CITY of SAN JUAN BAUTISTA

Planning Commission Meeting

February 6, 2007

Minutes

 

Vice Chair Garza called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm, by inviting all present to join in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

 

Commissioners present:      Vice Chair Garza, Commissioner Bagley, Commissioner Cosio, Commissioner Ostrowski

 

Commissioners late:            Commissioner Spencer, who arrived and was seated on the

                                                dais at 7:09 p.m.

 

Staff present:                         City Manager (CM) McClintock; City Planner (CP) Sundt, and Minutes Clerk Johnson

 

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

 

Vice Chair Garza opened the public hearing for items not appearing on the agenda. Noting that no persons were present to address this agenda item, the public hearing was closed. 

 

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

 

Selection of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson

 

COMMISSIONERS OSTROWSKI/COSIO NOMINATED COMMISSIONER REUBEN GARZA TO BE CHAIR FOR THE ENSUING YEAR. THE MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE:  AYES: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: COMMISSIONER SPENCER. 

 

COMMISSIONERS COSIO/BAGLEY NOMINATED COMMISSIONER Michael OSTROWSKI TO BE VICE-CHAIR FOR THE UPCOMING TERM. THE MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-0) WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE:  AYES: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: COMMISSSIONER SPENCER. 

 

CONSENT AGENDA:

 

A.    Approval of Affidavit of Posting February 6, 2007 Agenda

B.   Approval of Minutes of December 5, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting                                   (Deferred; awaiting arrival of Commissioner Spencer)

C.   Approval of Minutes of January 2, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting, with the

       following modifications:

            Page 5, paragraph 10, line 1: Pope Polk

            Page 6, paragraph 2, line 4: 4800 5,000

            Page 8, paragraph 8, line 1: Mission Casa de

            Page 12, paragraph 3, line 1: {delete} all

 

COMMISSIONER COSIO MOTIONED APPROVAL OF ITEMS AND C (as amended) OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (4-0-0-1), WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE:  AYES: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: COMMISSIONER SPENCER. 

 

Commissioner Spencer arrived and was seated at 7:09 P.M.

 

COMMISSIONER SPENCER MOTIONED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (3-0-2-0) WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE:  AYES: COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI, COMMISSIONER SPENCER; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO; ABSENT: NONE. 

 

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ~ REQUIRING COMMISSION ACTION

 

Historic Design Review Permit – 303/307 Third Street Renovation

CP Sundt reminded this matter (Mary Lopez property) had been heard at the January 2, 2007 meeting, when a determination had been made to have the HRB review the paint scheme. HRB member Cara Vonk had informed City staff that they felt it appropriate to have a ‘more bold’ color for the building at 303 Third, favoring a ‘burnt reddish’ paint color (sienna) with green trim. HRB also proposed that the building at 307 third remain the same color.

 

CP Sundt called attention to the five conditions in the resolution dealing with the colors for the buildings as outlined in the staff report. He also noted that the owner wants to keep with the same colors as are now on the buildings, and staff feels that the current color scheme is appropriate. He also informed that there is continuing dialogue regarding the downspouts and resolution to that issue has not been reached. CP Sundt said, “As to 313 and 315 Third Street, we are working with the owner to remove the paint (used without a permit) on those buildings. It turned out that we have an overzealous new owner who put new paint on the sandstone, and all concerned agree to the need to ‘calm down the color’. I want to stress that the wishes of the Planning Commission were followed: the HRB did review the paint issue. The staff recommendation is in line with Municipal Code 110.60.90.”

 

Commissioner Ostrowski asked if Mrs. Lopez has been made aware of the HRB’s suggestion, and CP Sundt replied, “Yes, but she has indicted she will stick with the current colors.” Commissioner Ostrowski said, “Then HRB can’t enforce her to use specific colors?” CM McClintock advised that the HRB has suggested a chemical analysis be completed.

 

Commissioner Ostrowski pointed out the primary concern is to try to help Ms. Lopez expedite the process.  CM McClintock agreed, saying the project has been held up for six weeks. CP Sundt shared a sample of the color proposed by the HRB.

 

Commissioner Cosio asked when the last time the buildings were painted was, and CP Sundt estimated twice in the last 40 years.

 

Chair Garza opened, and then closed the public hearing as no persons present indicted a wish to speak to the matter.

 

Commissioners discussed:

-         red hued color schemes

-         agreement with the HRB suggestion (preference to slightly darker so buildings not ‘stick out as much’ but provide differentiation)

-         owner wants same colors as now

-         all persons see colors differently

-         support for ‘letting Ms Lopez get on with the project’

 

COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI OFFERED RESOLUTION NO. PC 2007-0X, INCLUSIVE OF THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS WITHIN. COMMISSIONER COSIO SECONDED THE MOTION, NOTING THE AMENDMENT:

Whereas The Applicant Has Consulted The HDR, And Has Appealed To The City For Permission To Retain The Current Color Scheme For The Aforementioned Buildings To Finish The Exterior Walls Where The Paint Is Missing Or Discolored…

THE MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-0) WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI, COMMISSIONER SPENCER; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: NONE. 

 

Title 11 – Chapter 11.04.100 – Wireless Communications, amendments

 

CP Sundt gave the staff report, stating the purpose and intent of the chapter update is to provide new definitions to the code. He gave an overview of the highlights and said the new Ordinance brings the City to current standards and includes the requirements of the State and Federal laws relating to wireless communications.

 

Lengthy discussion ensued regarding:

-         the City’s ability to have control over placement of receiving devices

-         development standards

-         design and operational standards

 

CP Sundt stressed the language provided (with City Attorney input) ‘is appropriate’ and reiterated that the HRB concerns had been met. Staff asks that the Planning Commission send to the City Council recommendation for approval of Chapter 11.04.100 – Wireless Communications, with the amendments so noted.

 

Commissioner Spencer asked if a wireless communication company must apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)? [No, but special provisions are present in the amendment regarding amateur radio installations.

 

Discussion centered on:

-         industrial neighborhood page 7; c: i, ii, iii: this is more broad than HRB or San Carlos’ Ordinance (on which this is patterned); not a list of what can do

-         regulations in place by Telecommunications Act of 1996; if too restrictive, or contains bad guidelines, when looking at outcome (and not focus on negatives) adjustments can be made

-         if  legal decisions made, can change on that basis

-         no zoning regulations for satellite dish; set up on how the City wants objective to be accomplished (maybe not put satellites on porch {but if that is the only place where it can be put, then variance to locate there}

 

CP Sundt reviewed page 3; item c; and explained b2, etc.

 

Several items were highlighted:

-         page 3, 3c: design review approval

-         building permit requirements

-         findings and exemptions (page 4) item 3

-         attention called that the City Attorney had crafted the section

-         ready for use by the City

 

Commissioner Ostrowski asked if a communications company needed to get a permit if they wanted to put up an antennae as they should be informed that the City has the ‘say on where it’s placed’. CM McClintock said if the Planning Commission and City Council think the companies should be made aware, City staff can send copies of Ordinances to local purveyors. She commented that CMAP is effective but the practice of erecting antennae is so widespread, but if the Commissioners want, City Staff could send the updated ordinances to companies like Dish and DirecTV.

 

Commissioner Ostrowski said he thought they should be made aware.  

 

Commissioner Cosio commented that residents with out-dated, large satellites should be encouraged to remove them as they are inoperable and unsightly. CP Sundt said there was nothing in the Ordinance regarding inoperable antenna. CM McClintock suggested including language regarding discontinuation of use of antennae by new technology - page 9: g. She said the matter would be discussed with the City Attorney before being heard by the Council.  

 

Commissioner Bagley asked if this Ordinance would affect the ‘City Yard monstrosity’? CM McClintock led discussion of the use of that installation by a Charter Communications who provides service to Anzar High School. But if the High School is not using that antenna, then it must come down.

 

Commissioner Bagley said that some antennae are placed on the front of a building as that is the only location where a signal can be received. Discussion followed regarding the level of screening required for such installations.

 

Chair Garza opened, and then closed the public hearing as no persons present indicted a wish to speak to the matter.

 

COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF REPEALING SECTION 11.04.100 (TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND SATELLITE ANTENNAE) AND SUBSTITUTING A NEW SECTION 11.04.100 (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES) CHAPTER 11.04 (ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11.29 (DEFINITIONS) OF TITLE 11 OF THE SAN JUAN BAUTISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUSIVE OF THE NEW TERMS AND DEFINITIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED DURING DISCUSSED, WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BE CONSULTED REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF DISCONTINUED USE OF OBSOLETE ANTENNAE. COMMISSIONER BAGLEY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (5-0-0-0) WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI, COMMISSIONER SPENCER; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: NONE. 

 

Title 11 – Chapter 11.10 – Signs, amendments

 

CP Sundt reminded Commissioners that this item had been continued from their January 2 meeting, having been returned to the HRB. He said HRB had discussed it at their January 25, 2007 meeting and their substantive comment was that the City’s Design Guidelines currently preclude portable freestanding signs, thus precipitating amending the Design Guidelines pertinent to portable signs.  Subsequently, City staff is amending the Design Guidelines as part of this action.

 

CM McClintock agreed with CP Sundt, saying recommendations from HRB were integrated into the Title 11 (section 11.10.100(a)4-5-6) distributed to the Commission. She continued by saying the recommendations from staff and the HRB would permit more signs instead of ‘just the big signs’.  CM McClintock noted that historic City photographs portray very large signs and recommended changes to the section of Title 11 are in order with the historical guidelines.

 

Several issues were discussed:

-         free standing portable signs [an amendment will be proposed to HRB to tie language to the Design Standards and Guidelines] this matter will be returned to the Planning Commission meeting in March

-         an ‘A frame’ may be used but cannot interfere with pedestrians or car doors (nor can they be placed ‘helter skelter’)

-         applications now a ‘simpler’ process

-         variances must be heard by Planning Commission

-         specific signage was referenced: Patty’s Antiques, the pickup at Mariposa House (also a parking issue; staff to check)

-         potential need for more amendments and Ordinances

-         professionally produced signs

-         portable free standing signage: (two issues: maintenance; limitation to message) how City enforce violations on public property (garage sales; ball field at 4th and Muckelemi Streets: signage  limitations Little League field {111.02.20})

 

City Staff recommended the Ordinance be sent to City Council with the public hearing set for March 20, 2007.

 

Considerable discussion followed:

-         Ordinance ‘too permissive for developments and real estate’

-         too restrictive for neon signs; perhaps having neon signage open, small, and reasonably discreet [CM McClintock offered to review the Code for potential updates; the three ‘grandfathered’ neon signs were noted. CP Sundt explained the purpose for not allowing neon signs: an attempt to maintain a ‘certain flavor and character’. It was noted the creator of the ordinance wanted restrictiveness.]  

-         signage fixed or attached to vehicles or trailers (Mariposa House BBQ signs on pick-up again discussed)

-         this Ordinance would allow the City to enforce signage

-         CM McClintock explained  ‘generic signage’ which may become an Eagle Scout project (funding is an issue)

 

Also discussed were the issues of:

-         real estate/development sign signs/placement thereof (location and distance of placement highlighted)

-         open house real estate signs (termed ‘very temporary’ with the possibility of restriction to placement ‘no more than 15 minutes before or 30 minutes after the scheduled hours of the open house’; discussion evolved and it was determined the City did not have the ability to enforce)

 

Commissioner Ostrowski was excused at 8:27 p.m.

 

Commissioner Cosio called attention to 11.10.190 (Special Permits) saying she

It presented too much leeway and was ‘very discretionary’ for a City Manager. CM McClintock cited examples of events special where this would be allowable, the most recent a family request for yellow ribbons on trees for a military personnel returning from Iraq. IT WAS DECIDED BY CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT (OSTROWSKI WAS ABSENT) THIS SECTION WOULD NOT BE CHANGED.

 

Regarding the holiday decorations in historic downtown, Commissioner Bagley referenced the saints on poles. CM McClintock advised this is a Chamber-sponsored attraction where they rent pole space and the City’s public works employees volunteer their time to erect the decorations.

 

Reference to grandfathered signage were noted and discussed.

 

Chair Garza opened, and then closed the public hearing as no persons present indicted a wish to speak to the matter.

 

Commissioner Bagley motioned to forward the Title 11 – Chapter 11.10 – Signs, amendments to the City Council with modifications and noted as having been presented by the HRB and discussed at the Commission meeting.  Commissioner Spencer seconded the motion, which PASSED (4-0-0-1) WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSIONER SPENCER; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI. 

 

Comments and  Announcements: 

 

Commissioners:

 

Chair Garza asked about the Monterey Street blockage and the work being done. Commissioner Bagley advised AT&T was working on installations. Following discussion, CM McClintock was directed to follow up with Engineer Mitch Gabriel on the possibility of AT&T fixing the road following the current work.

 

Other discussion/concern centered on the recently completed work on Washington Street which appears to interfere with the ability of handicapped persons to access the sidewalk. CM McClintock indicated intent to inspect the site.

 

City Manager: 

 

CM McClintock said some ‘really exciting things are listed on the City calendar including:

-         Whiskerino and Crazy Lady's Hats contests.

-         Arts and Craft Festivals (positive responses are being received)

-         Music festival for Memorial Day weekend has good headliners scheduled

 

Broad discussion centered on the announcement by the City Manager that very shortly the City will be starting work on the San Juan Bautista Specific Plan (for the general area that used to be the cement plant) and is of special interest in that 300 of the 490 acres are slated to become permanent park (work will start this summer). “We will seek public input and we want Planning Commission input throughout the process,” she said. “There will be a lot of public meetings. It will be a good project, benefiting the City as it will be historically excellent as well as aesthetically pleasing.” Chair Garza indicated strong interest in participating.

 

Further discussion resulted in answers of:

-         City Council approval to pay for the Specific Plan

-         the Plan would result in the City having another 1.2 million gallon reservoir

 

Adjournment:

 

ACTING ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS SPENCER/BAGLEY FOR ADJOURNMENT, VICE CHAIR GARZA DECLARED THE MEETING COMPLETED, AND AT 9:10 PM SO ORDERED.  

 

 

                                                                                    ______________________________

                                                                                      Reuben Garza, Vice Chairman

ATTEST:

 

 

__________________________________

  Trish Paetz, Deputy City Clerk