Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10/25/1988 PABEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 1988 The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, October 25, 1988, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding: Meeting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy, Fries and Chairperson Burton. Affidavit of Posting was read. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 4, 1988, were approved as submitted with a typo on page 2, paragraph 7, line 6, " accured" should have been "accrued ". 2. Oral Communication: None. 3. Director's Report: None. CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARINGS: 4. 87- PP -17, 87 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, a proposed 4 unit apartment building, located at 738 Chestnut between 7th and 8th Streets. Applicants, Victor & Vincent Schiro. It should be noted for the record that the staff report shows the Negative Declaration No. as 87 -ND -37 and it should be corrected to read 87- ND -39. CDD Koules presented the staff report and noted because of an area shortage for the fourth unit, it was felt that a variance would accommodate the fourth unit since the applicant is only short 25% of the area required. Also, the proposal would tie together a common 20' driveway since Mr. Schiro has already developed the property adjacent to the south which has a 10' driveway on the side. Commissioner Remy questioned the 20' driveway noting that she thought the fire department wanted a 24' driveway with CDD Koules noting that the structures are accessible from the street and the hose lines could fight a fire without having access onto the site. Chairperson Burton then asked for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Vincent Schiko, 15842 La Palma, Hacienda Heights, a dresse t e commission e aining his prp7ect comment g that they are improving the building by offering more square footage, more play area, basketball court in back and a play area in front; living area would be 325 s.f.; first apartment will be a house. CDD Koules noted that this project was not reviewed as a total project with 2 parcels. It was reviewed separately and then the driveway problem was resolved by suggesting the common easement. PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 2 Attorney Ryskamp noted that his concern is a common easement with two different owners in the future could end up creating considerable problems as to who maintains the driveway. City Engineer Dotson commented that if the property is merged you deny the applicant the right to sell separately and asked what authority do we have to force this kind of a merger? Attorney Ryskamp commented that where there is a common driveway it is creating an easement - we do have the authority. Mr. Vincent Schiro, addressed the commission again noting no fence can be put down the middle; has to maintain the driveway in order to compete. Attorney Ryskamp felt that we are creating a potential future problem with an easement and asked Mr. Schiro if he was opposed to the concept of merging the two properties with Mr. Schiro stating "not at all." Mr. Schiro didn't feel it was a problem; however, he is not opposed. CDD Koules noted that he does not anticipate the problems that Mr. Ryskamp mentioned. It is a much more complex process to merge the two lots. The applicant does have the right to create the lots separately - doesn't see what would be accomplished. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:22 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. It was noted by Commissioner Schuelke that the original proposal from the packet of 10/20/87, the driveway was 24 feet between the two buildings and that proof of a reciprocal agreement between the two parcels was in the staff file. CDD Koules commented that there was a reciprocal agreement that the parties agree no fence shall be built on the southerly line of the seller's property nor the northerly line of the neighbor's property - just a fence restriction. No one can build a fence on the common lot line. Chairperson Burton noted that if it was 24 feet on the original proposal, it should also be a 24 foot driveway now. After lengthy discussion and in checking the plot plan from the original staff report and in reading page 117 of Title 17, it was determined that the driveway should be 24 feet. Attorney Ryskamp noted that the original application and filing date is pirt of the project and the variance is now for the density issue. CDD Koules commented that if you cut -out 4'i of the building make sure that the open space and other requirements are all met. Clarification is needed however, as to whether the applicant is to merge the two parcels or adept a reciprocal easement - applicant should be informed. He further noted,, the applicant would have to file a subdivision map to merge the two parcels into one since you cannot eliminate a lot line by a Certificate of Compliance. Not allowed to increase or decrease the number of parcels with a Certificate of Compliance which is a state law. PC minutes October 25, 1988 Page 3 City Engineer Dotson noted that a lot line adjustment cannot-" " increase nor decrease the number of lots. Will have to check the map act. Attorney Ryskamp noted that relative to the merger is it is felt that research should be done and that he be directed by the commission to come back with language to make the procedure possible so that in this type of situation there is a simple procedure. CDD Koules noted that he did not agree with this - felt we are getting procedure bound. Attorney Ryskamp commented that he wanted to be able to waive the map requirement and in the future have a procedure so that in this situation we do not have to record a map. CDD Koules stated that he maintains that the State Subdivision Map Act disallows you from merging two parcels with a Certificate of Compliance. Chairperson Burton commented that the commission will direct the City Attorney to research it and find out what the City's position is and bring back a report. On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner Fries that this project be returned to the applicant to re- design the project to comply with the driveway requirement. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 5. 87- PP -19, a proposed three apartment units, located at 673 Massachusetts. Applicant, Howard Haig. Per request of CDD Koules, this matter was continued to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 1988, since the applicant is still working on his revised plot plan. 6. 88 -PP -3, 88 -V -4 and 88- ND -14, a proposed 60 unit Travelodge Motel and a Variance to allow a 55 ft. high sign with a 200 sq. ft. surface area, located on the south side of Fourth Street about 300 feet east of Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Sam Lee and Daniel Tsai. CDD Koules presented of this project. amended to read "Gas Mr. Dannv Lee, 205 the commission n Builders; needsl traffic - is a situation - will approximately 325 Restaurant. the He Co" staff report recommending approval noted that Condition #7 should be not "Edison Co." 2 Palma Drive, Rolling Heights, otng that the company name is the 55' sign in order to attract highway oriented business - do be a good design sign;j rooms s.f., will not block view for addressed Evergreen highway or die will be Denny's There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:10 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. On motion by Commissioner Fries to approve Plot Plan 88 -PP -3 recommending approval of Variance 88 -V -4 and Negative PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 4 Declaration 88 -ND -14 by City Council, subject to the conditions of approval; seconded by Commissioner Bruner. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. City Engineer Dotson commented that this project will increase the run -off (drainage) into the channel that crosses the Hershey's property on 3rd and California. 7. 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3, a proposed development on 160 acres consisting of 366 detached single family units, 224 multi- family units and 21 acres of commercial uses. The residential construction is proposed to be developed in 9 phases and the commercigl" development at a future time; located on the south side of Highway 60, and south of Western Knolls Drive, 'at the westerly City limits. Applicant, John Thomas, Beaumont Associates. Chairperson Burton noted that this public hearing was opened prior to this hearing. CDD koules noted that this item had been continued from the October 4, 1988 hearing to allow the applicant's engineer to address the conditions of approval, also, a letter from the City Manager was distributed to the commission prior to the meeting. Caltrans' comments were received by the Planning Department on October 21, 1988, thus, the reason for not being in the packets. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M., reconvening at 8:25 P.M. Mr. John Thomas, 1202 Kroll Lane, Huntinciton Beach, addressed the commission commenting: his participation in this meeting is to supply the commission with information; will not be waiving any of the benefits which he may have accrued as a result of violating the State Streamlining Act; would not preclude Best, Best & Krieger acting as co- counsel, Palmieri, and Tyler initiating a writ of mandate proceeding. Mr. Ryskamp noted that at this point a stipulation to include the fact that any actions taken tonight are deemed by all parties to have taken place on the 6th of September with Mr. Thomas stating "yes." Mr. Thomas, further speaking commented: 1) Minutes of October 4, objected to) all of the did not do. Conditions a) Condition No. 1.02; b) Condition No. 1.04; c) Condition No. 2.01; d) Condition No. 2.02. 1988 reflected that he had conditions of approval which he he did not object to were: I Also other items he discussed he indicated that usually the procedure should be included with the final map and improvement plans as opposed to being presented and submitted with a tentative map; PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 5 2) Kunzman & Caltrans did a traffic study on this project' which was submitted to Mr. Bounds and Mr. Bounds in turn submitted the study to Caltrans - approximately 1 1/2 years ago; 3) Biological survey was done on the property and submitted to the City 11/19/87; 4) Complete plan survey and an animal survey on the property done - City has a copy; 5) Mr. Bounds submitted a letter to Caltrans approximately 1 1/2 years ago stating their map complied with the general plan, zoning and circulation element in the City of Beaumont; 6) Meetings with Valerie Beeler, Mr. Bounds and the engineers were had with the basic idea that everything that was documented and recorded would be included in the map; 7) Letter from Valerie Beeler subsequent to the date Mr. Bounds submitted his 'letter to Caltrans and also states the map coincides with the general plan, zoning and circulation element; 8) Applications and work done on project were done so at the instructions of both Mr. Bounds and Valerie Beeler. Mr. Hubert Webb, Civil Engineer for the project, addressed the commission commenting: 1) Was his understanding this project was going to be presented to the commission on the basis of a tentative map with certain issues being addressed by further study; 2) Project was not going to have a full blown Specific Plan EIR; 3) Traffic studies, biology, gas mitigation studies have all come out during the processing of the plan as a result of on -going discussion with City staff; 4) His understanding the major two issues involving the project was Caltrans and is there, or is there not wastewater capacity available to the project; 5) They understood when the project was going to be presented to the Planning Commission and Council, there was going to be a condition in the conditions of approval indicating that this area would have to participate in a study for a wastewater expansion as well as the interchange situation because the City of Beaumont has to be the lead agency; r 6) Applicant agreed he would assist in the preparation with funding and whatever else was necessary to aid the City in preparing these studies; 7) Reviewed Mr. Dotson's conditions and outlined the following: 11 , a) Condition No. 1.01: Opposed to this condition because it was never a condition that the City staff at the time they started the project instructed them to comply with; PC Minutes October 25, Page 6 b) MTV Condition list of map. No. 1.03: If the City will furnish street names they will place them on the c) Condition No. 1.04: Agrees with this condition. d) Condition No. 1.05: preference - either some opening with w with a passage way. e) Condition No. 1.06: within the right of or a road offer of road. Opposed. This is a matter of a solid block wall or leave rought -iron through this area Could be mitigated. 10' more way within the tract boundary 10' on the other side of the f) Condition No. 2: Believes this to be a legitimate condition; however, on a lot of cases other agencies do not require the typical section. Attorney Ryskamp explained - 'there was a question as to whether this particular zone on the general plan required a development plan or' a specific plan and it was the City's contention that the application was not completed until the 29th of April 1988. He noted there was a meeting in March with Mr. Thomas, his attorney, Mr. Webb, Mr. Koules, Mr. Bounds, Mr. Dotson and himself and discussed at length the requirements of the project, the need for a Specific Plan vs. a Vesting Tentative Map and they arrived at a list of additional items that needed to be submitted to complete the application. When the last of these initial items were submitted, they then had an application that was complete; therefore, the City had one year from April 29th. When an application is complete that does not mean you cannot request additional materials - it means you have the basic materials before you. Mr. Thomas, commented that if you go over the development standards for that zone and if you go over all the comments and instructions that were given to them by Mr. Bounds and Valerie Beeler for over 2 years, neither one of them ever mentioned the fact that they had to do a Specific Plan. His attorneys have reviewed all the documentation and they disagree with the City's attorney and have requested that he immediately file a writ of mandate proceeding. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 9:14 P.M., turning this matter back to the commission for discussion. Attorney Ryskamp noted for the record that Mr. Dotson be allowed to address the issue pointing out that on July 21, 1987, he (Dotson) sent a letter which was subsequently forwarded to the applicant specifically stating there wasn't enough information at this point to make conditions of approval. Mr. Dotson stated that the letter he wrote was in July 1987, in response to a request from Valerie Beeler to review the map for purposes of preparing conditions of approval. Commented he wrote a very brief letter stating "way too soon - there is not enough here." He then read from his letter quoting "the tentative map is very nice but its submittal is premature - way premature." Further noting that he stands by this statement now. Attorney Ryskamp pointed out that there were three options before the commissin: 1) to approve the project; 2) to deny PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 7 the project and 3) take no action recognizing that the City can work with the applicant until April 29, 1989 to complete an EIR as well as the other steps to make the project workable - in which case it would be returned to staff. He noted also that a fourth alternative could be that the application is not complete because there has been no specific plan and return it to start all over again. CDD Koules noted that the reviewing agencies in response to the Notice of Preparation are of such magnitude that they are going to involve an EIR and most likely a re- design of the project and this understanding should be set forth. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner Remy that this application 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3 be returned to staff for the purpose of working with the applicant to bring into compliance by April 29, 1989, based on the finding that it has come to us prematurely. Attorney Ryskamp wanted it clarified as to whether the application is not complete or if she (Commissioner Schuelke) wanted staff to work with the application and materials that they now have which was accepted as complete on April 29, 1989, with Commissioner Schuelke stating "both." Attorney Ryskamp then noted that the application can be complete and still require extensive additional materials - acceptable as complete in that it has the major issues and yet require additional materials including a full EIR. Meeting recessed at 9:36 P.M., reconvening at 9:45 P.M. CDD Koules informed the commission that April 29th was the date that the phasing map was submitted and to use this as the date of acceptance of a complete application. This then would be consistent with the March 22nd meeting they had with the applicant and his representatives. The EIR process has already prompted some serious concerns and would have to be reflected in some map revision. Further, he would do his best to work with the applicant to bring this to a completed project. Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Thomas that she personally felt that an EIR should be done. She noted that a motion was on the floor which should be withdrawn or re- stated. Attorney Ryskamp commented that the only thing that needed to be corrected was rather than in reference to a Specific Plan, request staff to work with the applicant to attempt to complete work on the project by the one year dead -line date which is April 29, 1989. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Remy. NOES: Commissioner Fries and Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. SCHEDULED MATTER: 8. Appeal of Community Development Director's decision, reference Outdoor Advertising Displays (Billboards) per Section 17.60.015 of Beaumont Municipal Code. CDD Koules presented the staff report explaining that the applicant was in the office requesting to file four billboards at the Intersection of highway 60 and Interstate PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 8 10. Attorne Gar Moble , One New ort Place, New ort Beach, addresse t e commissson stating a was represent ng Adams Advertising. He further commented: It was represented to them that this was a denial and he confirmed this in a letter to the City Clerk at the time they filed the appeal. Has been treating this as an appeal of denied applications, contrary to what Mr. Koules had indicated that they were not received - presumption they are operating under. Attorney Ryskamp then asked Mr. Mobley for clarification since the applications were not accepted and not in the City's files, if the copies being submitted were to be part of the record. Attorney Mobley presented the following documents to be made a part of the record. 1) Pamphlet on Public Service Signs; 2) Pamphlet on Adams Style of Structure; 3) Library References 5.5226; 4) Copy of Order re: Prel. Injunction; 5) Copy of opposition to Order to Show Cause; 6) Copy of PC Minutes dated 12/1/87; 7) Copy of Letter to Mr. Bisel dated 12/7/87' 8) Copy of CG Zoning Ordinance; 9) Copy of Declaration by Moses W. Johnson; 10) Eleven pictures of signs along freeway. Attorney Mobley, explained that outdoor advertising differs in a significant respect from on premise signs such as the Travelodge sign. The difference being that on -site signs are used almost exclusively as permanent commercial messages to advertise a business or service, whereas, outdoor advertising is available to the use by the public for a variety of messages that can be both commercial and non - commercial - therefore, it takes on the aspects of free speech. The proposed signs they are proposing are not inconsistent with uses` of property that exists in the City of Beaumont. His understanding is that the MC Zone is basically the only zone that permits (on a permitted basis) outdoor advertising signs and this is basically the only location left in the City of Beaumont that is undeveloped along the highways or freeways. Feels they are entitled to the applications on basically three grounds: 1) Believes they comply with the strict requirements of the MC Zone classification 17.50.105. This Section indicates that outdoor advertising signs are a permitted use. In all other sections it is subject to site development approval. 2) Doesn't feel that 17.60 Section applies to the MC Zone because in the MC Zone there is no reference to Section 17.60. i 3) Feels they are being denied their applications based on a re- interpretation of Section 17.60 and what it specifically means - not being con)Sistent or being treated in an even handed fashion. Attorne�Mobley continued speaking stating that if the commission takes the position that 17.60 applies and prohibits the permits they are applying for, they believe it would be invalid for two reasons: 1) it violates the provisions of the California Outdoor Advertising Act and 2) PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 9 it violates Sections 5526 and 5227 in the California Business and Professions Code. If the City takes the position that no signs are permitted within 500 ft. of the freeway, it is a total prohibition of signs along the freeways and is specifically pre - empted by the Outdoor Advertising Act. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that Outdoor Advertising is entitled to the first amendment of free speech protection. Strongly believes that they have a right to these signs and therefore, appealing to the commission to issue these permits. Will not have any adverse effect and will not have any impact, certainly not any more significant than a 55' Travelodge sign that was just approved. CDD Koules commented that he reads Ordinance 17.60.015 literally which is the reason for the denial of acceptance of the application and takes issue with Mr. Mobley's interpretation. Attorney Ryskamp commented that he disagrees with the freedom of speech argument, but would like to have an opportunity to review the material and.' bring back a response to the commission. Attorney Johnson commented that this matter be continued to give them a chance to look at the legal argument - does not want to comment without doing some research. On motion by Commissioner Fries that this matter be continued to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 1988, in order to give Mr. Ryskamp time to give an opinion pertaining to the state code. CDD Koules wanted clarification as to the appeal to his decision to not accept the application with Mr. Ryskamp explaining the concern as to whether there was an appeal to a denial of the request, or an appeal of a refusal to accept the application. It is the City's contention that the application was never accepted because it did not conform, rather than having been specifically denied - was never accepted as an appliation since fees were not collected. Motion seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Remy. NOES: Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, PC Se et4 before the commission, the BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 1988 The Planning Commission met in a Special Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, October 25, 1988, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding: Meeting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy, Fries and Chairperson Burton. Affidavit of Posting was read. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 4, 1988, were approved as submitted with a typo on page 2, paragraph 7, line 6, " accured" should have been "accrued ". 2. Oral Communication: None. 3. Director's Report: None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. 87- PP -17, 87 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, a proposed 4 unit apartment building, located at 738 Chestnut between 7th and 8th Streets. Applicants, Victor & Vincent Schiro. It should be noted for the record that the staff report shows the Negative Declaration No. as 87 -ND -37 and it should be corrected to read 87- ND -39. CDD Koules presented the staff report and noted because of an area shortage for the fourth unit, it was felt that a variance would accommodate the fourth unit since the applicant is only short 25% of the area required. Also, the proposal would tie together a common 20' driveway since Mr. Schiro has already developed the property adjacent to the south which has a 10' driveway on the side. Commissioner Remy questioned the 20' driveway noting that she thought the fire department wanted a 24' driveway with CDD Koules noting that the structures are accessible from the street and the hose lines could fight a fire without having access onto the site. Chairperson Burton then asked for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Vincent Schiro, 15842 La Palma, Hacienda Heights, addressed the commission explaining his project comme t nin g that they are improving the building by offering more square footage, more play area, basketball court in back and a play area in front; living area would be 325 s.f.; first apartment will be a house. CDD Koules noted that this project was not reviewed as a total project with 2 parcels. It was reviewed separately and then the driveway problem was resolved by suggesting the common easement. PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 2 Attorney Ryskamp noted that his concern is a common easement with two different owners in the future could end up creating considerable problems as to who maintains the driveway. City Engineer Dotson commented that if the property is merged you deny the applicant the right to sell separately and asked what authority do we have to force this kind of a merger? Attorney Ryskamp commented that where there is a common driveway it is creating an easement - we do have the authority. Mr. Vincent Schiro, addressed the commission again noting no fence can be put down the middle; has to maintain the driveway in order to compete. Attorney Ryskamp felt that we are creating a potential future problem with an easement and asked Mr. Schiro if he was opposed to the concept of merging the two properties with Mr. Schiro stating "not at all." Mr. Schiro didn't feel it was a problem; however, he is not opposed. CDD Koules noted that he does not anticipate the problems that Mr. Ryskamp mentioned. It is a much more complex process to merge the two lots. The applicant does have the right to create the lots separately - doesn't see what would be accomplished. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:22 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. It was noted by Commissioner Schuelke that the original proposal from the packet of 10/20/87, the driveway was 24 feet between the two buildings and that proof of a reciprocal agreement between the two parcels was in the staff file. CDD Koules commented that there was a reciprocal agreement that the parties agree no fence shall be built on the southerly line of the seller's property nor the northerly line of the neighbor's property - just a fence restriction. No one can build a fence on the common lot line. Chairperson Burton noted that if it was 24 feet on the original proposal, it should also be a 24 foot driveway now. After lengthy discussion and in checking the plot plan from the original staff report and in reading page 117 of Title 17, it was determined that the driveway should be 24 feet. Attorney Ryskamp noted that the original application and filing date is part of the project and the variance is now for the density issue. CDD Koules commented that if you cut -out 4' of the building make sure that the open space and other requirements are all met. Clarification is needed however, as to whether the applicant is to merge the two parcels or accept a reciprocal easement - applicant should be informed. He further noted, the applicant would have to file a subdivision map to merge the two parcels into one since you cannot eliminate a lot line by a Certificate of Compliance. Not allowed to increase or decrease the number of parcels with a Certificate of Compliance which is a state law. PC minutes October 25, 1988 Page 3 City Engineer Dotson noted that a lot line adjustment cannot increase nor decrease the number of lots. Will have to check the map act. Attorney Ryskamp noted that relative to the merger issue it is felt that research should be done and that he be directed by the commission to come back with language to make the procedure possible so that in this type of situation there is a simple procedure. CDD Koules noted that he did not agree with this - felt we are getting procedure bound. Attorney Ryskamp commented that he wanted to be able to waive the map requirement and in the future have a procedure so that in this situation we do not have to record a map. CDD Koules stated that he maintains that the State Subdivision Map Act disallows you from merging two parcels with a Certificate of Compliance. Chairperson Burton commented that the commission will direct the City Attorney to research it and find out what the City's position is and bring back a report. On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner Fries that this project be returned to the applicant to re- design the project to comply with the driveway requirement. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 5. 87- PP -19, a proposed three apartment units, located at 673 Massachusetts. Applicant, Howard Haig. Per request of CDD Koules, this matter was continued to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 1988, since the applicant is still working on his revised plot plan. 6. 88 -PP -3, 88 -V -4 and 88- ND -14, a proposed 60 unit Travelodge Motel and a Variance to allow a 55 ft. high sign with a 200 sq. ft. surface area, located on the south side of Fourth Street about 300 feet east of Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Sam Lee and Daniel Tsai. CDD Koules presented the staff report recommending approval of this project. He noted that Condition #7 should be amended to read "Gas Cc" not "Edison Co." Mr. Danny Lee, 2052 Palma Drive, Rolling Heights, addressed the commission noting that the company name is Evergreen Builders; needs the 55' sign in order to attract highway traffic - is a highway oriented business - do or die situation - will be a good design sign; rooms will be approximately 325 s.f., will not block view for Denny's Restaurant. There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:10 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. On motion by Commissioner Fries to approve Plot Plan 88 -PP -3 recommending approval of Variance 88 -V -4 and Negative PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 4 Declaration 88 -ND -14 by City Council, subject to the conditions of approval; seconded by Commissioner Bruner. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. City Engineer Dotson commented that this project will increase the run -off (drainage) into the channel that crosses the Hershey's property on 3rd and California. 7. 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3, a proposed development on 160 acres consisting of 366 detached single family units, 224 multi- family units and 21 acres of commercial uses. The residential construction is proposed to be developed in 9 phases and the commercial development at a future time; located on the south side of Highway 60, and south of Western Knolls Drive, at the westerly City limits. Applicant, John Thomas, Beaumont Associates. Chairperson Burton noted that this public hearing was opened prior to this hearing. CDD koules noted that this item had been continued from the October 4, 1988 hearing to allow the applicant's engineer to address the conditions of approval, also, a letter from the City Manager was distributed to the commission prior to the meeting. Caltrans' continents were received by the Planning Department on October 21, 1988, thus, the reason for not being in the packets. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M., reconvening at 8:25 P.M. Mr. John Thomas 1202 Kroll Lane Huntin(qton Beach, addressed the commission commenting: his participation in this meeting is to supply the commission with information; will not be waiving any of the benefits which he may have accrued as a result of violating the State Streamlining Act; would not preclude Best, Best & Krieger acting as co- counsel, Palmieri, and Tyler initiating a writ of mandate proceeding. Mr. Ryskamp noted that at this point a stipulation to include the fact that any actions taken tonight are deemed by all parties to have taken place on the 6th of September with Mr. Thomas stating "yes." Mr. Thomas, further speaking commented: 1) Minutes of October 4, objected to all of the did not do. Conditions a) Condition No. 1.02; b) Condition No. 1.04; c) Condition No. 2.01; d) Condition No. 2.02. 1988 reflected that he had conditions of approval which he he did not object to were: Also other items he discussed he indicated that usually the procedure should be included with the final map and improvement plans as opposed to being presented and submitted with a tentative map; PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 5 2) Kunzman & Caltrans did a traffic study on this project which was submitted to Mr. Bounds and Mr. Bounds in turn submitted the study to Caltrans - approximately 1 1/2 years ago; 3) Biological survey was done on the property and submitted to the City 11/19/87; 4) Complete plan survey and an animal survey on the property done - City has a copy; 5) Mr. Bounds submitted a letter to Caltrans approximately 1 1/2 years ago stating their map complied with the general plan, zoning and circulation element in the City of Beaumont; () Meetings with Valerie Beeler, Mr. Bounds and the engineers were had with the basic idea that everything that was documented and recorded would be included in the map; 7) Letter from Valerie Beeler subsequent to the date Mr. Bounds submitted his letter to Caltrans and also states the map coincides with the general plan, zoning and circulation element; 8) Applications and work done on project were done so at the instructions of both Mr. Bounds and Valerie Beeler. Mr. Hubert Webb Civil Engineer for the project, addressed the commission commenting: 1) Was his understanding this project was going to be presented to the commission on the basis of a tentative map with certain issues being addressed by further study; 2) Project was not going to have a full blown Specific Plan EIR; 3) Traffic studies, biology, gas mitigation studies have all come out during the processing of the plan as a result of on -going discussion with City staff; 4) His understanding the major two issues involving the project was Caltrans and is there, or is there not wastewater capacity available to the project; 5) They understood when the project was going to be presented to the Planning Commission and Council, there was going to be a condition in the conditions of approval indicating that this area would have to participate in a study for a wastewater expansion as well as the interchange situation because the City of Beaumont has to be the lead agency; () Applicant agreed he would assist in the preparation with funding and whatever else was necessary to aid the City in preparing these studies; 7) Reviewed Mr. Dotson's conditions and outlined the following: a) Condition No. 1.01: Opposed to this condition because it was never a condition that the City staff at the time they started the project instructed them to comply with; PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 6 b) Condition No. 1.03: If the City will furnish a list of street names they will place them on the map. c) Condition No. 1.04: Agrees with this condition. d) Condition No. 1.05: opposed. This is a matter of preference - either a solid block wall or leave some opening with wrought -iron through this area with a passage way. e) Condition No. 1.06: Could be mitigated. 10' more within the right of way within the tract boundary or a road offer of 10' on the other side of the road. f) Condition No. 2: Believes this to be a legitimate condition; however, on a lot of cases other agencies do not require the typical section. Attorney Ryskamp explained there was a question as to whether this particular zone on the plan rituired a development plan or a specific p lan was the City's contention that the application was not completed until the 29th of April 1988. He noted there was a meeting in March with Mr. Thomas, his attorney, Mr. Webb, Mr. Koules, Mr. Bounds, Mr. Dotson and himself and discussed at length the requirements of the project, the need for a Specific Plan vs. a Vesting Tentative Map and they arrived at a list of additional items that needed to be submitted to complete the application. When the last of these initial items were submitted, they then had an application that was complete; therefore, the City had one year from April 29th. When an application is complete that does not mean you cannot request additional materials - it means you have the basic materials before you. Mr. Thomas, commented that if you go over athe thdevelopment comments standards for that zone and if you g o o and instructions that were given to them by Mr. Bounds and Valerie Beeler for over 2 years, neither one of them ever mentioned the fact that they had to do a Specific Plan. His attorneys have reviewed all the documentation and they disagree with the City's attorney and have requested that he immediately file a writ of mandate proceeding. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 9:14 P.M., turning this matter back to the commission for discussion. Attorney Ryskamp noted for the record that Mr. Dotson be allowed to address the issue pointing out that on July 21, 1987, he (Dotson) sent a letter which was subsequently forwarded to the applicant specifically stating there wasn't enough information at this point to make conditions of approval. Mr. Dotson stated that the letter he wrote was in July 1987, in response to a request from Valerie Beeler to review he map for purposes of preparing conditions of app Commented he wrote a very brief letter stating "way too soon - there is not enough here." He then read from his letter quoting "the remature. °s nice but way pstands premature - way p by this statement now. Attorney Ryskamp pointed out that there were three options before the commissin: 1) to approve the project; 2) to deny PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 7 the project and 3) take no action recognizing that the City can work with the applicant until April 29, 1989 to complete an EIR as well as the other steps to make the project workable - in which case it would be returned to staff. He noted also that a fourth alternative could be that the application is not complete because there has been no specific plan and return it to start all over again. CDD Koules noted that the reviewing agencies in response to the Notice of Preparation are of such magnitude that they are going to involve an EIR and most likely a re- design of the project and this understanding should be set forth. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner Remy that this application 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3 be returned to staff for the purpose of working with the applicant to bring into compliance by April 29, 1989, based on the finding that it has come to us prematurely. Attorney Ryskamp wanted it clarified as to whether the application is not complete or if she (Commissioner Schuelke) wanted staff to work with the application and materials that they now have which was accepted as complete on April 29, 1989, with Commissioner Schuelke stating "both." Attorney Ryskamp then noted that the application can be complete and still require extensive additional materials - acceptable as complete in that it has the major issues and yet require additional materials including a full EIR. Meeting recessed at 9:36 P.M., reconvening at 9:45 P.M. CDD Koules informed the commission that April 29th was the date that the phasing map was submitted and to use this as the date of acceptance of a complete application. This then would be consistent with the March 22nd meeting they had with the applicant and his representatives. The EIR process has already prompted some serious concerns and would have to be reflected in some map revision. Further, he would do his best to work with the applicant to bring this to a completed project. Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Thomas that she personally felt that an EIR should be done. She noted that a motion was on the floor which should be withdrawn or re- stated. Attorney Ryskamp commented that the only thing that needed to be corrected was rather than in reference to a Specific Plan, request staff to work with the applicant to attempt to complete work on the project by the one year dead -line date which is April 29, 1989. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Remy. NOES: Commissioner Fries and Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. SCHEDULED MATTER: 8. Appeal of Community Development Director's decision reference Outdoor Advertising Displays (Billboards) per Section 17.60.015 of Beaumont Municipal Code. CDD Koules presented the staff report explaining that the applicant was in the office requesting to file four billboards at the Intersection of Highway 60 and Interstate PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 8 10. Attorney Gary Mobley One Newport Place, Newport Beach, addressed the commission stating he was representing Adams Advertising. He further commented: It was represented to them that this was a denial and he confirmed this in a letter to the City Clerk at the time they filed the appeal. Has been treating this as an appeal of denied applications, contrary to what Mr. Koules had indicated that they were not received - presumption they are operating under. for clarification Attorney Zyskamp then asked Mr. Mobley since the applications were not accepted and not in the City's files, if the copies being submitted were to be part of the record. Attorney Mobley presented the following documents to be made a part of the record. 1) Pamphlet on Public Service Signs; 2) Pamphlet on Adams Style of Structure; 3) Library References S. 5226; 4) Copy of Order re: Prel. Injunction; 5) Copy of Opposition to Order to Show Cause; 6) Copy of PC Minutes dated 12/1/87; 7) Copy of Letter to Mr. Bisel dated 12/7/87' 8) Copy of CG Zoning Ordinance; 9) Copy of Declaration by Moses W. Johnson; 10) Eleven pictures of signs along freeway. Attorney Mobley, explained that outdoor advertising differs in a significant respect from on premise signs such as the Travelodge sign. The difference being that on -site signs are used almost exclusively as permanent commercial messages to advertise a business or service, whereas, outdoor advertising is available to the use by the public for a variety of messages that can be both commercial and non - commercial therefore, it takes on the aspects of free speech. The proposed signs they are proposing are not inconsistent with uses of property that exists in the City of Beaumont. His understanding is that the MC Zone is basically the only zone that permits (on a permitted basis) outdoor advertising signs and this is basically the only location left in the City of Beaumont that is undeveloped along the highways or freeways. Feels they are entitled to the applications on basically three grounds: 1) Believes they comply with the strict requirements of the I�IC Zone classification 17.50.105. This Section indicates that outdoor advertising signs are a permitted use. In all other sections it is subject to site development approval. 2) Doesn't feel that 17.60 Section applies to the MC Zone because in the MC Zone there is no reference to Section 17.60. 3) Feels they are being denied their applications based on a re- interpretation of Section 17.60 and what it specifically means - not being consistent or being treated in an even handed fashion. Attorney Mobley continued speaking stating that if and commission takes the positiopp that 17.60the pbelieve it prohibits the permits they are a 1 in for, Y would be invalid for two reasons: 1) it violates the provisions of the California Outdoor Advertising Act and 2) PC Minutes October 25, 1988 Page 9 it violates Sections 5526 and 5227 in the California Business and Professions Code. If the City takes the position that no signs are permitted within 500 ft. of the freeway, it is a total prohibition of signs along the freeways and is specifically pre - empted by the Outdoor Advertising Act. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that Outdoor Advertising is entitled to the first amendment of free speech protection. Strongly believes that they have a right to these signs and therefore, appealing to the commission to issue these permits. will not have any adverse effect and will not have any impact, certainly not any more significant than a 55' Travelodge sign that was just approved. CDD Koules commented that he reads Ordinance 17.60.015 literally which is the reason for the denial of acceptance of the application and takes issue with Mr. Mobley's interpretation. Attorney Ryskamp commented that he disagrees with the freedom of speech argument, but would like to have an opportunity to review the material and bring back a response to the commission. Attorney Johnson commented that this matter be continued to give them a chance to look at the legal argument - does not want to comment without doing some research. On motion by Commissioner Fries that this matter be continued to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 1988, in order to give Mr. Ryskamp time to give an opinion pertaining to the state code. CDD Koules wanted clarification as to the appeal to his decision to not accept the application with Mr. Ryskamp explaining the concern as to whether there was an appeal to a denial of the request, or an appeal of a refusal to accept the application. It is the City's contention that the application was never accepted because it did not conform, rather than having been specifically denied - was never accepted as an appliation since fees were not collected. Motion seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Remy. NOES: Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There being no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. (Resspectfully submitted, yRe PC Se et��� V V AI/V ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers 3788 McCray Street • Riverside, California 92506 -2973 Telephone (714) 686 -1070 FAX (714) 788 -1256 ALBERT A. WEBB - (1899 -1981) ERNEST N. WEBB - 11928 -1987) A. HUBERT WEBB HAROLD L. MASERRY JOHN STAAF DAVID M. ALGRANTI SAM I. GERSHON RON BUCKLEY JOHNJORDAN WALLACE H. FRANZ MATTHEW E. WEBB October 24, 1988 TO: Planning Commission, City of Beaumont SUBJECT: 87 -TM -3, TRACT 22563 APPLICANT: Beaumont Associates Contact Person: John Thomas 21202 Kroll Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 APPLICANT'S ENGINEER: Albert A. Webb Associates 3788 McCray Street Riverside, CA 92506 Project Manager: A. Hubert Webb HISTORY: M. REF. W.O. 81 -253 FILE NO. The project site consists of approximately 160 acres located in the western portion of the City of Beaumont upon which a development has been proposed to consist of approximately 336 single - family detached lots, 224 units of multiple - family lots, 21.3 acres of special commercial, and approximately 43 acres of open space. The project was originally proposed by the Applicant in approximately 1979 through 1980. Discussions were held with City Staff during this period to accomplish annexation to the City in order to commence the planning process. From 1980 through the end of 1984 the City and its consultants were preparing a General Plan. Shortly after the adoption of the General Plan the City approved zone changes which were consistent with the proposed Tentative Map. In 1985 Webb Associates had meetings with the City Manager, City Engineer and Planning Director to discuss the development concepts proposed by the Applicant. Some of the factors discussed during these meetings are stated below: 1. Availability of water and sewer facilities. 2. Vehicular access from State Highway 60, as well as improvements necessary on 4th Street east of the southeast corner of the proposed Tentative Map. LETR2 /81 -253 Civil Planning Environmental i J Surveying Assessment *F j f of rF 5 { Assessment *F ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES — Consulting Engine Planning Commission, City of Beaumont October 24, 1988 Page 2 3. Schedule of proposed time frames for processing of the development. During these meetings the City Manager indicated that the City's existing wastewater treatment plant had approximately 200 equivalent dwelling unit capacity remaining and this capacity could be made available for the site subjectto prior commitments. Webb Associates continued to work on the site development and had subsequent meetings with the City Manager and Engineer to discuss in further detail the proposed project. The discussions included the required street improvements for 4th Street, B Street, and A Street with respect to the proposed freeway off ramp which would connect to A Street. In addition, the matter of sewage treatment plant capacity was again discussed and the City Engineer indicated that Webb should show an on -site treatment plant, or as an alternative propose a sewer pump station which would be utilized to pump sewage back to the City's existing treatment plant. It was also discussed that in order to expedite the planning review process that a Focus EIR could be prepared at a later date to accompany an application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the construction of an onsite treatment plant. This would be required in the event the City was not capable of providing wastewater capacity to the site. In addition, the City Staff indicated that the City would be the lead agency for any applications to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as well as any negotiations required with CalTrans for the construction of an overpass and off ramps in the vicinity of A Street. However, these matters could be a condition of approval of the Tentative Map and be resolved after the map was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. During the review period by the City, the Staff requested additional studies and information from the Applicant consisting of traffic reports, biological assessment, and a geotechnical report, as well as a gas mitigation report for an isolated area along the east tract boundary located approximately 800' northerly of the southeast corner of the proposed development. All of these studies were prepared and submitted to the City Staff. CONCLUSION: On -going discussions were held with City Staff in order to obtain their input in the preparation of the final Tentative Map. Webb Associates proceeded in good faith to work closely with Staff in order to address any major issues relative to the proposed project, and it is the opinion of Webb Associates that Staff concerns should have been addressed during this period of time. Staff members included Bob Bounds, City Manager; Jim Dotson, City Engineer; and Valerie Beeler, Planning Director. Webb Associates expected the project would be scheduled for hearing by the Planning Commission until Mr. Thomas was notified there were additional staff concerns. Inasmuchas considerable time has elapsed, I would recommend that Tentative Tract 22563 be heard by the Planning Commission. LETR2 /81 -253 w l