DATE OF MEETING:
TIME OF MEETING:
PLACE OF MEETING:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairwoman McClelland
called the meeting to order at
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Rock, Pagnusat, Dutra, McClelland
Commissioners Absent: *
Staff Present: Lustig, Brisbine
Consultant Present: Paul Crawford, Land Use Code
Consultant
* Arrived after roll call as noted.
III. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes to
the agenda.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. For the
Regular Meeting on
It was moved by
Commissioner Dutra to approve the minutes of
Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (
V. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral or
written communications.
A. Request
for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a free
medical services clinic at
PA# 02/03 Applicant: Jewish Community Free Clinic
AP# 144-281-025
Senior Planner Lustig
presented the staff report and recommended approval of the Conditional Use
Permit subject to the suggested condition providing for annual review of the
parking situation by the Planning Commission, if deemed necessary, to avoid
impacts to the neighborhood.
Senior Planner Lustig
directed attention to a letter received from Touchstone,
Also, Senior Planner
Lustig said that an adjacent physical therapy business telephoned the Planning
Department to state their support for the new clinic, also subject to no
parking issues.
Commissioner Dutra asked
that since this new business is temporary in nature, would another business
moving into the building after it is vacated by the clinic be subject to other
than the annual review provided for in the conditions of approval. He was concerned that another business could
move in and take full advantage of the available hours of operation thus
causing a parking problem.
Senior Planner Lustig
said that the Conditional Use Permit would stay with the property and would
only be subject to an annual review of the parking unless the condition is
rewritten to provide otherwise. She did
point out, however, that a business license would be required for a new user
and that staff could evaluate the parking needs at that time.
In response to an inquiry
from Commissioner Rock, Senior Planner Lustig said that the parking ratio
required in the Zoning Ordinance for medical offices is 1:200 square feet.
The PUBLIC HEARING was
opened at
Paul-Andre Schabracq,
Consultant Planner, represented the application. He stated that the medical office will
comprise 925 square feet. The applicants
anticipate that there would be two doctors available in the office during
evening hours when the other businesses are closed. He said that he recalls a similar business
operating at this location in the past and that he sees it as unusual that a
Conditional Use Permit was required for this application in an Office zoning
district.
Robin Lowitz, M.D.,
The PUBLIC HEARING was
closed at
Chairwoman McClelland
stated her opinion that this is a fabulous service being provided and no
difficulties at all with the application.
Commissioner Pagnusat
said that his only issue had been adequate parking. However, given the square footage of the
office space, proposed hours, and the required parking ratios, he was satisfied
that the parking would not be a problem.
Commissioner Dutra said
that his concern was parking for future users of the space, but is satisfied
that can be dealt with.
It was moved by
Commissioner Pagnusat to adopt Resolution No. PC 03-05 approving a Conditional
Use Permit and a Categorical Exemption for a medical clinic located at 421 East
Cotati Avenue, Suite C [PA# 02/03}subject to the suggested condition(s) of
approval. Second by Commissioner Rock.
Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (
B. Land
Use Code Update - Article 5, Standards for
Senior Planner Lustig introduced
Paul Crawford, the Land Use Code Consultant; and, Scott Johnson, Planning
Department Intern.
Paul Crawford, the Land
Use Code Consultant, provided a general overview of the standards contained
within Article 5. He recommended that
the Planning Commission not review Chapter 17.54, Communications Facilities,
this evening because it does not conform to the standards of the current
Communication Facilities Ordinance adopted by the City. The Chapter will be rewritten.
Chapter 17.50 – Adult Oriented Business
Regulations.
Chairwoman McClelland
read the definition for Adult Oriented Business contained within Article 10,
Glossary.
Senior Planner Lustig
reported that the Adult Oriented Business Regulations provide the strict
standards necessary to protect First Amendment rights of the adult businesses.
Chairwoman McClelland
opened the PUBLIC HEARING on Chapter 17.50.
The PUBLIC HEARING was
closed without comment.
Chairwoman McClelland
began the discussion by describing an adult-oriented business run by a family
member in another community. In an
attempt to give the issue of adult-oriented businesses some perspective, she
used food service businesses as an example.
Specifically, she used the example of “dine in” or “dine out” as an
analogy. In the case of an adult
oriented business, the “dine in” version would typically involve some sort of
live entertainment, booths for viewing videos, etc., and the serving of
alcoholic beverages. The “dine out”
version would sell adult-oriented
merchandise, or possibly rent adult videos, but there would be no use of
the product on site. The merchandise
would be purchased or rented and taken away.
Chairwoman McClelland
said that if a business owner is operating the “dine out” type of business,
they are operating a legal business and she was offended by the proposed
regulations that would require employee registration with the Police
Department, photographs on file with the Police Department, and possibly
fingerprinting.
Vice Chairman Dutra
commented that the regulations appear to be a form of micro managing and if it
is the intent of the City to discourage all types of adult-oriented businesses,
this Code would accomplish that.
Commissioner Pagnusat
agreed that the Code as written would serve to discourage any type of
adult-oriented business because it contains too many “hoops”.
Commissioner Rock pointed
out that there is an existing video rental business in Cotati that currently
rents adult videos. His interpretation
of the proposed new Code language was that it wasn’t geared towards that type
of business, but was intended to address the “strip joint” type of
business. He suggested that the matter
could be clarified just by changing the definition of adult-oriented businesses.
Paul Crawford,
Consultant, said that a complete set of definitions was not provided with this
Code, but that the intent of this section was to address businesses where a
significant percentage of the business is adult-oriented. The Code can be fine-tuned to fit community
standards. He agreed that many stores as
described by Chairwoman McClelland are highly regarded in their
communities. However, consideration
needs to be given to other types of adult-oriented businesses (the “dine in”
types) that can contribute to health issues, prostitution, and other related
problems. For those types of
establishments, he believes that the City would want to know if employees
working there have criminal records and/or are registered sex offenders.
* Commissioner Hammond
arrived at
Chairwoman McClelland
understood the recommendation that the “dine in” type of adult-oriented
business be limited to the northwest corner of the City away from the City
center. However, she was open to the
“dine out” type of adult-oriented business being able to operate in other areas
of the City with some separation established.
She saw no need for the “dine out” type of business to subject its
employees to the Police Department registration, photos, fingerprinting, etc. The other Planning Commissioners indicated
their general agreement with her recommendation.
Commissioner Pagnusat
added that the “take out” type of business be regulated to control what type of
merchandise can be visible in a window display and that the Code should specify
where these types of businesses could be located. He was in favor of keeping the regulations as
simple as possible.
Senior Planner Lustig
said that the issue of adult-oriented businesses, along with the Planning
Commission’s comments, will be reviewed with the City Council. If they agree with the Planning Commission’s
recommendations, then the definitions and standards would be refined to
distinguish between the rules for "dine-in" versus
"take-out".
Tape 1/Side 2
Commissioner Rock
suggested that there should be two separate categories for adult-oriented
businesses as discussed. Definitions for
each should be established along with clarification on which standards apply to
which type of business.
Commissioner Pagnusat
said that he would prefer that the “take out” type of business have regulations
which would not allow the serving or selling of alcoholic beverages, no type of
live entertainment would be permitted, and there would be no booths for viewing
videos or live entertainment.
The Planning Commission
agreed with Commissioner Pagnusat’s recommendation.
In response to an inquiry
from Commissioner Dutra, Senior Planner Lustig suggested that adult-oriented
businesses post signs prohibiting anyone under the age of 18 from entering the
store at all.
In order to move forward
with this Chapter, the Planning Commission reached a consensus to review the
Chapter as if it applied only to a “dine in” type of adult-oriented business as
discussed. Regulations related to a
“dine out” type of adult-oriented business would be a new section to be
reviewed separately.
p. 5-11 -
§17.50.120.A, Unlawful Hours of Operation. Commissioner Rock pointed out
that if the establishment serves alcohol, it might be difficult to enforce
closing at
p. 5-12 -
§17.50.120.H-5. At the suggestion of Commissioner Rock,
language contained within item no. 5 was amended as follows by
Planning Commission consensus:
Customers, patrons, or
visitors who are not actively engaged in shopping for or reviewing the products
available on display for purchaser viewing, shall not be allowed to stand idly
by in the vicinity of any video booths, or to remain in the common area of the
business, other than including
the restrooms.
p. 5-10 - §17.50.110,
Registration of New Employees. Commissioner Hammond expressed some
difficulties with this requirement. Vice
Chairman Dutra agreed unless the employee has a criminal record or is a
registered sex offender. Associate
Planner Lustig explained that the provision would protect the other employees
as well as the general public.
Chairwoman McClelland suggested that the registration could apply only
to the “dine in” type of business.
Associate Planner Lustig agreed to review the issue of employee registration with the City Council and the City Attorney.
p. 5-14 -
§17.50.120.L-1. In response to an inquiry from Chairwoman
McClelland, Senior Planner Lustig agreed to research the appropriate hours during
which a security guard would be required with the City Attorney and report back
to the Planning Commission.
p. 5-14 - §17.50.120.L-2. Senior Planner Lustig agreed to check into
whether or not the on-site manager should be registered with the “City’s
Director” or the “Chief of Police”.
p. 5-14 - §17.50.120.L-3. In response to an inquiry from the Planning
Commission, Senior Planner Lustig said that a security system that visually
records and monitors the exterior premises of the property is a typical
requirement. These types of systems
serve to discourage illegal activities from occurring in the parking lot, etc.
p.
5-9 - §17.50.100.A, Required Findings. Commissioner Rock recommended that the
references to separation between businesses be consistent throughout the
Code. The consultant, Mr. Crawford, said
that typical separation in a community of this size could be either 300 or 500
feet.
Chairwoman
McClelland called for a break at
The
meeting was called back to order at
Chapter 17.52 – Standards for
p. 5-23 -
§17.52.030.B, Alcoholic Beverage Sales/Location requirements. In
response to an inquiry from Chairwoman McClelland about the separation
requirements between on- and off-sale liquor establishments, Senior Planner
Lustig said that it is not intended to impact existing businesses. The intent is to avoid over concentration of
new businesses.
The Planning Commission reached a consensus that they would like to exempt full-service restaurants from the separation requirements of this section. They did not necessarily want to establish a required percentage in food sales, but rather establish that the exemption applies to businesses where food service is primary.
p. 5-25 – Table 5-1,
Allowable Animal Keeping. In response to a concern from Vice
Chairman Dutra, Senior Planner Lustig suggested that the table could be revised
to allow one rooster per acre, in the RR, rather than prohibiting them. Commissioner Dutra commented that as far as
noise is concerned, he sees geese as more of a potential problem than roosters.
It was a consensus of the Planning Commission that they be provided with a list describing each of the new zoning districts.
p. 5-26 – Table 5-2,
Animal Keeping Standards. The Planning Commission discussed this table
at length and had many points clarified by staff. The Planning Commission reached consensus to
make the following changes:
|
Type of Animal or Facility |
Maximum Number of Animals per
Site (1) |
|
Dogs
and cats |
|
|
|
|
|
Other
small animals – including chinchillas, guinea pigs, hamsters, |
Table
4-1. |
|
|
|
|
Other
large animals – Emus, goats, llamas, miniature horses and donkeys, ostriches,
pot belly pigs |
|
p. 5-27, §17.52.040 –
Animal Keeping (continued):
The Planning Commission
continued to discuss the section and had several points clarified by staff.
In response to an inquiry
from Vice Chairman Dutra, Senior Planner Lustig said that Section E.1 that
requires a minimum of one acre for each large animal, hog or swine, would also
apply to sheep but that existing sheep would be “grandfathered” in.
Vice Chairman Dutra
suggested that the regulation should be evaluated based on what is currently
taking place in the community, particularly 4-H projects.
In discussing these provisions further, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would like to see less stringent regulations based on information provided by someone with actual information to establish appropriate numbers.
p. 5.27, Maintenance
and operational standards. Commissioner Hammond suggested that the
regulations related to Waterway Protection and to Erosion and sedimentation
control need to be more stringent with standards established.
p. 5-32, §17.52.080 – Home
Occupations.
The Planning Commission
requested and received clarification on several points related to Home
Occupations.
In response to an inquiry
from Commissioner Rock, Senior Planner Lustig said that each home occupation
requires a business license and that the business license can be revoked if the
use is determined to be a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood.
In response to an inquiry
from Commissioner
p. 5-43, §17.52.120 –
Multi-Family and Small Lot Single-Family Projects.
The Planning Commission
reviewed this section and several points clarified by both staff and the
consultant.
There was a Planning Commission consensus to recommend that §17.52.120 2.b., Dimensions, be amended as follows:
(1) Private open space areas shall have a
minimum dimension of 10 feet.
p. 5-46, §17.52.130 –
Outdoor Displays and Sales. Chairwoman McClelland asked specifically
about the requirements for news and flower stands and how they relate to the
van that sells flowers on
Senior Planner Lustig agreed to research the history of
the van selling flowers on
p. 5-50, §17.52.160 –
Residential Accessory Uses and Structures.
p. 5.51, E.1,
sub-section 1. Setbacks. Where two alternatives for Item b were
provided in the draft Land Use Code, related to setbacks, it was
the consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend the second alternative as
follows:
b. Side and rear setbacks. An accessory structure not exceeding 10 feet
in height shall maintain side and rear setbacks of at lease five feet. An accessory structure with a height greater
than 10 feet shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable
zoning district.
p. 5-51, E.2 – Height
Limits. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission to amend this section as follows:
The height of an accessory structure other than a
detached garage shall not exceed 15 12 feet, except where a greater
height is authorized through Minor Use Permit approval.
p. 5-54, §17.52.170 –
Second Units and Carriage Houses.
The Planning Commission
requested and received clarification from staff and from the consultant on
several points.
Concerning Section E.1,
Location of second unit, Senior Planner Lustig explained in response to an
inquiry from Commissioner Pagnusat that the State law will change effective
Concerning Section E.2,
Height Limit, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend an
amendment to the language as follows:
2.
Height
Limit. A second unit shall be limited to
20 feet and one story, except in an RR or RVL zoning district, where
the second unit is setback a minimum of 25 feet from all property lines.
p. 5.55, F-2, Setbacks.
Per the recommendation of
Senior Planner Lustig, it was the consensus of the Planning
Commission to amend Section F.2, Carriage house design standards, as follows:
a. Separation from primary
dwellings: 15 feet. Delete. Use standard zoning district setbacks and the
Building Code.
b. Rear
setback. A carriage house shall be set
back a minimum of five feet from the rear property line except where there is no alley
and then it shall be located outside of the rear setback.
§17.52.180
– Service Stations.
p.
5.58, D-1, Site access and driveways. In response to discussion that originated
with Vice Chairman Dutra, where he cited specific instances where more than two
vehicle access points would not only be beneficial but safer, it
was the consensus of the Planning Commission to delete D.1.a as follows:
a. A
service station site shall have no more than two vehicle access points at the
public right-of-way.
p. 5.58, D-4,
Landscaping. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission to amend this section as follows:
3.
Landscaping. Landscaping, consisting of evergreen
trees, ground cover, shrubs,
vines . . . . .etc.
p.
5.59, 4, Lighting.
Commissioner
Hammond suggested that the type of energy efficient lighting should be specific
and offered to provide some possible alternatives.
Commissioner
Rock suggested that the lighting section should include a provision that
requires the lighting to aim downwards.
§17.52.190
– Windmills for Electricity Generation.
p.
5-61, A.1, Application requirements.
In
response to inquiries from the Planning Commission, Consultant Paul Crawford,
said that the requirements come directly from State Code.
Senior
Planner Lustig suggested that there could be some consideration given to
limiting heights of windmills, perhaps to district height limits. Whether or not to allow windmills on ridge
tops and noise impacts should be given consideration as well.
Commissioner
Hammond said that wind generation areas need to be identified in order for the
windmills to be properly utilized. He
suggested collecting information from other cities.
Commissioner
Pagnusat said that whether or not to allow windmills is an aesthetic choice and
asked whether or not everyone would want a windmill erected next door to
them. He saw this as an important issue
and recommended that loud windmills be totally discouraged.
Senior
Planner Lustig suggested that Section E, Noise Standards, could be modified to
state that noise generated by the system shall not exceed the lesser of 60
decibels (dBA), or the maximum noise levels established by Section 17.40.050
(Noise Standards) for the applicable zoning district, as measured at the
closest neighboring inhabited dwelling at the property line, except during
short-term events including utility outages and severe wind storm. Staff also suggested that this item could be
further analyzed by the new Sub-Committee if the Planning Commission so
desired.
VII. REPORTS BY STAFF
A. Request Planning Commission to select subcommittee for the purpose of reviewing Land Use Code energy issues.
Dan Dutra and Bruce Hammond agreed to serve on the subcommittee.
Senior Planner Lustig explained that the City Council will be requested to authorize the formation of the subcommittee. Meeting schedules would then be established to meet the needs of all concerned.
There were no reports by
the Commission.
Chairwoman McClelland
adjourned the meeting at
Submitted
by:
Kathleen
Brisbine
Administrative
Secretary