CITY OF COTATI
MINUTES for the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
DATE OF MEETING:
Monday, October 7, 2002TIME OF MEETING: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, City Council Chambers
201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931
Chairman Pagnusat called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Moore, Dutra, Vice Chair Mulligan, Chair Pagnusat, McCelland,
Staff Present: Woltering, Lustig
There were no changes to the agenda.
A Zoning Ordinance Amendment and CEQA exemption to allow the City Council to waive the requirement for an indoor recreation facility in Planned Unit Developments if the project is within a Specific Plan area and the Specific Plan provides for adequate recreation facilities.
B. Request for approval of an Environmental Determination (CEQA Exemption); a Santero Way Specific Plan Amendment to allow for 1) residential lane widths of greater than 24 feet; 2) two additional townhomes and two fewer live-work units in Phase I; and, 3) Fifty-six (56) units to be constructed in a residential district prior to commercial development; a Rezoning from M-1, Light Industrial, to R-3:PUD (Multiple Family Residential:Planned Unit Development), a waiver of the indoor recreation facility requirement; a Tentative Subdivision Map; and, Design Review.
The project proposes a 70-unit townhome development and 31,000-square foot neighborhood park on Santero Way (formerly Industrial Avenue). Fifty-six (56) residential units are proposed for the west side of Santero Way; and Fourteen (14) units plus a neighborhood park are proposed for the east side of Santero Way. [Park Village Subdivision, Santero Way Specific Plan – Phase I]
PA# 13/02 Applicant: The Colvin Group
AP# 144-480-020, 144-320-015, 144-320-016, 144-320-017
Planning Director Woltering presented a brief overview of the project. He indicated that City Engineer Toni Bertolero had requested that the original condition regarding reconstructing Santero Way be retained. The City Engineer believes the original condition better assures she will have the proper authority to require the necessary extent of roadway improvements.
Commissioner Moore inquired if the Planning Commission will be dealing with the 1,000 square feet indoor recreation area requirement anywhere else in the Specific Plan area?
Planning Director Woltering read the recommended language and indicated that the indoor recreation area requirement would be considered on an application by application basis.
Commissioner Dutra recalled that the Specific Plan was approved without an indoor recreation facility requirement. He also asked if some existing road base could remain?
Planning Director Woltering stated that the condition allows this to occur if the City Engineer determines that to be appropriate.
Planning Commissioner Dutra further inquired, if a Specific Plan Zoning District is usually created at the time of the Specific Plan adoption.
Planning Director Woltering stated that it can occur then or after the Specific Plan area is approved.
Mr. Clifford, Project Representative, asked for clarification. He was concerned that the 1,000 square feet indoor space requirement could be required on future projects within Specific Plan Area.
Planning Director Woltering pointed out that if the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning classification is used with future applications there is the possibility that the waiver would not be granted and such a facility required.
Mr. Clifford inquired about street reconstruction. He asked the Planning Commission to accept the previously modified condition that clearly allows the opportunity to re-use portions of the existing street.
Planning Director Woltering stated that this issue should be left to staff's technical expertise.
Mr. Clifford then stated that a limitation on building height of 2-1/2 stories, whereas all through the process 3-story units were being proposed away from the westerly property boundary.
Planning Director Woltering acknowledged and affirmed Mr. Clifford's comments.
Planning Director Woltering confirmed that the requirement has been a limitation to two stories along the west project boundary shared with the City of Rohnert Park and three stories and a maximum of 35 feet in height elsewhere within the project area.
Public Hearing was opened.
Linnel Hardy, 8171 Arthur Street, suggested an in-lieu fee be paid to the City Recreation Department as a condition for waiving the 1,000 square foot indoor recreation facility requirement.
Commissioner Dutra asked if this could be done?
Planning Director Woltering was not sure if this would be possible. He suggested the Commission could draft language that could be reviewed by the City Attorney. He clarified and described the recreational amenities currently being proposed by the applicant including the improved neighborhood park and the interior courtyards in the center of unit clusters.
Commissioner Dutra stated he would like the indoor recreation area in-lieu fee to be considered for future projects in the area.
Commissioner McClelland reminded the Planning Commission that this discussion about the indoor recreation area was only being discussed because there is no Specific Plan Zoning District. She clarified that such a requirement had never been a part of the Specific Plan.
Commissioner Moore suggested there should be consideration of an indoor in-lieu fee.
Commissioner Dutra indicated that this project was probably too far through the process to fairly bring up such a requirement.
Commissioner McClelland suggested it could be considered in future development in the Specific Plan area.
Chair Pagnusat asked Planning Director Woltering for suggested language for a condition to clarify the height requirement issue raised earlier by Mr. Clifford. Mr. Woltering offered the following condition:
Height: Buildings within the Residential District designation shall not exceed a maximum height of two stories or 28 feet along the western boundary (City of Rohnert Park) and a maximum of three stories and 35 feet elsewhere in the District, with building height to be measured from finish grade to high-point of the roof, not including chimneys or vents.
Vice Chair Mulligan asked for clarification on the condition regarding improving Santero Way. Planning Director Woltering recommended supporting condition no. 26.b, the language in the Tentative Map Resolution (Resolution No. 02-19) as requested by the City Engineer.
Planning Director Woltering pointed out the entire Santero Way Specific Plan area has been exempted from the emergency listing for California Tiger Salamander by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Vice Chair Mulligan made a motion to approve Item A - Resolution 02-13.
Commissioner Dutra seconded the motion.
VOTE Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0
Vice Chair Mulligan made a motion to approve Resolution 02-14.
Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion.
VOTE Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0
Commissioner Moore made a motion to approve Item B - Resolutions 02-15--02-20 as amended, to include the condition language suggested by Planning Director Woltering to clarify allowed building heights within the project.
Vice Chair Mulligan seconded the motion.
VOTE Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0
C. Second in a series of public workshops to review sections of the Land Use Code Update (Zoning Ordinance). At this public hearing, the Planning Commission will review Article 9 - Land Use Code Administration; and, portions of Article 6 - Hillside and Ridgeline Ordinance and Growth Management.
Land Use Code
Senior Planner Lustig presented the staff report. After providing a general overview of the subjects to be considered as a part of this workshop, she then summarized key points of Article 9, Land Use Code Administration. Several Commissioners had questions regarding Article 9.
Commissioner Dutra requested definition for an appeal. Senior Planner Lustig provided the definition.
Commissioner Moore commented on the Nuisance Abatement section, stating that it appears broad and possibly too restrictive. She also asked for clarification regarding the non-conforming uses section.
Commissioner McClelland mentioned a typo on Page 12. She also commented on the following: modify to 10 business days throughout regarding appeal period; clarify 30 day time period throughout as to when it actually begins; Page 27, Section 6: clarify when abatements must actually occur by and, Page 25, typo under E.2.
Mary Steeves questioned how does one know if there is a nuisance or a violation? Senior Planner Lustig responded that the Zoning Ordinance provides guidelines and standards.
Hillside and Ridgeline Development
Senior Planner Lustig gave an overview of the Hillside and Ridgeline Development Article.
Commissioner McClelland questioned whether Section 17.63.020, B.1 and B.2, apply to existing parcels. Senior Planner Lustig responded, "yes".
Commissioner McClelland commented on Page 6-10, Section D.2., pertaining to the Director's authority to allow additions, that there should be a maximum to the Director's permitting authority.
Commissioner Moore asked if non-reflective glass couldn't be included as a requirement for hillside area. She asked if Staff had researched what other communities in the area require?
Senior Planner Lustig indicated that Staff had gathered and provided examples of various other codes to the Project Consultant.
Senior Planner Lustig asked if Commissioners support Prue Draper's comments in her October 7, 2002 letter regarding strengthening 17.63.010 and 17.63.050.
Commissioner's indicated support for the comments.
Growth Management
Senior Planner Lustig gave an overview of the Growth Management Ordinance.
Commissioner Dura asked for clarification regarding handling of larger projects. Senior Planner Lustig indicated that requiring a Specific Plan would be a way of handling larger allocations. The Specific Plan process requires additional information regarding infrastructure and financing which would be useful in determining if the allocations should be granted.
Jenny Blaker asked for clarification regarding the Director's role for any additional studies. Senior Planner Lustig pointed out that the Section enabled the Planning Department to require additional studies, if needed.
John Rock suggests adding landscape requirements to increase vegetation for hillside areas so that homes and slopes are not subject to erosion.
Commissioner Mulligan commented the need to address second dwelling units in hillside areas.
Staff concurred that second units should be addressed, and stated that this could be added to this Section.
Commissioner Dutra commented that Staff needs to provide further information regarding the impact on home design at 24' versus 28' as a maximum building height in hillside areas.
Staff agreed to provide this information.
Senior Planner Lustig thanked the Commission and public for the comments received and indicated the three articles would be presented to the City Council for its review.
Planning Director Woltering reviewed the City's Sexual Harassment Policy and requested that Commission read the handouts provided to them regarding the policy. The Planning Director asked if there were any questions regarding the policy. He then asked Commissioners to sign and return to the Planning Department an acknowledgement that they had received and reviewed the City's Sexual Harassment Policy.
Commissioner Moore described a field trip she had taken to Benedetti Farm as part of the "Sustainable" leadership program she is a part of.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.