HomeMy Public PortalAbout04/19/1988 PABEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
APRIL 19, 1988
Comm il Chambers
ission met in a Regular Planning Commission
The Planning April 19, 1988, in the City Counc
Meeting on Tuesday, residing:
with Chairperson Burton p
Meeting was called to Order at 7 :00 P.M.
following commissioners were present:
the
On Roll Call, Remy and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner
Commissioners Bruner, thereafter.
Schuelke arrived shortly
Attorney Ryskamp and Johnson were present.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
of Minutes for the Regular Planning Comm ission
ril 5, 1988, were approved as submitted with
l Approval
Meeting of Ap correction:
the following "Actin
Page 4 - First Roll Call vote, should read g
Chairperson Remy" not "Acting Chairperson Schuelke."
2, Oral Communication: None,
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules informed thecommission
s recognizing
a letter had been prepared for their signature
for the filing of. any interested
Commissioner Ingrao's service to the commission. Also, May
13, 1988, is the last day
citizen that might want to serve on the commssion and May
23, 1988 would be the selection date. field checked
He further informed operation (formerly BeaumonteOperation) located
the Poultry Op to the
at 550 "B" Street and noticed therHewreporteduthisloto o
live chickens on the property.
Police Department they informed imeiatuin the
for past
they had had problems In checking with the Beaumont - Cherry
washing of trucks.
Valley Water Dist., Mr. Butcher commented that as of as
November, the operation had been using 6000 gallons of water
daily so there is activity on the site; however, when in
full operation a couple of years ago, they used 300,000
gallons of water per day. CDD Koules commented that he
would check further and report back to the commission at the
next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4 88 -GP -2, 88 -RZ -� and 88 -ND -3, request to change the General
Plan from Light Industry to Commercial Highway Services and
to change the Zoning from M -L (Light Industry) to C -G
(Commercial General) on 1.51 acres, located on the south
side of Fourth Street about 300' east of Beaumont Avenue.
Applicants, Daniel Tsai and Sam Lee.
CDD Koules commented that Item 4 is to 'change both the
general plan a the re -zone on 6 assessor's parcels totaling
1 1/2 acres. This would extend the freeway service and
change the zone to a commercial zone to allow a 60 unit
Travel Lodge Motel that will come to the commission on a
separate application for plot plan review. Further, staff
believes that the request is a reasonable one and would
PC Minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 2
promote the commercial development in a highly visable
area from the freeway.
The commission asked Mr. Koules if it would be feasible
while re- zoning these parcels, if the other portion of this
area be re -zoned with COD Koules commenting that it would
have to be noticed in the paper.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:15
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Frank Montesinos, 103 1/2 Ave., Del Mar, San Clemente, Ca.,
addressed the commission commenting that he agrees witn the
staff report and would be happy to answer any questions.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:16 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, recommending approval by
City Council of 88 -GP -2, 88 -RZ -2, also the Commission finds
that adoption of Negative Declaration 88 -ND -3 will not have
a significant effect on the environment and recommends
approval by the City Council; second by Commissioner Bruner.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
5. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont
repealing Chapter 17.14 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and
adding Chapter 17.14, dealing with General and Specific
Plans. Applicant, City of Beaumont.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that since the material relating to
this matter was delivered to the commissioners at the
meeting, it might be advisable to continue this over to the
next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 1988.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:24
P.M., 'continuing this public hearing to the next Regular
Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 1988.
6. 87- T61 -8, Am. #2 (Tr. 23161) & 88 -ND -2, for a revised
proposed project consisting of 183 lots for single family
homes, located north of 14th Street and west of Cherry
Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development, Inc.
COD Koules presented the staff report commenting that the
applicant had re- designed his plan for 183 single family
lots and had worked closely with the City. His
recommendation to the commission was they approve this
project and adopt Negative Declaration 88 -ND -2.
The commission had lengthy discussion Pertaining to the
following:
1) lots along the southerly boundary;
2) width of median for continuance of Palm Avenue;
3) curb and gutter for median;
4) lighting for median /streets;
5) setbacks for landscaping along 14th St., & Palm Avenue;
PC Minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 3
6) Precise Alignment;
7) cul -de -sac.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing audience
P.M., asking for proponents/opponents
wishing to speak.
Mr. Gerald Ronnebeck, 214 S. Euclid, Suite 108 Ontario,
addressed the commission commenting: no landscaping between
the curb and the wall in order to cut down on the
maintenance and landscaping cost; 6' sidewalk; curb
within the 6' sidewalk; from curb face to the right of way
will be 5'; if you require more landscaping for Palm Avenue,
then by all reason you should allow frontage onto Palm
Avenue; if it is a thoroughfare you wouldn't want people
backing out of their driveways into a 45 or 50 mile an hour
street; can cut down the size of the sidewalk and put in
landscaping next to the walls.
Commissioner Schuelke then asked if there was a standard
within the ordinance for'the required sidewalks with CDD
Koules commenting that he thought the practice for the width
of a sidewalk is 6' as per City Engineer.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the City Council did adopt
the Alignment Plan and most of City Council's discussion was
dealing with traffic flow. They (Council) eliminated
orange, Michigan Avenues and turned Palm Avenue into the
major thoroughfare to carry traffic flow north through this
area.
Commissioner Schuelke commented that she had taken it for
granted that Palm Avenue was going to be continued as a
1201width street not 921width with Attorney Ryskamp
commenting that Mr. Dotson drafted and planned the plan and
the emphasis was on traffic flow; however, aesthetics needs
to be looked at as well.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:06
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents wishing to speak from
the audience.
Jose h Mulle , Vice President, WDS Develo ment, 5206 Benito,
tdontc air, Ca. a resse t e commiss on commenting that:
instead o a straight wall (grant of an easement) can be
indented in a decorative way and the area that backs up to
Palm Avenue can be planted and this would give the
commission the landscaping that is required and also break
the channel effect; can beautify the street and still allow
Palm Avenue to remain the same size that it is; fence would
not come all the way out to the sidewalk making the
maintenance easier; would like this evening to achieve full
approval subject to conditions.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 8:17 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
Chairperson Burton noted that the commission would like to
see the concept of the landscaping.
Commissioner Schuelke questioned the cul -de -sac and the
reason it could not be improved now and wanted this
clarified since there might be a good reason for them
wanting to look at it in the future.
Gerald Ronnebeck, again addressed the commission concerning
PC Minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 4
the cul -de -sac, noting that the City Engineer felt it
was in the City's best interest just to let it lie for
now and later on address this issue. CDD Koules commented
that he would check with the property owner of the cul -de-
sac to see if they wanted to do their improvements when this
comes back to the commission for landscaping approval.
CDD Koules commented that a condition should be added
to the effect that applicant shall prepare a landscape plan
to include "saw tooth" proposal along Palm Avenue for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and lighting plan
along Palm Avenue and along 14th Street as well.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner recommending approval by
City Council as submitted and that developer submit a
landscape plan for Palm Avenue, Fourteenth Street, and the
cul -de -sac as well as a lighting plan, also Planning
Commission finds that adoption of Negative Declaration 88-
ND-3 will not have a significant effect on the environment
and recommends approval by the City Council; seconded by
Commissioner Schuelke. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
SCHEDULED MATTER:
7. Letter from Attorney Held appealing Sign Permit No. 88 -SNP-
1, located at 910 W. Highway 60, which said application was
denied by staff. Matter continued from April 5, 1988 to
April 19, 1988. Applicant Kunz & Co.
CDD Koules commented that there was no staff report, it is
an appeal for a decision to deny an outdoor advertising
billboard and Attorney Ryskamp has responded to the
commission with response to the attorney's letter.
Attorney Johnson commented that he assumed all the
commission had read his memorandum and asked if there were
any questions.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the applicant would like an
opportunity to speak. Our recommendation was to sustain the
decision of the Community Development Director.
Tom Flanaqan, representing Kunz & Co., 1831 Commercenter E.,
San Bernardino, addressed the commission stating his
objections and reasons why he should be allowed to construct
a billboard sign at 910 W. Highway 60. He also wanted it
read into the ,record that the application meets the
guidelines of the Federal Beautification Act of the State
Outdoor Advertising Act. Also that Highway 60 is a Federal
Aid Primary Highway not a FAI (Federal Aid Interstate).
After discussion by the commission, Attorney Ryskamp
commented that he wanted for clarification;to point out that
this issue was a separate issue, separate property,
different sign and different applicant from the one where
the building permit expired and was subsequently revoked;
however, the same general legal principals are involved.
Also, he pointed out Section 17.60.30 of Title 17 which
distinguishes on -site advertising and outdoor display
advertising. Outdoor Display Advertising specifically
PC Minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 5
states that it has to be authorized in the zone and our C -G
zone does not authorize it.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner to deny the appeal for Sign
Permit No. 88- SNP -1, located at 910 W. Highway 60; seconded
by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. 86- PP -14, continued hearing for one year extension of plot
plan, requested by Cougar Mountain Apartments from March 5,
1988 to March 6, 1989. Applicant, Michael M. Slagle.
CDD Koules reported that this was heard at the last meeting
of April 5, 1988. His first contact by Mr. Slagle was on
April 12th when called about a different matter and the
following day a Mr. Ed Adkison called about 5:15 P.M., and
wzs referred to the City Engineer. He further commented
that he (Koules) had spoken to Jim Dotson and there seemed
to be some questions. The grading plans have been signed
off by the City Engineer and the right of way has been
acquired but there has been no landscape plans. He further
noted that he has no recommendation and his previous
recommendation is withdrawn.
Mr. Michael Sla le, addressed the commission commenting that
Fe brought witF him this evening Mr. 'Ed Adkison who is
their engineer and he will be able to answer any questions
that the commission might have regarding this project.
Ed Adkison, 6830 Airport Dr., Riverside, addressed the
commission representing t e app scant stating that he talked
to Jim Dotson and Mr. Dotson felt the commission was
concerned about the aesthetics of the project in regards to
the Precise Alignment of Palm Avenue; has complied with the
Precise Alignment; plot plan has been approved; 25' building
setback; not proposing to put a block wall on the rear of
the 61walkway which is going to be landscaped; applicant is
willing to go ahead and comply with the same conditions as
conditioned with the previous tract to the south; will bring
in landscape plans and let the commission condition them;
would be willing to grant an easement for landscaping if
needed; willing to have a condition that the landscaping
plan would be reviewed by the commission prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Chairperson Burton explained that their main concern before
granting the extension is to see an update on the project
because at the; time of approval, Palm Avenue was not a
consideration it was orange _..Avenue at the other side.
Now that Palm Avenue will be taking 92' across, it will be
altering the plot plan and the commi ss ion" wants to see the
update on this.
Ed Adkison, commented that the Precise Alignment of Palm
Avenue ue did not affect the plot plan whatsoever; have not
altered the design; the plot plan on file with the City
Planning Department is marked September 1986 and that
particular plot plan never showed the extension of Michigan
Avenue extending northerly or dedicating half of the Street
to Michigan Avenue. When commission approved this plot
plan, the width of Palm Avenue was not determined as yet
PC Minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 6
because the precise alignment was still being determined.
When Council comes up with the precise alignment, then we
would proceed and start from the east right of way line and
take whatever distance is needed and then design the second
phase around the width of Palm Avenue. When the Precise
Alignment was adopted by Council, we completed the street
improvement plans in accordance with the Precise Alignment -
those plans are signed off by the City Engineer and are
ready for construction.
Commissioner Schuelke noted that they are asking for an
extension of the very first one (Phase I). At that time we
requested that prior to a permit being issued, the amended
plot plan for Phase 1 be brought back to the commission
showing Palm Avenue coming through.
Michael Slagle, noted it was his understanding that the plot
plan is approved and it has also been extended. He
commented that they requested an extension of the plot plan
last year when it expired at a different date from the date
of the working drawings - have a plot plan and a working
drawing. The plot plan is alive, the engineering for the
street improvement is alive, what has expired is the
architectural drawings for the buildings themselves - this
is the only portion of the project that needs an extension.
Commission noted that that was not what the staff report
says with CUD Koules concuring. Mr. Slagle felt this
should be clarified.
Michael Slagle further commented that they were not here to
extend the plot plan, it is alive - we're not asking for a
building permit extension, we're asking for an archectitural
extension.
CDD Koules noted that the plot plan that he has was approved
by the Planning Commission Meeting of October 7, 1986 and
one of the conditions says this project shall commence
development within 12 months from approval of planning
commission. When this came to CDD Koules, it came as an
extension of the plot plan approval of 86 -PP -14 which is
why it is before the commission.
Michael lSSlaalee asked if he requested an extension of the
plans or did he ask for an extension of the plot plan with
Attorney Ryskamp commenting an extension of the approved
plans.
Michael Slagle commenting the approved plans - not the plot
plan and the approved plans which he is referring is the
architectural plans for the project. Further, 86 -PP -14 is
alive according to a letter he has from the City Council -
it has been extended for one year.
CDD Koules commented that what he has in the file is a
letter from Valerie Beeler to the Planning Commission dated
9/15/87 requesting an extension of time for Cougar Mtn.
Apartments.
(RECESSED IN ORDER FOR MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 TO BE
PULLED)
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that upon review,
it was determined that on the 15th of September 1987, upon
motion by Commissioner Schuelke, the plot plan extension for
one year was approved.
PC Minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 7
COD Koules then asked if we are going back and saying that
you wanted an extension of the building permit with Mr.
Slagle stating "yes" they wanted an extension of the
approval of the building plans which are ordinarily granted
when the plot plan is extended. (Slagle) we do not have a
building permit, we need an extension of the architectural
plans.
CDD Koules commented that he didn't feel it was necessary
unless it is a condition of the plot plan approval. CDD
Koules has the conditions of approval dated October 7, 1986
and that was continued for another year. Mr. Koules wanted
to know if there were any conditions within the conditions
of approval that required Mr. Slagle to come in and get an
extension of the development plans for the architectural
drawings.
Michael Slagle commented that he could not answer that
question; that he relies on what his professional people
advise him to do with Mr. Adkison commenting that he didn't
- have any correspondence, but he did note that the
improvement plans are signed May of 87.
CDD Koules then noted that he thought the improvement plans
were still good as long as the plot plan is still active
with Attorney Rsykamp commenting that he didn't think there
was any reason for Mr. Slagle and Mr. Adkison to be here as
long as their plot plan is alive. However, (Ryskamp still
speaking) that what he is hearing from the commission is
that prior to the expiration of the extension which was
granted in September and runs through October 6, 1988,
that there should be plans submitted which show the proper
width of Palm Avenue.
Chairperson Burton commented that she voted yes on this
project because she was told that when the alignment was
decided, then a revised plot plan would be brought back.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that if this is the requirement that
we are looking at, then Mr. Koules needs to advise the
applicants that before they proceed, they are to submit a
revised plot plan for both phases and this would be the
City's position and informing Mr. Slagle and Mr. Adkison
that they had requested something they didn't need. Mr.
Adkison then commented "so this is a matter of record now ".
9. Legal interpretation /clarification of Section 17.60.115 (e)
of Title 17 (Vehicular Signs) requested by Commissioner
Remy.
Attorney Ryskamp requested that this item be continued to
the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 1988
in order to give him an opportunity to write a legal
interpretation.
There being no further business before the ,commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:18 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�Q
Plannin ommi 'on Secretary