HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - March 9, 1990315
SPECIAL MEETING
LODI CITY COUNCIL
FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1990
7:00 A.M.
CARNEGIE FORUM
305 WEST PINE STREET
LODI, CALIFORNIA
Mayor Snider called the meeting to order at 7:00 a.m.
City Clerk Reimche recorded roll as follows:
Present: Council Members - Hinchman, Olson, Pinkerton,
Reid and Snider (Mayor)
Absent: Council Members - None
Also Present: City Manager Peterson, Assistant City
Manager Glenn, Community Development
Director Schroeder, City Attorney McNatt,
and City Clerk Reimche
REQUEST FOR HOME OCCUPATION
PERMIT FOR NAIL SALON AT
10 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
The City Council was advised by the City Attorney that the
request of Penny Gamaza for a Home Occupation Permit at 10
North Central Avenue to conduct a nail salon has triggered
an examination of our home occupation provisions. It
appears that the Municipal Code may be in need of
modification and update on this topic.
Further, the City Attorney advised the City Council that
"home occupations" are referred to in the Municipal Code
only twice; once in Section 5.04.080 which just requires a
business license tax for home occupations, and again in
Section 17.03.290 which only defines "home occupation."
This leads the City Attorney to suspect that at some point
in the distant past, when the Lodi Municipal Code was
revised, some parts may have been omitted.
Other than generally describing "home occupation" and
prohibiting certain uses such as "clinics, hospitals,
barber shops, beauty parlors, real estate offices and
animal hospitals" our statutes do not give clear guidelines
as to what uses are allowed, how an application is to be
processed, etc. Most of the actual requirements are found
only in the 13 conditions which appear on the face of the
permit form, and are not based on statute.
A draft ordinance was presented by the City Attorney for
Council review. The draft ordinance would allow Community
Development Director to issue occupation permits if certain
1
316
Continued March 9, 1990
criteria are met. It would also allow the matter to be
placed before the Planning Commission if the permit is
denied. Further appeal would be to the City Council.
Certain uses (for example, kennels, clinics, etc.) are
explicitly excluded based on past experiences as being
simply in -compatible with residential uses. The proposed
ordinance contains guidelines to help determine which
proposed uses are within the legislative intent of the
ordinance. However, it would be impossible to list by
specific title every permitted and prohibited business use,
so some degree of vagueness will be inherent in the statute.
A lengthy discussion followed with questions being directed
to staff.
Council Member Olson left the meeting at 7:35 a.m.
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Hinchman, Pinkerton second,
the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for
review.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:50 a.m.
Attest:
NicALeim he
City Clerk
2