Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06/21/1988 PABEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 1988 The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 1988, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding: Ms. Blanche Fries was sworn in as Commissioner by Mayor Jim Partain and welcomed by fellow commissioners and planning staff. Meeting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. Attorney Ryskamp and Johnson were present. Affidavit of Posting was read. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 1988, were approved as submitted. 2. Oral Communication: None. 3. Director's Report: CDD Koules explained the Specific Planning Area Zone which should be included in the Ordinance dealing with General and Specific Plans. He commented that at the present time, there is nothing in the Ordinance that would implement the Specific Plan; thus, the reason for Chapter 17.36 being brought before the Commission for discussion purposes. CON'T PUBLIC HEARING: 4. An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont repealing Chapter 17.14 of the Beaumont Municpal Code and adding Chapter 17.14, dealing with General and Specific Plans. Applicant, City of Beaumont. Attorney Ryskamp explained the changes made pertaining to this Ordinance, commenting that it now provides better flexibility and compliance for the areas that are currently designated with the PUD designation. Chairperson Burton then asked if anyone wanted to speak pertaining to this matter and there being none, she then closed the public hearing at 7:08 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner Bruner, recommending approval by City Council of the Beaumont Municipal Code and adding Chapter 17.14, dealing with General and Specific Plans. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Minutes of PC Meeting June 21, 1988 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: 5. 87 -PM -9, (Tr. 23144), to divide property into 2 parcels, located at 650 E. 1st Street. Applicant, Jack Williams. CDD Koules presented the staff report commenting that the applicant had requested a parcel map waiver; however, a waiver should have a basis for it, (e.g., if there are conditions that are unreasonable or impossible to comply with). The City Engineer felt there should be a dedication of 4' of additional right -of -way along First Street and this was the reason for staff's recommendation this be done through a final parcel map rather than a separate instrument. Further, a waiver of a parcel map would cause more work both on the City Engineer and on the City's part. Mr. Koules further noted he would like to make a practice of not granting waivers of maps unless there are some very good reasons. Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Jack Williams, 650 E. 1st., and 652 E. 1st., Beaumont, addressed the commission stating a is trying to divid an acre into 2 lots and each lot has its own individual utilities. Mr. Dave Sumner Sanborn a Webb Engineering, 930 Beaumont Avenue., Beaumont, addressed the commission explaining that one of the complications for this parcel map was the County vacated the property in 1893 and in so doing vacated all streets and all property lines which was not converted to acreage wiping out all division of land (it was not recorded until 1940). The City Engineer's position is that since everything was vacated you can't have a little bit of vacation of street and not a vacation of property. In this case however, the client obtained 4 of the lots through a legal description prior to the Subdivision Map Act of 1972 and since it was done prior to the Map Act the recording of a parcel map was not required. Mr. Sumner felt that a final map is not necessary since there are recorded monuments showing the boundary of the property and commented that the only problem is the 4' dedication that can be handled with a legal description much cheaper and quicker than a final parcel map. Chairperson Burton asked if there had been a boundary survey done on this property with Mr. Sumner stating "yes" they had done 3 of the points and had surveyed it but did not monument the division. Also, Mr. Sumner commented that originally in 1893 it was 4 lots and merged into 1 through a legal survey. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton closed the public hearing at 7:29 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. CDD Koules commented that the City Engineer's position is that the map be recorded so the City would not be at risk and there would be a subdivision guarantee from the Title Company. Mr. Koules also noted that there is a lack of clarity as to the 4 points of the monuments and the dedication to the City. Mr. Sumner commented that they could do a legal description for less money than a final map. Also, a Mr. Williams Minutes of PC Meeting June 21, 1988 Page 4 After discussion, Commissioner Schuelke made a motion to deny the request for extension as per staff's findings pertaining to 87 -CUP -2 for a 97 RV Park, seconded by Commissioner Remy. Attorney Ryskamp noted that the applicant should have an opportunity to speak with Commissioner Schuelke withdrawing her motion in order for the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Todd Schlesinger 14405 California St., Beaumont, addressed the commission commenting that: due to the complication of this project starting July 7th when it was originally approved, it took to October 28, 1987 to actually get City Council's approval; intent of the zoning is designed to take advantage of rural environment as well as the outdoor recreational potential of the community; wouldn't have gone ahead if he hadn't of had staff's approval; project is complex and wants the time to do a good job; does have his financing now which was part of the hold up. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner Remy that based on staff's findings and considering the applicant's position one year later, a six (6) month extension be granted from this date for 87- CUP -2. Attorney Ryskamp commented that there should be a finding made that the original interpretation as set forth by the Planning Director in the original approval is the interpretation you are using as to whether this project conforms to the zoning ordinance. it was noted by the commission that they were in agreement with staff's findings that it is not in compliance with the zone; however, the feeling was that it was unfair to the applicant not to grant an extension. Todd Schlesinger, addessed the commission commenting that he would appreciate a six month extension. CDD Koules noted that there had been no communication between the applicant and the City of Beaumont. Todd Schlesinger, again addressed the commission stating he was not aware that he was not conforming with the plans; thought the approval of his project was 12 months from the City Council approval which was October 1987. Commissioner Schuelke restated her motion to recommend approval of a six (6) month extension which begins as of this evening and found that due to the uniqueness of this project and circumstances beyond the applicant's control, the commission for this six month period, will use the interpretation from staff's original approval for the extension period. CDD Koules asked that during this six month extension the definition for submittal of the development plan would be "acceptable development plans as per City Engineer and City staff." Attorney Ryskamp commented that by "acceptable" it is meant they conform to the original conditions of approval. The second motion by Commissioner Schuelke was seconded by Commissioner Bruner. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: Minutes of PC Meeting June 21, 1988 Page 5 AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, and Remy. NOES: Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. 87- PP -12, a change in Conditions of Approval for 144 apartment units, located at the N/E Corner of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Applicant, John Sims, American Housing Corp. CDD Koules explained that this was an informational item and was brought before the commission because of a change in conditions of approval which is different from the conditions in the original approval. Commissioner Remy noted that Mr. Sims was suppose to advise the commission of the total number of apartments that was going to be built pursuant to net acreage - which wasn't done. Attorney Ryskamp commented that in one of the conditions on Page 7, it specifically indicates 9.9 acreas, as set forth in the letter of May 9, 1988 from the City Engineer. Further, Page 7 of the new conditions in the letter of May 9, 1988, (Condition #7.06) indicated that 9.9 acres within the project site is the amount that has been used in the charge to the sewer district. It was the feeling of the commission that this project had not been approved and if the map was changed it was supposed to come back before the commission. Secretary noted from the Minutes of October 6, 1987 that this project was approved and read information from the minutes verifying approval. Mr. John Sims, American Housing Corp., addressed the commission commenting: We were instructed to come back with a report based on the net density - the 144 units results in the deduction in the property that is required with the dedication for the frontage road and Beaumont Avenue; stay sufficiently away from the Deodora trees as not to injure the root system; direction from the Planning Commission from the meeting of October, 1987, that the City Engineer had the authority to approve and design the access road in accordance with the standards that was developed for width with the condition that they stay away from the Deodora trees - the City Engineer then said he didn't want the responsibility and wants it back before the commission; feels they have complied; no design standards for Beaumont Avenue; was going to wait until there was an Assessment District in order to let developers know what to do; curb and gutter is at least 15' from the center of each of the trees; sidewalks are 6' including curb and gutter. Recess called at 8:50 P.M., reconveying at 9:02 P.M. Attorney Ryskamp commented that the developer has to comply with the conditions and the commission has to rely on the City Engineer to determine if they are in fact in compliance. John Sims, again speaking & stating that: if you put a curb and gutter along Beaumont Avenue there is no way to get water to the trees; if you curbed, guttered, and put in sidewalks on Beaumont Avenue you would have dead trees; can't do anything to Beaumont Avenue until there is a full engineered plan all the way to Brookside. Minutes of PC Meeting June 21, 1988 Page 6 Attorney Ryskamp noted that adopted for that road for road is in the County. there could be no specific plan both sides because half of the John Sims, speaking and stating that: proposes as a comprise, to let them go ahead in getting a building permit; will help design Beaumont Avenue; simple thing to form an Assessment District or whatever for the ultimate approval of Beaumont Avenue; recommends that the Planning Commission request the presence of the City Engineer when issues like this one is presented; stipulation that they will work with and in good faith and bear financial responsibility to the extent of a reasonable plan for their side of Beaumont Avenue; wouldn't want to go back and remove the Deodora trees and put in a 50' island with all sorts of planning undergrounding; will commit to work with the City in whatever reasonable way to eventually work through this problem. It was the concensus of the commission that they wanted to visually see what Beaumont Avenue is going to look like on a designed plan and that an Assessment District be formed for this project as well as all the other projects. Attorney Ryskamp commented that we now have the need to pool money /resources and create the development plan for Beaumont Avenue - the engineering plans need to be drawn and determinations made. John Sims again stating: be reasonable; can't agree to anything that is open- ended. The Commission noted that this condition would run with this property. John Sims, stating: doesn't want to do any hardcore design until they have an approved plan; can prepare an agreement that obligates American Housing Corporation to participate to work with whomever and City staff; will build at some point and time - doesn't know when that will be because he doesn't know when it will be approved or if an Assessment District will be formed; cannot have as a condition on the building permits; ready to pull building permits by the end of the month; ready to close their loan; if they sell, the agreement would be assigned to the buyer; if a deed restriction is placed on him, he couldn't finance the project. Attorney Ryskamp commented that a deed restriction is not the answer. If the City wants to develop this property then take action and further, conditions of approval run with the conditional use permit. When the building permit is issued there is a condition on the permit that there will be no certificate of completion and occupancy unless the amounts have been paid. Commissioner Remy questioned how buildings could be placed along the frontage road without formal design. John Sims, commented that the only issue is Beaumont Avenue. John Sims verbatim testimony. Two things, maybe - - and tell me to sit down and shut up (inaudible). First our project from one standpoint really doesn't involve what you folks want to do with Beaumont Avenue at all and I think that one of the things Dotson had Minutes of PC Meeting June 21, 1988 Page 7 in mind when he said no improvements because there are no standards and it is up to the community to develop those standards. I'm willing to propose and develop some proposal to consider to develop your standards by and to participate in them. I think what we're doing is trying to (inaudible) the difference between designs and improvements in this area and building the street - and that is what I tried to say first is that I don't know what to design a street to, until we give you maybe a concept plan - maybe we give you as I said a water plan, a tree plan and maybe we have a public hearing on what the community wants that street to be - whether its rural in design or whether it stays like Wilshire Blvd. or what. So what I'm trying to say is that its best - I don't want to get away with anything but try to tie a specific obligation of ours into a design which doesn't exist seems to be the cart before the horse. Tie in an obligation for us to participate in a design, and tie to us an obligation to participate in an assessment district or other means of financing that the City develops for our portion - that I can understand, but again - to tie it to a building permit or occupancy permit would really be a political problem as to who approves that and who designs what and who is to pay - what I think we're just building a monster to try (inaudible). Commissioner Schuelke then asked Mr. Sims could he accomplish what he says he is willing to do. John Sims, verbatim testimony, If the City will tell us tomorrow what design firm they wish to use, who is going to participate it, how many property owners, what the general requirements and goals and objectives of the City are which are probably - I won't speak for Mr. Koules, but it should be a planning thing and what he thinks that those original initial concepts are, they can't be a whole lot, I can't see more than a few thousand dollars for a water study and calculation, another few thousand for a tree study as to how much water these particular trees need from somebody that knows about it, what the root system is to send somebody out there to dig it, how far you really want the paving to come over, what would happen if you really did cut off all water, do you want to then let it - put in a sprinkler system and if so do you have an assessment district to set that up for - like a lighting district, is it going to be a community wide thing for maybe 14th St. all the way to whereever you want it to go. If we knew those things then I could give you an answer, but again cities have done this time after time after time and where I'm standing it looks like the commission is saying we want you to resolve an irresolvable problem for us because no one really knows at this point, but I sure think that with the people that are doing your general plans and your other planning things we can get somebody to draw it, we can get a proposal, we'll be willing to commit for our portion on - - if the whole study is $25,000 and we're 1 /10th of that or 1/2 of that or whatever it is, I'm certainly willing on front footage basis to participate - - and I think you can make that part of the overall conditions of approval of our project. But it is going to have to be a little bit of hand - holding on both sides because I can't design something if I don't know what you all want. Attorney Ryskamp commented that there should also be a motion requesting /directing an engineering plan for Beaumont Avenue be placed on the City Council's agenda. John Sims, verbatim testimony. Yeah but you - - that Minutes of PC Meeting June 21, 1988 Page 8 literally could be one day before and I've got no control over it and I don't know if the (inaudible) - °why can't You close a construction loanarticivaai nggagreement,Y why can't do it like (inaudible) p P we just do it like a contract because then that makes it a personal obligation of me not the lender. And the lender an not going to loan money on the project if he can't g occupancy. I will agree to participate, I will agree to make this property subject to the assessment district (inaudible). You asked me a question to begin with when we first started this what I would do ifresponse I were sitting iin o r position about designing a road. My is that I would want the most professionally designed access road that will serve the needs of the community. Now in my minds eye, the same answer is for Beaumont Avenue. You can't just do half the road or a quarter of a road on our to share, you've got to bite the bullet and you've g °roved design the whole bloody thing and thats got to be app by Council and then its (inaudible) with and going to have to pay for it but then - Y condition - - I would presume the Commission, on those people that are in the position that I am in, that hey, you're gonna agree to participate in this assessment district - and you're not going to get development, I of absolutely irrevocably guarantee you on the east uire not Beaumont Avenue unless its brought into the City, y Q going to get sewer and water services. On motion by Commissioner Bruner to approve 87 -PP- 12, American Housing Corp. revising 1.01 as per City Engineer's letter dated May 9, 1988. Attorney Ryskamp suggested that if the City has not completed development of Beaumont Avenue Engineering Plans when the occupancy permit is required, that the City shall provide a contract in lieu thereof obligating American Housing Inc., and John Sims. John Sims, verbatim testimony. Now hold it folks, well in all honesty folks, Mr. Sims has no direct ownership interest in this project at all (inaudible). If you want to get into the technicalities, by a partnership of which there is a corporate general partner, there is a - I'm sorry, there is a limited partner which is a corporate general partner there and American Housing is involved and - - Commissioner Schuelke then asked if there would be any personal guarantee from any of the officers of any of these partnerships or corporations with Mr. Sims answering "only to the construction loan ". John Sims, verbatim testimony. What I have to tell you is there is a million and a half dollars worth of equity (inaudible) so what I would suggest is, if we can get the concurrence, the only thing is the time factor, if we can get the concurrence as to (inaudible) what our participation is. We'll post a bond in order to get surety for the City and /or do the work, but I'm just concerned that I'll be here for another 20 years and nobody will tell me what I have to do. Attorney Ryskamp quoted 1.01 from the City Engineer's letter to read as follows: Pay prior to issuance of occupancy permit amounts required for: Minutes of PC Meeting June 21, 1988 Page 9 a. Engineering for Beaumont Avenue on his property and retaining the Deodora trees, b. Placing on project property curb and gutter on Beaumont Avenue if required by the engineering plan and, C. If City approves, creation of an assessment district for Beaumont Avenue. If the City has not completed development of Beaumont Avenue engineering plans prior to occupancy of the project, the City shall provide a contract obligating American Housing Corporation for payment of the required sums in a form acceptable to American Housing Corporation and City staff. Mr. Sims commented that he would have units ready in 7 months. Attorney Ryskamp commented that the determination before the 1st occupancy permits are issued there will be a contract signed. Seconded by Commissioner Schuelke. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Attorney Ryskamp commented that the commission request that City Council immediately take action for the development design concept and engineering plan for Beaumont Avenue that would include the appropriate curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc. on both sides from 14th Street to Brookside and that any plan developed be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation prior to approval by the City Council. 9. An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont, California, repealing Sections 17.55.005 through 17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and repealing 17.80.105 (d) (5) and adding a new Chapter 17.55 to the Municipal Code entitled Off - Street Parking and Loading. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner Bruner to approve Ordinance of the City of Beaumont, California, repealing Sections 17.55.005 through 17.55.200 of the Beaumont Munciipal Code and repealing 17.80.105 (d) (5) and adding a new Chapter 17.55 to the Municipal Cdoe entitled Off - Street Parking and Loading. AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, adopting Handicap Parking Regulations. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner Bruner to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont California, adopting Handicap Parking Regulations. AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. Minutes of PC Meeting June 21, 1988 Page 10 ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:16 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tanning mmiss n Secretary