Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_06082016 - FinalMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2016 Page 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION 1 June 8, 2016 2 Minutes 3 4 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT 5 Mike Whetzel, Chair Christopher Watt 6 Laura Christensen 7 Mark Hilliker 8 Linda Sanders 9 10 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT 11 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner Listed below, Respectively 12 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner 13 Shannon Riley, Senior Management Analyst 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 May 11, 2016 meeting will be included for 25 review and approval at the next regular Planning Commission meeting. 26 27 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 28 29 6. APPEAL PROCESS 30 Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting the final date to appeal is 31 June, 20, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. 32 33 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION 34 35 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE – Confirmed by Staff. 36 37 9. PUBLIC HEARING 38 9A. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance text providing specific site planning, development 39 and/or operational standards for the following uses: 40 1. Community Gardens 41 2. Live Entertainment 42 3. Outdoor Dining 43 4. Sidewalk Cafes 44 5. Specialty Food and Beverage Sales and Tasting. 45 46 Principal Planner Thompson: 47  This agenda item is in follow-up to the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 2016 relative to 48 the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment. 49  The intent of the aforementioned amendment is to establish specific site planning, development 50 and operational standards for community gar dens, live entertainment, outdoor dining, sidewalk 51 cafes and specialty food and beverage sales and tasting. 52  After consideration from the Planning Commission/staff discussion at the May 11, 2016 meeting, 53 it appeared the prudent approach should be to modify City Code section 9173.3, Live 54 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2016 Page 2 Entertainment (A) to state, ‘Live entertainment shall end at 11:00 p.m. and limited to twice 1 weekly,’ to possibly be more compatible with other use permit holders for live entertainment 2 and/or to more appropriately address potential noise impacts to the neighborhood since some 3 restaurant/bar establishments exist in residential neighborhood districts. There are no other 4 changes to the requirements for live entertainment and/or to the requirements for the 5 management plan. 6  Based on Commission/staff discussion at the May 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting 7 regarding the protection of street trees for sidewalk cafes, staff added subsection 10 to City code 8 section 9173.5, Sidewalk Café, to read, ‘Any proposed seating in the v icinity of street trees shall 9 comply with the City’s Management Guidelines adopted December 1, 2010.’ 10  Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment s that requires a 11 recommendation from the Planning Commission for approval by City Council. 12 13 Commissioner Hilliker: 14  Requested clarification related to the fence height requirements and a recent change in the 15 zoning ordinance to increase the building height from six feet to seven feet in the residential 16 zoning district. 17  Referred to page 3 of the proposed Ordinance Amendment, City Code section 9173.2, 18 Community Gardens, item J, Prohibitions, that reads, ‘Smoking, drinking alcoholic beverages, 19 using illegal drugs, and gambling are prohibited. Weapons, pets and other animals (except 20 service animals) are also prohibited,’ asked if the City has a standard for service animals 21 concerning an identification program? Acknowledged the State has some standards, but they are 22 vague. People buy vests for their dogs and say they are a service dog and this is essentially 23 taking advantage of the situation. 24  Related to Live Entertainment, section B, Management Plan asked if there is a timeline for 25 submission of a Plan prior to an event? Is an establishment required to submit a management 26 plan one week or two weeks prior to an event for review purposes. 27  It may be the Police Department has a specific rule concerning a timeframe for submittal of a 28 management plan concerning review thereof. 29  Advised of a grammatical error on page 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, item B, Management Plan, 30 language that reads, ‘If the Management Plan is found acceptable by the Police and Fire 31 Departments, as well as the Director of Planning and Community Development, the Director shall 32 make corresponding findings and approve it in writing. 33  Referred to page 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, Code section 9173.4, Outdoor Dining, language that 34 reads, ‘On-site outdoor dining may be allowed in the C-N, C-1 and C-2 zoning districts provided it 35 is incidental to and part of the operation of a restaurant located on the same parcel, and it 36 complies with the standards and requirements listed below,’ and noted the Fire Department used 37 to barbeque at Ukiah Concerts in the Park events and this was not ‘incidental’ to any restaurant it 38 just happen to be where the setup occurred. Does this language need to be changed to reflect 39 this type of event/operation as it relates to outdoor dining? 40 41 Principal Planner Thompson: 42  The intent of the Zoning Ordinance amendment concerning an increase in fence height to a 43 seven-foot height is to be consistent with the California Building Code requirements in this regard. 44  Is not aware of a standard for service animals. 45  Is not sure if a management plan explicitly provides for an exact timeframe but a management 46 plan does have to be reviewed and approved by the City Police Department and Planning 47 Director prior to an event so an applicant has to coordinate this accordingly to be able to have a 48 planned live entertainment event 49  Staff initially asked for a specific timeframe concerning management plan submittals and review 50 as part of the Planning Commission approval for live entertainment projects to allow for sufficient 51 time to effectively review a plan but finds it to be a good idea the City Police Department reviews 52 and approves management plans for live entertainment 53  Barbeques and other like operations at concerts in the park would likely fall under the ‘Special 54 Events’ category where vendors are subject to the rules that regulate this type of operation. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Christensen: 1  Referred to City code section 9173.3, Live Entertainment, and asked about the advantage to 2 adding to section A, ‘Live entertainment shall end at 11:00 p.m. and limited to twice weekly,’ as it 3 relates to those business owners that paid the cost of going through the use permit process to 4 allow for live entertainment. 5 6 Principal Planner Thompson: 7  Does not know if the added language is necessarily an advantage or disadvantage to those 8 businesses that have an existing use permit for live entertainment per se but does pertain to 9 potential noise impacts to the neighborhood. It is really the only limitation that was not part of the 10 regulations for live entertainment. There was some concern if a business wanted to have live 11 music seven days a week that this could be a problem/potential impact to the neighborhood and 12 this is the reason for the limitation to twice weekly. After review of existing use permits approved 13 for live music found they contained frequency of music limitation rules. Adding the language 14 provided consistency with the rules that allow for live music by right provided there is compliance 15 with the zoning code regulations in Code section 9173.3 and with the rules for existing use 16 permits for live entertainment. If an establishment wants to exceed the ‘twice weekly’ rule, 17 approval of a use permit would be required. 18 19 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:12 p.m. 20 21 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:12 p.m. 22 23 M/S Sanders/Hilliker to recommend City Council adopt the Initial Environmental Study and Negative 24 Declaration for the City of Ukiah Zoning Ordinance amendments providing specific site planning, 25 development and/or operational standards for the following uses: Community Gardens, Live 26 Entertainment, Outdoor Dining, Sidewalk Cafes, and Specialty Food and Beverage Sales an d Tasting. 27 staff. Motion carried (4-0). 28 29 M/S Sanders/Christensen to recommend City Council approve Amendment to Zoning Ordinance text 30 providing specific site planning, development and/or operation standards for the following uses: 31 Community Gardens, Live Entertainment, Outdoor Dining, Sidewalk Cafes, and Specialty Food and 32 Beverage Sales and Tasting, as modified by staff and as discussed above. Motion carried (4-0). 33 34 9. 35 9B. Provide Direction/Input on the Proposed Public Art Policy. 36 37 Principal Planner Thompson gave a staff report and PowerPoint presentation: 38  Requests the Commission review the proposed Public Art Policy and provide 39 comments/suggestions. 40  This policy is similar to those found in other cities and provides for a procedure for artists seeking 41 to place artwork on public property in the City. 42  The process requires a recommendation from the DRB and approval by Planning Commission 43 prior to the placement of art on public property. 44  The DRB reviewed the draft Public Art Policy and provided minor comments that have been 45 incorporated into the draft document. 46  The intent is to establish criteria for review of the proposed artwork including criteria for location 47 and site selection. 48 49 Commissioner Sanders: 50  Referred to page 5 of the draft policy, VII. Indemnification, and inquired about the definition. 51  What is the minimum insurance cost for the artist? 52 53 Commissioner Hilliker: 54  Questions how to determine whether the artwork is suitable for the public. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2016 Page 4  The ‘location’ for the artwork would not likely be a problem. 1  Is of the opinion art is a matter of personal preference and difficult to define as to what is 2 acceptable/quality as opposed to art that is not. 3  The proposed public arts policy contains a lot of information and finds the document ‘far 4 reaching.’ While the document is a good start more time is necessary to look at whether or not 5 the document should become policy. 6 7 Commissioner Christensen: 8  Art is very subjective so to try and set rules/standards what a person can or cannot consider as 9 art is difficult. 10  While art should not be offensive this too is subjective. The question is how to make a ‘black and 11 white’ determination about art. Do we have to set forth policy that is essentially black and white? 12  Referred to the policy document and questioned the qualification that the artist must be a 13 professional. Why are we limiting artwork to only a professional? What is deemed as ‘professional 14 art?’ Every artist who becomes a professional starts out as an amateur. What about an amateur 15 artist who wants to install artwork that would be exceptional/incredible in our town. 16 17 Principal Planner Thompson: 18  The section concerning ‘Indemnification’ of the draft Public Arts Policy basically indemnifies the 19 City from liability related to placement of the artwork and is specifically addressed on page 5 of 20 the policy document. 21  The City requires a one million dollar liability, which is typical of anything in the public right -of-22 way. Has no knowledge what the actual cost is to the artist. 23  The DRB questioned the criteria related to ‘qualifications’ and noted the initial language reads, 24 ‘Artist shall be selected based on their qualifications as demonstrated by past work and the 25 appropriateness of their concepts to the particular project.’ The DRB recommended changing 26 ‘shall’ to ‘may.’ Also, concerning page 3 of the draft policy, section 2, Process for Review by 27 Appropriate Commission and Planning Commission, the DRB modified the language in this 28 section that formerly read, ‘The following criteria shall be used by the Appropriate Commissions 29 and Planning Commission when considering the selection of artwork for installation in public 30 places’ to read ‘The following factors may be used by the DRB and Planning Commission when 31 considering the selection of artwork for installation in public places.’ The aforementioned 32 language changes essentially ‘softens’ some of the issues/questions that concern the definition of 33 art/artists. Changing the language from ‘shall’ to ‘may’ with regard to qualifications does not 34 limit/restrict whether the artist is a professional or amateur. 35  Having a public art policy is a way for the City to have some checks and balances when it comes 36 to displaying public art and provides for some level of screening/filtering of applications. 37 38 Commissioner Christensen: 39  Requested clarification changing the aforementioned language using the term ‘may’ rather than 40 ‘shall’ would mean if a particular artwork was proposed for public disp lay it would come before the 41 DRB and Planning Commission for approval? 42  Referred to page 6 of the draft policy, section VIII. Temporary Art, item 3. Location related to 43 installations and has knowledge of an artist that goes by the name Christo that does ‘wh acky’ art 44 such ‘wrapping a bridge,’ etc., all of which could be considered temporary art. What if Christo 45 wanted to wrap the Mendocino County Courthouse? The point is as odd as this may be we would 46 not want to disallow this type of art before having the opportunity to look at the scope of the 47 project. 48  Referred to page 6 of the draft policy, Temporary Art, line 12 that states, ‘The City encourages 49 the development of context-sensitive temporary public art installations within the Downtown,’ and 50 asked what ‘context-sensitive temporary public art’ means. 51 52 Principal Planner Thompson: 53  The process is set up where the DRB will first review the project with a recommendation to the 54 Planning Commission. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2016 Page 5  Related to the matter of art that may be odd/whacky the DRB had an opinion that an art policy 1 should not be limiting as to the kind of artwork that can be publicly displayed because such art 2 could be very ‘cool’ and creative. 3  The draft policy provides for guidelines having strategies/standards that address how art for 4 public display should be considered unlike the zoning code regulations that are precise and easy 5 to quantify, such as building setback requirements. While the public art guidelines provide for 6 some criteria the DRB and Planning Commission have a lot of lat itude and discretion in their 7 review of artwork for public installation. 8  The intent of the guidelines is not to discourage and/or placate to a particular style of art. 9  Deferred discussion regarding definition of ‘context-sensitive temporary public art’ to the public 10 hearing. 11 12 Chair Whetzel: 13  On behalf of Commissioner Watts asked if any examples of approved public art displayed in 14 other communities would be considered acceptable art in Ukiah. 15 16 Assistant Planner Johnson: 17  The intent of the art examples was to show a variety of different artwork and how they look in 18 other communities. 19 20 Chair Whetzel: 21  Using the criteria and art examples does Ukiah have any artwork that would apply? 22  It would be nice to have pictures of art from other communities that may work in Ukiah and apply 23 the criteria in the Public Art Policy. 24 25 It was noted the only artwork Ukiah has displayed is murals. 26 27 Principal Planner Thompson: 28  The murals Ukiah has are on private propert y and Planning Commission approval was required. 29  Referred to the art examples of public art displayed in the region and talked about the public art 30 displayed in Gyserville. 31 32 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:30 p.m. 33 34 Principal Planner Thompson: 35  Asked if Senior Management Analyst Riley has knowledge what a million dollar liability insurance 36 policy costs. 37 38 Senior Management Analyst Riley: 39  Has no knowledge what a million dollar liability insurance policy costs. Typically, an artist would 40 have a sponsoring organization or the like. Most non-profit organizations or businesses in general 41 carry a one to two million dollar liability insurance policy and this is a standard business practice. 42 We would not, for example, expect an individual artist/non-professional artist per se to have that 43 type of coverage. The hope is that there would be a sponsoring organization to assist an artist. 44 45 Commissioner Sanders: 46  Asked if the aforementioned information relative to ‘Indemnification’ on page 5 of the Public Arts 47 Policy is clear as it relates to an individual artist. . 48 49 Principal Planner Thompson: 50  The Public Arts Policy does not go into specific detail about insurance liability coverage for 51 individual artists. Could include this information on the application form. 52  According to the City Risk Management, an artist or artist sponsor would be required to provide 53 one million dollar insurance coverage and depending upon the type of art, the coverage could be 54 more or less and/or what the City feels is adequate coverage. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2016 Page 6 Commissioner Sanders: 1  Is of the opinion including insurance liability information on the application to display art publicly is 2 important. 3 4 Laura Fogg: 5  Is a local artist and affiliated with the Arts Center in Ukiah as a board member and also serves on 6 the design committee for the Ukiah Main Street Program. 7  Highly supports approval of the Public Arts Policy and thanked staff for rewriting the document to 8 fit the needs of Ukiah. 9  Important the process of approving art for public installation will be streamlined. Is pleased the 10 multiple levels of review that were in the original draft policy document were eliminated such that 11 there is one design review committee. 12  Would like to see representation from the local art comm unity participating or serving on the DRB 13 primarily because of their art expertise. 14  Members of the local art community have provided input in the redrafting of the Public Art Policy. 15  Referred to examples of public art in other communities and is of the opinion Mendocino County 16 has the opportunity to have a lot of public art installed. Understands Mendocino County has more 17 artists per capita than any county in the country. 18  It is time to start thinking about art projects in Ukiah. 19 20 Alyssum Wier, Executive Director of the Arts Council of Mendocino County: 21  Is pleased the City is considering adoption of a Public Art Policy. 22  As the momentum for public art moves our way, people are going to expect this in Ukiah. 23  Public art encourages tourism. Ukiah has a strong identity that can be communicated artistically. 24  Art expression is something that can be talked about and be creative with. Public art is about 25 creating conversations. 26  Having a Public Art Policy in place will likely provide opportunities to install public art where in the 27 past such opportunities have come up but no action could be taken. 28  The Arts Council of Mendocino County is available for assistance anytime there is a need to 29 partner on an art opportunity/issue. 30 31 Principal Planner Thompson: 32  The DRB talked about the most appropriate approach for evaluating artwork: 33  The DRB would review perspective artwork with a recommendation to the Planning 34 Commission. 35  One or some of the DRB is an art professional. 36  The DRB evaluates the artwork having the artist present together with any other 37 sponsoring artist(s). 38  It became apparent with the bi-laws and operating procedures of the DRB that the best approach 39 would be for the DRB to review the artwork and make a recommendation to City Council having 40 the artist present to introduce the project together with any other artist(s) desiring to be present to 41 participate in the discussion. 42 43 Assistant Planner Johnson: 44  The proposed public artwork is to be viewed by the community so the people viewing the art may 45 not be professional artists or have an eye for art so we have to be objective and careful not to 46 bring in artists to only make decisions on public art projects because they have an eye for art 47 whereas the overall community does not. The intent is for the artwork installed to be enjoyable. 48 49 Senior Management Analyst Riley: 50  Definition of ‘context-sensitive temporary public art.’ refers to/is collated with the environment 51 pertinent to landscaping/architecture as to where the artwork should be placed in connection with 52 the rural surroundings and not so much about the political aspect. 53 54 Laura Fogg: 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2016 Page 7  Related to the timing of adopting a public arts policy, the art community is hoping this policy will 1 move forward expeditiously. Without a policy nothing can be approved. 2  Having a policy provides for an opportunity for people to seek grants and/or funding of various 3 kinds for art projects. 4 5 Chair Whetzel: 6  Has the art community/organizations reviewed the draft policy and asked if changes are proposed 7 for consideration other than having artist(s) present during DRB evaluation of artwork. 8 9 Laura Fogg: 10  Supports the concept of having artist(s) present during DRB evaluation of artwork. 11  Supports adoption of the Public Art Policy, as rewritten for Ukiah. With regard to the policy, the art 12 community consolidated ‘temporary art’ with ‘permanent art’ but sees th ey are separate subjects 13 in the draft document. 14 15 Rick Hansen, Executive Director of Ukiah Main Street Program: 16  Acknowledged the Ukiah Main Street Program has a design committee of which Laura Fogg is a 17 member. This committee has been instrumental in bringing the matter of establishing a public art 18 policy to the forefront. As was mentioned above, consideration for establishing a public art policy 19 became important when a local artist was doing chalk drawings on sidewalks in the Downtown. 20 There was then a debate about the need for a governing mechanism concerning public art. 21  Supports adoption of the Public Art Policy. 22 23 Commissioner Sanders: 24  Related to the public art examples for Sebastopol and Healdsburg do these municipalities have 25 their own arts commission? 26  Is there a current vacancy on the DRB? If an artist wanted to be a part of the DRB, could he/she 27 apply? 28 29 Principal Planner Thompson: 30  Has no knowledge about Sebastopol, but Healdsburg does not have an art commission while 31 Santa Rosa does. 32  The matter of having an arts commission was discussed with the DRB and one of the concerns 33 about having such a committee is that it does not meet regularly making it difficult to maintain and 34 monitor. 35  Is of the opinion the DRB is the closest fit we have for the job of evaluating artwork. 36  Understands the City of Sebastopol uses their DRB to evaluate artwork. 37  Confirmed there is a vacancy on the DRB. If an artist wanted to serve on the DRB this person 38 would have to contact Councilmember Crane because he is the councilmem ber responsible for 39 selecting a person for this particular seat on the Board. 40  If having an art committee is not something we can do right now, it is something that could be 41 considered in the future. 42 43 There was Commission/staff discussion about the review process. 44 45 Commissioner Christensen: 46  If there was a seat on the DRB earmarked for an artist and if each Councilmember appoints the 47 individual members this could cumbersome. 48 49 Principal Planner Thompson: 50  Supports allowing the DRB review art projects for the interim but if there is interest later on about 51 having a separate art committee that would review art projects this could be a consideration. 52 53 Chair Whetzel: 54  If we do get an art project is it possible to formulate an Ad Hoc committee? 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2016 Page 8 Principal Planner Thompson: 1  For expedience reasons the DRB meets regularly and is of the opinion the Board would be very 2 conscientious/reasonable about evaluating a particular project. People from the art community 3 can participate in the discussion. 4 5 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:55 p.m. 6 7 The Planning Commission made no changes to the Public Art Policy and supports adoption by City 8 Council. 9 10 M/S Sanders/Hilliker to recommend City Council adopt the Public Art Policy, as presented. Motion 11 carried (4-0). 12 13 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT 14 Principal Planner Thompson: 15  City Council recently approved ‘modest’ fee increases for the Planning and Building Departments. 16  City Council also adopted the City of Ukiah Housing Element. 17  It is likely the next regular Planning Commission meeting of June 24th will be cancelled. Staff will 18 advise the Commission accordingly. 19 20 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT 21 Commissioner Hilliker: 22  Talked about his recent visits to art exhibits and found them to be impressive. 23 24 Commissioner Sanders: 25  Sees the PEP Senior Housing project is moving along and is fully involved in excavation. Is 26 pleased to have knowledge the sidewalk will go behind the large Oak Tree on Cleveland Lane. 27 Her concern and that of the Tree Advisory Group (TAG) and Museum is the fate of the three 28 Dogwood trees that are located near the gate on the Museum property. It may be the meandering 29 walkway will conflict with these trees and asked if these trees are slated for removal. 30 31 Chair Whetzel: 32  Has a brochure from the California League of Cities concerning an upcoming planning 33 conference. He has attended this conference before and finds the conference very informative. 34 Asked if the City Planning Department has budgeted money for Planning Commission education. 35 36 Principal Planner Thompson: 37  There is a list of trees that will be removed for the project. Will provide the list to Commissioner 38 Sanders. 39  Money budgeted for Planning Commission education is being worked on. 40 41 12. ADJOURNMENT 42 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m. 43 44 45 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 46 47 48