12/05/1991GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 5, 1991
The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the
Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on December
5, 1991 at 7:09 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan.
PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner
Ron Wright, Commissioner
Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director
Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner
Maggie Alford, Secretary
ABSENT: Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman
Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner
Jim Sims, Commissioner
PLEDGE: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:55 P.M.
Chairman Buchanan discussed proposing a change in the meeting schedule
from two meetings to one meeting per month on a trial basis for six months,
as they are getting a lot of agendas with only one or two items.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that there have also been times when they
have been here until 12:00 or 1:00, so if she had to make a choice, she would
prefer just to have one or two items on the agenda.
Chairman Buchanan suggested scheduling the first Thursday of the month as
the regularly scheduled meeting with a workload threshold based on the
number of agenda items and the complexity, and when the agenda is full, the
third Thursday would then be scheduled.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if it would be allowed to continue agendized
items on the night of the meeting if the hour became too late.
The Planning Director stated that she would like to check with the City
Attorney to see if they have a special type of noticing they would need to
make for the second meeting if the second meeting is not an official one.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if it would be better to call a special
meeting and possibly renotice or have a regular meeting and just cancel.
The Planning Director stated that the problem is the Planning Department
has a list of deadlines for submission at the counter, and they either need to
tell applicants whether they have one deadline per month or two. She said
she would like to give applicants one deadline, and staff can check the load
for the first meeting they have. She said that if staff thinks it will go later
than 10:30 p.m., they can reevaluate and have an optional second meeting.
Commissioner Munson said that he would like the time guideline to be 9:30
p.m. to 10:00 p.m., as three hours should be the maximum. He said that at
the tail end of long meetings, they rush. He said that every so often it comes
across that it is very difficult to get anything done in the City of Grand
Terrace with the Planning Department. He said they should be very careful
about trying to run only one meeting per month.
The Planning Director stated that instead of just accepting applications, staff
is following the streamline act, which states that within 30 days, staff needs to
let the applicant know if the application is complete or not, and if not, the
item can not be scheduled for public hearing. She said that this process takes
a little longer in the beginning, but by the time the project goes to the
Planning Commission, all the major issues should be resolved. She said that
then, at the plan check level, the applicant should have no problems.
Chairman Buchanan said they need to be sensitive to people being delayed
a long period of time before their project can be scheduled for a meeting, but
given the quantity of items expected over the next few months, there really
won't be much of a delay for applicants.
The Planning Director stated that the consent calendar proposal has to do
with this, as if some of the minor projects are reviewed at staff level, any
complaints would be eliminated. She is comfortable with having one meeting
per month.
Commissioner Wright stated that it doesn't make any difference to him, and
he wouldn't mind going a little bit longer on one meeting and not have one
at the end of the month.
Chairman Buchanan said the consensus is that if they don't adversely impact
2
the relative speed of processing applications and they don't adversely drag the
meetings out so long that they become less efficient and productive, then the
one meeting a month concept is going to be functional. He suggested that
staff check with the City Attorney between now and the next meeting and find
out what kind of restrictions or guidelines they might have to work in, and
find out procedurally what kind of approval is required, whether it be a
formal vote or a resolution.
The Planning Director said there is no need for a formal motion, as a work
study session determination is sufficient. She said that the only thing the City
Attorney would need to answer is in terms of noticing procedures. She said
that if they have just one meeting they don't need to change any noticing
procedures, and the only time they would need to change is if they want to
have the option of a second meeting.
Chairman Buchanan stated perhaps staff could look at the recent past and the
anticipated workloads and make some assessment as to what kind of impact
there might be on applicants if there were only one meeting per month.
The Planning Director stated she could go through the development inquiries
and estimate how long they will take to come in, but right now, there are no
applications in-house for long-term development, and only one for a single
family house.
Chairman Buchanan said that this answers the question regarding the need
for two meetings per month. He asked if anyone objected to canceling the
January 2, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting, to which no one objected. He
stated he would adjourn this meeting to January 16, 1992 at the end of the
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:09 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:09 P.M.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that on Mt. Vernon south of Barton Road,
the block wall on the east side of the street has been painted and looks great.
ITEM #1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 21, 1991
3
MOTION
PCM-91-171
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 21, 1991
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-91-171
Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the November 21, 1991
minutes. Commissioner Munson second.
Motion carries. 4-0-3-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave and Commissioners
Hawkinson and Sims absent.
ITEM #2
TPM-91-01
TERRY DRUNG CONSTRUCTION
22065 DE BERRY
G.T.
AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.19 ACRE PARCEL IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT
INTO FOUR LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
The Associate Planner presented the staff report.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked, regarding the cul-de-sac, if it is a foregone
conclusion that when the adjacent property is developed it will have a partial
street there, and if so, how can this be determined so far in advance.
The Planning Director stated that the County Subdivision Ordinance allows
for one parcel to develop only half of the property, and in the future, when
the next parcel develops, to build the other half. She said that since this
applicant is building 75% of the cul-de-sac, the other property would only
need to build 25% and complete the street.
Commission Van Gelder asked what would happen if the owner of the other
property doesn't want to develop their property in that fashion.
The Planning Director said that the project would not be approved as this
applicant would be required to build the remaining portion of the street. She
said that for the access, 20' fire lane is needed, and this is where the idea for
the General Plan amendment came up, as 60' right-of-way is the minimum the
General Plan allows.
4
Commissioner Van Gelder asked about #11 from the City Engineer's memo
dated August 20, which states, "obtain slope easements as they may be
required on the adjacent property".
The Associate Planner stated that with these particular pieces of property, on
one portion there is part of a swale that continues onto another piece of
property, and the City Engineer has just addressed some of the concern if
there is an easement needed. She said he is conditioning this project for
approval, and then he will take it upon himself as part of his responsibility as
he would with requesting a hydrology study, and it is up to the engineers to
meet the requirements.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if it is because of the slope of the land that
the whole project is going to spill over onto the adjacent property.
The Planning Director said she didn't think so, and she would try to interpret
although she can not speak for the City Engineer. She said that for the
drainage pipes to be installed, the applicant will need to get permission to go
into the neighbor's property, but the drainage pipe is supposed to carry all of
the water.
The Associate Planner said that the hydrology talks about the pipes that are
being required by the City Engineer, and if they do go into the other
properties, the City Engineer is conditioning such that he has covered that
point.
Commissioner Van Gelder said that the fence on the east side can not be
permanent if it is going to be removed when the adjacent properties develop.
She asked what is done about the lot line, as it would go down the middle of
the cul-de-sac.
The Planning Director stated this is how the lot line would be. She said that
she spoke with Vice -Chairman Hargrave, who preferred the fence be
upgraded. She said that Chairman Buchanan suggested a 2' concrete gutter
at the end of the street to make it look finished. She didn't feel the City
Engineer would accept this condition unless the applicant would pay for it.
Chairman Buchanan said that it would be strange to have a street go from
sidewalk, curb and gutter and all of a sudden, practically on the street, a 6'
wood fence, with no buffer zone of any kind. He said there has got to be
some type of berm between the edge of the asphalt and where the fence is.
He felt that visually and from a safety standpoint, if two feet of the asphalt
was in concrete instead of asphalt, it would look more like the edge of the
street, and people would not tend to drive right up against the fence. He
0 5
stated that the engineer does ask for the annexation into the landscaping and
lighting district and asked if he was correct in assuming that district will be
responsible for the maintenance of that fence, as it will be part of an offered
public road.
The Planning Director stated that even if the fence is on the assessment
district, the parkways are maintained by the property owners, but she would
need to check on the fence itself.
Chairman Buchanan said this is on the other side of the street and is not
identified as portions of any of the existing lots, and he would assume that
until the offer of dedication is accepted by the City, the applicant or owner
would remain record title owner of the street area until the dedication is
accepted.
The Associate Planner said that fences have not always been included in
assessment districts.
Chairman Buchanan said they are not ending up with a strip that is owned by
somebody, and they are offering for dedication right to the property line, and
there is going to be a fence within that easement that is offered for
dedication.
The Planning Director said that with Emblem Development, for example, all
the slopes on the back of the properties that have been improved by the
developer are now the property owners' responsibility. She said there was one
outside area on Oriole, and this slope portion was to be dedicated to the
assessment district. She said she has inspected this slope several times for
dedication to the City, and once it is accepted, the City will take care of this
portion. She said that everything in the front parkway, even though dedicated
to the City, shall be maintained by the property owners; the only thing she
didn't know about was the fence, as it is not on the parkway, but she believes
the City would be maintaining the fence.
Chairman Buchanan asked if the fence would be maintained by the
landscaping and lighting district.
The Planning Director stated she believes so, if that portion is dedicated and
is not located on the parkway. She said that they can make a condition in
case this is not what happens.
Commissioner Wright asked if the map itself shows a proposed fence along
the edge of the road, to which the Planning Director responded in the
negative. He asked if staff recommended the fence.
6
The Planning Director stated that staff is recommending the fence to allow
a uniform front and a nicer finish to the area.
Chairman Buchanan said that the property owner to the East could put up a
fence if they didn't want to look at a street.
Commissioner Wright said there is a substantial drainage ditch in front of the
existing house to the East of the proposed street, on the comer of De Berry
and Michigan, and he asked what would happen to the drainage ditch when
it goes across the front of the proposed map.
The Planning Director said the applicant is going to install pipe and compact
the whole area, and the pipe will connect from the property to the East to the
street system.
Commissioner Wright stated that he sees a drainage swale cutting diagonally
across the property, and he sees a drainage pipe being put in which will
apparently open up at the head of the drainage swale and connect in the
middle of the street to the existing storm drain, but along De Berry, there is
a significant ditch that goes along through De Berry. He said that he does not
see a pipe to be connected to the existing drain on the map.
The Associate Planner said she believes there is something already
underneath the street that takes some of the drainage from the previous
properties, and the applicant was also looking at continuing some of the
piping into the property in conjunction with some development of the swale
further down on the eastern property.
Commissioner Wright asked if the property to the South is marked R1-7.2, to
which the Associate Planner responded in the affirmative. He mentioned that
over to Van Buren is vacant land, and he asked if there were any discussions
on changing that area in the General Plan update to something other than
residential, to which the Planning Director responded in the negative.
The Planning Director stated that the zoning changes required and requested
in the past have all been done, and the City Manager feels the City Council
is comfortable with what the zoning is now.
Commissioner Wright stated he assumed the distance from the proposed
street out to Michigan is of typical lot depth.
The Associate Planner stated that all lot depths and widths met the Code.
Commissioner Wright stated he was questioning the area to the East of the
it
proposed street. He asked, when the property to the East develops, if there
would be enough depth to allow a row of houses on the east side of the
proposed street and have some still face Michigan.
The Planning Director said staff didn't analyze this situation.
Chairman Buchanan said that if a lot depth of 100' is required and there is
only 179' between the edge of this street and the center line of Michigan, it
would not be possible to get two lots deep back-to-back facing both streets.
The Planning Director said that the Associate Planner had done some
brainstorming and thought three houses maximum would fit there. She said
it would be difficult to build up that lot enough to have a very smooth access
to Michigan, so this may even be helpful.
Chairman Buchanan said the street design looks good. He asked about the
condition regarding the correction of setbacks on Parcel 1, and asked if it was
being suggested by the proposed condition that, rather than shifting the pad
five feet, the pad be flopped so that the driveway be on the other side.
The Planning Director stated this is what is being recommended.
Chairman Buchanan asked if there was some reason for doing this as opposed
to shifting the pad and the driveway to create five feet extra on one side as
opposed to the other.
The Associate Planner said measuring must be done from the toe of the
slope.
Chairman Buchanan asked if Parcel 2 has two possible driveway accesses.
The Associate Planner said there is only one.
Chairman Buchanan said that only Parcel 1 would be accessing off of De
Berry, and the other three would be off of the proposed street. He called up
the applicant.
TERRY DRUNG
37011 OAK GLEN ROAD
YUCAIPA
Mr. Drung stated that regarding the drainage and pipes, there is a 24" RCP
pipe, which is an existing pipe that runs into the existing swale, and this pipe
will be continued to within one foot of his property line with a concrete
headwall which will act like a retainer to hold the backfill. He said he would
be willing to work something out with the owner next door so that he can
continue this up to Michigan to save some of the expense. He said that the
neighbor's lot sits down pretty far off of De Berry right now, so he would have
to do some grading to extend that. With regard to the fence as a buffer, he
felt that this portion of the project would be more suitable to him as far as
putting it up for his own privacy if he wants to, and the maintenance would
be his responsibility. He said that the plan looks fine with the 75% cul-de-
sac, although the hammerhead turn around he had proposed, which doesn't
meet City Code, would still look nice. He said that as far as putting in the
sidewalks, curb and gutter on the cul-de-sac, if this was to develop, to not
have the expense if they wanted to continue this street into the adjacent
property. He said that with regard to the existing swale, the 24" RCP pipe
will be very compacted and graded, and this would be more of a front yard,
as the pad would not be built over the top of the pipe. He said that houses
will be designed to take advantage of the lots. He said that he will flip-flop
the garage as requested by staff. He stated that he understands the concerns
with the comer lot and the access issue, and the only problem he has is with
the fencing requirement as a buffer for the neighbor who doesn't clean his
yard up. He said that regarding the concern about the concrete that runs
adjacent to the property east of the street, this would have an A.C. curb
running within 1' of the property line. He said the water would divert and run
into the street on De Berry, and there wouldn't be any slope or drainage into
his property from this project. He said there would be a concrete head wall,
which would be more of a retaining wall to the existing ground elevation, and
this would retain the dirt that would be filled into that area. He said the
drainage from Michigan that runs underneath the street would hit the head
wall as it does now, and he does the maintenance of it. He didn't see a
problem with the drainage, as with the hydrology study, the 24" existing RCP
pipe handles the load. He said he would be taking more watershed off the
existing line by pushing it to De Berry. He said that his own opinion is that
if the property east of the road does not develop, and it looks like a 3/4 cul-
de-sac, it does take a lot of property out of Lot 4. He said that if the street
had a hammer head approach, it meets all the requirements, but an
amendment would have to be done.
Commissioner Wright asked the depth from the top of the head wall to the
bottom of the swale when the grade of the road is finished.
Mr. Drung said the existing height is 3 - 3 1/2 feet, and they will probably do
a one foot cut, so probably 2 - 2 1/2 feet, and the curb will then bring this
back up 6" or 8".
Commissioner Wright said that the existing house along De Berry has a
substantial drainage swale off of De Berry that goes off into a pipe.
Mr. Drung said that in front, he has a 3 - 3 1/2 foot elevated lot, and there
is not a drain right there, but believes there is a drain on the other side of De
Berry right directly across from Lot 2.
The Planning Director clarified that she thought they were talking about the
lot swale when she stated the applicant was going to put a pipe in to connect
to De Berry and Michigan.
Mr. Drung said there is no swale as far as the lot next door to him, but the
house east of him does. He said this house sits down 2 - 3 feet off of De
Berry, so this house may have a problem draining water unless an alternate
tie-in to the sewer line was put in. He said if the lot was to be developed and
the property had a 30' back yard and a wall was put in, an existing catch basin
could be tied into the 24" pipe to handle runoff for that particular lot.
Commissioner Wright asked about the water coming down De Berry at the
street level itself.
Mr. Drung stated that it would not run in because of his approach, and his
garage sits more level with the street.
Commissioner Wright asked if there was an asphalt curb at the side of the
street to keep the water from flowing down on the property, to which Mr.
Drung responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Drung said, with this project, he would put a 6" A.C. curb running down
that side of the property line, and if that is the center of the street, it would
drain to the left anyway.
Commissioner Munson asked the applicant if he had any conversation with
the property owner to the East.
Mr. Drung stated that he has been trying to get in contact with the owner,
who rents the house out, but has not been able to.
Commissioner Munson asked if the Planning Department is happy with the
drainage situation of this project.
The Planning Director responded in the affirmative, stating that the applicant
must meet the City Engineer's requirements and is already on his way.
Commissioner Munson asked if anything the applicant did would affect the
10
house to the East.
The Planning Director said it would not. She said that regarding the depth
of the lot, supposing that Michigan Avenue has an ultimate right-of-way of
80', they would end up with a lot depth of 119', so they can still have a full
sized lot after improving the street and dedicating for the completion of
Michigan.
The Planning Director stated that the applicant had originally proposed a
smaller street with a hammerhead, but the Code requires this. She said the
applicant prefers a smaller street, and he understands that a General Plan
amendment would need to be done and he is not willing to wait for or pay for
this. She said if the Planning Commission would like to have a General Plan
amendment, this map could be approved and the Commission could
recommend that staff process the General Plan amendment, and in case the
amendment permits a smaller street, then the applicant could submit an
application to amend his map. She said that usually, a General Plan
amendment is submitted by the applicant, who pays for the consultant, and
this process is faster than for staff to do the amendment.
Chairman Buchanan said his biggest concern has to do with fencing and the
treatment of the eastern boundary line along the edge of the road. He is
concerned this will become a disconnected maintenance problem for someone,
and possibly for the City. He said he has a problem with turning someone's
side of back yard into a street frontage without putting up some kind of
barrier, on the other hand, he wasn't sure he would want to look out his front
door, across the lawn and across the street and into a fence, either. He said
it almost makes more sense to put in concrete and not put up a fence.
Mr. Drung said they could see what the neighbor's choice is, and if they are
back off of his property line, and he doesn't like the looks of having houses
facing him, or if he wants to put a wall or wood fence in, then he has to
address the situation of the ditch. He said that unless the fencing is attached
to the applicant's headwall, he will have to have it span the ditch area where
the water comes through so it doesn't take the fence out. He said that he
tried to visualize the situation from both sides of the fence, and he felt that
if the street is done right and looks good with the landscaping and the houses,
it will be more of an appealing factor, and he would probably cross -fence the
back yard as he can't use the back ditch anyway. He stated that if the
neighbor wants to continue the pipe when he is doing the work, they can look
alternatives for him to put in a catch basin to divert some of the water into
that pipe from his property, and then he would have a clean, level look and
perhaps put an approach in for alternate access to his property. He said that
as far as meeting the concerns regarding aesthetics and if the road was to be
11
needed to bring access into the back parcel, they could bring the same street
they have now and continue it straight and round the corner off to make it
look like a smaller cul-de-sac, like a dead end, which would be cut and tied
into the approved hammerhead turn around that the fire department would
accept. He said that if it was needed to be tied onto at a later date, they
don't have a half cul-de-sac in someone's front yard with all the street lights,
underground work and meter that would have to be dealt with.
Chairman Buchanan didn't think this would be a likelihood because of the
proximity of this street to Michigan. He wasn't sure they would want two
parallel streets running one house -width apart. He felt that at best, the cul-
de-sac may bubble up to the East.
Mr. Drung said that he was looking at this as well, in regard to the adjacent
lot that runs parallel to Michigan, and instead of cutting another main street
in, this would be an alternate way to that area without having more traffic
entering Michigan.
Commissioner Van Gelder recommended that the City finish the cul-de-sac
and finish the rest of the street, and whenever this person develops, he will
have to pay the City for this.
Mr. Drung said that he would encumber the cost of putting in his portion of
the street and developing the rest of the drainage as well as any lights or
utilities that need to be put in.
Commissioner Van Gelder suggested the City pay for the other half.
The Planning Director said that when lots develop, they do their own street
improvements and drainage, so the developers are responsible for this. She
felt the recommendation, however, was valid.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked the applicant if he would be willing to finish
the cul-de-sac and street if he would recoup his money eventually.
Mr. Drung said he did not know at this time, as he is working on minimal
funds due to the market as it is now. He said he would love to do the whole
project, but at this time, he couldn't put out the funds and wait for a
recumberance, as if the owner doesn't ever want to develop the land he may
never get the recumberance.
The Planning Director said the effort is to make the street look as finished as
possible. She said that if the applicant wants a hammer head, Fire can
approve this, but it is not a standard street to be dedicated to the City.
12
Commissioner Van Gelder said if it is finished the way they are looking at it,
she doesn't see a real need for a fence on that side of the street.
The Planning Director stated that what she was thinking of when she required
the fence along the new road was the aesthetics of the other lot not being so
well taken care of, as well as safety, as the applicant is going to pad up his lot,
but the other person has a ditch right there. She said that if the aesthetics is
not a problem, then they need to think how they can resolve the security
problem adjacent to the swale.
Chairman Buchanan said they need to look at a sufficiently high concrete curb
along the eastern property line, and perhaps where the headwall goes over the
swale, maybe a guard rail of some type.
Mr. Drung had no problem with this, stating it would be nice if the owner on
the east side would take care of this problem, but whether or not he wants to
endure the expense, he didn't know. He said that he is concerned that a
homeowner will come in and, not knowing what he is doing, do a job that
looks like garbage, and then he has torn apart the aesthetics of an existing
head wall. He said that he can put in a welded pipe fence and have this
embedded where it would slide down into a core in the head wall. He said
there would be no maintenance needed with this.
Chairman Buchanan said that it would be ideal if the other owner would put
up a fence and split the cost.
The Planning Director said that the Associate Planner suggested conditioning
the applicant to resolve the issue, and if the neighbor accepts building up his
lot and eliminating the problem of the differential in grade, then the fence
wouldn't be required, but if the neighbor doesn't want to improve his lot, to
resolve the issue of the swale, the applicant would be required to put in a 48"
fence in the area where the differential in grade is more than 3'.
Chairman Buchanan said he can see a 25' stretch with a 4' fence in the middle
of what is otherwise open, and this could look strange.
Mr. Drung suggested a tube fence, which is used for schools and hand rails,
and maybe the neighbor would want to plant something there. He agreed
that a 48" wall would look like it was built in the middle of nowhere. He said
that if the neighbor decides that he wants to put a fence up, they can work in
conjunction with his fence to make it cosmetically flow.
Commissioner Van Gelder said they need to realize that this owner does not
live there, he rents the property, and the existing fence leaves something to
13
be desired.
Mr. Drung said that he may have more of an input on it if he thinks he may
want to develop since the legwork will already have been done. He said he
would like to see what alternatives the neighbor has as far as tying into that
pipe for a catch basin.
Commissioner Van Gelder felt the Associate Planner had a good suggestion
in leaving this up to the applicant and the other owner.
8:34 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Commission.
Commissioner Wright stated that he is not concerned with the property to the
South or to the East, neither of which were present. He said that at some
point in time it will come back as far as what the logical conclusion of the
property to the East would be, and it appears as if they will end up with 2 -
3 lots. He said that one will face De Berry, and he has mixed feelings about
whether the other 2 lots face Michigan or face back into the cul-de-sac. He
said that he likes to see front yards of houses for natural surveillance
purposes. He stated that when the property to the East develops, he would
like to see this street go to its logical conclusion, which would be some type
of sidewalk and a finishing off of the other side. He said he sees problems
with a fence, as it really doesn't belong to anyone so you can't rely on
someone fixing it. However, he was concerned with the safety argument
across the swale, and if that should occur and there is no agreement with the
other property owner to mitigate this, then he sees the need for some type of
safety barrier along the concrete head wall so that someone doesn't go
tumbling over the edge of the roadway.
Commissioner Munson asked where the water is going, as it looks as if it is
going through the northeast comer of the lot.
The Planning Director stated that it comes from the property to the East and
goes to De Berry. She said the water is channeled through pipes, and the
applicant will install a pipe to continue into the channelization.
Commissioner Munson asked if it was his responsibility to make sure the
property to the East does not get flooded regardless of the amount of rain.
The Planning Director said that when the City Engineer approves his
proposal, he needs to make sure this will not happen, so he needs to make
sure the size of the pipe is correct and is able to take all the water and that
14
MOTION
PCM-91-172
TPM-91-01
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-91-172
MOTION
PCM-91-173
TPM-91-01
there is enough of a detention basin.
Commissioner Munson said if he were the property owner to the South, he
would love this project, as it would open up the back end of two lots. He said
he would be against narrowing this street in any manner.
Chairman Buchanan stated that the street as proposed is fine, but the fencing
plan needs to include all but the front yard portion of Lot 1 along the western
property line. He stated that his question is how far the fencing should come
across the South property line - just up to the front yard of Lot 4 or all the
way across the end of the cul-de-sac. He said logically, it seems the fence
should come half way up the south end, pretty much as illustrated on the map.
Chairman Buchanan made a motion to amend Condition 6 to read, "fencing
plans including a treatment acceptable to the City Engineer and the Planning
Director providing for a barrier or guard rail where appropriate along the east
property line". Commissioner Munson second.
Motion carries. 4-0-3-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave and Commissioners
Hawkinson and Sims absent.
Commissioner Munson made a motion to adopt the attached resolution and
approve TPM-91-01 as amended. Commissioner Van Gelder second.
Commissioner Wright asked if this addresses the issue of the drop off of the
swale.
Chairman Buchanan said that it does, as they changed Condition 6 to require
acceptable guard rail treatment along the swale area to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director and the City Engineer.
15
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-91-173
Motion carries. 4-0-3-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave and Commissioners
Hawkinson and Sims absent.
The Planning Director asked for clarification on the issue of the Planning
Commission Meetings being changed to once a month.
Chairman Buchanan recommended that this be discussed more fully at the
next meeting, and in the meantime, have staff contact the City Attorney and
do some sort of projection.
Commissioner Munson said that tonight is typical of their meetings, and asked
staff to bear this in mind when scheduling. He said that he thought this
meeting would be through in 30 minutes, and it took 1 1/2 hours. He felt
while one meeting night per month would be desirable, if you get more than
three items, the meeting will go to 12:00.
Chairman Buchanan said that the late meetings tend to deteriorate the quality
of their analyses.
Commissioner Van Gelder said that if a person is going to build a brick
fireplace permits are required. She asked if the same regulations exist for a
freestanding fireplace, to which the Planning Director responded in the
affirmative. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the house just south of her
has put in a fireplace.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:47 P.M.
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD JANUARY 16, 1992.
Respectfully submitted,
3A�a"_-
Patrizia Materassi
Planning Director
01-06-92:ma
16
Approved by,
Dan Buchanan
Chairman, Planning Commission