Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-07; Planning Commission; Minutes. . L 9. -: Meeting of: Time of Meeting: P MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: September 7, 1958 3 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS \ q CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McFadden called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman McFadden. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman McFadden, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Marcus, Schlehuber, and Schramm Absent - Commissioner Holmes Staff Members Present: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Frank Boensch, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Eob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman McFadden reviewed the Planning Commission procedures on the overhead for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) DC 88-i FRAZAR - An appeal of the Planning Director's denial of a large residential daycare permit on property located at 7654 Galleon Way in the R-1-7500 Zone. Charles Grimm, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this is a request for a large daycare permit at 7654 Galleon Way which was continued at the August 3, 1988 meeting. when originally presented, the Planning Commission had concerns regarding the loss of use of the garage which is being used as a room for the daycare facility. The item was continued to enable the applicant to work with the landlord for an addition to take care of the daycare use and return the garage to a parking facility. Apparently some of the neighbors objected to the daycare facility and met with the landlord. Following that meeting, the landlord hired an attorney and served Mrs. Frazar a 30-day eviction notice on September 1, 1988. Because of that notice, Mrs. Frazar will probably have to find another location by October 1st. She thought she had a possible rental located, however, it has been rented to someone else. Mr. Grimm stated that the Commission has several options: (1) deny the permit, (2) deny the permit effective in 30 days, to run with the eviction, (3) approve the permit for daycare until such time that the tenant is either evicted or, perhaps, six months, whichever comes first, and (4) approve the daycare permit to operate in the family room and let the civil matter run its course. Staff recommends option 113, approving the permit until such time as the tenant may lose occupancy or six months. Chairman McFadden inquired if staff's recommendation is to use the garage for parking and relocate the daycare into the P -\ MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION PaRe 2 COMMISSIONERS home itself. Mr. Grimm replied to the affirmative and stated that the permit could be reviewed again in six months. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the applicant meets all of the requirements by doing this. Mr. Grimm replied that the basic issue was to return the garage to a parking facility. At that time the Commission directed staff to work with the applicant on a possible room addition to house the daycare facility. Since the landlord will not allow the applicant to do a room addition, she is willing to move it from the garage into the family room which would require that she move some of her belongings into storage so that they don't get damaged. The daycare could operate in the family room until other arrangements are made. If the tenant is evicted, the permit would only run until the eviction takes place. Staff is also concerned about the children. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the family room is adequate to handle the daycare. Mr. Grimm replied that the family room could be utilized if some of the applicant's furniture were moved into storage. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the size of the family room in relation to the garage. Mr. Grimm replied that the family room is probably only 50 sq. ft. smaller and there is adequate space available. Commissioner Hall requested Mr. Grimm to repeat options 113 and i/4. Mr. Grimm replied that option #3 is to approve the permit until either the tenant is evicted or passage of a six month period, at which time the permit would be reviewed. Option 114 would be to approve the permit with the condition that it is operated in the family room and let the civil suit between the landlord and the applicant resolve itself. Option #4 would not have a short term time limit. The applicant would have to agree to a monitoring system to ensure that the daycare is operated in the family room. Commissioner Marcus inquired about the eviction notice and the statement about "working something out." Mr. Grimm replied that the two attorney's are trying to resolve the issue and perhaps the differences can be resolved and the eviction cancelled. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Bernadette Probus, 4909 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 544, San Diego, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that this has been the most difficult daycare case she has encountered in the county in six years. The landlord had been intimidated by neighbors who are against daycare. The applicant has attempted to purchase the house and the purchase price was placed at $100,000 above the last purchase price which was discussed and bears no relation to camps in the neighborhood. The applicant, a single parent, has been served with an eviction notice. She is threatened with the loss of her livelihood in an activity which she conducted quietly and without complaint. A prospective buyer looking at the home called the city and, as a result, 18 families will be inconvenienced by the loss of her home and her livelihood. This is especially disconcerting since the landlord knew of the daycare facility and had signed the business license. Public policy states that daycare cannot be restricted in a residential home and she (Ms. Probus) has been authorized by P -I MINUTES September 7, 1988 the San Diego County Family Daycare Association to seek assistance from the ACLU because of the discrimination issue. She urged the Commission to approve the daycare permit for the family room while the courts are allowed to settle the matter. Commissioner Hall inquired if the attorney has any problem with moving the daycare into the family room at this time. Ms. Probus replied that it would be a short term solution. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Ms. Probus did not see the applicant arrive late and requested Chairman McFadden to reopen the public testimony if the applicant desired to speak. The applicant declined. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the staff report contains findings for denial if the Commission chooses to deny the permit. If the Commission wishes to approve the permit, conditions are needed which require that the applicant obtain all licenses required by state law. If the permit is denied, it cannot be reapplied for until one year has passed. If the permit is denied without prejudice, it can be reapplied for immediately. Since the use permit runs with the land, he recommends placing a time limit on the permit to run with the lease or a specific time period, whichever occurs first. It is his understanding that staff would require the landlord to agree to the daycare permit. Since the Planning Commission is not the enforcement agency, he does not feel that they would be subject to a writ in violation of any laws. The Commission is entitled to base their decision on the evidence presented and need not be concerned with other daycare operators at this time. Mr. Grimm commented that the applicant's attorney has advised him that the daycare license is for the whole house and not just for the garage. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the permit is approved, would staff have to return at another meeting with conditions. Chairman McFadden replied to the affirmative. Chairman McFadden commented that she would like the permit approved, with a condition to the term of occupancy, since the permit goes with the land. She inquired if the permit specifies this particular occupant residing in this home. Ron Ball replied that the applicant could sublet the lease to somebody else and the Commission does not have the power to make the permit personal to a specific party. However, the party must keep in force all licenses and permits. Chairman McFadden inquired what Mr. Ball would suggest. He suggests that staff return with conditions of approval, for a short term or for the duration of the lease, whichever occurs first. One condition should state that the licenses must continue for the duration of the lease and another condition could prohibit subleasing. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the reference made by Ms. Probus about the landlord signing the business license. Mr. Ball replied that signing the business license is different than signing the application for a use permit. The PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 P /I MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS conversion of the garage and the commencement of business were done under Title 5, without the other permits required under Title 18 and Title 20. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the business license is still required under Title 5. Mr. Ball replied that any person engaging in a business must have a business license. It it not necessary for the landlord to obtain the business license-- it should be the applicant. Commissioner Schramm inquired about the letter dated July 13, 1988 from the landlord's attorney which states that the daycare is an absolute violation of the month-to-month tenancy agreement. She would like to know if the Commission needs to consider this point. Mr. Ball replied that it is up to the Commission 'to base their decision on good planning criteria and the violation of the tenancy agreement should not be considered. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue DC 88-l to September 21, 1988 at which time staff will return with conditions to approve the daycare permit on a temporary basis, to be reviewed in six months, or for the duration of the applicant's lease, whichever occurs first, said conditions to include moving the daycare to the family room and returning the garage to parking. 2) FLOODPLAIN MANAGFMENT REGULATIONS ORDINANCE (CITY OF CAHLSBAD) Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer , reviewed the background of the request and stated that this item was continued from the August 17, 1988 meeting to consider recommending to the City Council the adoption of an ordinance implementing the Flood Plain Management Program. This program is mandated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to implement the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Basically, the ordinance presented follows the model of the ordinance prepared by FEMA which is required in order to participate in the flood insurance program. If we choose not to participate in the flood insurance program, persons having homes within the flood hazard zones cannot obtain insurance and it also affects the City's ability to obtain disaster assistance. He cited an example of Carlsbad Boulevard, should flooding occur and we do not have an ordinance, the City would not be eligible for disaster assistance. At the last meeting, the Commission expressed its desire to retain its role as administrator of the flood insurance program. Therefore, staff was able to combine two ordinances into one, for one set of regulations. The ordinance being considered tonight deletes Chapter 2131 (Flood Overlay Zone), appoints the Planning Commission as the administrator, the City Council as the appeal body, along with several other minor cleanup revisions. Three additional revisions regarding flood area maps and open space were handed out by memo dated September 7, 1988. Staff recommends approval. Chairman McFadden inquired if any open space was lost or gained when the two maps were consolidated. Mr. Hubbs replied that the consolidation expanded the flood plain significantly but did not really change the open space. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm P /? MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS Richard Yoder, 7738 Madrilena Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he originally came to speak in opposition to ZCA 88-8 but, after hearing the report, does not object to any of the engineering or technical requirements of the national flood insurance program. He is primarily concerned with open space protection. He feels that Section 21.110.030-6 is contradictory to 21.110.030-9 and that it encourages development. He does not want to see any improvements made to open space, in or out of the flood plain, and urged the Planning Commission to revise the ordinance before submitting it to the City Council. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Schramm requested staff to define the statement referred to by Mr. Yoder. Mr. Hubbs replied that this section was taken directly from the FEMA model; it does not encourage development but does not absolutely prevent it either. To absolutely restrict development would introduce some legal questions. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the flood plain is an overlay zone and does not change the underlying open space. No changes have been made to the underlying zone but, rather, some new regulations have been superimposed. The recital referred to by Mr. Yoder is merely a statement of purpose and is not part of the operative language. Whenever there is a conflict, the greater restrictions apply. The statement of purpose pertains to the elimination of future flood blight areas. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that the section being added appears to encourage open space and possible uses of a recreational nature. Mr. Ball felt this was correct and reiterated that no public entity can deprive the landowner of all economic opportunity, other wise it can be construed as the taking of private property for public use. Commissioner Erwin inquired about a recent case involving the Lutheran Church vs. the City of Pasadena, which was overruled by the courts. Ron Ball replied that in the Lutheran Church case, the County of Los Angeles stipulated that all use was taken away. He does not recommend changing this ordinance because it was worded in such a way as to strike a delicate balance. There is no intention to deprive the landowner of all economic opportunity. Commissioner Erwin wondered why this could not be made into open space. Mr. Ball replied that even in open space there are uses of the property. When the landowner can prove that all economic uses have been taken away, the constitutional question arises. Our ordinance states that we can enhance open space but not materially reduce it. The issue tonight is the flood plain overlay so the developer is protected and the homeowner can obtain flood insurance. Commissioner Erwin inquired if 21.110.030-6 were deleted, could we still proceed. Mr. Ball replied that this section does not necessarily encourage development. He does not advise deletion since we are maintaining a stable tax base by providing a use not subject to future flood blight. .; ‘r .I I /“‘ /I MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Schramm inquired if a proposed use would have to come to the Commission under a special use permit. Mr. Ball replied to the affirmative and stated that since the Planning Commission is the flood plain administrator, they would have to approve any uses. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that -6 and -9 compliment each other and is willing to accept them as proposed. He hesitates to change the wording since it was taken from the Federal regulations; he does not see where it provides for heavy development. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2764 recommending approval of ZCA 88-8 including the three changes added by memo dated September 7, 1988. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3) AV 88-5 KYLE (APPEAL) - An appeal of the Planning Director's denial to allow an existing ten foot high retaining wall within the required side year setback on property located at 7219 El Fuerte Street in the PC Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is appealing the Planning Director's denial of a request to allow an existing ten foot high retaining wall to remain within the required side yard setback on property located at 7219 El Fuerte Street. The subject property slopes upward from El Fuerte and the wall was put in to expand the flat yard area adjacent to the house. To do this expansion, the applicant illegally constructed a ten foot high retaining wall on the north side of the property and backfilled earth in behind the wall and flattened it out to be level with the existing lawn area. The wall is not visible from the applicant's house but is visible from the neighbor's house directly to the north, and also highly visible from surrounding streets to the west. Staff is recommending denial of the wall for several reasons. First, it is built illegally and exceeds the height requirement of six feet allowed in the side yard setback. Second, because it was constructed illegally, staff has no idea about the structural integrity of the wall, i.e. how much steel is in the wall or the holding capacity for soil retention. Third, it was built over a drainage swale which was designed to carry water down the property line separating the applicant's home from the home to the north. There is now some question as to where that water will now travel. Staff feels that the height of the wall is unsightly to the neighbor on the north and to people driving on El Fuerte Street. Lastly, staff feels it will set a precedent regarding enforcement of City standards and is unfair to other citizens who have requested permission to build similar walls and were required to build their walls to conform to City standards. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. H. James Kyle, Jr., 7219 El Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he formerly owned the property to the north which was graded the same as his property in 1981. He was responsible for Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm X *. .’ .,I, /-- ‘7 MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS building the original drainage ditch which was open. When he built the retaining wall to flatten out the lawn area, he installed a drainage pipe in the ditch which drains to the south side of the property. The wall starts two feet and runs to ten feet in the southwest corner only. He found out that the contractor did not file for permits and had to take care of this after the fact. The wall has been inspected by an engineer. If he is required to conform to the six foot height limitation, he will need to construct a second wall, inside the existing wall, which would be expensive and, he feels, destroy the aesthetics of the property. The adjacent lot has not been graded yet and when it is, he feels that the retaining wall will be buried. Commissioner Marcus asked Mr. Kyle how he could assume that the next lot will be graded to the same level. He replied that he cannot assume, but feels that the resident might want to build up the lot. Janet Trunzo, 7219 El Fuerte Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that every home from Acuna Court to El Fuerte Street has been graded upwards. It is fair to assume that this one existing lot, which has not yet been graded, would also be graded upwards. It's the best way to take advantage of the property. She also noted that there are many retaining walls throughout La Costa which are above the six foot level and therefore assumes that these walls must have also been built illegally. Ray Gomez, 3345 Park Drive, Oceanside, addressed the Commission and stated that he is the owner of the adjacent lot. At the time he purchased the lot from Robert Crawford, he (Mr. Gomez) was led to believe that the situation was being investigated and the City would probably require the retaining wall to be removed. He feels the wall is extremely ugly and will be clearly visible from where his family room and kitchen area will be located. He believes the wall is an attractive nuisance and could be an invitation to children. He is concerned about future water runoff since water runs downhill and his property is located below that of Mr. Kyle. Commissioner Erwin inquired how he plans to grade the property. Mr. Gomez replied that he does not plan to import any soil due to the expense involved. Because of this, he doubts that the wall would be hidden. He does not actually know how the property will be graded. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Chairman McFadden inquired of staff about the future grading of Mr. Gomez' lot. Charles Grimm replied that the site plan submitted by Mr. Gomez' engineer shows that the wall would not be hidden by the grading. Commissioner Hall inquired if the grading would cover any portion of the wall. Mr. Grimm replied that it would not. Chairman McFadden expressed concern about the drainage. David Hauser replied that he has visited the site and observed a three inch plastic pipe which had been installed that empties out into the lower drainage ditch. He does not know if that size drain is sufficient and would have to see some engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of . ‘. ‘. -, f- ? MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS the pipe. The size of the drain may be okay, however he noted that the opening at the top was already covered with weeds and debris so it would probably fail at the first rain. Chairman McFadden inquired about the structural integrity of the wall since it was built without permits. Mr. Hauser replied that someone from Engineering would have to inspect the area to determine if there is adequate steel in the wall. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that he cannot make the four findings required to approve the variance. Commissioner Hall requested clarification on Mr. Kyle's stepping the wall back. Mr. Hauser replied have to drop the wall four feet on the top and wall in front of the existing wall. Some yard lost. comment about that he would place another area would be Motion was du ly made, seconded, and carried to uphold the decision of the Planning Director and adopt Resolution No. 2769 denying AV 88-5 based on the findings contained therein. 4) CT 87-4 TAMARACK PROPERTIES - Request for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide three existing residential lots and a public cul-de-sac on a 1.7 acre property located along the south side of Tamarack Avenue between Hibiscus Circle and the AT&SF Railroad in the R-1-7500 Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting a tentative tract map to subdivide three existing lots into five residential lots on a property located just south of Tamarack and west of the AT&SF Railroad. The General Plan for this area is RLM (O-4 du's per acre) and the proposed subdivision would be 2.94 du's per acre which is below the growth control point of 3.2 du's per acre. Each existing lot contains an old dilapidated single family unit and Tamarack provides the access for each lot. There is currently no proposal for putting houses on the land and no elevations have been submitted. Staff would recommend approval with a condition that the applicant submit elevations. However, the proposed project does not meet the intersection spacing policy along Tamarack, a collector street. The spacing policy requires that intersections on Tamarack be a minimum of 300 ft. apart. The proposed "A" Street is only 153 ft. from the existing Hibiscus Street. Staff feels that this could cause numerous hazards on a street as busy as Tamarack. Therefore, staff is recommending denial. He asked the Engineering Department to comment further regarding the access to Tamarack. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, stated that Tamarack Avenue from Carlsbad Boulevard to Jefferson was downgraded from a secondary arterial to a special 85 ft. wide collector street at the last updating of the circulation element. The alignment and design of Tamarack Avenue has not yet been adopted. A possibility exists of converting the Tamarack at-grade railroad crossing to an overpass as a result of the North Beach planning traffic study recommendation of an at-grade crossing at Chestnut Avenue. Since the PUC has indicated that they will not grant any additional at-grade crossings, the City Engineer has proposed trading the Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm X ,-l MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 at-grade crossing at Tamarack for one at Chestnut, converting the Tamarack crossing to an overpass. The only other acceptable access to this property would be through one of the existing homes on Hibiscus Circle. Since the alignment, design, and overpass possibilities of Tamarack are unknown at this time, and the applicant's original design did not allow for future mitigation of these issues, the City Engineer is not willing to approve a variance from the intersection spacing standard. The applicant has conveyed a willingness to reconsider his original design and has brought forward a new design proposal which may satisfy some of the City Engineer's concerns. Staff is willing to work on these issues with the applicant. If the Commission wishes to see the application reconsidered, staff would like direction on the access issue. Mr. Grimm added that under State law the project, from time of application, has approximately six months to be processed and the time limit will expire on September 23, 1988. Some action must be taken by that time and several options are available: (1) have staff return with conditions of approval, (2) deny th e project without prejudice, (3) deny the project outright as staff recommends, or (4) to continue the project until September 21st if the Commission feels that something can be worked out. If the applicant agrees to a go-day extension, the application could be extended for that period. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Rodney Miles, 18300 Von Karmen, Irvine, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he and Mr. Wojcik have worked out the potential problems identified by the City Engineer. There has been a resubmittal. He would be agreeable to continuing the matter until September 21st for staff to prepare conditions of approval. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to a go-day extension. Mr. Miles replied that he would like to proceed as quickly as possible and would not like to wait three months for a staff report. He would prefer a 30-day finalization but would accept up to 90 days, if necessary. He would hope for resolution in a shorter period. Mr. Miles then stated that he has agreed to an offer of dedication for a slope easement and would like a reasonable time limit for the City to accept his offer, perhaps 18 months. He has also offered a 20 ft. dedication for a right-of-way on Tamarack, should the street be widened. He would also like a time limit on this. He is concerned because there is nothing in work at this time regarding the overpass or the widening of Tamarack. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Erwin inquired why the entry road was not proposed closer to the railroad easement. Bob Wojcik replied that it was primarily a safety issue because there is nothing prohibiting left turns into that street. A car could possibly be waiting on the tracks to make a left-hand turn into the subdivision. For that reason the road was placed as COMMISSIONERS . . 8 I -, -, - MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page lo COMMISSIONERS far away as possible from the railroad tracks to alleviate that problem. Commissioner Hall sees the proposed project improving the present situation of numerous cars parked all along the street. The only way to get out on the street at the present time is to back out of the driveway. If the applicant is willing to do the dedication for the overpass and the slopes, he sees it as a plus for the area. He would like to see an effort made to work towards approval. He would like to see some elevations. Chairman McFadden stated that she is in sympathy with the applicant's problem about Tamarack since the City does not have a plan for either the widening or the overpass which would affect a number of properties. She would prefer the access on Hibiscus Circle. She feels the City should establish some time line on the Tamarack improvements. Commissioner Schlehuber feels that the City probably needs two years to look into the issue. Although the applicant would like a decision immediately, he (Commissioner Schlehuber) thinks 90 days should be taken to evaluate the Tamarack situation. Chairman McFadden is more concerned about the 18 month time limit requested by the applicant than she is the go-day extension. Commissioner Schlehuber pointed out the recent decision on the Ecke/Carltas property which stipulated that the City has five years to evaluate the need for an access road. He feels the applicant in this case has the right to request a time limit for the City to decide about the Tamarack improvements. Commissioner Marcus agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber. She thinks the proposed project would be an improvement over the present situation. She favors a go-day extension and would like to see a time deadline given similar to the Ecke/Carltas property. Commissioner Hall inquired if the first lot measures 20,000 sq. ft. Mr. Wojcik replied that after the dedications it will still be the largest lot but will measure approximately 14,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Hall appreciates that the applicant is willing to give the City setbacks and has agreed to a go-day extension. He feels that three years is more realistic for staff to make a determination on the Tamarack improvements. Commissioner Hall feels it is only fair to give the applicant a decision as soon as possible. Commissioner Schramm inquired if the overpass goes through would the cul-de-sac still be adequate as an exit. Bob Wojcik replied that it still would not meet the City's required intersection site distance, i.e. can a car pulling out of that intersection pull into traffic without causing the traffic to slow down in any manner. Staff would still need to review the design to make sure it meets the minimum stopping site distance, i.e. if a car pulled out, would it allow adequate stopping distance to an oncoming vehicle. Commissioner Schlehuber is inclined to favor approval but feels that staff needs 90 days to look into all of the . . , . -I - September 7, r--~ ^\ MINUTES 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page l1 COMMISSIONERS details. He would like to see staff return with conditions for approval within 90 days, or less if possible. Commissioner Erwin is concerned about the close proximity of the lots to the railroad tracks. He inquired if environmental impact studies have been done. Charles Grimm replied that a block wall would probably be required to mitigate the noise. A noise study was not done because staff was recommending denial. He believes that other noise studies have been done in the general area. Commissioner Erwin wondered if it would be possible to get a brief report on the pluses and minuses of an overpass versus an underpass, and the potential costs of both. He is basically in favor of an underpass and feels that an overpass would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He would like to see a general cost estimate of both methods. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented that State law only permits a one-time go-day extension and there can be no second extension. The go-day extension would expire on December 20, 1988 and the meeting before that would be December 7th. He informed Mr. Hubbs that an overpass or underpass was not under consideration at this meeting. Commissioner Erwin commented that he would only like additional information for the future. Chairman McFadden inquired if the Engineering Department could provide a brief, informal report in a future packet. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, responded that several issues are being considered on Tamarack. Not only is the overpass/underpass issue being considered, the actual road alignment of Tamarack is under consideration. Engineering is still not sure if trading the Tamarack cross for a Chestnut crossing would work since there are utilities to consider as well as the sea level situation. Requests are presently in process to acquire monies to study the situation further and it is hoped to be completed this year. Commissioner Schramm wonders if a denial without prejudice might be better for the applicant than a go-day extension. Mr. Wojcik feels that a decision can be made well within the go-day period. Charles Grimm concurred and doesn't see a need to deny without prejudice. Rodney Miles, applicant, requested clarification on the need for elevations since he may only want to sell the lots. Mr. Grimm replied that if elevations are not provided, anyone buying the lots would have to come to the Commission or Planning Department and present their elevations since there is much concern about compatibility of structures. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue CT 87-4 until December 7, 1988 or sooner, if possible, contingent on receiving a written agreement for the go-day extension between the applicant and the City Attorney, otherwise the continuance would be until September 21, 1988. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:43 p.m. and reconvened at 7:50 p.m. Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm .’ t ‘* 0, . r‘ rl MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, requested that the record reflect that he has received written permission for a go-day extension from the applicant. Therefore, this request can be reheard any time from now until December 7, 1988. The written request will be given to staff for inclusion in the file. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 5) Street Name Change Commissioner Schlehuber reviewed the controversy regarding street names and feels there should be more flexibility regarding the use of famous names being used for streets. He strongly feels there are persons, living and dead, who should be put on a list for possible street names, i.e. the first mayor, Glenn McComas, Manuel Castorena. He feels it would be a nice touch and cannot agree with the arguments given by the fire and police departments. Commissioner Marcus commented that she understood the City Council can do this now. She has no problem with Commissioner Schlehuber's suggestion. Commissioner Schlehuber responded that the City Council can do anything. He would like to see some guidelines set so that the Council can operate within the guidelines without amending policy. Commissioner Marcus was under the impression that it was not necessary for the City Council to amend anything in order to name a street. Ron Ball replied that this is correct. However, Commissioner Schlehuber is requesting that this matter be considered now before another petition is made. This matter will not go to the City Council unless the Planning Commission requests Council action. Commissioner Schlehuber would like to see guidelines established so that a name petition doesn't generate an automatic denial. Chairman McFadden feels that the present system is okay since the City Council can take any action they so desire. She does not see a need for changing the present system. Commissioner Erwin agrees with Chairman McFadden although he still feels that only names of deceased persons should be used to avoid public embarrassment similar to the recent episode. Commissioner Marcus inquired about the naming of Christensen Way. Mr. Grimm replied that Christensen Way is located in an area where any name can be used. The Cullinan issue was in an area where specific designations are required. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue the existing policy. Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm X X X e- l . -, , P - MINUTES September 7, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page l3 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES: The Planning Commission approved the minutes of August 3, 1988 as presented. The Planning Commission deferred approval of the minutes of August 17, 1988 until a comment of Commissioner Schramm regarding underground utilities could be investigated. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of , 1988 was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOLZMILLER- Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND'KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Erwin Hall Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm \ 7 b X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X