DATE OF
MEETING:
TIME OF
MEETING:
PLACE OF
MEETING:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairwoman
McClelland called the meeting to order
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners
Present: Rock,
Commissioners
Absent: Pagnusat
Staff
Present: Woltering,
Lustig, Gonzalez, Hirsch, Brisbine
III. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There
were no changes to the agenda.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. For the Regular Meeting on
p.
11 – Item 8, Energy Efficiency and Resource Conservation
Commissioner
Hammond said that this section of the minutes did not adequately reflect his
recommendations concerning energy efficiency.
Chairwoman
McClelland responded that his recommendations had been included as a part of
the conditions of approval. This was
also verified by the Planning Director.
There
were no changes to the minutes.
It
was moved by Commissioner Rock to approve the minutes of
Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Pagnusat) Abstain: 1 (Dutra)
B. For the Regular Meeting on
It
was moved by Vice Chairman Dutra to approve the minutes of
Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Pagnusat)
Abstain: 0
IV. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There
were no oral or written communications.
A. Planning
Commission Reorganization
A
written recommendation, dated
Chairman:
Chairwoman
McClelland nominated Dan Dutra for Chairman.
Second by Commissioner Hammond.
There
were no comments from the Planning Commission.
Chairwoman
McClelland invited public comment. There
was none.
There
were no additional nominations.
Vote:
Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Pagnusat) Abstain: 0
Vice Chairman:
Commissioner
Hammond nominated John Rock for Vice Chairman.
Second by Chairman Dutra.
There
were no comments from the Planning Commission.
Chairman
Dutra invited public comment. There was
none.
There
were no additional nominations.
Vote:
Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Pagnusat) Abstain: 0
B. Request
for Preliminary Design Review for the Proposed Cotati Depot. The Cotati Intermodal
Facility (Cotati Depot) consists of a small 1400 square foot building with a
plaza situated along
Applicant: City of
Senior Planner
Lustig
presented the staff report and reviewed the suggested conditions of
approval. She pointed out that there was
no condition included relating to energy efficiency or the building being
constructed with the utilization of green building guidelines. She requested that the Planning Commission
provide input on an appropriate condition.
Bryan Albee, Sonoma County Transit, discussed the
project and explained that Sonoma County Transit has been working with the City
of
Because
the actual train platform is intended to be constructed when SMART provides
rail service, this plan had to be reviewed and approved by SMART. Mr. Albee said that
they hope to put this first phase of the project out to bid in April or May
with construction anticipated in the summer.
Don MacNair, the Landscape Architect, provided an
overview of the site plan and the landscape plan and discussed the various
features. Although Date Palms are shown
on the landscape plan along the railroad tracks, they are not a part of this
phase. They have been used as a
signature tree throughout the County to identify the rail stations.
Senior Planner
Lustig
continued the staff report and discussed the Design Review Committee’s
comments. Overall, the Committee was
pleased with the plan and recommended Preliminary Design Review approval. A number of the Committee members found the
use of palm trees to be acceptable; however, there was not a clear consensus on
this matter. She said that staff had
initially had reservations about the palm trees, but that staff recognizes that
the trees are being used as a signature tree at other rail facilities in
County. Also, they are a variety of tree
that won’t obstruct train access, because they lack a broad canopy.
Commissioner
Hammond
expressed his opinion that the planter strips within the plaza area take away
from the plaza being used as a gathering area.
The design, as proposed, limits the use of the plaza as a gathering area.
Senior Planner
Lustig
responded that the building and the overhang will provide adequate space for
people to gather. The plan limits hard
surfaces in order to provide permeability and to discourage undesirable uses
such as skateboarding.
Vice Chairman
Rock
complained about the readability of the architectural drawings and said that the
scale is too small and did not contain enough detail.
In
response to an inquiry from Vice Chairman Rock, the Landscape Architect
discussed the trees in the parking lot.
He was confident that the tree canopies will grow to provide adequate
shading, but was willing to increase the number of trees in the parking lot, in
any case.
Vice
Chairman Rock informed the Landscape Architect that the Zoning Ordinance
requires 50% shading of parking lots in ten years.
Chairman Dutra requested and
received clarification on the phasing of the project and the funding. He expressed his opinion that the Chamber of
Commerce should be located in the downtown.
Dennis Dorch, Assistant City Manager, responded to
Chairman Dutra’s inquiry about the funding and a
concern about the amount of money being spent.
Senior
Planner Lustig responded to an inquiry from Chairman Dutra concerning the site
labeled as a future Redevelopment Agency building site and required additional
parking. Senior Planner Lustig said that
the future new building would be required to provide its own parking and she
was confident that it could be worked out when the site is developed. For the time being, staff will consult with
the Design Review Committee about how the lot could be visually improved until
it is developed.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was opened at
Paul Foti,
The
PUBLIC HEARING was closed.
Commissioner
McClelland
agreed that there should be a condition added concerning green building methods
being applied to this project. She was
undecided about the use of palm trees, but that decision can be deferred since
they are not a part of this first phase.
Vice Chairman
Rock
commented that overall, the project is very nice. He requested and received information from
the Landscape Architect about the grade change between the platform and the
parking lot.
Chairman Dutra expressed the
opinion that the new bus shelters should be the same design as the ones
downtown. Concerning energy efficiency, he
suggested that the building should be LEED certified.
Commissioner
Hammond commented
that the building materials should be reconsidered and that durability be a factor in the final product. He suggested some alternatives including a
cement fiber material. Regarding energy
efficiency, he said that he had not considered LEED certification because of
the smaller size of the building.
However, utilizing the Green Points Checklist might be suitable for this
project. He said that achieving 50
points from the Green Points Checklist might be a suitable alternative to LEED
certification for the depot building. He
expressed a willingness to work with the architect on this aspect of the
project. He also said that the Low Impact Development website includes
a significant amount of information.
Planning
Director Woltering suggested that staff could meet with the project architect
and Commissioner Hammond to explore potential modifications to the
building. The City Council could then be
provided with specific information on what measures can be taken by utilizing
the Green Points Checklist vs. LEED certification.
The
Planning Commission proceeded to discuss the following topics:
Bus
Shelters
Vice
Chairman Rock found the proposed bus shelters to be acceptable. He recommended, however, that the color of
the plastic be carefully selected because of problems that occurred on other
bus shelters.
Commissioner
Hammond said that the shelters will be an asset to the community. He agreed with a comment from staff that the
returns may need to be expanded to provide better weather protection.
Chairman
Dutra had stated his opinion earlier that the new bus shelters should match the
ones downtown.
Boulders
Vice
Chairman Rock was concerned about safety.
Chairman
Dutra said that the boulders would probably be alright if they were spaced to
avoid children jumping from one to the other.
Generally,
the Planning Commission was OK with the boulders, but recommended that specific
details for spacing be provided for Final Design Review to address safety
concerns.
Plaza
Vice
Chairman Rock agreed with Commissioner Hammond’s suggestion that the plaza area
could be expanded to allow for gatherings.
Commissioner
Hammond stated his suggestion that the area outside of the terminal building
could be expanded with a curved line and that the expansion area could have
permeable pavers. That way, there would
still be permeability and there would be another surface to walk or stand on.
Chairman
Dutra and Vice Chairman Rock both agreed with Commissioner Hammond’s
suggestion.
|
Motion: |
It
was moved by Commissioner McClelland to adopt Resolution No. 04-03
recommending the City Council approve Design Review and Statutory and
Categorical CEQA exemptions for the Cotati Depot Master Plan located on a
2.14-acre site located at the corner of Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Pagnusat) Abstain: 0 Conditions of
Approval (PA# 01/04): 1. Park and street furniture, bus
shelter, signage, bike racks, lighting, building and paving materials, landscape plan and irrigation
detail and rock wall details shall be submitted for Final Design Review. 2. A preliminary grading and drainage
plan shall be submitted for Final Design Review. 3. A materials and color board and
elevations shall be submitted for Final Design Review. 4. The lighting plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Director. ADDED: 5. Concerning energy efficiency, the
City Council shall be provided with a list of alternatives for the new depot
building utilizing the Green Points Checklist vs. LEED certification. In addition, the Council shall be provided
with certification that the trees in the parking lot will provide the
required 50% shading in ten years. ADDED: 6. The area in front of the depot
building shall be expanded with a curved line and treated with permeable
pavers to provide an increased standing/walking area. ADDED: 7. Details for the boulders and their
placement shall be submitted for final design review. ADDED: 8. The final plans for the bus shelters
shall include an expansion to the return, and color and material
specifications. |
C. Request
for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Categorical Exemption to allow
an auto brokerage business at
PA# 03/04 Applicant: Frank Perkins/Coastline Auto Brokerage
AP# 144-010-011
Planner
Nash Gonzalez presented the staff report, responded to questions from the
Planning Commission, and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit
subject to the recommended conditions and the Findings of Fact.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was opened at
Frank
Perkins,
The
PUBLIC HEARING was closed at
|
Motion: |
It
was moved by Vice Chairman Rock to approve Resolution No. PC 04-02 approving
a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wholesale/retail automotive (Auto
Brokerage) operation to be located at Yes: 4
Noes: 0 Absent: 1
(Pagnusat) Abstain: 0 Conditions of
Approval (PA# 03/04): 1. No more than one door mounted sign
placed upon the glass door of the building space in question, including
identification numbers. Said sign
shall be established in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 17.38 of
the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 2. Two parking spaces located
immediately on the south side of the building shall be marked for “customer
parking only for Coastline Auto Brokerage”. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage of
vehicles offered for sale in association with the proposed
operation/business. All vehicles
offered for sale shall be stored within the building. |
D. Request
for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to allow the
construction of a 4,600 square foot light industrial building on a .67 acre
site located at
PA# 23/03 Applicant: Blom/Matulich [Norcal Geophysical]
AP# 046-111-042
Senior
Planner Lustig presented the staff report, reviewed the recommendations from
the Design Review Committee, responded to questions from the Commission, and
recommended approval of the application subject to the suggested conditions of
approval.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was opened at
Marc
Matulich, the project architect, represented the
application. He was agreeable to the
conditions of approval, with the exception of condition #27.b that requires
sidewalk along both
Senior
Planner Lustig said that the City Engineer’s conditions are what were required
of the previously approved project on this site. She supported the requirement. She said that three businesses will be
located in the immediate vicinity and there should be pedestrian access.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was closed at
Commissioner
Hammond said that planting instead of sidewalk would be acceptable to him along
the private access road. Because of
drainage from the roof and the parking lot draining to the creek, he would prefer
that there be a drainage swale for infiltration purposes. He also suggested that the parking lot could
be paved with a pervious material with interceptors.
Planning
Director Woltering said that staff is currently working with the City Engineer
to update the City Standards and Specifications where Commissioner Hammond’s
suggestions can be considered and addressed community-wide. However, this project was intended to provide
sidewalk along both
During
further discussion, the Planning Commission consensus was to amend condition
#27.b so that sidewalk would only be required along
|
Motion: |
It
was moved by Vice Chairman Rock to approve a Conditional Use Permit and
Design Review to allow construction of a 7,716 square foot industrial
building, to be utilized as an office/warehouse, on a .63 lot located at Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Pagnusat) Abstain: 0 Conditions of Approval (PA# 23/03): DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE 1. The color of the metal siding and roof
shall be a non-glare shade. 2. Site details shall be provided
including such items as fencing, lighting,
benches and bike racks, for Final Design Review. 3. Exterior lighting plans shall be
submitted, including illumination that highlights
entry points and parking lot areas, for Final Design Review. No light
spillover or glare onto adjacent properties is permitted. 4. Irrigation plans shall be provided.
These plans shall be drought tolerant
utilizing a drip irrigation system instead of overhead spray. 5. A minimum of 50% Native plants shall be incorporated in the plan. 6. A color rendering and materials
samples shall be provided at Final Design Review. 7. Applicant shall provide nineteen
parking spaces. 8. The transition of details and
materials between the office and the warehouse spaces needs further
consideration. This could be
accomplished by extending the stucco and roofline. There shall also be further consideration
given to improved integration on the west elevation
as well, perhaps a hip treatment to bring the elements together. The applicant shall address these issues at
Final Design Review. 9. The waste enclosure shall be
constructed of split-face block, and sized to accommodate recycling. 10. Signs shall be submitted for Final
Design Review approval. 11. Parking space number 19 shall be added
on the north side of the building and shall be handicap accessible to serve
the lease area. 12. Additional detail shall be included on
both the base and tops of the front columns and provided at Final Design
Review. FIRE
DEPARTMENT 13. The project proponent shall pay all
pertinent plan check and inspection fees. 14.
The project shall be subject to
standard conditions for an automatic sprinkler system. 15.
The building shall be fully sprinklered with water flow monitoring in accordance with
the requirements of the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District. 16. The
applicant shall install a complete fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA
72. 17. All
exit signs and emergency lighting shall be in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code. 18.
All driveway curbing is to be
painted "Red" and labeled in "White" lettering a minimum
of 4" tall, 19.
A fire department lock box shall
be required for this building. 20.
Any tenant improvements that
interfere with the fire sprinkler system shall be corrected before this
Department allows occupancy. 21.
All addresses on the property
shall be properly displayed (twelve-inch numbers minimum) and shall be
visible from the roadside in both directions of travel. Each suite shall have either a number or
letter on both the main entrance door and any rear doors. 22.
Portable fire extinguishers shall
be installed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code Standards and this
Department's requirements. 23.
All permits required by this
Department shall be applied for and paid for before any work is started. Fire sprinkler system, fire alarm system,
fire hydrant(s) and underground fire water mains all require permits from
this department. 24.
A city of SONOMA
COUNTY WATER AGENCY 25. The project shall be in compliance with
the Agency's Flood Control Design Criteria. CITY
ENGINEER Prior
to Issuance of Grading Permit 26.
Submit preliminary soils report. AMENDED 27.
Submit improvement plans for the review and approval of City
Engineer. Said plans shall include: a.
Grading and drainage plans. Grading shall also be submitted to the
Planning Director for review and approval. b.
Improvements along 28.
All utilities shall be
underground. 29.
Applicant shall provide site
drainage for the parcel even if minimal grading occurs. No lot-to-lot drainage is permitted. 30.
Applicant shall submit grading and
drainage plans to the Sonoma County Water Agency for review and approval. 31.
Applicant shall submit improvement
plans to the Fire District and Police Department for review and approval. 32.
Submit erosion control plans
prepared by certified personnel to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Prior to Issuance of Encroachment Permit 33.
Pay applicable permit and plan
check fees and submit insurance certificates other related documentation. 34.
Submit a traffic control plan for
the review and approval of City Engineer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
35.
Applicant shall have a valid
grading permit and encroachment permit. CITY ATTORNEY 36. The Project Sponsor
shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
attorneys or employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against
the City or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul the Planning Commission’s and/or City Council’s
decision to approve this conditional use permit pertinent to this
project. This indemnification shall
include damages or fees awarded against the City, if any, cost of suit,
attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with
such action whether incurred by the Project Sponsor, including its partners,
the City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such action. 37. The Project
Sponsor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents,
officers, employees and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional
investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting,
revisiting, or amending any document, if made necessary by said legal action
and if the Project Sponsor desires to pursue securing such approvals, after
initiation of such litigation, which are conditions on the approval of such
documents, in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney. 38. In the
event that a claim, action or proceeding described in #34 and #35, above, is brought, the City shall
promptly notify the Project Sponsor, of the existence of the claim, action or
proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim,
action or proceeding. Nothing herein
shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim,
action or proceeding. In the event
that the Project Sponsor is required to defend the City in connection with
any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to 1)
approve the counsel to so defend the City, 2) approve all significant
decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted, and 3)
approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld. The City shall also have the
right not to participate in said defense of said claim, action or
proceeding. If the City chooses to
have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where the
Project Sponsor has already retained counsel to defend the City in such
matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be
paid by the City. Notwithstanding the
immediate proceeding sentence, if the City Attorney’s office participates in
the defense, all City Attorney fees and costs shall be reimbursed by the
Project Sponsor. 39. The Project
Sponsor shall indemnify the City for all the city’s costs, fees, and damages,
which the City incurs in enforcing the above indemnification provisions. 40. Unless a
shorter period applies, the time within which judicial review of this
Resolution must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6. MITIGATION
MEASURES 41. a.
The applicant shall sprinkle all construction
areas with water (recycled when possible) at least twice a day, during
excavation and other ground-preparing operations, to reduce fugitive dust
emissions. Wetting could reduce particulate (dust) emissions by up to 50
percent. b.
The applicant shall cover stockpiles of sand,
soil, and similar materials, or surround them with windbreaks. c.
The applicant shall cover trucks hauling dirt
and debris to reduce spillage onto paved surfaces. d.
The applicant shall sweep up dirt and debris
spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reduce re-suspension of
particulate matter through vehicle movement over those surfaces. 42. In the event that any cultural
resources are uncovered during earthmoving activities, the applicant shall
suspend all construction excavation activities for a period to be determined
by a City-approved archaeologist to allow for adequate inspection,
recommendation, and retrieval, if appropriate. 43. The
applicant shall insure that all outdoor lights on site are directed downward
and shall not cast light or glare onto surrounding properties. The Planning Director shall verify that
this condition has been satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. 44. The applicant will comply with building
recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation ( 45. All
pertinent construction vehicles and equipment shall be equipped with devices
to muffle and reduce noise generation in accordance with standard practices
to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. The Building Inspector will make periodic
site visits during construction to ensure compliance. 46. A
Water Conservation Plan identifying feasible Best Management Practices, such
as possible measures as low-flow facilities, conservation-oriented irrigation
and appropriate vegetative designs, as well as an implementation plan for the
entire development shall be prepared by the project sponsor. Approval of the
Water Conservation Plan by the City Engineer is required prior to approval of
improvement plans. 47. To
ensure that sufficient capacity exists to serve the needs of the project,
upon application for individual
building permits, the City Engineer and Building Official shall confirm that
sufficient capacity exists to serve the needs for that building prior to
issuance of a building permit. |
E. Request
for Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval to allow outdoor dining
at 8201 Old Redwood Highway, Sweet Lou’s Restaurant. The
project is exempt from further environmental review under the
PA# 19/02 Applicant: RLK Restaurants/Louis & Kim Chambrone
AP# 144-263-002
Planning
Director Woltering introduced Consultant Planner Rick Hirsch.
Consultant
Planner Hirsch presented the staff report and reviewed the suggested
conditions of approval.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was opened at
Lou Chambrone, the business owner, represented the
application. He said that he agreed with
what was stated in the staff report.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was closed.
In
response to an inquiry from the Planning Commission, Planning Director
Woltering said that the condition requiring that the chairs be stacked at
Chairman Dutra asked about
allowing extended hours on the weekends.
Commissioner
McClelland
suggested that the chairs in the front area could be stacked as required at
The
PUBLIC HEARING was re-opened at
Anna Young, the property
owner, said that it has been her experience as the owner of other restaurants
that stacked chairs in front of the business make it look like the business is
closed. Also, she said that she also
owns the nearby mixed-use building, and that she has not received any
complaints about noise from the residents.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was closed at
In
discussing the design review process for this project, it was the consensus
that Final Design Review could be approved at staff level and that the project
need not go back to the Design Review Committee.
Vice Chairman
Rock,
concerning the privacy fencing that will separate this business from the
adjacent businesses, said that he was troubled by the mix of wrought iron
fencing with wood fencing.
Consultant
Planner Hirsch explained that there is already one existing wood fence and
the intent is to build a second fence to match.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was re-opened at
Mr. Chambrone, the applicant, explained the proposed
placement of fencing and the locations of the pillars. He also said that he will need the fencing
because of his intention to apply for an alcohol license.
He
asked a question about whether or not customers would be allowed to gather in
the front patio area after the chairs are stacked, and with alcoholic beverages
after he gets a license from Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).
Planning
Director Woltering clarified that when the chairs are stacked, all business
must be conducted indoors, including the consumption of alcohol. He said that if the Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control does allow the consumption of alcohol on the front patio, then
the applicants could request an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to
allow the patio to remain open later.
Kim Chambrone, co-owner of the business, asked the Planning
Commission if they could amend the conditions to allow the front patio to be
open until 2:00 a.m. now, and then if the ABC approves their application to
allow the serving of alcohol on the front patio, they won’t have to come back
and ask for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. She was concerned about the amount of time it
takes to process City permits.
Chairman
Dutra pointed out that the Planning Commission is only considering the outdoor
dining at this time.
Planning
Director Woltering added that if the ABC license is approved and the applicants
want to modify their Conditional Use Permit to extend the allowable hours, it
would only require the approval of the Planning Commission. There wouldn’t be any necessity for the
Design Review Committee to review the amendment. He estimated a 30-day process.
Concerning the
lighting, Planning Director Woltering confirmed that staff will be reviewing
the required lighting plan.
Vice
Chairman Rock suggested that the lighting plan should be uniform and complementary
to and coordinated with the surrounding lighting.
Consultant
Planner Hirsch initiated discussion about the signs. He said that if the roof-mounted sign is
relocated, it should be brought down below the roof line.
Mr. Chambrone said that he had a Sign Permit from the City for
that sign. Planning Director Woltering agreed
to research the Planning files for evidence of the permit. It was agreed that the sign placement will be
a part of the Final Design Review approval at staff level.
The
PUBLIC HEARING was closed.
Vice
Chairman Rock requested and received assurance from the applicant that there
will be no a-board signs.
In
discussing the fence details, the Planning Commission concurred that staff
would have final approval authority for the fencing, subject to the following
condition:
The proposed wood privacy enclosure shown on the front
outdoor dining site plan shall be constructed of solid privacy screening to
match the existing fencing between the building and the northernmost pillar and
shall be painted to blend with the pillars.
Vice
Chairman Rock suggested that the existing fence be replaced and the new fence
built to match with narrow wood slats to look like the wrought iron and painted
black. There was no consensus to require
the change.
|
Motion: |
It
was moved by Chairman Dutra to adopt Resolution No. 04-01 approving a
Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Design Review to allow the
construction of outdoor dining areas at the front and rear of Sweet Lou’s
Restaurant located at Yes: 3 Noes: 1 (Rock) Absent: 1 (Pagnusat) Abstain: 0 Vice
Chairman Rock said that he is not in favor of the approved 7-foot screen fence
that he believes is not aesthetically pleasing, and should be upgraded. The proposal, he said, is not in keeping
with what the City is doing downtown. Conditions of
Approval (PA# 19/02): PLANNING
COMMISSION 1.
Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit to locate
the tables, chairs and planter boxes within the City’s right-of-way. 2.
The appropriate license shall be obtained from the State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for any outdoor sales and service of
alcoholic beverages. No service of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted
without such license. 3.
A minimum eight (8) foot path of travel shall be
maintained between the outside edge of the enclosure and the back of the curb
along 4.
Issuance of a Sign Permit shall be required with this
approval. Applicant shall secure all necessary building permits prior to
installation of any improvements. 5.
In the event that the applicant wishes to move the
existing roof-mounted wall sign on the front of the business approximately
five (5) feet left of its present location, to be centered with the entrance
to the restaurant, such sign shall also be lowered such that it does not
extend above the roofline. No changes or improvements to the sign are
approved with this Design Review. 6.
The applicant shall select and install a tubular steel
patio enclosure and wood privacy fencing in conformance with the
specifications in attached Exhibit “A” and as shown in Exhibit “C”. Such
patio enclosure shall be fastened to the ground with appropriate anchorage,
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, and shall match the color
of the tables and chairs. 7.
The applicant shall select and install tables and chairs
in conformance with the specifications in attached Exhibit “A”, and as shown
in Exhibit “B”, to be submitted for review to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director. 8.
AMENDED. All 9.
No outdoor heaters shall be placed under the arcade roof. 10.
All additional outdoor lighting requires review by the
Planning Department and shall produce only downcast lighting. Such
improvements shall not be required to be considered by the Design Review
Committee. 11.
In the event that table coverings are proposed, such coverings
shall satisfy Fire Department concerns and be subject to approval by the Fire
Department. 12.
There shall be a maximum of eight (8) round 36-inch
diameter tables in the front patio enclosure and a maximum of four (4) tables
for the rear patio enclosure accompanied by no more than 41 total seats. All
tables and chairs shall be of a uniform material and color. All outdoor
furniture, including front and rear patio tables and chairs, shall match in
color and material. 13.
Table umbrellas shall be a dark solid color canvas and
free of any advertising or logos. All umbrellas shall be of uniform color and
materials. 14.
The applicant shall install approximately 14 planter pots,
complimenting the design and colors of existing planter boxes in the area, in
general conformance with the examples shown in Exhibit “D” and in conformance
with the dimensions on Exhibit “A”. Such planter pots shall be maintained
with flowering plants year round. 15.
The design of egress/ingress from the front and rear
entrances shall be subject to approval by the Building and Fire Departments. 16.
Applicant shall submit a detailed irrigation plan showing
the means and placement of irrigation. 17.
ADDED. The proposed wood privacy enclosure shown
on the front outdoor dining site plan shall be constructed of solid privacy
screening to match the existing fencing between the building and the
northernmost pillar and shall be painted to blend with the pillars. PLANNING
DEPARTMENT 18. An
encroachment permit is required prior to issuance of building permits. The
applicant shall enter into a contract with the City of 19. The
applicant shall have 60 days from the date of Planning Commission approval of
the Use Permit, to cause the removal of the existing improvements in the
front outdoor dining area of the restaurant, including existing benches,
tables, chairs, enclosure, and planters, on the subject parcel and in the
public right-of-way. In the event that the applicant fails to meet this
deadline, the Use Permit shall become void. 20. Plant
materials for the planter boxes shall include at least 75 percent flowering
annual color plants. 21. Final
design review and approval of all plant selections, irrigation, lighting and
design, including colors and materials, of the enclosure, fencing, planter
boxes, lighting, tables, chairs, heating elements, and all other
improvements, shall be conducted administratively, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director. DESIGN
REVIEW 22.
Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit to locate
the tables, chairs and
planter boxes within the City’s right-of-way. 23.
The appropriate license shall be obtained from the State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for any outdoor sales and service of
alcoholic beverages. No service of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted
without such license. 24.
AMENDED. A minimum 25.
ADDED. Issuance of a Sign Permit
shall be required with this approval. Applicant shall secure all necessary
building permits prior to installation of any improvements. 26.
AMENDED. 27.
The applicant shall select and install a tubular steel
patio enclosure and wood privacy fencing in conformance with the
specifications in attached Exhibit “A” and as shown in Exhibit “C”. Such
patio enclosure shall be fastened to the ground with appropriate anchorage,
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, and shall match the color
of the tables and chairs. 28.
The applicant shall select and install tables and chairs
in conformance with the specifications in attached Exhibit “A”, and as shown
in Exhibit “B”, to be submitted for review to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director. 29.
All tables and chairs shall be stacked by 30.
AMENDED. No outdoor heaters
shall be placed under the arcade roof. 31.
All additional outdoor lighting requires review by the
Planning Department and shall produce only downcast lighting. Such
improvements shall not be required to be considered by the Design Review
Committee. 32.
In the event that table coverings are proposed, such
coverings shall satisfy Fire Department concerns and be subject to approval
by the Fire Department. 33.
There shall be a maximum of eight (8) round 36-inch
diameter tables in the front patio enclosure and a maximum of four (4) tables
for the rear patio enclosure accompanied by no more than 41 total seats. All
tables and chairs shall be of a uniform material and color. All outdoor
furniture, including front and rear patio tables and chairs, shall match in
color and material. 34.
AMENDED. Table 35.
The applicant shall install approximately 14 planter pots,
complimenting the design and colors of existing planter boxes in the area, in
general conformance with the examples shown in Exhibit “D” and in conformance
with the dimensions on Exhibit “A”. Such planter pots shall be maintained
with flowering plants year round. 36.
ADDED. The design of egress/ingress from the
front and rear entrances shall be subject to approval by the Building and
Fire Departments. 37.
ADDED. Applicant shall submit a detailed
irrigation plan showing the means and placement of irrigation. |
|
|
|
VII. REPORTS BY STAFF
Planning
Director Woltering reminded the Commissioners about the upcoming League of
California Cities Planning Commissioners Institute and that RSVPs are needed as
soon as possible.
There
were no reports from the Commission.
Chairman
Dutra adjourned the meeting at
Submitted
by:
Kathleen
Brisbine
Administrative
Secretary