CITY of
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES
Chair Garza called the meeting
to order at
Commissioners present: Commissioner Bagley, Commissioner Cosio, Chair Garza, and Commissioner Ostrowski,
Commissioners absent: Commissioner Spencer
Staff present: Staff present: City Planner (CP) Sundt and Minutes Clerk Johnson {City Manager (CM) McClintock was in the audience}
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.
CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Affidavit of Posting
B. Approval of Minutes of
declared no action would be taken on these minutes as at this meeting due to the fact
that the present quorum of Commissioners could not vote as not as all had been not
been present at the referenced meeting.
C. Approval of Minutes of
item was pulled at the request of Commissioner Ostrowski who wished to have discussion on the wording in the 2nd paragraph (Commissioner Ostrowski statement). Based on the argument raised by Commissioner Ostrowski, Chair Garza ordered the matter continued to the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ~~ REQUIRING COMMISSION ACTION
Chair Garza left the meeting at
505 Third Street (Castaneda residence) Design Review
CP Sundt stated that new attachments to the staff report had been distributed and explained the (proposed) requirement of having the porch removed. The zoning requirements for the Mixed Use Zoning District were explained as CP Sundt spoke. He also called attention to page 3 of the staff report where criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources were included. CP Sundt told the Commissioners he had visited the site. This project intends to enclose the existing porch area which ‘appears to be an old garage’, he said. CP Sundt termed this to be a ‘relatively innocuous application request’.
Commissioner Cosio referenced the prepared Resolution asking about the recommendation to remove the existing foundation? CP Sundt responded, “It is cracked and broken; from an esthetic issue standpoint, it serves no purpose. Staff views this as an opportunity to get rid of an ‘old foundation no longer used’. Basically we would be making the nexus of getting rid of an unwanted structure and working on the porch.”
Vice Chair Ostrowski and Commissioner Cosio commented that it would be a lot of foundation to remove – ‘quite a project to undertake’.
Vice Chair Ostrowski opened the floor to public comment.
Alfred Castaneda, the applicant, addressed the Commissioners, saying, “This is not the same issue and is not a fair trade off. It would cost hundreds of dollars to remove the foundation. This project will only work if we can build on to it. We are asking to add 77 sf, removing it would be overwhelming.”
Commissioner Cosio asked if Mr. Castaneda could do anything to beautify the foundation and leave it there? Mr. Castaneda said he knew the site is in a mixed use zone and that he would like to build something with it someday. “I will pursue something and will repair it if I can. If I need to remove the foundation, I would like to do it in the future. Actually, I want to remove it for beautification for the City. I want to pursue something within the mixed use parameters,” Mr. Castaneda said. He then went on to explain formulation of plans for currently pursing with the property.
Commissioner Cosio asked if the planned addition would ‘make too much building’ on the space of the property? Discussion ensued regarding the options for building on the site. Responding to questions, Mr. Castaneda said the building (over the foundation under discussion) had burned 29 years ago.
Vice Chair Ostrowski said the removal of the foundation might be a lot to ask for the additional 77 feet, but noted that applicant intends building at the site ‘anyway’.
Commissioner Cosio remarked that: “Since the applicant may need to remove the foundation, it makes sense to do it now.”
Mr. Castaneda advised he has talked to engineers and contractors who have declared the foundation sturdy and firm. “If it can be repaired, I think it would be beneficial to repair -and use – it. I intend to pursue having it repaired.
Maria Mansmith spoke for the application, saying it might be “chancy’ to redo the foundation and spoke against taking it down. Ms. Mansmith urged the Commissioners: “Do not think to tear the foundation down and do not ‘strong arm’ the applicant (her brother).” She said that for the past 10 -15 years they have asked the City what it want them to build, and were ‘willing to do whatever’. Ms. Mansmith said she did not think the foundation removal should be considered – and described it as a ‘non issue’. She went on to speak of:
- other properties not following set backs
- local Municipal Codes
- encroachment of plants to the property
- ‘ridiculous’ to remove the foundation to put in a 77 foot addition; she termed this ‘not fair’
With no others present to speak to the matter, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners discussed and agreed: the foundation should not be ‘tacked on to the project for the requested 77 feet’.
COMMISSIONER COSIO OFFERED RESOLUTION NO. PC 2007-XX APPROVING DESIGN
REVIEW FOR ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT
Deletion of the Condition: requiring the
remnant foundation to be removed.
NOTING THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINER THEREIN, COMMISSIONER
BAGLEY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (3-0-0-2)
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSSIONER
OSTROWSKI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: COMMISSIONER GARZA; COMMISSIONER
SPENCER.
Chair Garza returned to the meeting at
Calling up the Consent Agenda for
a second time, COMMISSIONERS
BAGLEY/OSTROWSKI MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING OF THE
957 First Street (Loayza
property) Design Review
CP Sundt gave the staff report, detailing the work being done: stakes have been put up along the proposed location of the masonry fence. He said there would be two sections of masonry fencing at the location.
Lengthy discussion ensued as to whether the proposed is a fence or a wall. CP Sundt said it was all a matter of semantics. Also discussed was a letter from former HRB Chair Cara Vonk. Ms. Vonk sent forward the concerns raised at the HRB meeting, to which CP Sundt had responded in detail.
CP Sundt went on to describe the two sections of the fence as illustrated in distributed drawings. He explained the height and told of the planned landscaping. CP Sundt clarified that in addition to the masonry a chain link fence would be installed. “This is agriculture property and the applicant wants to secure the property and eliminate trash and trespassing. This is their initial approach, he told the Commissioners, adding there is an application for a single family structure on this property. Calling attention to the existing house on southeast side of property, CP Sundt said the house was not registered in the 2006 Galvan property inventory of historical dwellings. He noted the application had been sent to the HRB where discussion occurred regarding the effect of the masonry fence on the Town.
Other issues for discussion, CP Sundt said, were:
- lighting ~~ however, the applicant has been removed all lighting except in the area of the entry gate
- fence height
- set back
- color
- texture
- intervening planter boxes along the perimeter of the fence
“Perhaps of most importance is
the set back in relation to the City infrastructure,” CP Sundt said. He told of discussion with the City Engineer
regarding other masonry fences in the Town: the
Regarding City Code, CP Sundt said, the staff report addresses:
- important issues of esthetics
- scenic route
- General Plan
-
- the proposed fence is 8 feet high and set back from the property line
- appears to be ‘meandering fence’
- color suggested: white or light (color to be decided by the Planning Commission)
-
right-of-way for the public on the right of
It was noted that the City Engineer and City Planner had approved the application and recommended the Planning Commission do so as well.
Other issues/concerns discussed were:
- placement of lighting at the
- Flooding any fence over 100 flood plain to be reviewed by Hydraulic Engineer
- need for indemnity for City
CP Sundt advised he had spoken with Commissioner Spencer and discussed the request as well as the comment letter from Ms. Vonk. He reported Commissioner Spencer had indicated disagreement with two items within the proposal:
- wall height (would prefer 6 feet rather than the 8 feet requested)
- set back (should be a minimum of 12 feet from property line)
CP Sundt again referenced the letter from former HRB Chair Cara Vonk. Ms. Vonk listed the concerns raised at the HRB meeting. CP Sundt read his responses into the record (on file in the City Office).
CP Sundt listed several factors as basis for recommending approval:
- this request is very different from Creekbridge; this stands on its own
- not a sound wall; wall will be for privacy
- ultimately safety/security wall
- list of 5 conditions (page 3) of the staff report:
· delineation of public right-of-way and property boundary
· lighting plan for entrance
· landscape and irrigation plan
· height differentiation limitations
· construction hours
Concluding, CP Sundt said, “This is the first of this sort of application submitted to the City: a large property requesting a fence for security and privacy. The precedence was set in the County for fencing. The applicant has concerns of security and privacy and it is noted that the applicant has proposed to have a chain link fence on the back side of the property. There are no policies that say you cannot secure ag lands; however, staff acknowledges that some policies of General Plan do not support this type of construction.”
Commissioner Ostrowski interjected, “But you do, Matthew?” CP Sundt responded that was not an appropriate question to ask at this time. CP Sundt asked, “What do you want to make of it – what do you want to make with it?”
CP Sundt went on to list suggestions for placement and features of the fence:
- 12 foot set-back with 14 feet of landscape area between the fence and the curb
- conceptual meander columns could be spaced out more
Disclosure: Chair Garza advised he had visited the site this date.
“While I was there today I saw where the stakes are located. The Zuniga's next door have an easement – how can a fence be built over an easement?” Chair Garza asked. Some perplexity resulted, with discussion centered on:
- a dirt driveway leads to the Zunica's property
- the fence stakes indicate placement over the driveway
- uncertainty of the accuracy of the drawing(s) distributed different drawing
- as presented, plan shows Zuniga’s losing their drive and a way to get into house
- if build as shown, Zunica’s can’t even walk into their house
Chair Garza left the dais at
CP Sundt acknowledged if an easement exists, it must be honored.
The following was discussed:
- indication of a common driveway: map says common driveway but the stakes says not
- not the intent of the applicant to diminish an easement
- must be to respect of easement
- location of easement on map
- applicant has respected easement for as long as in existence and will continue to do so
- discrepancy of map and what is on ground ~~ may be misunderstanding
- fence/wall issue: ag zoning allows fencing not walls
- a wall determines that this in front of house
- in the City a wall cannot be over 3-feet
- landscaping preference over a sound wall
- staff apparently has referred to a CalTrans fence in making recommendation
- location is on a City street
- not possible to compare to the Mission District – that is commercial district different from ag area
- easement is very important (to people who need it for transit)
- not more than a 3-feet tall fence
- concern of having responses to points of Ms. Vonk’s letter read – perhaps more proper to just present letter
- opposition to ‘giving property owner opportunity to do something just because it is ag land’
Commissioner Bagley commented he agreed that fences are OK, but not high walls. He added he could see the applicant’s desire for a sense of security and privacy.
CP Sundt explained differences in ‘technical wall’ and fencing. He reminded the City Code deals with residential and mixed uses, with any comparison to that ‘unfair because this is ag land’.
Commissioner Ostrowski spoke at length on the gateway. He reminded that CP Sundt had not been at the discussions of City gateways. “I think it looks good now, but I would not like an 8-foot wall. That would not be welcoming to the City. Nor do I think a 5-foot fence would be acceptable. While I like chain link fences, esthetically one would not work for the town. The applicant may think a chain link fence and a sound wall are great, but we have to look it forever. Cara raised many good points and I’m opposed to this all the way,” Commissioner Ostrowski said.
Chair Garza opened the public hearing.
Rosa Loayza, property owner, spoke on the following:
- requests approval of fence which will be ‘beautiful’
- it is a privacy fence with safety features
- concerns of public ‘jumping’ lower fence
- City will be happy with it
- must respect rules for ag land
- had talked to neighbor about easement
- worked with surveyor
Sharon McElhane, daughter of the applicants, told the Commissioners she had ‘come on board’ with the project to help her parents who have owned property here for a long time. Ms. McElhane raised the following points:
- Creekbridge development is across the street; now there is density and beauty
- current proposal will be absolutely esthetically beautiful;
- the installations will not be unwelcoming
- chain link fence with masonry wall on the front
- 10-12 acres of chain link fencing will continue to provide ag view
- this will be beautiful for town
- landscaping will be of quality of work
- reference to the wall at San Juan Inn (Commissioner Cosio clarified that is a CalTrans wall – not under the direction of the City)
- history of town is ag and Spanish Mission town as well
- will complement town
- very appropriate
- Loayza’s have run business for 40 years with integrity and respect
Rosa and Robert Zuniga told the commissioners they are ‘right next door to this. “The fence/wall is affecting our property. We did not receive notice in advance and haven’t had an opportunity to look at the proposal. We have had no information until now,” they informed. Listing objections, the Zuniga’s told the Commissioners:
- easement has always been there
- it looks as if the wall will be just outside their back door
- a handicapped child lives in the home
-
this is the original
- concerns with ability of emergency personnel to enter area
- object to masonry fence
- do not object to chain link fence
David Medeiros said he has
adjoining property and asked: Why a fence? What is so valuable, so important,
that the applicants have to have an 8-foot fence to protect? Mr. Medeiros spoke
at length of his family having lived at the location for years, and there has
not been a fence. “What is the need for protection and privacy? Why an 8-foot
wall?
Speaker Tony Boch said he had ‘lost count of the number of times this was called a fence. “It is a wall,” Mr. Bock said. “Or it will be eventually. I find this totally ridiculous to discuss a wall 8-foot high.” Mr. Boch gave comparisons to structures which are 8-feet to the top and asked if the City wants a wall that height at a City gateway?’ Mr. Boch also expressed concern of having trees cut at the site.
David Medeiros spoke from the audience, saying that for years farm equipment had been stored on the property which no one bothered. He also indicted that a neighbor had rented the property for production with no vandalism reported.
Ms. McElhane returned to the podium to say:
- garbage has been dumped on the property
- easement will always honored
With no others present to speak to the matter, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners discussed:
- the applicant can get everything they are asking for with chain link fence and trees
- a wall is not needed
- concern of setting precedent
- 3-foot wall would be plenty high
- area is residential
Chair Garza commented he could see where the applicants were coming from and why they want privacy. “However, an 8-foot fence is a little much especially coming into town. I think visitors would not see Creekbridge but see the fence,” Chair Garza said. He also expressed concerns of
- the easement
- access to back areas for fire trucks
- height of fence
Following the discussion, there was not resolution for a motion. Chair Garza detailed that if a motion was not forthcoming, the request ‘dies’; if a motion contains a recommendation the applicant ‘has something to go on’.
CM McClintock advised of the following:
- the City cannot make changes of the requirement to ag land
- can only require what is in code for ag lands
- this is 5-acre minimum for subdivision so there could not be more than three parcels in a subdivision at the location
- if the Commissioners want to make it so fencing is a requirement of the General Plan, there is a process
- current standards for mixed use not applicable to this site at the present time
HAVING HEARD NO MOTION, CHAIR GARZA DECLARED THE MATTER REMOVED FROM
FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
Commissioner Ostrowski was excused at
Sign Ordinance Amendment
Specific to 11.10.150.B – Open House Signs
CP Sundt gave the staff report, noting this item had been returned to the Commission at the request of the City Council for review and possible amendment of the ‘open house’ signage. He called attention to pages 13 and 14 (Section 11.10150) of the sign Ordinance, which is under consideration for amendment.
Discussion followed regarding existing signs within the City.
CM McClintock asked, “What do the Commissioners want from Code Enforcement ~~ when signs are seen, should the Enforcement Officer bring them into City Hall? Should the offender have to pay to get back? The City Council is asking you to address to industry standards. Enforcement actions are up to the City, but remember the limitation of personnel.” She went on to explain Councilmember Edge’s request for standardized signs.
Considerable discussion ensued, with CP Sundt advising that Section 11.10150: B and D be rescinded as he itemized the problematic issues with the subsections.
Chair Garza opened the public hearing.
Tony Bock said he was not ‘privy to the proposed changes’ but advised from a Realtor’s point, a typical sign has 2x2 feet and needs to be gone at the end of the open house. He said that in his experience if a sign was confiscated by the City, only a $25.00 fine would have it returned.
Several local signs were discussed:
- cabinet shop sign
- Casa de Mission
- confusions regarding signage right at the City’s limits
With no others in attendance indicating a wish to speak to the matter, the public hearing was closed.
COMMISSIONER COSIO MOTIONED RESCISSION OF SECTION 11.10150: B
AND D OF THE ORDINANCE AS OUTLINED DURING DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER
BAGLEY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED (3-0-0-2)
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO,
COMMISSSIONER GARZA; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: COMMISSIONER OSTROWSKI;
COMMISSIONER SPENCER.
DISCUSSION ITEM
Consider Rescheduling July
Meeting
CP Sundt reminded that the Commission
meeting is currently scheduled for
Commissioners discussed the
matter, and in ascertaining there was not compelling reason for moving the
meeting, CHAIR GARZA DIRECTED STAFF TO
PLAN ON CONDUCTING THE MEETING AS SCHEDULED. CP Sundt said the meeting
would be ‘left as is” and asked for direction in contacting Commissioners
Ostrowski and Spencer if urgent matters arose regarding the meeting.
Comments and Announcements:
Commissioners:
Commissioner Bagley asked about
the signs at Mission Café pointing toward the duplexes on
Commissioner Bagley thanked everyone who helped toward the Nicco Rodriques family’s recent disaster (fire). He said that the fundraiser at Daisy’s had brought in over $3,000. “The shop owners and a lot of residents and Mom and Pops and Daisy’s helped Nicco who lost almost everything they owned. So thank you,” Commissioner Bagley said.
Staff: None
Adjournment:
ACTING ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS BAGLEY/CASIO FOR ADJOURNMENT, CHAIR
GARZA DECLARED THE MEETING
COMPLETED, AND AT
Minutes recorded and prepared by Attest:
Judi Johnson Trish
Paetz, Deputy City Clerk