �_ m� � � � I � � � � � mO N � o � I m0 � " � II 8 �^ O � I � �' ro� < D II o ❑ N �I � �m � � I / � T� D I �' � Z m � �y� � � v I D � �� � ��� �n � D � � � z � � � � `� ° � � Z I � � '" � � / � � �I o I � / D � i '� � 1Q � � a- � o—o----� I' I _�S � � �: m � I I eT- ! �T---- i � � ��- I—f"'_ . _� �, � „ 3 N s - _ — �- � - --1 a�--° -.-�:-.• � I. _ ___----__ __ - - . ^ � � Q r .r �. ,I • ' • � r ' �e � • .�,p. • y,. • . . .. �` �E)22'-0"DR �WAY � e: m ' ,�: . ' , I 'fF i " ' ' • . . v '• '• � �. , � , . , .• . . . . '^ . . . .. ' .. . . tl� A •'' •• .� y, � ' � � �� .�• ,� �� . . .' s � • ..-:':. . .' ' �"' ' ' ''���" _ • . . . �� .._ y ' : • . ' .-.. �������� ��a ' �— 180'TO(E) rrt---------,--- T----------, �----- ���_ -290'TO(E1 LOT 120'-0"WIDE FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT i -�' I I I I ��33p.� � � � � ORCHARD AVE� __�/RFtiY�F/ ""' � �----- ---�----- ---�----- ---� �----- ��.r O � A A A A V � b � � A �[�] -I Z m� W (�I N N N N N N N N N N � -+ �O Ot �l 01 N A W N � �< V`�� � �b � � � � N � � t0 OD �I Of N A 41 N � O t0 W �I W 111 A W N � O � -mI�' � �� rXfI1D � � � • � �^m TZ Z RI Z 2 Rl �� Z mZ m �m �m ° �L RI Z Rl � �2 T Z m m m m m m m m m f��m -1 c�A� � r... r �Z� �.r.� p" p... m �.r..,.� n D.r O.�....��.�.r.r.�.r � n �mT = m � o"m m�� m c C iL' v �? �? m o G� a' p_ � z < r ��- _ � � I �n vi � � omc� mm �mc>c�m C 1 � � r m z 0 � � n � �� m m m m � � � � m G� D n - n m m D� � � mom�n� � (7 � voc� c�ZZ � a 6; m� G� �zz � D � { D � � m� � D mrom� d � a m �nm �o c� -�p � a - m � �D �n 3 � r�r m m Z � Z � �A= � °1�a� � I � � a m 5z� z= = p x� m z�" � o°- � cDi m �o = � �i � � m Z o mmv D n ' r 2� - � � D mc� m O v tn r vn n m � n C] O O � { � � D ��G��1DOm� � m m m fn �n �rtt �n� Av -1rtt � r W n D p� z wD � n m� � � D m O �m n[mil v D � D � z z � � G� Z X X X X� m� OX 2 p� r rtl n AZ r � 3 � � m �-=i 00[n�t�i�D D w m m i n (n �u f �D O �O �(n m b 3 � v Z � x (n n O O N ?� D � 0 � m m �x 3 (� Z Z � �pZm'i�O�N D � � � Z Z vZ ZO 00 mZ O D � 0� D Z � m p� D � O �Z � � � �m �c Z � Z �� � 0 <� � mm p Om zG� m rn mm c� z � � � G�� pnZZ{ I'�f1 m Ov�=��mp� = cji cj7 $ G) L� �L� Om �m �� � t'�i p m � C � �' m O � Z 1� D Z ��mz m O O O 0 S � pm Z� O ZO 2 N f�/�� D m � �� Z � 'O l�/l O� p 1 .c p0� '-f7�(n2�m � m m m Z p m fZn � W � G� m � _� z � O Dz � Z � �/1 N p�Z(S/l O m�0 T T Z (/1 Z 1 � � � �I O D G� T�. l/l I7� Z � �OOD��n� � z z m D � c m D � � z0 p � � mv m �Zm�mm�Z m � � � � �c�r�o m m Z � � z p s DD � � ai� c° �GI�m�10� � O v r p -I (n1 D r Dm (� m�� mzm� Z m r" � � o� �" �" yx � � m m�� OmD m � vm N �� � o m SHEET �� .�Vlend�ocino �l�Vool& ,�'i6er �nc. � NEW SITE PLAN 676 South Orchard Ave, Ukiah, CA � O __ LOT130'-0"WIDE ---�- - ,. � � ���' �� t3' 6��9-�t3--E}'�-e'..�'� ��.8�'��}. K}.� -9�{Y�{}� p���}. � � � i_ � �..p�«�9 '� � r Z � c" � � rn 0 ' ' � � n " � � LJ � � W � , � � iiD � o _ - • N ,� I � � wo 3J�'�Q E.,3JVNIV2i0 � o rn � � N�° ° �: =o o?� � I , ��d-' m ;X z cn �� , � � I q E:" �.�_ �� a r ���D� ;� � I I ^ z io Z� 2� Z II i m �O. rn :.�J.�� o��-. a I � a? ,� � 1 � D �`?.' ,�z � ��� I � �= T ' �,c�� a 44'•Q" 0 ion . i � ° � � '�,° I � I Z �Z I m �\ � � m ly • y �; o. � ` ;D _ �m� � '� I a?`� O � x ° � � t�L' '\ o� �r I � `;+_ _1 a- � � Cn� Zy, I � �� �`� ��� SETBACK TO PROPERTY LINE I � N �� , , --- I , � � m o � � �r�, �OO.: ,--� � � o � 0 • r . 4 '�m� � �� � �j �� , m�� � o ��f ° � � m� � �, � :��� � � �D � � _ II � 55'-5"SETBACK TO PROPERN LINE _ , Cn _ _ � � �� Q� °20'-o � . I -*. " ' �� Z � � •r.• . . ` � r ��, , :- _ „ , �_Q o o ��= �i; lo � n' �I`o' ' ���. � , •.'.� .1 12'-4" m � : �" � `�°- � I p� O • °•~ • • .��. �'� r.� . CLR c�'� ° I � II � � `° �Im i p� . ' ft� - o- I'�"'�� � ° ;, ; � z II ''�, - - i � ' m a i . I�4 �-•JI / � 8 c� - • � I. Im i'`d-- z . I � . m� L""�� � � '� -- , -��� . - I - ;�� i i I � o : �I ��l° —' � � � � � p m - _z4�-o"WIDE _ - �, � ��� �cnI m -.:- � o� AISLE I I . �� I,'� - i� �N , �; ���.1 I.:! �m� � . �'�,, ' �Z` � � � mw I � " i c7 � ' i_ ITl� 1 �; o ro � m � +/ 23' S. F . .I �;c��:-"'' - - � �/:� � GmDi =SE A T P TYLINE"��� � � . . ' � - �N � { _ i . :) � , ; — Q�1 � _�....�. :{ �.- -� �p I . � I -o w � �i - • • .. e- ''•� � I � f'f I`rII,�� I I— � .. �. ! � --F� `�. A O. L1_b "_ _A_"'�r __ � � � ,� q $�; � v �� m N Z O � m I �, � m- m� � � � � D4 0 � �I o �; O � r �,` � � D-- ° A I � Z...� m � C � � - D II � � �� � I � Z ° Z ml m � 0 o-� �- � Q � � � � � � I � NI �� I I �i I o—ol-^� �o�-�-o� � -e� � --e »�-7 i m � I i - - � -- i - a+ „ N :�i_� � _ � —�. -o'— a�--= -- — -1• - - - - • -_� - Q r . - .. • . � ri• • �'. � • . �E)22'-0"DRNEWAY 4 • ,.. •i' � ' ,r , • . ' � e, ' m • ' �.�.• . . � • �'T�... �. . . � 'I , +p •, . .. , •- -•-•---------•--' W � ------- --- ---- --------- -------- , .. , . . . . .. . . ,• . , .. . , . i� –T– –T– I.OT�2o�-o•w� �- -, _...— --•...__.. � I I � � � � ORCHARD AVE � � L----- -----�--- ----- �----- ---J L----------J � � � _ _ ^ + O t0 Oo V Of (n A fJ N � O t0 OD �1 OI N A W N� � � Y/ m � O � � � I J � mmzmm'mmmmmmmmmmmm �mmm � �� � " = 3 � � mu, � � � � =�n�b' � = v, � � gzc�c� m 5 � .� i � O � -I -111D1 -10 � -i .D-� n3 D Z � � � i n � c � mzcccc <cc m� � � � � m� � � ' f T� cmmaommmmzmm � mm m �m �' m m m � m m � m � � ySi �c� m� OSi � � � O � � �v c � � v � � �p�O � { Z � � m � c� ci � � -Ni �� �� o� m� m � m �m � � � m � z o�� � � z m m � � O � � �� om mm �� � a�i.�i Zmp �m = o � D D � z < m m s� (p m� � m z z o S z pm z� � zo � C m a'm m D � � � m� r . p � 1 m m m Z p m � � � � m i v m m m " '� � � � � � � � "� m z z m D c '� o � � _ � � m m bi p m r D m Z � Z m � � D � r m �m SHEET �� �vlend�ocino 1Nool& ,�i6er �nc. � L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 676 South Orchard Ave, �{la.�l, CA � � - N O _ � .� � �� ,. � c0 � m � - , � o � � ,: , � '� �}� o � � A�;� N � ��' �R. � ��, A �.: �1. A �0 .•r.- � ' ::;_ � �y, :i � "� �1 o � - � ti i �..•i: • - � •� � � s'�` . . � -i .� ` � y � r�` . � � __ �-f � � ,;;� � � , eo _ � � � s n m a a c n '� i r� ��''! . '.` � _ '},f m - I p. 5.�7. � . �- �•'�) = ' StiiL�� �y� 1 �� ,�� •; a v ����' ,1��'j � , J,I� i.. � ��'. •: ~� • , �I �!�:t;�. . `i ,I a , � �^ .��;��'� ,r' ' + �' �F� I ��-.', - i - :t^ i _ 4' __ s 3 c i � ' -..- •-e �.��iii�� I� �' �' •�����♦ ' S 3 � �i�. .i��������' i �i��y� i����iii• a ����•�.•.�i i���••���i•�• " r� . -.-���.��=:�r---�•---:-�;-�� ��.c: . a - • �,... .�.•.��.��.�•.��..����. ° - _- � - .. L,'� `i •'�'i����'i'ii.►ii��..'�:ii�.'• y .�.' , f�Y �t' . .. . . �>._..,.: _, "r, •�����'�����•�'�•i��••�� � �..�1 (p . 7. �����.��i�i.������.i♦:►�i'��. p O'� .. =';jrF- _. . �..-.-,� _.�.-. !O,'; . 2�.'.� •:.i����!i�i.i��••.��•�_ O.. - - .. :.. - _ . -t•-���-•.r. . � ��. C. . t�,r .a �♦ ���������:��.i�i�cp�.►�� •1.' . .i(�. : , . ♦�• •����i���'��+w���ri��� ��_.�. : �.fp . '�4 •����♦ '+��_►�:��.��ii�w�►'� m.. •,� . ♦��������• C . ' . ' � ♦��; ��;�. �, ^:'': . ......�....�,...�...�.... g� _- .`IG�,�y• .- •����������N����������• i' r�.� W.�:_ •����������������������• � � � �;• . . . ♦���������������������� 'C.� ".Z.�iQnj� ��. 1��. +' ♦���������������������♦ . - ,� N. � �.�i -�?en;. •���������������������♦ ti'A,.: �,�1�' _ -- �';.� l � •� ����������������������♦ ' . .�r . 1� • 1�.. •���������������������• �c' i _ �k. ;�- , . �.� Ci � [� .�� : •�����������������������• � � �Y: ♦����������������������♦ p.��i �s - ii�* ���� . . � t� • i ]�•..,• ......����.;:...�,�.. •- c4a p=: :�,,.� ,� . -1:. '�ti�'' . ` •����������i���; • � P ?.�p (� � � O'�.. ; } � � -���• �L ♦��������• ♦�� �, • � . ' . a,� �I IX•,O' �p.ti�j v ,.�.• •• �: _ ;��,t, �4,� � !�i � � O��i ._ . � � }-. {� � :S�'•'�'iC. � 'fDi �n• . .�•� �', hl:. '.- . . I i ..� _ , . . ..y � ; �.. �'�� �. -.L fD !�r . � ' . ,-a� +" .. - t �' ��� N - `!' m.'' ,� �� ," ''r�•. �,�y. _ '� D � r�L;1.. fc�i�'�.�', t C , �F�� . . �:.��I � '� cn - F,ipl � ,..ic'S �.. � '_���sa =�'� ��;�� - �a-�+ '�� . ,s,,;;. �a.s ' ,, _ �y . . � Q� i�L-�n '1 ' �,fp"�: fi��3 _ - - y� } . i•-': T t i �� �"l . • - ... . � �..�.'.�, .�'�'�i�u.1`• ��. ' � �nr ��' • -. ��� •,�-`�� _r� ��` . - - . ' 's:^-�' -.�3�' . � : y.•�- . ;t, ; .,;.,�' ., :i� s' -•� .� . �.; ,`.•: .:�^�_'� ' �� �'; '' f 1 _' �. =_I, ; :.��,." ±?ti"�rA` � �� i,.v" �:* ':��5�v*�'J' �;,i-°. - a — - — . ',. � . �r' -..� � ' 'G�`s. : � r.; .� ��. - : � "r� �; '• � C i! 7� N" a' i+J t f��' ,ti � � � �_ �a s '�ri %. 1 I � � � r } � ,� ��.i, ,r+�r � ' p ` �n � c� C v D m a ' p � � � � � � K , �.�, �� � ;,•,:. N Q O � � N : Q. � �� �6 �' � (p � � O � `'�^ �o,. `,�f�+• (D � � '� -+. � Yy. �n ��ak v vv�i � �' � r O � � ti �� �� '��. C � C � L � _ .s. . � ��,, (p � i � 1 ,'�y ?� � Q (� � �'� �� � ''�+° •r9� ' -+ vi 3 l ' �r`_ f:.0 �i • fR� +�.�•.�� � �i'� n � i'�� ..;`lt `�' �,�... •-. . ,i . (D n � N/�z �� �,� ' ,�.� �a�} ,. .;�. m , � �'�`�` :'��' . ��.__�. � � � � �� � PRC COMMENTS DATE : October 17, 2014 USE PERMIT # : 37 OWNERIAPPLICANT : Matthew Gilbert PROPERTY ADDRESS : 676 S . Orchard Ave. FROM : David Willoughby (Building Officia Building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits will be required for the proposed conversion of the existing garage and covered porch area into a worsted wool mill. 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. • The building site will need to be made accessible including a path of travel from the public way to the food truck and mill building, parking, bathroom and access within the mill building. , • Details for the sound rated walls in the mill building will need to be a part of the building permit plan submittal package. • A fire wall with a parapet is required between the proposed wool mill building and the single family home. • The plans will need to be designed by a licensed Architect or Engineer. When you submit the documents please include 3 sets of plans, 2 sets of structural calculations, 2 sets of truss calculations, 2 sets of energy calculations . � � -� � � � � . ._ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , ,. �. r���. ��� . - , -- .. �� � . . . . t � 1 . $ A +���.ro MR� ♦ x 1 � l P ` � o- A � . w w _ _ . .- Kim Jordan .. _ . � .__ _ . ..:: _ . , ,� _ �_ �r _ ...._ . _, _ _ . .. . , _. � . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. __ . . _ _ . . . . _. _ __ . . . .. �. . . -�: From : Jimmy Lozano Sent: Thursday, October 02 , 2014 1 :57 PM To : Kim Jordan Subject: Project Review: Use Permit @ 676 South Orchard Ave (MUNIS 37 - Matthew Gilbert) Follow Up Flag : Follow up Flag Status : Flagged Hi Kim; Regarding Project Review (MLTNIS 37) for Matthew Gilbert — Use Pernut for Mixed Use Project Wool Mill, Food Truck and Single Family Residence. I have listed the City of tJkiah Electric Department' s comments, clarifications and requirements for Matthew Gilbert's project at 676 South Orchard Avenue. Comments, Clarifications and Requirements from COiJED: 1 . Applicant/Owner - Will need to verify size of service panel (i.e. 200A, 400A) for the proposed Wool Mill Building. a. Will also require a service panel with Test-Bv-Pass facilities. Applicant was sent copies of the COUED metering requirements for residential and commercial applications as a reference. 2 . ApplicandOwner — Will need to verify voltage requirements (i.e. 240/120V, 208Y/120V or 480Y/277v) for secondary service feeding the proposed Wool Mill Building. a. Voltage requirements will need to be verified for the new service panel, whether or not the applicant requires 1 -phase or 3-phase power. 3 . ApplicandOwner — Will need to determine estimated power demand load/kVA and load calculation information for the proposed service paneUproject. a. Connected kVA and Load calculations — will help facilitate the size and/or number of transformer(s) to be used on the project. 4. ApplicandOwner - Will need to determine whether or not to have an overhead service or underground service to the new service paneL a. Should the applicant decide to have their service undergrounded, they will be responsible for purchasing of conduit, trenching and installation (per City of iTkiah specifications). b. Should the applicant decide to underground, a utility easement for any secondary electrical equipment and conduits extended into the properly (i.e. service panels). Easements must be officially recorded and a copy submitted to the City of Ukiah. c. Should the applicant decide to go with an overhead service, this will necessitate that the new service be at a minimum height of 16 ' over the driveway/parking lot. The height of the service weather head entrance will ultimately be dependent on several factors, height of new roofline and/or building code requirements. This option only takes into consideration if the new overhead service is run from the COUED utility pole at the NE end of the property. 5 . COLTED — Currently does not have 3 -phase power at the current address for the proposed project at 676 South Orchard Avenue. a. 3-phase power could be brought into the proposed location, but the applicant would be responsible for the additional cost to build a transformer bank (i.e. two or three overhead transformers) mounted on an existing utility pole at the NE end of the property. b. There is one ( 1 ) existing 1 -phase transformer on a COUED utility pole at the SE end of the property, which currently serves ten ( 10) customers and may need to be upgraded in order to serve the new projected load requirements. Should the applicant request 1 -phase power instead of 3-phase power it would most likely be upgraded to a larger transformer in arder to serve the existing ten ( 10) customers and the applicant's proposed Wool Mill Building. As an example; the existing transformer is a 1 -phase SOkVA 240/120V configuration and the new transformer may be upgraded to a 1 -phase 75kVA 240/120V or a 1 -phase 100kVA transformer configuration. The size will largely depend on the loading information provided by the applicant. i _ . � : c ; The applica��f asked to-possibly run the new secondary serviu� :vvire from the exis�i� SE enfi utility _ - � __ _ �r� � . : � . „, . . , .. Y .� . . . � . � . , . . � � . S . � � ,� � �e .. . ' i' � . '. ) .�..eN : f�'GR�$I � ._ , . . . ' ' � ' '' �pole, in ord�r to riiinimize the visu�r impact that an over�iead seivice w�re from tlie NE u�'ility pole " ' ' ` �.�: ..�. _ , might present. This may not be achieved do to the homes roofline height and where the proposed Wool Mill Building site is located on the applicanYs lot. The new service would have to traverse over the existing homes roofline by a minimum of 8 ' , in order to maintain G.O. 95 Standards and any applicable building code standards as well. 6. COUED - The service panel must be in accord with current EUSERC standards. The contractor/develoqer shall submit service equipment specification sheets with appropriate EUSERC references for Citv aquroval prior to uurchase and installation. Contact Steve Beaman, Metering Services Technician, City of iJkiah, (707) 467-5779 regarding the panel requirements. Mr. Beaman will be your contact for any metering/panel related issues. 7. COUED — Will install all secondary conductors from transformer/utility pole to service paneUs and ternunate as necessary. Note: Any fees associated with the addition or replacement of any existing or new 12kv electrical facilities (transformers, vaults, junction pedestals/boxes, primary and secondary conductors) extended to the proposed building site expansion would be the responsibility of the applicant/owner (Matthew Gilbert) . Aside from the above comments and requirements, I look forward to seeing the next set of drawings for the proposed site. Any questions please let me know. Jimmy Jim Lozano Electrical Estimator/Planner City of Ukiah 1320 Airport Road Ukiah, Ca. 95482 PH: 707-467-5774 � FX: 707-467-2811 j lozano(a�,cityofukiah.com 2 ': I ._ .. � . � (> � � Mendocino County Health & Human Services Agency . .7feaCthy �eopCe, .7feaCt(zy Communities Stacey Cryer, Director �e� ty Public Health ��ry �y . Division of Environmental Health Ukiah Office: 860 N Bush St, Ukiah CA 95482 Phone: 707-234-6625 Fort Bragg Office: 120 W Fir St, Fort Bragg CA 95437 Phone: 707-961 -2714 MEMORANDUM TO : Kim Jordan, Principal Planner, City of Ukiah October 10, 2014 SUBJECT : File # Munis 37 SITUS : 676 South Orchard Ave. , Ukiah CA 95482 (APN # 002-320-53 ) Comments : Per the project description, the "food truck" will be located permanently at the site. Therefore only a permanent food facility could be approved to operate at this site. A permanent food facility will have to have permanent connections to utilities (water, sewer, electrical and gas) and be installed on a permanent foundation. Complete food facility plans including manufacturers ' material and equipment technical specification sheets, a proposed food menu and a major plan review fee for a permanent food facility will be required to be submitted to the Mendocino County Envirorunental Health Division for review and approval. Thank You, � � RECEIVED Brian Hoy OCT 2 0 2014 Consumer Protection Program Manager Mendocino County Environmental Health Division CYTY OF UKIAFI 860 N Bush St, gUILDINGI PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ukiah Ca 95482 707-234-6625 � cc file ': I ._ .. � . � (> � � Mendocino County Health & Human Services Agency . .7feaCthy �eopCe, .7feaCt(zy Communities Stacey Cryer, Director �e� ty Public Health ��ry �y . Division of Environmental Health Ukiah Office: 860 N Bush St, Ukiah CA 95482 Phone: 707-234-6625 Fort Bragg Office: 120 W Fir St, Fort Bragg CA 95437 Phone: 707-961 -2714 MEMORANDUM TO : Kim Jordan, Principal Planner, City of Ukiah October 10, 2014 SUBJECT : File # Munis 37 SITUS : 676 South Orchard Ave. , Ukiah CA 95482 (APN # 002-320-53 ) Comments : Per the project description, the "food truck" will be located permanently at the site. Therefore only a permanent food facility could be approved to operate at this site. A permanent food facility will have to have permanent connections to utilities (water, sewer, electrical and gas) and be installed on a permanent foundation. Complete food facility plans including manufacturers ' material and equipment technical specification sheets, a proposed food menu and a major plan review fee for a permanent food facility will be required to be submitted to the Mendocino County Envirorunental Health Division for review and approval. Thank You, � � RECEIVED Brian Hoy OCT 2 0 2014 Consumer Protection Program Manager Mendocino County Environmental Health Division CYTY OF UKIAFI 860 N Bush St, gUILDINGI PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ukiah Ca 95482 707-234-6625 � cc file ,�'`����� �'',W , '� �.[A_4t.. iic . aa� llkic�h Police D�pcartm�nt Safety, P'rofessra�tic�lism, Cc�rnmunita:Sentice Chris Dewey . Chief af Police October 21,2014 � Nlattliew Giltsert � 676 S.Orchard Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 Re: Condition of property located at 676 S.Orchard Avenue(APN 002-3?A-53-00 �, Subject: Courtesy Notice of Unlawful Cmitiitions Constituting a Nuisance Snbject to Abatement Mr.Gilbert and any other occnpant ar tenant ol'676 S.Orchard Avenue(APN 002-320-53-UO): ' This is a notice to advise you that the rea�l property described above�has many public nuisanee violations that widd subjeet you and anyone else owning,livin�+or occapying this location Yo prosecutio�for any number of City and State Code Violations.Addition�l�y;the City may[ake action�to abate any code violattons rr�hich could affect yoiir ownership and tenancy � of the propeety.These actions could be accomplished by£ormfll notice of abatemenY,court acGon or receivership all oF iahich ! could significantly impact any�nan�iaT interest you or anyone else has in the property mnd yonr ability to keep your ownership or tenaney in the property. The Ukiah I'olice I)epartmenY has observed unsight�y and potentially dangerous conditions being n�aintained at the described property,inetnding but not limited to the storage of inoperetive vehiclec and parts thereof,a travel trailer connected to utilities,general stoiage of debris visible to�the public and an nnper•mitted storflge container.A fnll n�spection of the property has ooY been condi�eted to determine if there are other violations present,however it is your re�sponsibility to identify and � cmrect anY public nuieances as defined by the Ukiah City Code,whether knuwn to us or not � Attaciled is a copy of the Ukiah City Code that ciefines wl�at cmistitutes u public nnisrynce�flnd the formal abutement pirocesses for such.Many of the cm�ditions on yonr piropert,y are in jeopardy of being formally declared a pnblic nuisance and cmdd be subject to formal Notice of Abaeement wl�ich coul�l idtimattely Iead ro the city abatin�all of these wnditions at yom•expense and Potentially pntting the title to the property in jeopardy. �� Let this letYer serve�s a FIRST ANU ONLY courtesy notice to you. You have imtil Novembcr 3,2014 to submit a ! wmprehensive WRITTEN�PLAN to me t6at cletails the ACTIONS and TIM�LIN�you will take to voluntarily correct all '� public ni�isance violations that exist on this property as de�ned by the attacbed ordinance.IF you fail to provide tl�e written �, plan by the date indicated we will assnme that yoa do not intend to voluntarily correct H�e conditions and we�ruiy take the '� ��ecessary action under our ordinances to cai�se abatement ' By: �1 , , , f���,�� Brian 4�'ebb,Commnnity Services Oflicer Ukiah Police De��arhnent, Codc G��forcement ror: Captain Trent T�ylor Police Sercices Commander ' City of Ukial�Code Compliance Manager ' 300 Seminary Avenue ( Ukiah, California 95482 Telephpne: 463-6262 � Fax: (707) 462-6068 � www.cityofukiah.com � ORDINANCE NO. 1133 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 12, ENTITLED: "ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES," TO DIVISION 3 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE. SECTION ONE. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains that a new Chapter 12, entitled "Abatement of Public Nuisances" is hereby added to Division 3 of the Ukiah City Code to read as follows. DIVISION 3 BUILDING CHAPTER 12 ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES Sections 3450 Purpose. 3451 Definitions. , 3452 Declaration of nuisances. � 3453 Summary Abatement. 3454 Method of giving notice. 3455 Determination of nuisance. 3456 Appeal. 3457 Time limit for compliance. 3458 Abatement by City. 3459 Report of abatement costs. 3460 Recovery of attorneys' fees and report of attorneys' fees. 3461 Treble damages. 3462 Protest of abatement costs. 3463 Council action. 3464 Imposition of special assessment lien and notice. 3465 Recording of nuisance abatement lien. 3466 Gollection of costs and attorney's fees prior to hearing. 3467 Alternative remedies. 3450: PURPOSE. It is hereby declared to be in the public interest to promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Ukiah by providing procedures for the abatement of nuisances as declared by the City Council of the City of Ukiah, which abatement procedures shall be in addition to all other proceedings authorized by this Code or otherwise by law. 1 � 3451 : DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this Chapter the following words and phrases shall have the � � meanings: � "Abandoned vehicle" means an unlicensed or physically inoperable vehicle. "AbatemenY' means the demolition, removal, repair, maintenance, construction, ' reconstruction, replacement, or reconditioning of structures, appliances or equipment; or the removal, transportation, disposal and treatment of waste and abandoned materials i and equipment capable of harboring, breeding, or attracting rodents or insects or producing odors or blight. i "Agricultural groves" means any grove of ten or more trees on a parcel or lot � "Attractive nuisance" means any condition, instrumentality, or machine which is unsafe ! and unprotected and thereby dangerous to young children by reason of their inability to appreciate the peril which exists, and which may reasonably be expected to attract young children to the premises and risk injury by playing with, in, or on it. Attractive nuisances may include, but shall not be limited to: � 1 . Abandoned and/or broken equipment; 2. Swimming pools being used as fish ponds or other uses contrary to permitted swimming or other pool uses, subject to state or local regulations requiring, without limitation, that drains be visible from the water's surface and that the water be filtered; � ; 3. Hazardous andlor unmaintained pools, ponds, culverts, excavations; and ' , 4. Neglected machinery. ! "Building" means any structure including , but not limited to, any house, garage, duplex, apartment, condominium, stock cooperative, mobile home, or other residential structure or any portion thereof, which is designed, built, rented or leased to be occupied or ' otherwise is intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy, and any commercial, industrial, or other establishment, warehouse, kiosk, or other structures affixed to or upon real property, used for the purpose of conducting a business, storage or other activity. ' "Construction Waste " means any discarded material from the building or destruction of structures, road and bridges including concrete, rocks, asphalt, plasterboard, wood and other related material. "Code Compliance Manager" shall mean the person or persons designated by the City I� Council or the City Manager to enforce the provisions of this Chapter. ' "Excavation" means any wells, shafts, basements, cesspools, septic tanks, fish ponds, and other like or similar conditions more than six inches in diameter and three feet in depth. I "Foul" means very offensive to the senses. ) � 2 � "Garbage" means any putrescible animal, fish, fowl, food, fruit, or vegetable matter resulting from the cultivation, preparation, storage, handling, decay or consumption of the substance. "Hazardous materials and wasfe" means any chemical, compound, mixture, substance or article which is identified or listed by the United States Ehvironmental Protection Agency or appropriate agency of the State of California as a "hazardous waste" as defined in 40 C. F.R. §§ 261 . 1 through 261 .33, except that for purposes of this Chapter, hazardous waste also shall include household waste as defined in 40 C. F.R. § 261 .4(B)(1 ). ' "Hearing Officer" means the individual appointed by the City Manager of the City of Ukiah to hear the appeal on a determination of the existence of a nuisance. "Noxious" means hurtful or unwholesome. "Odor" means any smell, scent, or fragrance. "Owner" means any person, agent, firm or corporation having legal or equitable interest in the property, as disciosed by a current title search from any accredited title company, and shall include any person in possession of the property. "Premises" means any lot or parcel of land upon which a building is situated, including j any portion thereof improved or unimproved, and adjacent streets, sidewalks, parkways Iand parking areas. "Property" means any lot or parcel of land, inciuding any alley, sidewalk, parkway or unimproved public easement. "Refuse" means any putrescible and nonputrescible solid waste, except sewerage, whether combustible or noncombustible and includes garbage and rubbish. "Stagnant water" means water which is allowed to become stagnant contained in ditches, pools, excavations, holes, depressions, open cesspools, privy vaults, fountains, open cisterns, open tanks, shallow wells, barrels, troughs, urns, cans, tires, boxes, bottles, tubs, buckets, vessels, receptacles of any kind or other containers or devices , which may hold water. ' "Unmerchantable" means unsalable. "Vehicie" means any device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, ' or drawn upon a highway, or upon water, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power, or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. "Violator" means any responsible party, including the landowner, or lessee, tenant, or any other person who had possession or custody of the property. I "Waste matter" means any rubbish or construction waste . � 3 i "Weeds" means useless and troublesome plants generally accepted as having no value ' and frequently of uncontrolled growth. � ' 3452: DECLARATION OF NUISANCES. � I It is unlawFul and is hereby declared a nuisance for any person owning , leasing , � occupying or having charge or possession of any Property and any vehicles thereon, in ' the City to maintain the Property in such a manner that any of the foliowing conditions are present: ; A. The existence of any garbage, rubbish, refuse or waste matter upon the I premises contrary to the provisions of Article 2, Chapter 5, Division 4 of the Ukiah City � Code. I B. Any abandoned or discarded furniture, stove, refrigerator, freezer, sink, toilet, I cabinet, or other household fixture or equipment visible from a public right-of-way. I C. The existence of any abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative motor vehicle upon the premises contrary to the provisions of Chapter 9, Division 8 of the ' Ukiah City Code. I D. The outdoor storage of personal property on private property visible from the public right of way or adjacent property as follows: 1 . Any furniture, whether designed for indoor or outdoor use, which is in dilapidated condition and would be offensive to the senses of a person of l i ordinary sensitivity or a significant percentage of owners or residents in the I neighborhood; upholstered furniture where the original or replacement upholstery is torn, tattered, or soiled to the degree that it substantially detracts from the � aesthetic and property values of neighboring properties; mattresses and box ; springs; any other personal property not designed for outdoor use that is not in good working order or is stored or maintained in such a way that it substantially � detracts from the aesthetic and property values of neighboring properties; and 2. The existence of any junk, trash, refuse, construction waste or I household appliances including washers, dryers, water heaters, commercial/industrial machinery and/or equipment (whether operable or inoperable); and , 3. Any items or conditions, including those visible from neighboring properties, which provide a harborage for rats and/or other vermin, or create any other potential health hazard or nuisance. E. The outdoor storage of personal property on public property, including any public street, sidewalk, parking lot, public park, parkway, median or greenbelt or other public area, whether improved or unimproved, except with the consent and approval of ' the City. Any personal property stored, maintained, placed or abandoned in violation of ! this section may be removed and discarded at the discretion of the Public Works Director or his designee. � 4 � F. Any dangerous or substandard building, whether or not occupied, abandoned, boarded-up or partially destroyed, contrary to the provisions of the California Fire Code, California Building Code, California Housing Code, and/or California Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. G. The existence of loud or unusual noises, or foul or noxious odors which offend the peace and quiet enjoyment of persons of ordinary sensibilities and which interFeres with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property and affect the entire neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. H. The existence of hazardous substances and waste unlawfully released, ' discharged, or deposited upon any premises or onto any City property. � I . The existence of any stagnant water that poses a health risk cr water contained — in hazardous and/or unmaintained swimming or other pools on private property which obscure required visibility and proper filtering. J. Any attractive nuisance. K. Any other condition which is contrary to the public peace, health and safety. 3453: SUMMARY ABATEMENT. In cases where a public nuisance poses a serious and imminent threat to public health � or safety, such that during the time required to provide prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing, a significant risk of serious personal injury or substantial property damage exists, the Building Official or the Code Compliance Manager, or their designees, shall have the authority to immediately abate or call a contractor to abate such public nuisance. Any such abatement activity may be conducted without observance of any notice requirements described in this Chapter; provided, however, that in the absence of consent from the owner, the City shall obtain an inspection and/or abatement warrant' prior to entering upon the property and abating the nuisance. The City may recover all abatement costs as set forth in this Chapter. 3454: METHOD OF GIVING NOTICE. A. Any notice required by this Chapter may be served in any one of the following methods: (1 ) by personal service on the owner, occupant, or person in charge or control of the property; or (2) if the owner cannot be located in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the notice may be served by posting a copy thereof in a conspicuous place upon the property for a period of 10 days and publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City pursuant to Government Code Section 6062. ; or � (3) by mailing the notice by first class U. S. Mail to the address shown on the last available assessment roli, or as otherwise known; or ' See, e.g. , Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1822.50 et seq. 5 i (4) publication of a legal advertisement at least once a week for the � period of two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah . � i B. Notice deemed served as follows: (1 ) if served pursuant to A(1 ), upon receipt; (2) if served pursuant to A(2), at the expiration of the time required for ; posting and publication; , (3) if served pursuant to A(3), 48 hours after deposit in the U .S. Mail; or ; (4) if served pursuant to A(4), 24 hours after publication of the second F weekly notice. � 3455: DETERMINATION OF NUISANCE. ; A. The Code Enforcement Manager may determine that any premises within the ' City may constitute a public nuisance pursuant to any provisions of Section 3452 and , may initiate abatement proceedings pursuant to this Chapter. The Code Compliance Manager or the authorized representative thereof shall set forth such determination in a notice to abate which shall identify the premises and state the conditions which may constitute the nuisance and shall require that such conditions be corrected within such time periods set forth in the notice to abate. B. The notice to abate to the owner or person in control or charge of the property 1 shall include (1 ) the condition or conditions on the premises creating the nuisance; (2) a description of the actions required to abate the nuisance; (2) a reasonable time limit to , abate the nuisance; and (4) notice of the right to appeal, if filed within ten (10) calendar days of the date the notice is served. The notice shall direct the abatement of the nuisance and refer to this Chapter for particulars. ' C. Failure of the owner to accept or othenvise receive such notice shall not affect the validity of any proceeding pursuant to this Chapter, except as otherwise required by law. 3456: APPEAL. I A. Within ten days from the date of giving notice to abate, the violator may file a ' appeal of the determination of the nuisance with the Code Compliance Manager. Such appeal shall be in writing and shall identify the property subject to the Notice to Abate. The Code Compliance Manager shall then cause the matter to be set for hearing before a Hearing Officer appointed by the City to hear such matters. The Hearing Officer shall be qualified by training , education andlor experience to conduct the hearing and shall be impartial. Except in his or her capacity as a Hearing Officer, he or she shall have no personal or business relationship to the property owner or the City. B. Notice of the date of hearing shall be given in writing. The date of the hearing shall be no sooner than fifteen days from the date when notice of the hearing is given to the appellant and to the Code Compliance Manager. 6 I C. At the time fixed in the notice, the Hearing Officer shall receive evidence, ' I including the testimony of all competent persons desiring to testify respecting the condition constituting the nuisance. D. At the conclusion of the hearing , the Hearing Officer shall determine whether or not a nuisance exists, and if the Hearing Officer so concludes, he or she may declare the conditions existing to be a nuisance and direct the person owning the property upon which the nuisance exists to abate it within ten days after the date of posting on the premises a notice of the Hearing Officer's order. The Hearing Officer may grant � additional time to abate the nuisance, if in his or her opinion, good cause for additional time exists. ' E. The decision of the Hearing Officer on the determination of nuisance is final. Any appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision shall be governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094:6 as such section may be amended from time to time. 3457: TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLIANCE. The violator must abate the nuisance within the period of time set forth in the Notice to � Abate, or, in case of an appeal, within ten days from the finding of the Hearing Officer or such longer period as may be determined by the Hearing Officer. Unless an emergency situation exists, the violator shall be given at least ten days to abate the nuisance. ) 3458: ABATEMENT BY CITY. � A. If the nuisance is not abated by the violator within the time limits set forth above in Section 3457, the City, by its employees or any hired contractor, may cause the nuisance to be abated. 3459: REPORT OF ABATEMENT COSTS. A. The Code Compliance Manager shall thereafter cause a report of the action and an accurate account of the costs to be filed with the City Clerk of the City of Ukiah. B. The statement shall be accompanied by a notice to the owner that the cost of abatement may be protested as set forth in Section 3462. If the cost is not protested within ten calendar days after service, it shall be deemed final. � 3460: RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REPORT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES. In any action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding to abate a nuisance, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of attorneys' fees. The recovery of attorneys' fees by the prevailing party shall be limited to those indivitlual actions or proceedings in which the City elects, at the initiation of that individual action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attorneys' fees. In no action, administrative proceeding , or special proceeding shall an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of � reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding. The City Attorney's Office shall thereafter cause a report of the action and an accurate account of costs to be filed with the City Clerk of the City of Ukiah. 7 3461 : TREBLE DAMAGES. Upon entry of a second or subsequent civil or criminal judgment within a two-year period 1 � finding that an owner of property is responsible for a condition that may be abated in � accordance with this Chapter, except for conditions abated pursuant to Section 17980 of the Health and Safety Code, related to substandard buildings, the court may order the ' owner to pay treble the costs of the abatement. 3462: PROTEST OF ABATEMENT COSTS. I A. The property owner may protest the cost of abatement by filing a written request for a hearing on the abatement costs with the Code Compliance Manager, and the Code Compliance Manager shall cause a Hearing O�cer to be appointed to hear the protest. At the time fixed for the hearing on the statement of abatement costs, the � Hearing Officer shall consider the statement and protests or objections raised by the ; person liable to be assessed for the cost of the abatement. B. The Hearing Officer may revise, correct or modify the statement as the � Hearing Officer considers just and thereafter shall confirm the cost. ' C. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be in writing and shall be served by mail. The decision of the Hearing O�cer on the abatement costs shall be final. D. Any appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision shall be governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 or such section as it may be amended from time � to time. � 3463: COUNCIL ACTION. � A. If the property owner does not pay the cost of abating the nuisance within �' thirty calendar days after the cost becomes final or the hearing officer confirms the costs of abatement, the cost shall become a special assessment against the real property upon which the nuisance was abated. The assessment shall continue until it is paid, together with interest at the legal maximum rate computed from the date of confirmation of the statement until payment. The assessment may be coilected at the same time and in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes are coliected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided � for property taxes. B. The City Council shall adopt a resolution assessing such unpaid costs of abatement as liens upon the respective parcels of land as they are shown upon the last � available assessment roll. 3464: IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN AND NOTICE. I A. The City Clerk shall prepare and file with the County Auditor a certified copy of I the resolution of the City Council assessing the costs of abatement as a lien on the land, adopted pursuant to the preceding section. ; B. Notice of lien shall be mailed by certified mail to the property owner, if the I property owner's identity can be determined from the County Assessor's or Counry � 8 , � Recorder's records. The notice shall be given at the time of imposing the assessment and shall specify that the property may be sold aker three years by the Tax Collector for unpaid delinquent assessments. The Tax Coilector's power of sale shall not be affected by the failure of the property owner to receive notice. C. The County Auditor shall enter each assessment on the County tax roll upon the parcel of land. The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ad valorem real property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and procedure and sale in case of delinquency as is provided for such taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of municipal taxes shall be applicable to the special assessment. However, if any real property to which the cost ' of abatement relates has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of the taxes would become - delinquent, then the cost of abatement shall not result in a lien against the real property but instead shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection. The tax collector's power of sale shall not be affected by the failure of the property owner to receive notice. 3465: RECORDING OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN. As an additional remedy, the Code Compliance Manager may cause a nuisance abatement lien for costs related to abatements, other than dangerous building abatements, to be recorded with the Mendocino County Recorder's Office, in accordance with the procedures specified in Government Code Section 38773. 1 . As � required by Section 37773. 1 , prior to recording the lien, notice of the proposed lien shall be given to the property owner as provided in Section 3454(a)(1 ) or (2). 3466: COLLECTION OF COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES PRIOR TO HEARWG. The Finance Department of the City may accept payment of any amount due at any time prior to the filing of a certified copy of the City Council resolution assessing the abatement costs with the County Auditor, 3467: ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES. The procedures established in this Chapter shall be in addition to criminal, civil or other legal or equitable remedies established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this Code or applicable state codes and the use of this Chapter shall be at the sole discretion of the City. SECTION TWO 1 . COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment), 15061 (b)(3) (there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.) 2. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected 9 i thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact � ,� that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared i unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. I 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah, and shall become effective thirty ; (30) days after its adoption. Introduced by title only on January 18, 2012, by the foliowing roll call vote: � AYES: Councilmembers Thomas, Crane, Rodin, Baldwin , and Mayor Landis. ; NOES: None i ABSENT: None � ABSTAIN: None � Adopted on February 1 , 2012, by the following roll call vote: i AYES: Councilmembers Thomas, Crane, Rodin, Baldwin , and Mayor Landis NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ' ABSENT: None � � M" ary e Landis, Mayor l � ATTEST: � J Anne Currie, City Cierk I �, i i � 10 I � � � � ,� � �, ���r�� � , �� �� , � ��; } ��r�� � , � � � .. E° �u �, w �� , , � �US �'��rc ' r WI1� 4 S a ( p � h(/� . . ��� � ��hl � Intero�ice Memorandum � � �� � � � � � � � n n� � , � � � zz��.. t L, F � . .,.,5:xtf,k. rf � 1i 1'�� p 1k� � g'.y.y.. ' �.. . . . . , , . ,.n,r r .. �i, . . u., , , ,.. . . To: Kim Jordan , Supervising Planner From : Ben Kageyama , Senior Civil Engineer 2� Date : October 15 , 2014 Re : Project Review Committee Referral No . 37 , Use Permit for Mixed Use Project — Wool Mill , Food Truck , and Single Family Home , Located at 676 South Orchard Avenue The Department of Public Works has reviewed the above referenced project and offers the following comments for your consideration : 1 . The existing sanitary sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No . 1105 , and repaired or replaced if required . 2 . City of Ukiah sewer connection fees shall apply to the proposed bathroom addition and added plumbing fixtures , and shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance . The current sewer connection fee is charged at $419 . 65 per drainage fixture unit ( DFU ) , as defined in the 2013 California Plumbing Code . Please refer to Table 702 . 1 of #he California Plumbing Code for public DFU values for plumbing fixtures . 3 . If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the value of the existing structures , the construction , repair or upgrade of curb , gutter, and sidewalk , and addition of street trees , along the subject property street frontage , may be required , pursuant to Section 9181 of the Ukiah City Code . 4 . All driveway and parking areas , including parking for the proposed food truck , shall be paved with asphaltic concrete , concrete , or other alternative surfacing , subject to approval by the City Engineer. 5 . Wool processing or commercial food service activities shall not discharge fats , oils or grease into the sanitary sewer system unless a properly designed grease trap or interceptor is installed pursuant to City of Ukiah Ordinance No . 1118 , and a grease interceptor permit is issued by the , City of Ukiah . These comments are applicable to the building permit for the proposed improvements , with further review being performed at the time of building permit application . S :\Public WorksIPROJECTS\Permit Files\PLANNING\20141Fi1e #37 UP Wool Mill, Food Truck, Single Fam Home PRCmemo 10-15-14,doc 1 1 ITEM NO. 10A Community Development and Planning Department ��ty � u�ah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 planninq(c�cityofukiah.com (707)463-6203 2 3 DATE: May 13, 2015 4 5 TO: Planning Commission 6 7 FROM: Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner 8 9 SUBJECT: Workshop to request direction to implement Senate Bill No. 2 (SB2) 10 11 12 13 RECOMMENDATION 14 15 Provide direction to staff regarding methods to implement SB2 homeless shelter zoning. 16 17 18 INTRODUCTION 19 The City is in the process of updating its General Plan Housing Element, one of seven required elements of 20 the General Plan. Contents and adequacy of the Housing Element are defined by State Law in Government 21 Code Sections 65580-65589, and are evaluated by the California Department of Housing and Community 22 Development (HCD)for compliance. In Ukiah's case, HCD's first review of the draft Housing Element is 23 complete. HCD identified SB2 compliance as a requirement for certification of Ukiah's Housing Element. 24 This item is to provide staff with direction on how to accomplish SB2 compliance. Two options are described 25 below for the Commission's consideration. 26 27 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENTS 28 29 SB2 was effective January 1, 2008 and requires General Plan housing elements to include a more detailed 30 analysis of the needs for emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing.The law also requires 31 that emergency shelters be allowed without conditional use or other discretionary allows, but permits 32 jurisdictions to establish standards for specified aspects of emergency shelters.Transitional and supportive 33 housing are defined as residential uses and zoning regulations must specifically allow these uses.The City's 34 Housing Element will not be certified until the provisions of SB2 35 36 37 38 39 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Housing Element Implementation 1 1 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 2 3 To comply with the provisions of 5B 2, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is required. Staff is 4 suggesting two potential options that would bring the City into compliance with S62 and allow for 5 certification of the City's Housing Element. 6 7 OPTIONS FOR SB 2 COMPLIANCE: 8 Option 1 Amend Manufacturing DistrictAllowed Uses: 9 1. Amend at least one zoning designation to allow homeless shelters by right, meaning no Use Permit 10 required. Staff is suggesting the Manufacturing(M) zone be considered for this amendment.This would 11 allow homeless shelters to locate within Manufacturing Zoning without a Use Permit. 12 The current uses allowed in the Manufacturing Zoning Designation include: 13 "Wholesale and storage establishments; light and heavy industrial and manufacturing use which, in 14 connection with, has no appreciable offensive or objectionable noise, odor, dust or nuisance factor; such as 15 service stations, auto wrecking, blacksmith shops, building materials yards,feed and fuel yards,junk yards, 16 lumber yards, machine shops, planing mills, storage of goods and materials, and other uses which in the 17 opinion of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature". � Manufacturing � Zonings � � � � � � � � ur�sr ° ur�sr_ Y � � oa m -� -� RLMIkGE F�. WLMAGE!�. W15 LFl. V�S Lh1. . 571 NGS Ay�L 571 NGS AY�� CD R C6 R 18 19 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Housing Element Implementation 2 1 Option 2 Create a zoning overlay district: 2 2. The creation of a zoning overlay district that would allow by right the establishment of a homeless shelter 3 within its boundary. The overlay district would be a geographically defined area, likely containing several 4 zoning districts or a single parcel where a shelter could operate without a Use Permit.The overlay area must 5 contain sufficient vacant or redevelop-able land adequate to accommodate the construction of a homeless 6 shelter sufficient for Ukiah's needs. Staff is seeking direction on the appropriate location for the 7 establishment of an overlay district. 8 9 Ukiah Housing Element: 10 11 As required by SB 2, Ukiah's Housing Element, adopted in 2011, address needs for homeless shelters and 12 transitional and supportive housing Policies: H-2f and H-2n 13 14 H-2.f: The zoning code shall be amended to allow homeless facilities without the requirement for a Use 15 Permit in the M Manufacturing zoning designation. The zoning code shall require a Site Development 16 Permit and facility management plan, and reasonable site development standards for homeless facilities, 17 pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583. 18 19 H-2.n:Amend the zoning ordinance to be consistent with Senate Bill 2. All transitional and supportive 20 housing shall be considered a residential use and only those restrictions that apply to other residential uses 21 of the same type (single family residential, duplex, multi-family, etc.) shall be imposed. 22 23 CONCLUSION 24 Based on the Planning Commission direction, Staff will prepare a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to bring the 25 City in compliance with SB2. Following the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, staff will bring forward the Draft 26 Housing Element for consideration and a recommendation to the City Council for approval. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Housing Element Implementation 3