Loading...
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