HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_05112016 - Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 May 11, 2016
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Christopher Watt
8 Laura Christensen
9 Mark Hilliker
10 Linda Sanders
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the March 23, 2016 meeting are included for
26 review and approval.
27
28 M/S Sanders/Christensen to approve March 23, 2016 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
29
30 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31
32 6. APPEAL PROCESS
33 Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting the final date to appeal is May
34 23, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
35
36 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE-Confirmed by Staff.
39
40 9. PUBLIC PRESENTATION
41
42 10. PUBLIC HEARING
43
44 10A. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance text for maximum fence height and parking lot shade
45 tree requirement. Consideration and possible action on recommendations for approval of the
46 proposed ordinance to the Ukiah City Council for revisions to the City Code amending the
47 maximum fence height from six feet to seven feet in all zoning districts; and amending the parking
48 lot tree shading requirement from 10 years to 15 years applicable in the R-2, R-3, C-N, C-1, C-2,
49 P-D and P-F zoning districts.
50
51 Assistant Planner Johnson:
52 • Gave a staff report as provided for on pages 1-3 of the staff report/proposed ordinance
53 (attachment 1) and PowerPoint presentation incorporated into the minutes herein as attachment
54 1.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 1
1 • Recommends Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council for approval of
2 amendment to Zoning Ordinance text to allow for maximum fence height of seven feet to be
3 consistent with the California Building Code and parking lot shade tree requirement to provide a
4 tree canopy coverage of 50% over all paved areas within 15 years of planting as opposed to
5 current standard of 10 years of planting.
6
7 Commissioner Sanders:
8 • Asked if people were seeking exemptions to the existing fence standard to be able to build a
9 seven-foot tall fence as the primary reason for prompting the zoning ordinance amendment or is
10 the intent to simply to streamline the process.
11 • Is it possible for a person to build a fence that is eight-foot in height? Is a building permit
12 necessary? Can a person seek an exemption to the fence height requirements?
13 • Would a person need justification to request a variance to increase fence height?
14 • Related to the ordinance amendment in attachment 1 of the staff report concerning the tree
15 shading requirements asked staff to cite the remainder of the ordinance text because she does
16 not have a copy of page 2 of the ordinance.
17
18 Commissioner Watt:
19 • Requested clarification whether a variance or use permit is necessary to increase fence height.
20 • A fence would have to be properly engineered for compliance with the California Building Code
21 such that project plans would be necessary. According to the fence ordinance a use permit would
22 be necessary to increase the fence height above seven feet.
23 • Preference would be a minor use permit for review by the Zoning Administrator as opposed to
24 review by the Planning Commission for a major use permit.
25
26 Commissioner Hilliker:
27 • Is there anything in the City code that relates to gates and placement and/or frequency of
28 placement.
29 • Gates are an important component for fences particularly for emergency access services.
30
31 Commissioner Christensen:
32 • It may be the reason for the zoning ordinance change is because people have trouble accurately
33 measuring fence height. Is of the opinion people constructing a fence should be able to measure
34 correctly.
35
36 Assistant Planner Johnson:
37 • The intent for the zoning code amendment for fence height is to be consistent with the California
38 Building Code standard in this regard.
39 • To deviate from the fence height standard would require approval of a variance. Currently six feet
40 is the maximum height for a fence. The zoning code amendment would allow for a seven-foot
41 maximum fence height.
42 • To clarify, a request for a variance must be substantiated with findings. To increase the fence
43 height to exceed the maximum would require a use permit.
44 • It is likely the Planning Director would have to make a determination concerning a request to
45 exceed the fence height requirement as to whether the use permit is a major/minor or that either
46 is necessary depending upon the scope of the proposed project.
47 • The zoning code does not specifically address gates for fences but the California Building Code
48 may have specific rules in this regard.
49 • The Ukiah Police and Fire Departments reviewed the zoning ordinance amendment for fence
50 height and had no comments.
51 • The tree shading ordinance reads, `Parking lots with 12 or more parking stall shall have a tree
52 placed between every 4 parking stalls within a continuous linear planting strip rather than
53 individual planting wells, unless clearly infeasible. Parking lot trees shall primarily be deciduous
54 species, and shall be designed to provide a tree canopy coverage of 50% over all paved areas
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 2
1 within 15 years of planting. Based upon the design of the parking lot, a reduced number of trees
2 may be approved through the discretionary review process.'
3
4 Commissioner Sanders:
5 • Requested clarification the discretionary review process would be the Zoning Administrator or
6 the Planning Commission?
7 • The 50% shade coverage for parking lots within 15 years is a City of Davis standard the City has
8 been applying to projects for some time now so the concept is not new. Is fine with this becoming
9 an 'actuaP City of Ukiah ordinance.
10
11 Assistant Planner Johnson:
12 • The type of discretionary review would depend upon the scope of the project. The Zoning
13 Administrator reviews minor projects and the Planning Commission reviews major projects.
14
15 Principal Planner Thompson:
16 • A use permit is required to increase fence height. City code states, `Fences exceeding six feet(6')
17 in height to enclose commercial or industrial uses, or tennis courts, swimming pools, or similar
18 areas, may be erected subject to the obtaining of a use permit therefor. (Ord. 793, §2, adopted
19 1982).'
20 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:16 p.m.
21
22 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:16 p.m.
23
24 M/S Watt/Hilliker to recommend City Council approve amendment to Zoning Ordinance text for
25 maximum fence height and parking lot shade tree requirement. Motion carried (5-0).
26
27 10B. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance text providing specific site planning, development
28 and/or operational standards for the following uses:
29 1. Community Gardens
30 2. Live Entertainment
31 3. Outdoor Dining
32 4. Sidewalk Cafes
33 5. Specialty Food and Beverage Sales with Tasting.
34
35 Principal Planner Thompson:
36 • Gave a staff report as provided for on pages 1-4 of the staff report/Initial Environmental Study and
37 Negative Declaration/proposed ordinance and PowerPoint presentation incorporated herein in the
38 minutes as attachment 2.
39
40 Commissioner Sanders:
41 • Referenced page 2 of the staff report and corresponding table regarding definitions for Outdoor
42 Dining/Sidewalk Cafes and sees Sidewalk Cafes and Outdoor Dining are different in that
43 Outdoor Dining includes parking stalls whereas Sidewalk Cafes are located on public sidewalks.
44
45 Principal Planner Thompson:
46 • The parking requirement concerning Outdoor Dining pertains to private property and noted the
47 removal of parking for the Outdoor Dining program only pertains to the Downtown area. A private
48 property owner cannot eliminate parking on the site to establish `Outdoor Dining.' Approval of a
49 use permit would be required if a private property owner wanted to establish `Outdoor Dining'
50 where parking stalls would have to be eliminated for the project.
51
52 Assistant Planner Johnson:
53 • Cited Super Taco and the Mutt Hut as examples of restaurants that were interested in
54 establishing `Outdoor Dining.'
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 3
1 Commissioner Sanders:
2 • 'Outdoor Dining' would be allowed in commercial areas only.
3 • Related to `Specialty Food and Beverage Sales with Tasting' asked if examples could be
4 provided. `Taste of the Downtown' is likely an example, but understands the proposed zoning
5 change pertains to outside of the Downtown Zoning Code area.
6 .
7 Principal Planner Thompson:
8 • Specialty Food and Beverage Sales would be tasting room established in a storefront or visible
9 location. It is not associated with a `special evenY type of establishment. Specialty Food and
10 Beverage Sales is essentially relates to tasting rooms seen all around the County.
11
12 Chair Whetzel:
13 • Cited a `Specialty Food and Beverage Sales' type of business located in Hopland that serves
14 finger foods where such foods can be 'fixed' on site.
15
16 Commissioner Sanders:
17 • Asked if `Specialty Food and Beverage Sales' establishments are located outside of a building
18 establishment and is not to function for outside consumption.
19 • Related to the Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration in the staff report:
20 Section 9173.2, Community Gardens asked about deer fencing/fencing material types
21 and design for open fencing.
22 Section 9173.4, Outdoor Dining expressed concern about the potential for restaurants to
23 'take over' public sidewalks and questions the legality in this regard particularly when
24 there are ADA requirements that pertain. Is pleased to see the Planning Department
25 provides for standards relative to outdoor dining for those establishments outside of the
26 Downtown area.
27 • Related to the issue of street trees and while the City has an ordinance that addresses street
28 trees in general would like to see an ordinance in the future pertinent to sidewalk cafes since
29 standards are presently being formulated for such establishes that would protect street trees from
30 being damaged or removed and allows for sufficient clearance so they can flourish and survive in
31 such locations.
32 • Related to code section 9173.3, Live Entertainment, lighting and security, would like to see
33 language in the code standards that address compliance with the International Dark Sky
34 Association standards such that all lighting is shielded and downcast to be consistent with the
35 conditions of approval concerning lighting with what the Planning Commission has required over
36 the years for projects.
37
38 Commissioner Watt:
39 • Finds the table on page 2 of the staff report helpful.
40 • Inquired if the definitions for the various uses, i.e., community gardens, live entertainment,
41 outdoor dining, sidewalk cafes, specialty food and beverage sales with tasting are from the DZC?
42 • Related to the community garden use, asked if the sale of garden produce by way of a market
43 stand is allowed on the site?
44 • How will the proposed ordinance amendments for the various uses affect those same project
45 uses that required use permit approval in the past?
46 • Related to page 3 of the Initial Environmental Study, section C, herbicides and pesticides,
47 concerning community gardens, asked if this standard is consistent with what is required for other
48 use permits for this use type. It would appear acceptable if the use of herbicides/pesticides is
49 necessary provided they be applied through organic means by carefully reading the instructions
50 and/or contacting the garden team leader or other qualified professionals/organizations for
51 assistance in the application thereof.
52 • Requested clarification community gardens standards do not apply to 'home gardens.'
53 Community gardens cannot be considered commercial establishments because nothing is being
54 sold.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 4
1 • Related to section G, Signs for the community garden the standard states, `signs are limited to
2 identification, informational and directional signs in conformance with the City of Ukiah sign
3 ordinance requirements,' and asked if this implies the ordinance has the permitting requirements
4 in it.
5 • Related to section J, Prohibitions, for the community garden, is of the opinion this language
6 appears to be nonsensical for a community garden use.
7 • Is of the opinion some of the prescriptive standards proposed in the proposed zoning
8 amendments may be `over-the-top' and/or excessive and not really relevant/vital.
9 • Related to code section 9173.5, sidewalk cafe, section F, Food and Beverages states,
10 `..........that the service of beer or wine or both solely for on-premises consumption by customers
11 within the areas of the sidewalk cafe may be authorized by the Planning Director and Police
12 Department........' This language suggests/assumes the cafe has an ABC license issued to
13 operate and asked if more language will be incorporated.
14
15 Chair Whetzel:
16 • Related to the proposed zoning code amendment for community gardens, live entertainment,
17 outdoor dining, sidewalk cafes and specialty food and beverage sales with tasting asked if there a
18 threshold regarding major/minor use permits should someone want to deviate from a particular
19 established standard, such as a proposed time change for live music relative to live
20 entertainment.
21
22 Principal Planner Thompson:
23 • The Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration is included for Commission
24 review/comment. The proposed ordinance regarding Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 15.6 standards
25 for specific land uses related to development and operating standards for community gardens,
26 live entertainment, outdoor dining, sidewalk cafes, and specialty food and beverage sales with
27 tasting are also included for discussion and possible revision/modification.
28 • Confirmed Specialty Food and Beverage Sales are not located outside of a building
29 establishment where outside of building consumption is not allowed. Page 3 of the staff report
30 provides for a definition of`Specialty Food and Beverage Sales with Tasting' as `A retail beverage
31 and/or food store characterized by its small size, a limited number of high quality specialty food
32 items and/or beverages typically including premium wine and beer. This use may also include
33 tastings of the products sold on site.'
34 • The intent of open fencing is likely so that people can see into the garden and elaborated on
35 material types/design for open fencing.
36 • Encroachment into the public right-of-way is being monitored for compliance by the City,
37 particularly with regard to obstructions on City sidewalks, such as signs, table, chairs, etc. The
38 rules for outdoor dining for the new zoning ordinance will be the same as those for outdoor dining
39 in the Downtown area requiring a five-foot clearance in the public-right-of way. On-site outdoor
40 dining may be allowed in specific zoning districts provided it is incidental to and part of the
41 operation of the restaurant located on the same parcel and must comply with standards and
42 requirements with regard to tables, chairs, signage and furniture possibly encroaching in the
43 public right-of-way as specifically addressed in section 1973.4 for outdoor dining on pages 5
44 through 7 of the Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration and pages 4 through 7 of the
45 proposed ordinance. Alternatively, the proposed new ordinance allows for `sidewalk cafes' in
46 certain zoning districts provided it is incidental to and part of the operation of a restaurant on the
47 same parcel and complies with standards and requirements as addressed on pages 7 through 10
48 of the Initial Environment Study/Negative Declaration and pages 7 through 11 of the proposed
49 ordinance. The propose of a sidewalk cafe is to allow such an operation in association with an
50 allowed restaurant use where the sidewalk cafe is clearly incidental to the restaurant use and will
51 not negatively impact the right-of-way. A sidewalk cafe requires the approval of an encroachment
52 permit from the City Department of Public Works and Planning/Community Development
53 departments. Again, a sidewalk cafe may be allowed provide it complies with City Code section
54 9173.4 and only when the sidewalk cafe is incidental to and part of the operation of an adjacent
55 restaurant.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 5
1 • Essentially the difference between sidewalk cafes and outdoor dining establishments is that
2 sidewalk cafes are typically located in the public right-of-way area and as such must comply with
3 city sidewalk encroachment standards/rules whereas outdoor dining establishments typically
4 occur on private property where they too must comply with City standards pertinent to
5 landscaping/parking requirements, potential obstructions within pedestrian walkways and other
6 applicable rules as provided for in new City code section 9173.4.
7 • Confirmed the aforementioned definitions of uses are from the DZC.
8 • To allow outdoor sales requires approval of a minor use permit. While a market stand for the sale
9 of produce is a good idea and may likely be a consideration in the future the intent of the
10 community garden zoning amendment is to establish proposed standards with regard to hours of
11 operation, design, fencing, structure types, parking requirements, noise parameters, etc.
12 • Related to those uses that formerly required use permit approval and are now being streamlined
13 with the proposed ordinance amendments no change would be made to the existing use permit
14 where the use would essentially continue as conditioned unless a modification to the use permit
15 is proposed at which time the Planning Commission would review the proposed modification and
16 make a determination.
17 • The language for the community garden pertinent to use of herbicides and pesticides is from the
18 DZC and states `all pest and weed control shall be accomplished though organic means using the
19 least toxic methods available.'
20 • The intent of the ordinance amendments for community gardens, live entertainment outdoor
21 dining, sidewalk cafes, specialty food and beverage sales with tasting is to establish common
22 sense development and operational standards for these uses so as to streamline the entitlement
23 process that if complied with would eliminate the need for a discretionary review approval
24 process. Staff is hopeful the standards will be recognized and followed without creating code
25 enforcement problems. The development and operational standards proposed in the zoning
26 ordinance amendments are currently contained in the DZC that was adopted in 2012 and would
27 provide consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the DZC.
28 • Confirmed the standards for development and operation of community garden standards do not
29 apply to an individual's garden at home.
30 • Related to signage for the community garden, confirmed this standard is driven by the City Sign
31 Ordinance requirements.
32 • Again, the development and operational standards for the various uses proposed for a zoning
33 ordinance amendment came from the DZC.
34 • Related to sidewalk cafe, section F, Food and Beverages, staff relies on `ABC' to issue liquor
35 licenses and monitor compliance.
36 • Related to the proposed zoning ordinance amendment the Planning Director would make a
37 determination should someone request an exception to a particular standard where a use permit
38 would likely be necessary for review by the Zoning Administrator for a minor use permit or
39 Planning Commission for a major use permit.
40
41 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:37 p.m.
42
43 Roley Tibbetts, Owner of The Office:
44 • Six years ago he went through the use permit process to allow for live entertainment at his bar
45 establishment.
46 • Is pleased the City is presently considering streamlining the use permit process by eliminating
47 discretionary review for such uses as community gardens, live entertainment, outdoor dining,
48 sidewalk cafes, and specialty food and beverages sales with tasting.
49 • Would like to see the Ukiah Planning Department be `more user friendly.' Approximately a year
50 ago he contacted the Planning Department to amend his use permit and was told he would need
51 to apply for another major use permit to add more days for live music. Asked if the proposed
52 zoning ordinance amendment would benefit persons with existing use permits. Unlike the current
53 zoning regulations live music would be allowed by right in the C-N, C-1 and C-2 zoning districts
54 provided the proposed standards are met. The Office is located in the C-1 zoning district.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 6
1 Don Delahoyd, Owner of The PUB:
2 • Not long ago he also went through the discretionary review process for approval of a use permit
3 to allow live music at The PUB.
4 • The Downtown Core zoning designation in the DZC district appears to have a different set of
5 rules than the rest of the zoning districts that can make it more difficult for establishments in other
6 zoning districts to do business. Requests review of the development and operational standards in
7 this regard. Is of the opinion the standards should be `fair/equal' in all zoning districts.
8 • It may be with the new standards for the proposed zoning ordinance amendment for live music
9 that the existing use permit standards for The PUB may no longer apply or that a use permit is
10 even necessary. Allowing live music two days a month is not really realistic and/or economically
11 feasible.
12 • Recalls in the past live music for his business was allowed without a use permit.
13
14 Kim Richards, Owner of The Office Bar:
15 • Asked about how amplified music should be looked at under the new standards.
16 • She paid a substantial amount of money for the existing use permit to allow for live entertainment
17 and would like a refund for some of those associated costs for having to go through the
18 discretionary review process when this process will be eliminated provided an applicant complies
19 with the standards.
20
21 Phil Baldwin, Ukiah Resident:
22 • His concern with allowing live music by right is the potential disturbance of the peace and the
23 precedence-setting nature and/or issue of unintended consequences of amplified music outdoors.
24
25 Commissioner Watt:
26 • If The PUB has an existing use permit that allows for live music two days a month until midnight
27 would the zoning ordinance for live entertainment allow The PUB to have live entertainment
28 during the week until 11:00 p.m. without any modification to the use permit. It appears the
29 existing use permit allows music for only two nights a month until midnight.
30 • It may be The PUB should review the existing use permit conditions for live entertainment with
31 planning staff when the new standards are adopted.
32
33 Principal Planner Thompson:
34 • Would like the opportunity to review the existing use permit for The Office to see if an amendment
35 to the existing permit is possible with the new standards. Noted the proposed zoning ordinance
36 amendment must first be approved by City Council with a recommendation by the Planning
37 Commission.
38 • Related to live entertainment many of the same standards for the existing zoning code
39 regulations are the same for the proposed amendment.
40 • Acknowledged while the standards for live music will change with the zoning ordinance
41 amendment those businesses with exiting use permits for live entertainment would have to be
42 evaluated/assessed according to the rules for the use permits when they were granted. Under the
43 new rules businesses wanting to have live entertainment will have to comply with the standards in
44 the zoning ordinance amendment or apply for a use permit.
45 • Under the new standards for live music, a business is allowed to have live music provided it
46 complies with the standards in the zoning ordinance and this includes compliance with the City's
47 Noise Ordinance. Amplified music must not violate the City of Ukiah noise ordinance.
48 • Related to Live Entertainment a Management Plan is also necessary for the zoning ordinance
49 amendment as was required for a use permit and must be reviewed and approved by the Ukiah
50 Police and Fire Departments and Planning Director before live entertainment is allowed by right.
51 (See new code section 9173.3 for live entertainment).
52 • Does not know if a refund is possible, but will review the conditions of the existing use permit.
53
54 Chair Whetzel:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 7
1 • The PUB and The Office can look at themselves as being the `pioneers for initiating change in the
2 process of allowing for live music.'
3
4 Phil Baldwin:
5 • Requested clarification outdoor music is not allowed by right under the new zoning ordinance for
6 live entertainment because the establishments that do have live music are located in residential
7 areas.
8 • Has concern about cafes being allowed to have outdoor music. What about the outdoor cafe on
9 Dora Street.
10
11 Principal Planner Thompson:
12 • Outdoor music is not allowed without approval of a use permit. Again, live music must comply
13 with the City's noise ordinance and the required management plan. Is of the opinion the new
14 zoning ordinance amendment for live entertainment has `stricter' standards in some ways than
15 what was required for a use permit to allow live entertainment in terms of time, hours of operation,
16 etc.
17 • Referred to new code section 9173.5, sidewalk cafe, section C5, live entertainment that states, `A
18 sidewalk cafe shall not be used for live entertainment. Live entertainment at sidewalk cafes may
19 be authorized in compliance with section 0224.6 of this code' and this same standard is in the
20 DZC for sidewalk cafes.
21 • Related to the outdoor cafe on Dora Street; A use permit would be required to allow outdoor
22 music for review by the Planning Commission.
23
24 Chair Whetzel:
25 • Requested clarification The Office has a use permit to allow for outdoor music.
26
27 Roley Tibbetts:
28 • Confirmed The Office has a use permit that allows for outdoor music.
29 • The rules for the Downtown area and other zoning districts differ and cited the parking and off-
30 street parking requirements as an example. For approval of a use permit to allow live music at
31 The PUB, The PUB had to provide for off-street parking to comply with the parking requirements.
32 • Again, the Downtown area does not have the same parking requirements as the other zoning
33 districts as it relates to off-street parking. This does not appear to be fair since The PUB had to
34 provide off-street parking and is located approximately only four blocks away from the Downtown
35 core.
36
37 Chair Whetzel:
38 • The PUB was required to provide the necessary parking based on the maximum number of
39 occupants the building can have as well as comply with the parking requirements for the C-1
40 zoning district.
41
42 Commissioner Sanders:
43 • Her recollection concerning the original intent of the DZC was to encourage development in the
44 Downtown urban core and have people move into the downtown and frequent the area by
45 walking and not using cars.
46
47 Chair Whetzel:
48 • Recalls one objective of the DZC was to limit the amount of parking and provide for a more
49 walkable environment.
50
51 Principal Planner Thompson:
52 • Many of the buildings in the Downtown core cover the entire lot that restricts available parking.
53
54 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:50 p.m.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 8
1 Commissioner Hilliker:
2 • Does the zoning ordinance amendment trigger the requirement for additional bicycle parking?
3
4 Principal Planner Thompson:
5 • Bicycle parking standards/requirements will remain the same for projects.
6
7 Commissioner Christensen:
8 • Has empathy for the owners of The PUB and The OFFICE and/or other establishments that had
9 to go through the use permit process and the associated costs incurred thereof, but is
10 encouraged that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment for certain uses is a step toward
11 making the process more user friendly.
12
13 Commissioner Sanders:
14 • While preservation and protection of street trees are addressed in other City documents such as
15 the Street Tree Ordinance would like to make certain street trees are preserved/protected for
16 sidewalk cafes that operate on public property.
17
18 There was a general discussion about the protection of street and how this can best be accomplished.
19 Would an encroachment permit protect street trees? How are street trees protected now?
20
21 Principal Planner Thompson:
22 • The City has rules regarding the protection of street trees. The Public Works
23 DepartmenUPlanning Department ensures the protection of street trees for all projects that would
24 include developments on private property such as outdoor dining.
25
26 Commissioner Hilliker:
27 • Wants to make certain street trees are protected as much as possible for projects that would
28 include outdoor dining/sidewalk cafe establishments and that the appropriate measures are in
29 place for the protection thereof.
30
31 Commissioner Watt:
32 • Realistically speaking how many street trees would exist in the locations of sidewalk cafes? The
33 trees are essentially located in designated planter areas in the public right-of-way. Is it the intent
34 that sidewalk cafes would encroach right upon the designated planter areas?
35 • It may be necessary to include language in the zoning ordinance amendment for sidewalk cafes
36 that says, `there shall be no damage to City property.' This would cover everything from
37 damaging/removing street trees to drilling holes in sidewalks. It may be all that is necessary is to
38 have a general statement about protection of City property?
39 • It may be all that is necessary to address the protection of street trees for sidewalk cafes is a
40 reference to the City Street Ordinance.
41
42 Chair Whetzel:
43 • A sidewalk cafe would have to comply with a clearance standard.
44
45 Principal Planner Thompson:
46 • It may be that language could be added to the zoning ordinance for sidewalk cafes that
47 addresses the treatment/protection of street trees.
48
49 There was further Commission/staff discussion regarding the zoning ordinance amendment for live
50 entertainment with regard to hours of operation, frequency of music that could be included in the
51 management plan or zoning ordinance document as to whether modification should be considered in this
52 regard.
53
54 Commission consensus:
55 • Is fine with the zoning ordinance language for community gardens (Section 9173.2).
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 9
1 • Is fine with possibly modifying the zoning ordinance language for Live Entertainment (Section
2 9173.3), (A) with regard to frequency of music to more appropriately correspond/comply with
3 other use permit holders for live entertainment.
4 • Is fine with the zoning ordinance language for outdoor dining (Section 9173.4).
5 • Is fine with modification to the zoning ordinance language for sidewalk cafe Section 9173.5) with
6 the addition of section 10 to address protection of street trees.
7 • Is fine with the zoning ordinance language for specialty food and beverage sales with tastings
8 (section 9173.6).
9
10 M/S Sanders/Watt to recommend City Council approve Planning Commission agenda item 10B,
11 amendment to Zoning Ordinance text providing specific site planning, development and/or operational
12 standards for community gardens, live entertainment, outdoor dining, sidewalk cafes, and specialty food
13 and beverage sales with tasting with modification/addition of language to address frequency of music for
14 live entertainment and protection of street trees for sidewalk cafes, as discussed above. Motion carried
15 (5-0).
16
17 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
18 • There is update on the status of the Costco project or the Palace Hotel.
19 • The Housing Element has not yet been adopted by the HCD and is working on this matter.
20 • Staff is working on a Public Art Policy that the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to
21 review.
22 • POSCC is working on establishing creek setback standards.
23
24 Commissioner Sanders:
25 • Would like staff to give the Wagenseller Neighborhood an idea when the next community park
26 planning meeting will be held.
27
28 Principal Planner Thompson:
29 • Is working on the Wagenseller park matter and will provide the proper noticing to the
30 neighborhood when a date and time is established for the next meeting.
31 Referred to page 2 of the Planning Commission minutes of March 23, 2016 regarding the
32 presentation concerning Public Workshop: Alternative Fuels Readiness Project Presented by
33 Juliette Bohn of JPB Consulting and asked about another regulation that can have a local impact
34 is the California Building Code where the 2016 update requires all new buildings install electrical
35 vehicle charging stations depending upon the number of parking spaces required for the
36 development and/or can accommodate. Is of the opinion this could affect future projects. Is the
37 2016 California Building Code reviewed by City Council? Parking is a sensitive issue in Ukiah.
38
39 Principal Planner Thompson:
40 • The California Building Code is a State regulation.
41 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
42 Commissioner Sanders:
43 • The City of Ukiah recently celebrated Arbor Day where a Proclamation was read at a City Council
44 meeting and gave an overall summary of the presentation.
45
46 Chair Whetzel:
47 • Asked about upcoming Planning Commission meetings.
48 • Airport Day is June 4 and invites everyone to attend.
49
50 Principal Planner Thompson will advise the Planning Commission of future meetings. There will likely
51 be no regular Commission meeting May 25, 2016.
52
53 13. ADJOURNMENT
54 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 10
1
2
3 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
4
5
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 2016
Page 11
N
O
� �
-
�
�D 0�
�
0
�
�
�
� - .
�
� �
. � �
�
n
�D
n
0
�
�
3
�
� �
� �
� �
�
! � �.
� �
�' o —�
N �
° 3.
� N �=� o
�
• • • • �
— rn � tn
� � � � �
� � � � n
� _, �
fD � � �
� fD �
n –•
� O r? �
r�-r � � �D 7�
� N � �
_. -•
r--r
� ��-r � fp
�. CD �, � C
� � � � z
�
� .0 � O
_ � � � o
� _. � cn
� �' — cn
fD � n�
� r+ �
� � �
�� � N
CD p0
� �
fD —
� �
N �
�
C7
O
�
fD
-�
�
� �
�
„ �.
� �
� �
� o
N �
O �
N
! � �
.._ �•
�
��k '.'k�v'� • � •
q h
t i.A!! .
1 in�� . ., ,�, {�.
s!� � ` .
�� ..�r, � •
;�'+ --_D` ; t �
: F .
,
� +
� ' ` � ►
� i� � � �
�L' �' . ��i a", •
�k�`*:.. ' . ' '�"` • .
I� , ' • .
- 'y� e S-. - � • • �
l �'��k.' •. " �
r•.�e
� ,
�
�
�
� ��;� � �
Y� : �-�i'� , ► ►
� . .'�'�F_ �
, •�t� � •
. �,_ �
` � f° �
. .,�+` � z
. —+
� _
� $;. � �{` _� !�
I ' �`•+� Flye . �i �M
.,_i •
�j ' ' . "� } '' �
r
+� . '� _^;�.
� � '� �{ . ��' ._?'1�` •�� ' '.. .l .
. �' � � . .- {'':�
Pe _. 1' ����r. ,r�r ii•,�
e1.3� .., •i. .�
r �� ` �
i �,�� ' � ''3.. ��
� �
r � �.�••�.
1 J . ' ' ' `�
:m �� " �• ' . � f, ' ' ',3
�ii p . .4Y �''^�j ..,��;J;,j}L'j�+t•
�in -- � •'^4• '- �� �ry �`i',(�S.jr��
u ' y ' `(�.. .��
a. �. ,�;'� t ` .
; ,.• .;i� = G. :��� " .
, ±t- .•:;���,`•�,. ,
. � ��' ��h.
� � �;� ' j•�
� '�'L, � � { '�,��Yw
� f • r• ..�
" r . f � � ��
- ' s
. . !� �. • +� ,,�{
? � '+ ��.—
.. "
. '
. ` �
: �'
� .
t� �
� v
�
D O
z �
• � o
� D �
�v �
� � �
X N
_' ,T.�
� �p
� �
� �?.
o �
� �
�
�
�
c�
�
H
m �
x z
v, O
� �
Z �
� m
� rn o
� � V
� � T
�,. � �• �
F-� (7
i', O
n, 3
o �
� _
� N.
�• o'
�
• • • • • .
• ' • � � • � �
• • ' �
• ' , . � �
� • � � � � � � '
� • � ' • ' • ' � ►
• , . � � •
� • •
� � •
' � • • �
� � 1
. � . • ' � � �
� , � . . �
� . , �
�
� • . � ' .
. � �
.
� � �
• � �
� � . �
• � "
, . .
' � � � .
.
• � ' 1
.
. .
.
� . , . �
� • � .
�•
.\�\`\
����\~�\ �- �\
��' \
\`��\
��� • :\��\�����
\ ����,
� �� ����..-\ � •
� ,�, _ ..,:�
� �� . � . .
` � :���,�`��- , \
� � ��, �.. _�
\� � \\`� •
�- �����
� �� �
� . ,\�.
�����. � -
���� �
\ - �� �.
\���- �� �`,t�.��,,
� �\• ;� �� \��
. �• ��� +;�\.
� �ti�' '�,����;•,. �`����
�.� *� - �. ��\ .�\,
��3�+ �� � �� \�� �
i���\ ���\.,� ..\ �^�
� ��- \
4`\\�`� \ \ \\ •
���,�.�\� �, \\�
\ ���� = \\\-'
t� , ; .� . �\�
�\\
. -� �\ �� ;�;�
,�� \ � �
�,��.. ��
� -� � �
.. �\ ��
- � .�•
� ' _ �
i � ��
.
• • �
�' � � � D
� � _ � = C
0
Q � � o �
� � � � �
� � o N. �
�- _ < �, �
Q � N �
fD � � O
� �' '� � D
� � � ��
�' ° �' �v �
— �D '� �D �
c�n � � �
cn r-�i. � �
� � � �.
� �. � �
� � O fD
� � � �
�, � �. �.
O � � �
� — 0�.1
n � � �
� O � �
0� N
� � rt
0 � � O
fD Q
fD �
�. � �
� � � X
� � �
N Q � �
fD �
� �
� fp
� � C�'D
� �
O �� �
fD
� � �
-� � CD
� N. � ��
� �
�
�-�- � �• �' �"
oa r+
.''�' o �-F
N 3 O
o �
� O1 �
; o.
�
• • • T
� O � /�r
� � c rn
� � CD� n
� � �
�
� � O
� � �
o � � �
� �
� �� °
� � o �
� �, �
� �. Q rn
� �
o °'� � z
�
o � �
� �
� � �
� � �
o r+
< �
� ��
0
� z
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
� �
�
��� .� ��
�
�--� n
!-� o
N �
O �.
1 � N,
0
�
N
O
� �
-
�
�D 0�
�
0
�
�
�
� — .
�
� �
� �
�
n
�D
�
� �
� n
� �
� � �
� �� �
�
�
� o �
N �
O � �
� �
� � N.
O�
�
• • • • �
T rn �n �
O � � � �
� � � C n
� � � �
_.
CD � � 7c
� � — G�
_.
r-�- � � r—'
S o, � a, �v
�D fD � �• �
S �+
� r�-+- �D '�
O v' �+ C
� �
�, � O z
� � o
� � � � �
o N �
� � � _
� �+ �
N � �
O �+ �
� � c�n
�� � �
� � �
C� �• �
O � �
� � �
� O �
�
�
O
O
�� �
i
• • • • • �
3 cn cn p r n 7v
; � � � � O
� � n fD �
� 0
; � �,' � p � � �
� o � �
� � � � � � rn
T � 0 � �' n
o �, � _, ,�
� c� � � G�
� � �• � �, c�n
� � � �
� � r�
x < � D
r� �' .
� �
, �, �
�� �
� � � rn
�
� �
�
� �
r�� 'y. rf �
���' - �
✓ vM �
:
��
Y
i.�,
4� �
c./� n
D �
. . . . . . . . . z �
� �' � z � � � = D o
� ar� o ° o D �
� � o v� � �
� � � u� o � �• �, � � �
C � °'� N' � ar� o � � �
� � �, .. -•
CD
fD � � �' �O �. �
� � fD �
� � � N �..1 J
� �. p � �
� � � � �
� � �D
�
�
cn
z
0
-�
�
0
<
��
^� o.
�
N
�.
�. N
� O
�
��
�4
' I
�
a
� � �
n�
�
� �
d � M
� �
N f') � �,�
� 3 '�_��' i
o �
� N.
�, �
o�
�
� �
. . . . . . D
CT! � � = D o G
n c� � � � o D rn
� n � � N �
ru o o� � 0
� � � � � � �
� � � � o � .. r.�..�
r+ �p r,: � �G
� � � CD '�. z
� � �
� � � � � �
�
� � o � �� I�TI
� �. � � �
� o � z -�
° � � � D
� � �
�
o � !� �
Q � � �' z
�p O n
< ' ��• N
r+
� rn
z
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
`.
0
� �
� �
� � �
� � � �
��
� � � �
�
N � �
p� � �.F �
O
7
� o
. . . . . . �
T � -n = ry 0 C
o �. � � � o D -�
� � � N � � �v
o � p p
� � � � � � �
o � �, 00 � O
� � Q � � � O
� N � �� �
� � �
(r� Oria� 0 — r+
�' —
< � � � �.
� C7
�
� fD z p
�
�
� z
�
� z
�
,
N z
�
z
0
�
�
0
<
N�
�•
�
N
�•
N
O
�
��
v �
o�
� �
� �
� �.
� �
N n
N o
N 3
0 3
� N.
�
o'
�
"'I V ,
• • • • • • • D
o � � � O � D p 0
� �� fD �• � �+ � D rn
�
� � � � � �• � 70
� � � � o � � �
� � .. �
o � � �, o o ,�
_�• u a�, Q � � � �
� � � �' 0�
T � cn, r..F � � �
c�'u r' °� o �� �' 7C
� � �, � a�a
� n
�
m CD z (�
.
� �
�
� �
� rn
�
�
N
z
0
�
�
0
<
�,'
o'
�
�
�'
N
O
�
��
0'0
-v
� � '1
�
� L 1J
� �� �.� .
1 �
� n �, ;�� 4
I-� O A1 r r ,p
� '� �� '�:
O � �"�Y� ���
N N• �
Ol �
O
7
• • • N �
O 2 c� � �
� � `z � �
o � n D n•
0 0 � � �
� �, � 0 �
a�i � ' '' �
� �p N T1
� � � �
�
� o � �
� � �
�
T
�
�
�
�
�
rf
_.
. �
'� �
Z
O
'D
�
O
G
v�'
O
�
�
��
N
O
�
��
OR�
�
w
� r
� �
� �.
� �
N n
I� O
N �
0 3
�' ' �:
rn �
o'
�
� • • • • ! ^
V �
� s � N � Q
�� ` � � � � �
— � � � �
� � � Q n �
C') � � � � �
e-+
� 0 � Q Q�
� � Q N �
�
�' � � � �
< —
CD � 0 � � �
O �+ � �
� �. � � � �
cn �
� � � �� � �
� � � � �
� �. �. fD O
C � � O �
. � �
�
� � � � �
c� — _ �,. �
� �. � � �
� � � � �
� � � � �
C � �. � �
� � � � �
�u � r� _
� N ar�' �� _
� � � � �
� �
� o o �
r-r � � fp
O �
O n
Q
N
�
�
�
�
O
�
r-r
-� �
� �
�
� _ �
� � rr
N o V1�
N �
O � 1..�-
� �.
Ql y�
O
7
• • • �
a�, � � I�1
� � <
� � CD� n
� � �
� � O
� � �
° � �
� � �
�
� "� °
� � � �
� � �� � rn
� �' �
o � z
�
o � o
� Q
� � �
� � �
o �
< �
�' o�
0
� z
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
� � ��
�� �
� �
� n
N o
r.� 3
0 3
r� �,• �-
rn �
o'
�