HomeMy Public PortalAbout03/07/89BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MARCH 7, 1989
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, march 7, 1989, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding.
Commissioners Bruner, Remy and Fries who were re- appointed as
commissioners by City Council at their meeting of February 27,
1989, were sworn in by mayor pro tem Bauer to serve until December
1992.
Meeting was called to Order at 7:05 P.M.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson
Burton. Attorney Ryskamp was also present at this meeting.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The minutes for the Regular Planning Commission meeting of
February 7, 1989, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules informed the commission that
Form 721 was due no later than March 15, 1989.
Ms. Mitzi Adams, applicant for Agenda Item No. 4, requested
that her matter be continued to later in the meeting due to
her father and Attorney Mobley not being present.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Out of Sequence)
5. 87- ANX -4, SP -88 -3, EIR 88 -3 and 88 -RZ -4, a proposed pre -
annexation zoning to Specific Planning Area Zoning (SPA 4.3
dwelling units per acre), which proposes a maximum of 2,454
dwelling units, an 8.8 Village Center and a golf course, on
570.6 acres proposed for annexation. The project is known as
HOVCHILD, INC. and is located on the west side of Highland
Springs Avenue, approximately 1 mile south of Interstate 10.
Applicant, Hovchild, Inc. /Jeff Lodder.
COD Koules presented the staff report commenting that this
project breaks the traditional previous proposals for the City
of Beaumont in that it is the first Master Plan Community.
The project is much larger than Potrero Creek and offers a
product of mixed varying densities, as well as an intention to
create an exclusive residential community of high quality. He
further noted, in order to achieve this goal as proposed, it
requires flexibility from the traditional zoning regulations
and at staff's request the applicant has prepared a Matrix
which is part of the report that tries to show at best the
comparisons between our Title 17 and what the applicant
proposes as development standards.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:13 P.M.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Jeff Lodder, 23232 Peralta Dr., Suite 123, Laguna Hills,
Ca., representing Hovchild, Inc., addressed the commission
expressing his appreciation to staff for their help and
further stated the following pertaining to his project.
PC Meeting
March 7, 1989
Page 2
He has worked closely with the Edison Co., Caltrans, Riverside
County Transportation Agency, and the Fire Department in
order to plan the project. He displayed a model of the
project to the commission which represents a true scale and
commented that the property basically is flat except in the
northwest area where it is gently rolling. Also it is
comprised of multi - family, single family, attached and
detached housing with a Village Center, Recreational Facility
and an 18 hole golf course, plus parks and open space all
linked together with a master plan of arterial highways that
provide access to and from the community. Two roads access
to the north and there is an access arterial road which goes
into the Potrero Estates with an oversize arterial road coming
onto Highland Springs Avenue. The overall project will result
in a maximum density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. The
Village Center is located along the major arterial highway
consisting of a limited amount of commercial property with a
golf clubhouse being on the same site. The Village Center is
also linked with major bike and walking trails that connects
the parks. The project has planned Highland Springs Avenue
to be wider with an added 10 feet to the required right -
of -way. There are a variety of densities with anticipation of
the needs of the community with 42 percent of the community
for active adults. There will be monuments for identity at
all entrances with heavy emphasis on trees and landscaping.
Mr. Lodder further commented that Hovchild, Inc. would be
laying the ground work for a parallel system to the freeway
which would be called the Southwestern Circulation for
Beaumont.
There being no opponents for the project, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:31 P.M. turning the matter
back to the commission.
There was lengthy discussion by the commission with the
commission questioning the densities and height of the 3 story
buildings.
CDD Koules commented that the applicant has split the whole
area into 19 planning areas ranging in density from 3 to 12
units to the acre to a high of 20 - 21 units to the acre. A
project of this size is not going to be one solid traditional
subdivision and has to have flexibility (e.g. they are
accommodating an extra wide entry roadway up to 120 feet
instead of 88 feet). Mr. Koules further explained the
dimensions on Page 18 of the Matrix noting that it means
minimum dimensions be at least 50 foot wide and 90 foot long -
does not mean that the minimum lot is 4500 sq. ft. Also, if
the City does not have fire equipment to go 3 stories, then
the 3 story buildings could not be approved.
Commissioner Bruner noted concern over the view of the
mountains with the rolling hills and felt that 3 story
apartments was not a good idea with CDD Koules commenting that
at this point it was unknown as to how the project would be
laid out - possibly there would be breaks in the buildings to
have open visual space.
The commission asked if the City was going to participate in
the building of the main road through the project with CDD
Koules noting "not to his knowledge ". He further noted that
the Riverside Fire Department is working on a master plan and
wanted to see the road running westerly because it is
anticipated at some point and time there would be a fire
station around Pennsylvania and Michigan. He also explained
that when you talk about medium density the zoning ordinance
does say minimum lot size of 6000 sq. ft. per unit; however,
when adopting development standards as proposed by the
applicant and incorporated into the specific plan, then it
becomes the zoning ordinance for this project.
PC meeting
March 7, 1989
Page 3
Chairperson Burton questioned the 4000 sq. ft. lots with CDD
Koules commenting that you can have very attractive housing as
town houses and the City has to get away from the traditional
6000 to 7000 sq. ft. lot size when thinking of a project of
this size. He also noted that the applicant envisions 9500
sq. ft. lots for the executive estate homes and the trade off
will be the amenities you have in a planned unit community.
Mr. Lodder's response as to the development of their high
density 4000 sq. ft. lots was as follows: It depends on the
architectural standards they will be using - will not be one
massive building but will consist of various buildings set at
various locations blended together. They have tried to do
planning in such a way where they will be providing
opportunity for shelter for everybody. He noted Presley's
largest lot is Hovchild's smallest lot with the exception of
the 4000 sq. ft. lots. The largest lot in Presley's project
is 5000 sq. ft. Mr. Lodder went on to say that they had
owned this property for 10 years and would not want to build
something that would pull down the value of their land. He
noted that a matrix had been prepared of the Hovchild's
project and that in 90 percent of the time Hovchild's zoning
was tougher than the City's zoning. He commented that the
City's PUD zoning is more flexible with CDD Koules commenting
that Hovchild's proposal was more restrictive. Mr. Lodder also
noted that across the street from the executive type homes
there will be the 7200 sq. ft. lots - their medium low is 5000
sq. ft. lots. Also, lot sizes will not dictate architectural
design. He noted (Lodder) that the congregate care facility
will be a two or two and half story building where people will
live on a permanent basis with no medical service; however,
would have food service. There will be a recreational
facility, etc. and the facility will be close to the bus stop
and close to the Village Center. The Congregate Care Facility
will have to be architectural acceptable to the commission and
acceptable to the builder. They (Hovchild) will create an
architectural review committee in order to keep the blending
of buildings together. He pledged to do a good job.
Mr. Ryskamp mentioned that each time plans are submitted, each
phase will come before the commission with detailed lot
layouts and for design approval and noted that you are
approving an overall concept.
Commissioner Schuelke wanted to know if there was an avenue
for the commission to reserve the right at a later date, to
impose and be able to look at what has been designed as far as
architectural standards for this project with Attorney Ryskamp
commenting that it can easily be remedied by conditioning the
specific plan and there be a design review approval at the
time of the submission of the tract map.
Mr. Lodder explained that he has no problem with what Mr.
Ryskamp has stated and that they would bring in the design
standards for each planning area, roof materials, elevations,
landscaping, etc. Mr. Lodder further explained that it was
not their intention to sell custom homes; however, if there
should be custom homes sold, it will be conditioned as part
of the tract map of the zone it is in. Also Mr. Lodder stated
that if they did not build a congregate care facility, that
particular area would be medium high density for town houses.
The commission was still concerned about approving the number
of units for the three story buildings with CDD Koules noting
that it would be preferred to zone the property as staff is
recommending to SPA 4.3 dwelling units to the acre, because it
has to go to LAFCO and a pre - zoning has to be on it; however,
the commission can still qualify some of their approvals to
encompass the concerns in addition to the architectural review
for all of the plans.
PC Meeting
March 7, 1989
Page 4
Mr. Lodder explained the brown coloring on the map that was
displayed on the board and commented that it was for a basin
which will enable the water to be recharged back into the
ground rather than just run off down stream.
After lengthy discussion by the commission of the project,
Commissioner Bruner made a motion recommending approval by
City Council of 88- ANX -4, SP -88 -3 and EIR 88 -3, seconded by
Commissioner Schuelke to read as follows:
1. Certify that the attached final EIR has been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and was presented to the commission who reviewed and
considered the information contained therein prior to
recommending approval of the project.
2. Find that changes or alterations have been required in
and incorporated into the project which mitigated or
lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as
identified in the environmental impact report.
3. Recommend approval of 88 -RZ -4 pre- zoning 570.6 acres to
Specific Planning Area (SPA 4.3 du /ac).
4. Recommend adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval
for Specific Plan 88 -3 (Hovchild, Inc.) allowing a
maximum of 2,454 dwelling units and an 8.8 acre Village
Center. Each of the 19 Planning Areas shall submit
architectural standards for review and approval by the
Planning Commission. In addition, Planning Areas 5, 7,
9, 10 and 17, shall submit site plans for review and
approval of developmental standards by the Planning
Commission.
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commission recessed at 9:05 P.M. reconvening at 9:15 P.M.
4. 89 -V -2 and 89 -ND -3, requested variances from Sections
17.60.015 (A) (2), and (4), Outdoor Advertising Displays of
the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the placement of four
(4) billboard displays on APN 414 - 130 -014, each requesting
reduction of the required setback of 500 ft. from property
line to one (1) foot from property line as well as a
reduction from the spacing requirement of 500 feet between
signs, located on the north side of Highway 60, at its
westerly intersection with Interstate 10. Applicant, Adams
Advertising Inc. /Mitzi Adams.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that he received
a call from Mitzi Adams stating she did not wish to have the
variance added; however, he felt it was necessary to make the
consideration complete and he now needs a reading from the
commission and the City Attorney as to whether that inclusive
was proper. He explained the location of the billboards
noting that it was staff Is opinion that signs 2 and 3 are
closer than 500 ft. as is sign 2 and 4. Mr. Koules handed
out an excerpt to the commission of Section 65906 from the
State Planning and Zoning Law and read as follows:
"any variance granted shall be subject to such
conditions as will assure that the adjustment
thereby authorized shall not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone in which such property is
situated." (see attached).
PC meeting
March 7, 1989
Page 5
Mr. Koules further commented that staff's position for the
request of reduction of the 50D ft. setback to one foot is
that it is excessive and that four billboards on the property
is also excessive and unreasonable. Also, the approval for a
negative declaration has not been recommended because in
staff's opinion it could have significant visual asethetic
impact on the environment. Additionally, yesterday (3/6/89)
afternoon, a call from Mr. Jim Neville (383 -4384) of Caltrans
was received expressing concern and indicating that the
applicant had not received approval from the State; however,
the project had been forwarded to the Sacramento Office for
review. The suggestion from Mr. Neville was that the
commission take no approval action if that be their desire
until such time that Caltrans review is completed by the
Sacramento Office. Further, there was concern also expressed
by Mr. Neville that the placement of the billboards at the
proposed locations one foot from the property line, could have
some sight obscuring effect on the travelers of the freeway.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 9:22 P.M.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Gary Mobley, One Newport Place, Newport Beach, Attorney
for the applicant, addressed the commission and requested the
following documents be made a part of the record:
1) prior file on this matter;
2) series of exhibits reserved at the last hearing;
3) letter dated 12/6/88 to Attorney Ryskamp;
4) letter from Attorney Ryskamp dated 12/9/88;
5) portion of State Landscape Freeway book;
6) agenda dated 10/25/88;
7) sign applications;
8) photo; and
9) schedule of existing freeway billboards.
COD Koules noted that the staff report dated October 25th had
been included in the packet which was the date of the first
hearing; however, the hearing was continued several times and
eventually heard on December 6, 1988.
Attorney Mobley commented that he takes issue with the report
on Page 1 of the staff report as to the issues present before
the planning commission that there is no mention as to their
intention (which was argued at the last meeting) that they do
not need a variance. It was their understanding that the
permit applications had been denied; however, it was clarified
by Mr. Koules in the Planning Commission hearing that he had
refused to accept them. Subsequently, he had discussions with
Mr. Ryskamp and the agreement was reached and confirmed in
writing that they would not contest the procedural issue of
whether or not the applications should have been accepted;
however, it was expressly conditioned that they had the right
to re -raise substitutive issues in connection with the
proceedings on the variance applications. Mr. Mobley wanted
it specifically understood that Adams was reserving their
right to assert substitutive arguments and that the City would
not argue that Adams Advertising in any fashion had waived or
is estopped from raising these issues. Also, it was noted
that it was expressly stated in the variance application on
Attachment 1 they were reserving this right. Mr. Mobley noted
that it was their contention that no variance application was
needed and pointed out that Leonard's application was a
unanimous approval by the planning commission without an
environmental impact report and without any kind of variance.
Also, if the planning commission adopts the interpretation
that 17.60 applies to these particular applications for
setback requirements, they believe it to be invalid and
unconstitutional. It is their interpretation of the ordinance
PC meeting
March 7, 1989
Page 6
that the provisions that are being relied upon regarding
setbacks which is 17.60, do not apply to an MC zone billboard
application because it is a specifically permitted use and all
other commercial and industrial zones that permit billboards
only do so on a site approval process. Mr. Mobley mentioned
the case of Metro Media whereby the U.S. Supreme Court most
recently recognized that non - commercial billboards are
entitled to or at least equal to, protection, with on -site
commercial signs and if these applications are denied, the
City is changing positions with respect to its prior
interpretation which in essence they contend is a "taking"
(legal arguments which were addressed mostly to Mr. Ryskamp).
They do disagree (Mobley) as to whether there is an issue of
spacing and extremely disappointed to hear the issue raised at
this time, since it had never been raised during the months
they have been proceeding on this matter with staff and the
city attorney. Mr. Mobley explained that when the
applications were first filed, they were turned down and the
position was taken that they were not accepted - not because
of any spacing requirements but solely because of the setback
requirements and this is also the substance of all the
discussion he had with Mr. Ryskamp. Mr. Ryskamp's letter of
December 9, 1988, acknowledges the fact that the only issue
on the variance application was going to be the setback
requirements, and that if the variance applications was filed
addressing this issue, and they were accepted, then they would
finally be before a hearing on this matter - this was the
basis why the variance applications were presented. It is
only after the staff report came out that the spacing issue
surfaced. If the planning commission adopts the position that
the ordinance requires a setback, then they have filed a
variance application and asked the planning commission to
consider a variance so that they may place the signs closer
to the freeway. Mr. Mobley stated that they do have their
state permits and the person in charge of the Outdoor
Advertising Branch of Caltrans is a Mr. Stan Lancaster in
Sacramento.
Mr. Koules noted that the telephone call was pursuant to a
notice that Caltrans received for the public hearing.
Mr. Mobley stated they are proposing double face signs and are
in full compliance with the state law. He further indicated
they had met all requirements of the State Outdoor Advertising
Act which is Business and Professions Section 5200. Also, one
more issue in the staff report on Page 2 referring to the 45
properties in the MC zone which is marked in the yellow area
(Mr. Koules' map displayed on the board) to his knowledge has
never been a subject of a billboard application or a variance,
but thought perhaps what staff is not aware of, is that that
particular portion of the freeway is what is called the
Landscape Freeway, and under the State Act if it is designated
as a Landscape Freeway, a billboard simply cannot be put up.
Mitzi Adams, speaking from the audience, noted that from Viele
underpass going all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue is all
landscaped which is 1.5 of a mile. Also, if one side of the
freeway is designated as "landscaped" it counts as both sides,
so the area in this location is all landscaped and this is the
area Mr. Koules is referring to in the staff report that shows
the MC zoning.
Mr. Mobley again stated that if you have a zone that expressly
permits billboards and if billboards are prohibited in this
area, and are prohibited because of the overlapping setbacks,
then in essence Mr. Rychecky is being deprived of lawfully
permitted use on his property which imposes a tremendous
hardship on Mr. Rychecky by refusing to grant this variance on
his property. The property is below grade and because of its
location and dimensions, it is going to be very difficult to
develop for any purpose whatsoever. Mr. Mobley pointed out
PC meeting
March 7, 1989
Page 7
out that the initial environmental study collaborates what he
is saying, because it notes that the site is subject to the
hazards and it checks erosion and noise, and if this
application is denied, the property owners are being deprived
of any reasonable use of the property whatsoever. It is a
cardinal principal of zoning applications, that if they
deprive the property of any reasonable use, it is
unconstitutional as applied. They are not asking for a
special privilege, only for the rights that are expressly
granted in the MC zone for this particular piece of property.
Mr. Mobley also mentioned the Travelodge which was considered
and approved by the planning commission. He further commented
that a preliminary research was done from the City's files
and in attempting to go through and obtain the log that listed
all the sign applications that has been considered in the past
couple of years, they had extreme difficulty in getting this
information and lacked proper cooperation from City staff.
At this time, Mr. Mobley submitted for the record 84 -SNP-
1, dated April 1983, applicant, Naegle Outdoor - picture shows
the sign to be right up against the fence (see attached) .
Application by Outdoor Dimension approved in 1987. Packet by
Beaumont Associates 87- SNP -10, approved in 1967, carries a
logo of the City of Beaumont and commented it was an off -
premise sign.
Mr. Mobley further pointed out that what they were asking for
is relief from the application of a requirement that
billboards have to be 500 feet from the freeway and stated
pertaining to the environmental impact recommendation; they
felt it was highly improper since under Section 17.70.005,
minor plot plans are not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act. He didn't feel it had ever been
acquired in any previous sign application.
Mr. Frank Rychecky, 11924 Mayfield Avenue, Los Angeles,
addressed the commission stating he is retired and needed the
income. Also, the City of Beaumont needs this advertising -
improvement is needed in the whole City.
Mr. Bob Adams, 19081 Rocky Rd., Santa Ana, California,
addressed the commission commenting that the signs must be
located as close to the freeway as much as possible in order
to be effective, especially when the size has been reduced to
300 sq. ft. The State Code requires that the signs be a foot
back from the freeway in order to obtain the permits. If they
have to adhere to the 500 ft. setback, it would be prohibition
of billboards along the freeway. Also, the gentleman that Mr.
Koules referred to that called him from Caltrans he does not
know, but he is not with the Outdoor Advertising Division of
Caltrans. No way their permits could have been issued from
the State unless they complied with the 500 ft. spacing
requirements. No public opposition in the audience tonight.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 10:20
P.M. turning the matter over to the commission for discussion.
Attorney Ryskamp pointed out that Section 17.60.005 says "all
outdoor advertising and on -site advertising structures and
signs in the incorporated area of the City of Beaumont shall
conform to the applicable provisions of this chapter i.e.
17.60" and this could not be any clearer that 17.60 does
apply. He further commented that 17.60 applies across the
board and the uniqueness of the MC zone is that there is a
permitted use and there is no permitted use of billboards in
other zones. He made reference to 10.3 which should have said
17.60 in the MC zone; however, that does not change the basic
interpretation and the governing body of any City may annex
zoning ordinances imposing restrictions on advertising
displays adjacent to any highway.
PC Meeting
March 7, 1989
Page 8
Mr. Ryskmap went on to say that the issue has been raised and
thoroughly mixed up as to on -site commercial versus off -
site dual purpose. Also, basically there are two different
legal issues involving on -site versus off -site and regulation
of commercial versus non - commercial speech and cited court
cases. He further noted that he wanted the record to show
that he sees a real set -up attempting to show a taking of the
property and noting that it may be very difficult in
developing this property; however, there are other properties
that are difficult to develop and the City is not denying any
economically viable use of the property which is the standard
for a taking. Actions are not tantamount prohibiting any kind
of signs in the entire zone, only prohibiting those within
500 feet of the freeway. He also explained the issue of
special privileges, commenting that a variance is to give the
property privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner to deny 89 -V -2 and 89 -ND-
3, seconded by Commissioner Fries. Motion carried with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Fries, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schuelke.
At this time, Mr. Bob Adams, speaking from the audience, asked
the commission if it was possible to appeal this matter to the
City Council. He was informed that he could and on March 8,
1989, a letter and copy of an Appeal form was mailed to Adams
Advertising, advising them they had a period of fifteen (15)
days in which to appeal the commission's decision.
Mr. Ryskamp also noted and speaking to Mr. Mobley, commented
that no where in the application for the variance was he
(Mobley) listed as a person to whom notice should have been
given and asked Mr. Mobley if he wanted to be copied in the
correspondence. Mr. Mobley commented that he was by- passed in
the initial proceeding when he appeared as attorney of record
and that he would like to receive a copy of the formal denial.
7. Election of Officers.
Commissioner Burton was again unanimously elected as
Chairperson and Commissioner Bruner elected as Vice Chairman.
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
rs ,-;
ec ar Y157,