CITY of
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES
5:00 p. m. Workshop: Assistant City Attorney Robert
Rathie presented the session on Discussion of Legal Issues Involved with Being
a Planning Commissioner, using text from Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple
Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century and several ‘real
life’ examples of legal issues facing Commissioners to provide instruction in
utilizing exhibited knowledge to perform their duties to the highest and best
abilities.
Chair
Garza called the meeting to order at
Commissioners
present: Commissioner Bagley, Commissioner Cosio, Chair Garza, Commissioner
Ostrowski, Commissioner Spencer
Commissioners
absent: None
Staff
present: City
Planner (CP) Sundt and Minutes
Clerk Johnson;
(CM
McClintock was present in the audience, as she was an applicant at this
meeting)
Chair
Garza opened the public hearing
for items not appearing on the agenda. As there were no persons present to
address this agenda item, the public hearing was closed.
CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of Affidavit of Posting
B. Approval
of Minutes of
NOTE: The minutes for meetings of
COMMISSIONER
BAGLEY MOTIONED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONER COSIO SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH PASSED (4-0-1-0), WITH
THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER
BAGLEY, COMMISSIONER COSIO, COMMISSIONER GARZA COMMISSSIONER OSTROWSKI; NOES: NONE;
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER SPENCER; ABSENT: NONE.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ~ REQUIRING
COMMISSION ACTION
Public
Hearing Items
This
is a Historic Resource Design Review for replacement of the sidewalk overhang
at
CP
Sundt presented the staff report, noting the request is being made to replace
an overhang which has deteriorated because of deterioration in the posts and
where the old, flat roof is connected to the wall of the building. CP Sundt
reported the specifications of the project at
An
existing issue, CP Sundt advised, is that this building was inadvertently
omitted from the 2006 Historic Resources Inventory; however, work is being
completed to correct this oversight.
CP
Sundt told the Commissioners that the specifics of the project component(s)
are:
-
new 6” x 6”
[posts painted dark brown]
-
new overhang
roofing with slope (detail distributed), six feet deep (measured from wall)
Four feet of walk space maintained between wall and posts with two foot
overhang to edge of sidewalk (detail presented)
-
overhang height
(at wall): 12’; nearest curb: 10”
-
overall width of
wall: 60 feet
-
roof material:
proposed to be composition shingle with color to be determined and presented
203
-
remove existing
sheet rock ceiling, knotty-pine ceiling and all light fixtures to expose
original tin ceiling (detail provided)
-
install new wood
trim in hallway (detail presented)
-
install false
ceiling beams in hallway (detail presented)
-
install new
wrought iron ceiling fixtures with spacing (detail presented)
-
installation of
fire retardant wood shingle roof over existing tin roof {recommendation of HRB
– not agreed by Planning Department}
CP
Sundt advised that the Planning Department agrees that the
The
review by the Historic Resources Board was presented and discussed at length. CP Sundt then called attention to the
Conditions of Approval – as well as the required findings, which had been
prepared as part of the Resolution.
Commissioners
discussed with staff:
-
fire department
requirements (particularity the HRB recommendation for a shingle roof over the
tin)
-
clarification of
the size of the project
-
ceiling should
match what is inside the Inca building
Applicant
Greg McCandless addressed the Commissioners regarding:
-
work by the previous
owner (hallway built through the adobe using sheetrock)
-
portions of the restaurant
and within the Inca, one see the tin
ceiling/roof
-
his intent to
restore tin in the Asian restaurant and also in the Inca
-
several years
ago the areas were painted due to rust and a large piece of sheet metal installed
[but he will do tin]
-
intent to retain
cream color - wants continuity in building
-
get rid of current
light fixtures; maybe old fashioned lighting installed
-
desire to
restore to early
-
wrought iron might
be used if it would not interfere with pedestrian area
-
posts will be in
same spot as previously (distances back from curb good spot and good span will
retain)
Mr.
McCandless explained the new design of the overhang and advised that a lack of
drainage originally caused the need for repair. “But the design is so bad, and
now we will have a ‘mission-type’ overhang with no soffit and exposed planks
below, therefore water will not be able to collect for further damage.
“At
the Orient Express we have an overhang and across the street it will be the same
thing,” Mr. McCandless clarified. “I just want to improve the structure.”
Chair
Garza opened, and then closed the public hearing as no persons present indicated
a wish to speak to the matter.
Commissioners
commented on the request, and discussed with Mr. McCandless:
Ostrawski: clarified that a tin roof would be used, not
wood singles
Cosio: concerns of leaking
in the roof area
McCandless: original shingle (displayed) may have been
Spencer: likes improvements
McCandless intent restore to original look; can repair by
overlaying tin in identified areas;
current
tin in very good condition; fire in attic many years ago
COMMISSIONER BAGLEY OFFERED RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-XX, APPROVING A HISTORIC RESOURCE DESIGN REVIEW FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE
SIDEWALK OVERHAND AT
409
CP
Sundt advised that the HRB had reviewed this item at their
Regarding the ramp, CP Sundt reported the HRB
thought it might be ‘too large’. Several alternatives had been suggested during
discussion at the HRB, including:
-
an inside the
building mechanical elevator (which the
-
an access from
the parking lot at the rear of the building (which had raised social and
mental-image concerns)
-
the proposed
gradual-elevated ramp under consideration at this meeting
It
was noted that while the HRB presented no specific objection to the presented
design, they had listed a concern that it was ‘too big and was very bulky in
appearance’.
CP
Sundt reviewed the request and reminded the Commissioners of the following:
-
other structures
in that era have ‘wrap around’ ramps (circa 1863 – and mentioned in recent inventories)
-
handicapped
entrances are subject to higher levels of scrutiny checks
-
subjective
decision as to appropriateness
Regarding
landscaping, CP Sundt called attention to the existing healthy trees, which
might be destroyed because installing the ramp might involve cutting of the
roots. However, he said, the hedge could possible remain, and staff would work
with the applicant to consider best landscaping available, while not detracting
from the Church building.
CP
Sundt reiterated the Conditions of Approval (included and corrected for the
proposed Resolution). He noted contractor Darin Del Curto was present, along
with Pastor
John Amelio of the
Commissioners
discussed with staff and the applicant(s):
Garza: space enough on the ramp is there clearance for
motorized scooters [applicant submitted drawings and applicant should do
research to ensure the space]
Del
Curto: ramp and turn in the ramp designed
for comfortable turn [CP Sundt advised the
Pastor
Amelio:
congregation would like to have the access
at the front, reserving the rear yard for social activities; ‘for dignity’ we
would like to have all members enter at the front
Del
Curto: for landscaping, we are
trying to shied as much as can
Ostrawski: leaning toward HRB suggestion which would keep the
ramp similar to that on the parsonage; as a visual that would be the best thing
so the public could only see a little of the front with the current ramp design
Cosio: concerns of skateboarders using ramp; what is in
back of the Church? [Church officials said they were trying to maintain the area
for a courtyard and said if the ramp was placed there, it could eliminate
social ability
Ostrawski: said he was leaning to the rear ramp ‘because it fits
better’
Spencer: spoke on the existing fencing, the picket fence and
the gate [she expressed concern that a high gate might block views and present
trouble for having wheelchairs pointing straight up the ramp]
Del
Curto: addressed the height of the
fence (less than 3-feet – probably about 25-inches) at the front and gave the
measurements and dimensions of the entire ramp, with the Commissioners asking
questions during his explanation to ensure total clarity of the planned
construction
Cosio: any idea how
old those two oak trees are? Pastor Amelio indicated
they were at the site in 1979, but not in pictures made of the steeple in 1973 (he
estimated the trees were probably about 25 years old)
Del
Curto: during construction, care would
be taken of the trees, including reserving the roots and ‘definitely doing
everything we can to preserve them’
Cosio: still torn over
what would be best: to have the ramp at the front or put in the back; she noted
the gate (at the front) should eliminate skateboarders
Del
Curto: plan to have fence match all
way across front of Church
Cosio: would see
the ramp less if front of back
Ostrawski: Church is one of most distinguished buildings in Town
CP
Sundt mentioned that if the ramp were placed in back, it would be ‘sandwiched’
between the Church and the Antique Shop, where there would be light constraint and
the Church would have to have lighting at the rear. Discussion ensued regarding
lighting possibilities, and including concerns of the need for more lighting affecting
the ambiance.
Pastor
Amelio spoke of the visual concerns of having an entrance
to the ramp on the left side of the rail at the front of Church which will
remain there. The opening and/or gate for the ramp were thoroughly discussed.
Mr. Del Curto said the opening and/or gate could be concealed with landscaping.
Chair
Garza opened the public hearing.
Jan
McClintock, addressed the Commissioners as the owner of a business downtown and
also as a citizen who had spent time in a wheel chair followed by six months on
crutches which had provided ‘first hand experiences’ with mobility problems. “Going
to the rear of the Church would be difficult in a non motorized wheelchair,”
she said. Ms. McClintock told of having an insurance which would not pay for a
motorized wheelchair, and having to traverse rough pavements – with this site requiring
those in wheelchairs to go lot further to the back door. “It would be demeaning
for a handicapped individual to have to go into the back door. I have actually
lived this and am still mobility ‘difficult’. I think that the issues of lighting
behind the Church and visibility problems could be alleviated by having the
ramp placed to the side and front,” Ms. McClintock said.
With
no others present to speak to the matter, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners
discussed and commented:
Garza: liked the plan, the contractor did a good job and
said it would be easier for the parishioners to attend Church
Spencer: agree that a gate at the front would help obscure the
ramp with a ‘good design’
Cosio: questions of direction gate swings [Del Curto:
during services - prior to services – Church officials will open gate; it will
not be sliding]
Bagley: liked design as presented; felt it would be
demeaning to enter at the back of the Church (he would be offended)
Ostrawski: liked the HRB proposal of having the ramp at the
back and side; concerned with historical aspects
CP
Sundt reminded of the 10-day appeal period to the City Council.
COMMISSIONER SPENCER OFFERED RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-XX, APPROVING A HISTORIC RESOURCE DESIGN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
HANDICAPPED PERSONS RAMP AT
At
CP
Sundt advised that City Manager McClintock was the applicant for this item. CP
Sundt also reported that the HRB had reviewed and unanimously recommended
approval of the request, with the findings and conditions noted, as well.
CM
McClintock told the Commissioners her goal was to move the sign until the
building owner, Mr. Tobias repaints building she will wait to move it. As she
is waiting for the building to be repainted, she said, she will look for an artist
to paint (on the side of the building) a sign which is in accordance with the Sign
Ordinance. Ms. McClintock also said she planned to have the sign in ‘like the old
manner’ which she had discussed with the owner of the building. Ms. McClintock
told of the planned timeline and the sign which would feature a font change and
highlight the local gem: Benitoite.
Commissioner
Cosio jokingly asked Ms. McClintock if the sign would be placed across the sidewalk?
Ms.
McClintock advised that as her plans progressed, she would return to both the
HRB and Planning Commission if the sign included etching in the rock.
Chair
Garza opened, and then closed the public hearing as there were none present to
address the matter.
COMMISSIONER OSTRAWSKI OFFERED
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-XX, APPROVING A HISTORIC DISTRICT SIGN PERMIT FOR
Commissioner Bagley returned and was
seated with the Commissioners at
5.
Discussion Items None
6.
Comments
A. Planning Commissioners
Commissioner
Ostrawski led discussion regarding signage which is put up by private organizations
then not removed timely. Commissioner Bagley noted this has been an ongoing
problem with the time limit of ‘one week for removal’ which does not often
happen, in spite of the reminders from the City.
.
Commissioner
Bagley ‘thanked the camera guy who is moving to back to
Commissioner
Cosio called attention to the following:
-
the shop behind
the Mission Café where people are living; CP Sundt advised that is a mixed use zoning
which allows residents
-
the weeds on
-
concerns of the plumbing
contractor who is doing work for the City using her yard for storage and using
her water, too
Commissioner
Spencer said she has noticed a lot of ‘open house’ signs falling over in streets.
Commissioner
Bagley advised residents are picking those up and bringing them to City Hall.
B. City Manager
CM
McClintock reminded of the following:
-
June 18th
there will be a joint meeting of HRB and the Planning Commission to discuss
Community Center
-
June19th,
early concepts of the
-
Crafts Festival
and Arts at the
-
next weekend Recertification
of Anza Trail, as well as Early Days Parade at
-
Eagle Scout
project June16th
C. City Planner
Discussion
evolved regarding the
Adjournment:
ACTING ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS OSTROWSKI
/SPENCER FOR ADJOURNMENT, CHAIR GARZA DECLARED THE MEETING COMPLETED, AND AT
Minutes recorded and
prepared by: Attest:
Judi Johnson Matthew
Sundt, City Planner