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