CITY of
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES
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: Commissioner Cosio, Commissioner Garza, Commissioner Ostrowski,
Commissioners absent: Commissioner Bagley, Commissioner Spencer
Staff present: City Manager (CM) McClintock, City Planner (CP) Sundt and Minutes Clerk Johnson
Gail Sleznick was present to address the Commissioners regarding a matter which she believed had been agendaized for this meeting; annexation of the Ted Stephens property. Ms. Sleznick asked if the item had been pulled, explaining she and her husband live next to the property. She further stated she had not been notified but had seen the flyers around town and then noticed on the agenda it was pulled.
Chair Garza explained that it had become known that there would not be a quorum this evening that could listen to the item. [Note: It was ascertained at a later date that Commissioner Cosio was not eligible to vote on the matter due to the proximity of her dwelling to the property under discussion.] Chair Garza went on to explain that without the quorum, no vote was possible, so the matter was continued to the May Planning Commission meeting.
CM McClintock elaborated, telling the audience that there are legal ramifications connected with a public hearing, including noticing and a certain number of days (10) to respond.
Ms. Sleznick said she felt that the project would effect her property, and that removal of the item from the agenda had not been well communicated noting many of the residents present tonight had come to the meeting to address the matter. She asked when the issue would be heard.
{CM McClintock called attention to a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission called for April 10, 2007 for the purpose of a public hearing on the Stephens annexations request. She also made an announcement of a Community Immersion slated for April 10 – 12, 2007, which would consist of several in-depth meetings for the purpose of addressing the South San Juan Specific Plan. She assured the Commissioners they could have the special meeting and still participate in the Community Immersion sessions.}
CM McClintock reiterated why items are pulled (including clarification of the CA Streamlining Act). She then explained that a quorum did not exist tonight because two Commissioners are absent; making it necessary to move the matter to another night.
Ms. Sleznick asked why she had not received notice of the hearing.
CP Sundt spoke on noticing requirements to ‘residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site’. He stated the Negative Declaration had been posted on a telephone pole in the city, at City Hall, the Post Office and the City Library bulletin boards. He also explained that a list of surrounding property owners had been given to City Hall staffers to mail out notices. CM McClintock clarified that any posting errors will be corrected.
With no others present indicting a desire to speak to matters not appearing on the agenda, the public hearing was closed.
CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Affidavit of Posting April 3, 2007 Agenda
B. Approval of Minutes of March 6, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting (continued to the April 10, 2007 Special Planning Commission Meeting)
COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI MOTIONED APPROVAL OF
ITEM A ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WITH ITEM B BEING CONTINUED TO THE APRIL
10, 2007 MEETING. COMMISSIONER COSIO SECONDED
THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (3-0-0-2),
WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER
COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA, COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE;
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER SPENCER.
[NOTE: Calling attention to the agenda, Chair Garza emphasized that Public Hearing Items:
B. 319 Third Street Historic Design Review (renovation) – continued to date uncertain
C. Ted Stephens Annexation – continued to Special PC meeting April 10 would not be heard at
this meeting. CM McClintock advised she had discussed with the City Attorney the sequence
of events necessary for both the continuation(s). Commissioner Cosio expressed concerns of
‘vote manipulation’. CM McClintock replied that State law controlled the timelines of a
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ~ REQUIRING COMMISSION ACTION
Historic Design Review for New
CP Sundt presented the staff report, which included the recommendation that the Commissioners visit the site. He also had distributed the recommendation of the Historic Resources Board from the meeting of March 15, 2007 at which time this matter was addressed.
CP Sundt detailed the building design, emphasizing that the applicant is having a map prepared for submittal to the City for a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) for 304 3rd St. and a subdivision for 300 3rd St. “Consequently, the application for building the new structure is preceding the LLA and subdivision, with the pending application required to be submitted to the City, followed by Planning Commission review and approval,” CP Sundt said.
The proposed building is two
story, 2,688 sf, with a mixed use designation, and access from
The LLA would be necessary, he explained, to ‘fit’ the building within the space available. When Chair Garza asked why the LLA was not being addressed as a first request, CP Sundt responded that it is conditioned on having the 304 LLA and the 300 subdivision being granted.
At the conclusion of the staff report, Commissioners discussed with CP Sundt and CM McClintock:
— project description (and demographics)
— page 3 of the staff report (matrix) showing the zoning requirements for the Mixed Use zoning district
— floor area ratio
— parking: measurements for determination of number of spaces needed
— incentive (Development Bonus ~ City Manager can endow) [forgiving 10% of the in-lieu fees]
— pedestrian linkages: esthetics and economic value
— development standards (MC:11.04.202)
— General Plan requirements [Policies HP-2, C-4, and C-12]
— building design and proposed materials
— exterior finishes to south wall
— recommendations of the Historic Resources Board
— fire prevention (water distribution system issues)
— Conditions of Approval (to which the following four new conditions have been added): 15. Plans are subject to fire department review and approval
16. During grading operations archeologist to be on site 17. Parking in-lieu fees as set by the City Council
18. Colors as proposed (and a combination of colors as established during discussion at this meeting)
— stairs: number and locations
— residential and commercial (retail) areas of building
— physical attributes, e.g., windows, doors, roof, balconies of building
Chair Garza opened the public hearing.
Jim Sleznick was present to address the Commissioners regarding the south elevation which faces 3rd St. Mr. Sleznick urged that the texture be consistent, as much as possible, to the other buildings. “If the front building should be removed, there is need for consistency and differing textures just compound issues for maintenance and it may become visually irritating,” he said. Mr. Sleznick said the drawings appear attractive and that he looks forward to having a revived spirit coming into the community.
C.L. Price (from the State Park Service – Old Mission San Juan Bautista) said staff had not had the opportunity to review the plans, which he indicated would be transported to the District Office April 4, 2007 for review and written comment.
Responding to a question, CP Sundt said that within two months he expected to see an application for the subdivision as this project is contingent on the subdivision being approved. CP Sundt also said it was ‘premature’ to comment on the timeline for completion of the project pending approval.
With no others present indicating a wish to speak to the matter, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cosio commented she was glad to see the Park Service looking at the plans for presenting written observations. She continued by saying that while the building appears to be a fine idea for downtown, especially the path, she was concerned with not having the LLA and subdivision actions completed before this undertaking. Commissioner Cosio detailed other concerns:
— dimension(s) of the lot
— four additional sewer hookups
— parking (and requirements for offices, retail, etc.)
— differences in square footage measurements presented
— tile roof seems more appropriate given what across street and fire issues
— path appears not to be handicapped compliant
— likes ramp instead of steps
— 400-amp service needed; may be unsightly
CM McClintock advised that if the Commissioners are concerned with the utility meters visibility, camouflaging could be added as a condition.
CM McClintock informed that issue the main requirement for handicapped accessibility is 48-inches.
Commissioner Ostrowski stated his concern that the City appears to be putting the cart before the horse, reminding that CP Sundt had reported the Commissioners might be tentatively approving the project at this time. CP Sundt said if the Commissioners say ‘yes’ tonight, the applicant must still go through the subdivision and LLA applications. “I don’t think you’ll see any surprises,” he said.
Commissioner Cosio asked, “Then why do we want to make this action before the remaining applications are submitted?” CP Sundt responded, “It is mainly a confidence building for the applicant.” Commissioner Cosio said she wondered if the applicant may be getting the idea that the building may not fit into the space indicated.
CP Sundt insisted it will fit.
Commissioner Ostrowski clarified that an archeologist would be present on the work days during which grading and contouring would occur.
COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI MOTIONED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2007-XX, WITH THE
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS NOTED.
COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI WITHDREW THE MOTION IN ORDER TO CONTINUE
DISCUSSION.
Joanna Mathewson, a representative of the applicant, commented that the roofing materials need to be approved by the Fire Chief (discussion ensued regarding various materials which would be approved for the roof); and the applicant is resistant to use of roof tiles.
CM McClintock suggested that Condition 14 contain language ensuring the Planning Commission would have further review of the roof materials.
Ms. Mathewson commented on the lot, stating it is one of the smallest commercial lots and smallest for ratio in the city, but the codes do not state a minimum lot size or minimum building size requirement, only a rear setback requirement of eight feet. She went on to say that the applicant chose not to build a larger building on the lot and the building, at 40 feet, was considerably less than the footprint and height requirements.
Commissioners discussed with Ms. Mathewson the path, building right up to Park property, and building locations in town.
COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI MOTIONED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2007-04,
INCLUSIVE OF THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND WITH THE MODIFICATIONS IDENTIFIED
DURING DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER COSIO
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (3-0-0-2)
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA,
COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: COMMISSIONER
BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER SPENCER.
Comments and Announcements:
Commissioners:
Commissioner Cosio voiced her enjoyment of the Easter parade and community breakfast. Whereupon. other Commissioners agreed it was good to see the town pulling together.
Chair Garza asked about a possible Code Enforcement issue; CM McClintock was asked to look into the matter.
City Manager:
CM McClintock reminded again of
the Community Immersion sessions and
the Special Meeting of the Commission on April 10.
Adjournment:
ACTING ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS OSTRAWNSKI/COSIO FOR ADJOURNMENT,
CHAIR GARZA DECLARED THE MEETING COMPLETED, AND AT 8:32 P.M. SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________________