Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1989 PC MINUTESBEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 1989 The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 1989, in the City Council Chambers with Acting Chairperson Remy presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7:05 P.M. AffiCavit of Posting was read. On moll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. Commissioner Schuelke and Chairperson Burton were excused. The P126ge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. It should be noted for the record that City Engineer, Jim Dotson, was present. 1. Tile Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December G, 1989, were approved as submitted. 2. Oral Communication: None. 3. Director's Report: CDD Koules explained that at the City Council Meeting of January 9, 1989, acceptance of applications for three commissioners was officially opened with the closing date being 5:00 P.M. February 9, 1989. Also Potrero Creek Estates was continued to the City Council's Meeting of January 23, 1989. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 4. 87 -PP -19 and 88- ND -11, a proposed 3 unit building located at 673 Massachusetts Avenue. Applicant, Howard Haig. CDD Koules presented the staff report recommending approval of this project. Further, commenting that he had changed the City,/ Engineer's recommendation from block wall to a wood fence with the city engineer's and the applicant's concurrence. Acting Chairperson Remy then re- opened the continued public hearing at 7:09 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Richard Heib from Banning, addressed the commission commentina he had no problem with the conditions of approval. 0. There being no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chairperson Remy then closed the continued public hearing at 7:14 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. minutes of PC Dteeting January 17, 1989 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. 88 -RZ -6 and 89 -ND -1, request to change the existing zoning from RHD (Residential High Density) to C -G (Commercial General) on approximately 1.55 acres, located on the east side of Allegheny Avenue about 300 feet north of its intersection with Sixth Street. Applicant, Vincent Danise. CDD Koules presented the staff report commenting that the intention of the applicant is to build a mini- warehouse on this site. Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak; there being none, she then closed the public hearing at 7:16 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. On motion by Commissioner Fries, seconded by Commissioner Bruner recommending approval by City Council of 88 -RZ -6, to A" bring the zoning into compliance with the City's General Plan which designates the property as General Commercial, and also recommending approval of 89 -ND -1. 6. 89 -PP -1, 89 -V -1 and 89 -ND -2, proposed construction of a 2,000 s(,. ft. industrial building for manufacture of cemetery monuments and variance for yard setback requirements and parking requirements submitted by Hemet Valley Mc numen *_s for property located on Fifth Street `.)etween Egan and Wellwood Avenues. Applicant, Josef Zerr. CID'D F.oules presented the staff report noting that this projer_t was first approved in 1985; however, this submittal is for one parcel. Acting Chai.rper.son Remy then opened the public hearing at 7:23 P.';. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. r Josef "err, 1165 Palm, addressed the commission questioning the City Lngineer's Conditions No's. 101, 102 and 103. City Engineer, Jim Dotson, commented that the street lights are. very old and doesn't give much light; consequently, they should be replaced - intersections must be illuminated or the City can be sued; sidewalk is irregular, cracked and st gild also be replaced. There being no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chairperson Re -,v then closed the public hearing at 7:32 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. After discussion, and on motion by Commissioner Bruner, seconded by Commissioner Fries to approve Plot Plan 89-PP- 11 with the replacement of the existing street lights and minutes of PC Meeting January 17, 1989 Page 3 Council of Negative Declaration 89 -ND -2, since the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. 7. 127 -PP -3, Am. 2 and 87- ND -27, reconsideration of Conditions of Approval and 87 -PP -3, for a commercial structure already built, located at 552 -558 California Avenue, zoned M -C (Licht Commercial tlanufacturing). Applicants, Daniel Cosner an(' Tory Schmidt. CD^ 1'cules presented the staff report explaining that this Project was approved September 1987 as per conditions of approval; however, the building was built in a different ,Wanner and it is on the agenda tonight to discuss the new conditions of approval and why the old conditions were not met. Also, Mr. Crance, Building Inspector, is in the audience to address any questions that the commission might have. Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing at 7:49 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Dave Sumner, 930 Beaumont Avenue, addressed the commission questioning the extensive conditions of approval; not in agreement with Conditions Vs 1.01, 1.02, 1.03 1.07, 1.08, 1.09, 2.01, 3.01, 5.02, 6.03 and 6.09. Mr. Dan Cosner, addressed the commission commenting that: had gotten approval to make the changes; north /south alley in the back is going to be unused; no doors in back for security reasons; both alleys in good shape; asking to reconsider the second set of conditions and go back to the first; street light in good condition. City "ngineer noted that the roll -up doors were all in the alley with the pedestrian doors all in the front with CDD noules commenting this is why it is before the commission now hecause it was not built with the conditions that was approved. There being no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chairperson Remy then closed the public hearing at 8:17 P.M. turning the matter hark to the commission for discussion. City Engineer Dotson explained the Conditions dated 1/26/87 comparing them to the Conditions written 12/7/88, commenting they are pretty much the same with one exception, and that is, there is not a required ordinance to permit a single building across two lot lines. au. Dan Cosner, addressed the commission, again commenting that he agrees with Mr. Dotson, there has to be a compromise; will recap the whole alley from block to block making it a uniform alley all the way through; will Minutes of PC Meeting January 17, 1989 Page 4 CDD Koules commented that the City Manager would direct the City Attorney to write the ordinance and that he (Koules) would speak with the City Manager to see if any action had been taken on this matter. Further, he will follow -up and report back to the commission. The City Engineer informed the commission that since this project was built without benefit of a plan, benefit of a Soils Engineer or proper inspections, there should be a condition granting the applicant use of the building as he has built it at his risk, with CDD Koules commenting that the City should be held harmless. The commission discussed this project at length with the following deletions /amendments to the City Engineer's Conditions of Approval dated December 7, 1988. 1.01 Deleted. 1.08 Deleted. 1.02 Deletee. 1.09 Deleted. 1.03 Deleted. 1.10 Deleted. 1.07 Deleted. 1.11 Deleted. 2.01 City Engineer is to of the alley would be 3.01 Same as 2.01. 5.02 Deleted. 6.03 Applicant is to sign since the structure commercial building. 6.08 Same as 6.03. check and determine if satisfactory. recapping statement to hold City harmless mentioned is an "AS BUILT" On motion by Commissioner Bruner, seconded by Commissioner Fries to approve Plot Plan 87 -PP -3 with the above referenced deletions /amendments incorporated into the City Engineer's Conditions of Approval dated December 7, 1988 and recommendation of approval by City Council of Negative Declaration 87- ND -27. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Schuelke and Chairperson Burton. 8. Election of Officers. Election of officers was continued to the Regular Planning Cor „mission %leeting of February 21, 1989. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:03 P.M. Respectfully submitted, O Z JAMMS L. DOTSOZ%T December 7, 1988 Robert J. Bounds City Hanager P,O. Drawer 158 Beaumont, CA 92223 CIVIL Z2q*1WZZn Re; 87 -PP -3 (Cosner /California - 5/6) RECOHHENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Bob; 22737 BARTON ROAD, SUITE 7 POST OFFICE BOX 885 GRAND TERRACE, CA 82324 (714) 824.8510 f -fl LIE M DEC 0'0 1980 CITY OF BEAUMONT PLANNING DEPT, As you instructed, herein are my recommended Conditions of Approval which are based upon review of an "A$ BUILT" Plot Plan received this day and which is considered barely sufficient for purposes of preparing this letter. California Avenue 1.01 - Remove existing curb and sidewalk and construct new 8 11/24" curb /gutter per Std. 201 parallel to and 32' -feet east of centerline along entire property frontage ;.across Alley way north of site; and, along 251 transition south of site to join new to existing curbs. 1,02 - Construct 6' -wide curb - adjacent sidewalk along same reach as new curb is to be constructed and utilize appropriate transitions between new and existing sidewalk at north and south ends of project limits. 1.03 - Construct Alley Approach per Std. No. 500. 1.04 - Construct 20' -wide Driveway Approach per Std. 207. 1.05 - Extend southerly on -site curb to easterly edge of sidewalk to direct drainage to roadway and to preclude directing on -site runoff to south along sidewalk. 1,06 - Between edge of existing pavement and lip of new gutter, Place 3" AC- pavement over 8" 01. 2 Aggregate Base. Provide Minimum 81 -width of 1" AC Cap over existing pavement and new paving along entire project limits; and terminate each end with 450-taper for 1 -wheel first encounter. 1.08 - Remove and salvage existing street light at northeast corner of Property and deliver intact to the City yards per St. Supt. instructions. �11 Robert J. Bounds Recommended Conditions of Approval December 7, 1988 Page Two 1.09 - Install Street Light per Std. 1001 at north side of new Driveway Approach. Install one (1) Type N -4 Marker mounted on existing Power Pole at north side of alleyway. Relocate existing telephone pole adjacent to new driveway to position back of new sidewalk.' East -West Alleyway • , ✓2.01 - Remove all existing pavement within alley right -of -way (to easterly line extension of North -South alleyway); and, reconstruct with 21/211 AC paving over 411 Cl. 2 Aggregate Base per Std. 500; and, construct 3t -wide PCC cross gutter along centerline per Std. 210: (vote: actual width of alleyway shall be the MAXIMUM possible width and said width shall NOT BE diminished by inconvenience nor requirements to relocate existing fences, utility poles, meters, etc.) 2.02 - Construct 5' x 5' pavement "Miter" at northeast corner of property. 2.03 - Utilize 211 x 411 redwood headers along all unconfined edges of new pavement. /North -South Alleyway /3.01 - Remove all existing pavement within alley right -of -way to ✓✓✓ southerly property limits; and, reconstruct with 21/2'1 AC paving over 4" Cl. 2 Aggregate Base per Std. 500; and, construct 31 -wide FCC cross gutter along centerline per Std. $00; and, transition southerly end in a manner to preclude ponding of drainage and to provide smooth transition to existing pavement. (vote: actual width of alleyway shalt be the MAXIMUM possible width and said width shall NOT BE diminished by inconvenience nor requirements to relocate existing fences, utility poles, meters, etc.) 3.02 - Utilise 211 x 4" redwood headers along all unconfined edges of new pavement. U Robert J. Bounds Recommended Conditions of Approval December 7, 1988 Page Three General Off -Site Improvements 1 ... J 4.01 - All existing water valve covers, meter boxes, manhole covers, cleanout covers, etc. (INCLUDING those not presently visible) shall be adjusted to final pavement surfaces AFTER paving work is completed. 4.02 - Neither Alleyway shall be closed to traffic at ANY time without prior written permission from the City. On -Site Improvements 5.01 - All On -site curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc., shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards or with approved detail drawings shown on Projeot•Plans. 5.02 - The existing concrete adjacent to the'southerly side of the existing metal building shall be removed and a new PCC gutter constructed in accordance with a detail drawing to be shown on the Project Plans. 5.03 - Appropriate methods and /or devices shall be provided to dewater the PCC gutter described in 5,02 -above into the westerly parking lot, 5.04 - Handicap ramps shall be provided for access to sidewalk areas (3) on westerly side of building. 5.05 - All On -site areas to be paved shall be. 21/21' AC over 4" Cl. 2 Aggregate Base; OR, 51' PCC paving with 6 x 6 x 10 x 10 WWF. 5.06 - Special notes shall be placed'on Project Plans warning Contractors of precautions /penalties for protecting adjacent City -owned structures and property along southerly property line of Project. Administrative Requirements 6.01 - All required Plans and Reports shall be prepared by a competent California Registered Civil Engineer. All required Plans shall be drawn in ink at appropriate scales on City Standard Hylars to be obtained from the City Engineer for a nominal fee. .' Robert J. Bounds Recommended Conditions of Approval December 7, 1988 Page Four r. Div 6.02 - Separate Roadway Improvement Plan /Profile is waived and all roadway improvements shall be-shown on a thoroughly comprehensive Site Grading Plan. ✓6.03 - All off -sits and on -site grading and utility trenching and backfill shall be performed under the continuous direction of a Geotechnical Engineer who shall periodically during construction, submit work and tests' reports ,to the Cit Engineer for review; and who shall upon completion of all construction work, submit a final report to the City Engineer for review, approval and /or additional testing.. 6.04 - At the time of first submittal of Plans for Review, Developer shall pay to the City an amount for Improvement plans checking, said fees being equal to 2.5% of.the aggregate total of the estimated cost of construction of all items to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, EXCEPTING water improvements,.and on -site landscaping. ABSOLUTELY no Plans review will begin until said fee has been paid to the City. 6.05 - On -site Landscaping /Irrigation Plans are .required and at the time of first submittal of SAID Plan's for review, Developer shall pay to the City the inadequate fee of $250.00 for plans checking. 6.06 - At the time of applying for Permits to construct On and Off -Site Improvements, Developer shall pay to the City a fee equal to 4.0% of the approved Engineers Estimate of the cost to construct all items included on Plans reviewed by the City Engineer, except for Water and On -site Landscaping improvements. 6.07 - At the time of applying for Construction Permits, Developer shall pay to the City a fee to be determined by the City Manager, said fee being for connection to the City's sewer system. 6.08 - Calculations prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the City Engineer to prove the worthiness of the northerly foundation wall of the existing building to withstand H -20 traffic loading applied 2 -feet from the face of said wall. If necessary said requirement shall be extended to include on -site testing by approved methods to verify that required steel reinforcement is in Pact extant within said retaining wall. J VLF VG vO 1L•li JHI IL VV MMMHMMHHHHHM r.0 /7 Robert J. Bounds Recommended Conditions of Approval December 7, 1988 Page Five 6.09 - In order to comply with City Zoning Ordinances regarding structures occupying more than a single subdivision lot and because the city lacks provisions for merger of previously subdivided lands per Section 66451.10 or seq of the Government Code, Reversion to Acreage procedures are required per Section 66499.11 of the Government Code and a Final Map shall be prepared as required per Section 66499.13• Said Final Map shall include: a) Dedication of 4' -Peet of additional right -of -way along the property's entire California Avenue frontage. b) Dedication of a 5' x 51 x 459- corner cutback at the Northeast corner of the property. c) Provision of perpe;ual drainage rights across subject property, in favor of the adjacent southerly (City - owned) property. 6.10 - Submittal of a Tentative Hap and all applicable filing fees therefore are waived per Section 66428 of the Subdivision Map act. 6.11 - A Preliminary Title Report accompanied by copies of all recorded documents cited therein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review along with the first submittal of the Parcel Map for checking. 6.12 - The Kap Checking fee of $750.00 shall be paid concurrently with the first submittal of the Parcel Map. 6.13 - For lack of an adequate Plot Plan showing all existing topographic features, utilities, property boundaries, etc. other conditions may be imposed by the City Engineer during the Plans Review process. Unreeuested Comments 7.01 - Notwithstanding the lack of any such requirement by other City officials to the contrary, it is strongly recommended that the Applicant be required to provide to the Planning Commission and /or City Council Plans showing elevation views of the building as it has been constructed, which incidentally, is not in accordance with Plans presented to The Commission when it approved the Project on 1 Sept. 87. Instead of elevation views shown on a drawn Plan, enlarged color photos of the Buildingts faces may be submitted. bEC GS 'SS 1Z: 11 JkIES DO AAAAAAAAAARA P.7/9 Robert J. Bounds Recommended Conditions of Approval December 7, 1988 Page Six 7.02 - Notwithstanding the lack of any such requirement by other City officials to the contrary, it is strongly recommended that the Applicant be required to provide 31 -o" x 61 -8" doorways opening from each building unit into the North /South Alleyway. Such requirement will necessarily also require the construction of steps inside the buildings. Such recommendation is made to preclude the obvious inconvenience that will be caused to any person who must park in the alleyway and then must walk (in the rain ?) 200, to 300' to enter doors presently provided only on the westside of the building. A similar circumstance must be endured by any person who wishes to take trash to the dumpster. 7.03 - If a sewer connection joining the existing building to the City's sewer mains located in the adjacent alleyways has not yet been accomplished, the Applicant is therefore cautioned that such sewer mains are shallow in comparison to the depressed floor elevation of the building. 7.04 - Reference is hereby made to a letter dated 19 Oct 1988 from. r.his Engineer to the Applicant (copy attached) and statements made therein may generally be considered to be included as part of this letter. If there are instructions or questions, please call. Respectfully, mes L. �tson, CE Consulting City Engineer JLD:lana Enclosures: As Noted Herein xc wlencl.: Steve Xoules, Planning Director UP BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 1989 The Planning Commission met, in a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, February 7, 1989, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7:04 P.M. Affidavit of Posting was read,. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner Remy arrived shortly thereafter. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 1989, were approved with the following addition of Roll Call to Items 5 and 6. Item No. 5: 88 -RZ -6 and 89 -ND -1 - Applicant, Vincent Danise. AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schuelke and Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. Item No. 6: 89 -PP -1, 89 -V -1 and 89 -ND -2 - Applicant, Josef Zerr. AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schuelke and Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. 2. Oral Communication: None. 3. Director's Report: CDD Koules reported that at the City Council Meeting of 2/6/89, Mr. Don McLaughlin was appointed to serve as City Councilman for the duration of Mayor Partain's term. He also reported that he had been given the authorization to hire an Assistant Planner in the Planning Department. PUBLIC HEARING: 4. 88- ANX -2, SP -88 -2, EIR 88 -2 and 88 -RZ -7, a proposed pre - annexation zoning to Specific Planning Area Zoning (SPA 4.3 Minutes of PC Meeting February 7, 1989 Page 2 Further, the applicant knows of this correction and agrees to it. Chairperson Burton noted on Page I -48 $4, it is stated 900 sq. ft. building area for single family residences and the code calls for 1100 sq. ft, minimum for a single family residences. Further, on Page I -51, the minimum floor area is incorrect - one bedrooms are 650 not 600; studio apartments are 500 not 450; and three bedrooms are 1100 not 1000. She also noted that the minimum open space is incorrect. CDD Koules explained that the project is proposing phases and each phase is identified with a number of dwelling units. It has been a practice in the field to allow transfers up to 10% deviation from what might be allowed in one phase to be transferred to another phase provided that the overall number of dwelling units in the project is not changed. Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:12 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. John Stewart, General Partner for the project, addressed the commission commenting: in doing their planning they have tried to address the location of the site and being sensitive as it relates to Beaumont; mature growth should not be torn down; the setbacks and the inconsistencies with the present ordinance are a result of the specific plan process in which they tried to trade off site amenities for certain slight variations in the ordinance as it exists - if this presents a problem without too much difficulty they could live with the current single family ordinance; the idea was to do some planning and then try to vary the ordinance requirements slightly in order to facilitate what they felt would be a quality type project; had consultants present to answer questions. Mr. Art Danlian, 60 Corporate Park, Irvine, Architect Planner, addressed the commission presenting a slide and commenting: noise contours were considered during the course of design; attempt made to save as many trees as they could; integrity of site will be maintained; the lower spot of the site which is a corner is an ideal place to put a park; 395 lots proposed on about 96 acres and 205 lots on roughly 47 acres; average density is about 4.3 du /ac); 10 acres is the multi - family site - 16 du /ac - yielding approximately 160 units which will be surrounding the old house; Spine Road is the major road with a loop system feeding into the residential area - Paseo Road parallels the Spine Road; Paseo Road will go between the two rows of trees - not disturbing the trees; houses will be set back away from the freeway and will be hidden from the freeway as well; developers are proposing dedicating the land where the park will be to the Beaumont Cherry Valley Parks & Recreation District; park will not be a recreation vehicle park' - no overnight parking - design is still being worked out - different levels of recreational development; trees will be clustered and meandering up and Minutes of PC Meeting February 7, 1989 Page 3 Mr. John Stewart, commented that some of the concepts do not match the City's RSF zoning because of the type of residences they are trying to encourage in this project. Mr. Art Danelian, further commented that the architectural appearance of the garage becomes residential rather than architectural - the trade off is to bring the house a little closer to the street which permits the larger radius necessary to access the garage; 20' between houses. Mr. John Stewart, commented that the letter before the commission (see attached) is almost a duplicate of the one they had from the fire chief in response to the draft EIR - felt they had responded to the fire chief's concerns and had mitigated them by adding two additional accesses to the property - traffic engineer has written an amendment to the final EIR that mitigates the problem. Mr. Bill Kunzman, Kunzman & Associates, 4650 Irvin, addressed the commission commenting: 1000 feet needed a second access; project one off of 8th Street, future potential z continuation of the Spine Road up to 14th others onto Elm Street. Barranca Parkway, cul -de -sacs over has 4 accesses - �ccess' which is a Street, plus two Mr. John Stewart, commented that the commission approved a nine lot subdivision that provides access onto Elm Street and believes the City Engineer has asked the applicant to dedicate that right -of -way as a condition of his tract map approval; also there is an access from another road through a subdivision that will be coming before the commission in a couple of months, and another access onto Elm Street as well as the extension of 14th Street - actually they will have five potential accesses of which t )qo could be immediate - three in the near future. Mr. George Connors, 813 Elm Avenue, addressed the commission speaking as an opponent to the multi - family units commenting: apartments not conducive to a residential area; apartments do depreciate the value of single family homes; area to be changed for multi - family units has ready been changed for single family dwellings; also the more people in an area the higher your crime rate is. Mr. Art Danelian, commented that apartments is a housing concept that is very important to any city since not everyone can afford to immediately buy a single family house; keeping the higher density close to the freeway people do not have to drive through the whole community; the old house that is there could work into the scheme of things as far as possible recreation. Mr. Richard Malacoff, from Caltrans, addressed the commission noting: when a project is reviewed it is hard for them to look at it as an isolated project and be able to come up with specific recommendations - they try to look at the whole Minutes of PC Meeting February 7, 1989 Page 4 Mr. George Connors, commented that apartments are important to every City but should not be placed in the middle of a single family residential area. Mr. John Stewart, again commented that the multi - family unit phase is at the last of the development; houses will be 120' off the travel lane of the highway. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:07 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission. Recessed at 8:08 P.M. reconvening at 8:23 P.M. The commission discussed this project at great length addressing accesses, lot sizes, setbacks, park area, width of roads, noise, transportation system, frontage road, approvements of surrounding streets, bikeways, walkways, alternate corridors, density ars to 6000 or 7000 sq. ft. and it was the overall feeling of the commission that inconsistencies existed in the specific plan that was before them. CDD Koules explained the Density Transfer Section on Page I- 55 noting that the Specific Plan was implemented in order to give the project an overall density. Further, it was his understanding and intention that the overall density of the project would not exceed 4.3 dwelling units to the acre and the proponent could within the various phases have a slight variation. When you get to each of the sub -areas and upon filing a tentative map, if the number of units doesn't agree with the proposal, there could be a 108 variance if it doesn't exceed the total number of units permitted for the whole project. Also initially they were talking about 6000 sq. ft. however, they are going to be 7000 square foot lots. Generally with a project of this size and hopefully the quality that it is perceived to be, staff tries to allow the developer some latitude within reason, since it is usually the intention of the planning staff not to want to see a cook - cutter subdivision where everything lines up. For example, most of the projects of this size that will be coming to the commission will have a mixed product type, and the thought is if it is done in a comprehensive way, it should be reviewed and received in a manner where it is not fragmented. CDD Koules pointed out that the commission had the latitude to recommend adoption with the deletion of the multi - family units and also a concept approval and will, at a later time, be able to review the tentative maps and look more specifically to addressing road networks and lot sizes. Chairperson Burton noted that if the commission wanted to approve this Specific Plan as it is presented, it would conflict with the Ordinance; however, if it is felt that it is a quality development that the commission would like to see come into the City, they could recommend approval. CDD Koules noted that when the Specific Plan Zoning was �Anni aA ii- n l l nwcA fnr i-hi c ltvna of Aaval nnmant i-n 1-aka Minutes of PC Meeting February 7, 1989 Page 5 Chairperson Burton then noted that no one had mentioned the sewer and that it was stated in the conditions that no development would occur until the expansion of the sewer project was complete, with CDD Koules commenting that this project had paid their share of fees for the sewer plan study. Commissioner Schuelke then questioned the letter received (attached) from the Fire Department after the project's amendment with CDD Koules commenting that the letter had been received after the public review period. He further commented that the Fire Department's conditions were very important and that the project is not going to proceed in any implementation stage without getting their approval. Also, at the map stage, there will be implementation with conditions of approval. Commissioner Bruner noted that the two additional outlets onto Elm will come back before the commission as part of the mitigation with CDD Koules acknowledging "yes ". On motion by Commissioner Fries to follow recommendation of staff which reads as follows: 1. Certify that the attached final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environment Quality Act and 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 mitigate or lessen the significant, environmental effects thereof as identified in the environmental impact report. 3. Recommend approval of 88 -RZ -7 pre- zoning 170.5 acres to Specific Planning Area (SPA) 4.3 dwelling units to the zoning (SPA 4.3 du /ac), and reclassification of 6.0 acres from Residential Single Family (RSF) to Specific Planning Area (SPA 4.3 dwelling units per acre zoning (SPA 4.3 du /ac). 4. Recommend adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval for Specific Plan 88 -2 (Three Rings Ranch SP 88 -2). All lots to have a minimum lot size of 7000 sq. ft. with Residential Single Family requirements. Seconded by Commissioner Schuelke. Motion carried unanimously, with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairperson Burton announced that the next meeting for the Planning Commission would be March 7, 1989. There being no further business before the commission, the Meeting adjourned at 9:26 P.M. Planning & Engineering Office 46.209 Oasis Street, Suite 405 Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342 -8886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION TO: CITY OF BEAUMONT ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RAY HE4RARD FIRE CHIEF FF���T�M B 19 CITY OF BEAUMONT P LANN NG DEPT. REF: SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -02 THREE RINGS RANCH Planning & Eggintetiqq Office 4080 Lemon Stred, Suite I IL Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 787 -6606 The final document for the above referenced project still does not adequately address the lack of public ingress /egress points for the number of proposed dwelling units. As stated in the Kurtzman Associates letter dated November 10, 1988 (final draft package) the project is proposing one fully developed street (access point "A ") and one unpaved emergency access with the comment that "some type of gate will be needed at the project boundary ". The Fire Department staff has discussed the problem with the project proponents and restated it in our letter dated 9- 15 -88, it is our opinion that the lack of public access to the site constitutes a fire and life safety hazard and that the project should not be approved with the proposed street design.. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Michael E. Gray, Deputy Fire Marshal ml , BEAUMONT 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 68 -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 B.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 rmmnnriGnns hetween our Title 17 and what the applicant 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 riot 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 PC 'Meeting March 7, 1989 Page 3 Chairperson Burton questioned the 4000 sq. ft. lots with COD 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. Ladder'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. Ladder 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 COD Koules commenting that Hovchild's proposal was more restrictive. Mr. Ladder 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 (Ladder) 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. Ladder 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. Ladder further explained that it was 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: 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). 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. 89 -V -2 and 89 -NO -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, lie 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 PC meeting March 7, 1989 Page 5 Mr. Koules further commented that staff's position for the request of reduction of the 500 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 an 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 10/25/68; 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 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 PC-Meeting Match 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 1987, 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. 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, The Planning and Zoning Law Appeals to legislative 65904. If a board of appeals has not been created and established the local legislative body body shallexereise all of the functions and dutiesof the board of appeals in the same mannerand to the same effect as provided in Section 65903. (Added by Stars. 1965, Ch. 1880.) Public hearing: 65905. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this article, a public hearing shall be held on an use permits, variances, application for a variance from the requirements of a zoning ordinance, an application for or equivalent a conditional use permit or equivalent development permit, a proposed revocation or modification of a variance or usepernit or equivalent development permit, or an appeal from the action taken on any of those applications. (b) Notice ofa hearing held pursdantto subdivision (a) shall be given pursuant to Section 65091. (Repealed and added by Slats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) Variances: 65906. Variances from the terns of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, findings because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings; the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 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 inconsis tent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. A variance shall not be granted fora parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing theparcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits. (Amended by Slats. 1974, Ch. 607.) Parking variances: 659065. Notwithstanding Section 65906, a variance may be granted from. the parking findings roquirements of a zoning ordinance in order thatsomeorall of the required parking spaces be located offsite, including locations in other local jurisdictions, or that in -lieu fees or facilities be provided instead of the required parking spaces, if both the following conditions are met: (a) The variance will be an incentive o, and a benefit for, the nonresidential develop- ment (b) The variance will facilitate access to the nonresidential development by patrons of public transit facilid, facilities.. particularly guideway (Added by Slats. l 6, Ch. 1125.) Statute of limitations M 65907. (a) ExcgK as otherwise provided by ordinance, any action or proceeding to attack, review, setaside , void; orannulanydecisionof matters listed inSections65901 and65903, or concerning any of the proceedings, acts, or determinations taken, done, or made prier to such decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached thereto, shall!not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 90 days and thelegisladvebody is served within 120 days after the date of the decision. T hereafter, all persons are barred from any such action or proceeding or any defenseof invalidity orunreasonableness of that decision orof theseproceedingg, acts, or determinations. All actions brought pursuant to this section shall be given preference over all other civil matters before the court, except probate, eminent domain, and forcible entry and unlawful detainer proceedings. (b) Notwithstanding Section 65803, this section shall apply to charter cities. (c) The amendments to subdivision (a) shall apply to decisions made pursuant to this division on or after January 1, 1984. (Antended by Slats. 1983. Ch. 1138.) Record of notice of 65908. (a) Any agency which institutes a judicial action or proceeding to enforce zoning judicial action regulations may file a notice of the pendency of the action or proceeding in the county recorder's office of the county where the property affected by the action or proceeding is situated. The notice shall be filed at the time of the commencement of the action or proceeding, and, upon recordation of such notice as provided in this subdivision, shall have the same effect asa notice recorded pursuant to Section 409 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 66 A elF. STATE OF CAlFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING !RANCH gRCMUTE PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF CHAPTER 32. STATUTES A 1930 OV AND A 1,1W AMENDED PERMISSION ISGRANTfiDTO PUCEANDMAINTAIN AN ADVERTISING �RRIARY DISPLAY. OWNER NUMBS 37350 l DISPLAY S FEE PAID $10.00 HIGHWAY COUNTY POST MILE 6.19R PENALTY DISTRICT 8 Riv W.00 APPLICATION ROUTE 10 PRIORYTL R y checky O TOTAL PAID > -w DISPLAY r ��(�� \ \ \0 LCG�TION .. d 1� \ I DATE ISSUE¢. 09/14/88 Adams Adv, d aSPLAYOWNER 19081 Rock ADDRESS p 92705 SIZE., gTq "x32 Santa Ana, THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORI2EMeruAPECrTNEOeUDAr4N0FIn1EOWN EER�THEr WXCC" THE I EXPIRATION DATE DECEMBER 31, 1988 19'8 STATE OF CAFO M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BRANCH I 9 DEPUTY DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF CHAPTER 32, STATUTES OF 1939 AND AS AMENDED PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO PUCE AND MAINTAIN AN ADVERTISINO DISPLAY. ERECTNEDATE PERMIT OWNER NUMBER 37351 DISPLAY S HIGHWAY DISTRICT 8 COUNTY Riv POSTMILE FEE PAID $10.00 6.198 PENALTY +�� ROUTE 1 D APPLICATION Wbb DISPLAY RYchecky Q O PRIOR YR. • LOCATION `,^ Adams Adv TOTAL PAID >{�v,00 01SPLAYOWNER 19081 Rock R d DATEISSUED: 09/14/88 Santa•Ana, A 92705 SIZE: 914"x32 —THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE VIOLATION OF ANY ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLY WITH A ZONNO ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO THE ADVFAi15Ylo & PV Wi PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE APPLICABLE ORDNANCE SYT EXPIRATION DATE DECEMBER 31, 1988 DEPUTY DIRECTOR 1a£ I 17 T 9TATR W �% flomN DEPARTMENT g O O UTDOOR ADVERIT IB NO BRANCH gFEC@EDATE TER STATUTES OF 1939 AND AS Avoi,101 ' AMEHDAD PERMISSION IS ORANTEO PUCE ANDMAINTNN AN ADVERTISING DISPLAY. OWNER PERMIT DISPLAYS FEEPAID 610.00 NUMBER 37347 KIOHWAY PAST MILE 6 • 399 PENALTY DISTRICT 8 cOUNTM Riv APPLICATION MCC> ROUTE 10 ►RIORYR. SL{a.w aBPUr Rychecky oo TOTALPND LOCATION DATE ISSUED: 09/14/88 Adams AA d p5°"iA,D°DRESS 19081 Rock A 92705 SIZE: 964"02 Santa AnaF In WES THE WAFEIIRDISWYAFFECTTNEDIAGARINOIT ISION:D CHAP WR THIS PERYR DOES NOT AUTHORIZEVIOLATION OF ANY ZONING ORDINANCE MCTONSUIFR0 �'! �. aTM, I,,,,. �Ewj ,P =PLICABLETOTHEAD�=MCOUNV- DEPUTY DIRECTOR EXpIRATION DATE DECEMBER 31, 1988 OJ O O T no DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BRANCH PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF CHAPTER 33, STATUTES OF 1939 AND AS BRCMDAR AMENDED PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO PLACE AND MAINTAIN AN ADVERTISING Awl'IN DISPLAY. i NUMBER 37346 DISPLAY S HIGHWAY DISTRICT 8 COUNTY Riv POST''" 6.399 ROUTE DISPLAY LOCATION Ry sPLAr RychecZv VD LOCATION Adams OIBPLAYDDRESOWNER S 19081 Rock R d A Santa Ana, A 92705 FEE PAID $10.00 PENALTY APPLICATION PRIOR YK TOTAL PAID $go,00 DATE ISSUED. 09/14/88 SIZE 9'4 "x32 THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE VIOLATION OF ANY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION L3MPRDYOESTNAT7HEISBUANOEOFAPE WDDESRWAFFEC MONgA7MOFTHEOWNEROFT "EADVFRnSINODBPIAYYO COMKY WITH A ZONING ORDOOME APPUCASLE TO THE ADVERIISNO DISPLAY UNDER TIE PRD soma OF THB CHAPTER NOR DOES THE PERV PREVENT THE ENFORCEMDIT OF THE APKrARE ORDYUNCE SY Pre COUNT. EXPIRATION DATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DECEMBER 31, 1988 I I• , . � g O O G,'_RAl[OI OALIPCF►SA 611PARTBDR OF TRAMMI TATION 'bUTDOOR ADVERTISINO BRANCH PURSUANT TO THE AMENDED PERMISSION IS OSR MF TTOOPLACEAND MAINTAIN AN ADVERTISING �WApY 1, Jul DISPLAY. PERMIT OWNER NUMBER 37349 DISPLAYS HIGHWAY DISTRICT 8 C I`NTY Riv POST MILE 6�29R FEE PAID $10.00 ROUTE 10 PENALTY „SPLAY Rychecky APPLICATION 110160 LOCATION )ID PRIOR YR Adams Adv D TOTALPAID 64040 DISPLAYORESS 19081 Rock DATE ISSUED:. ADDRESS 0 9/14/8 8 Santa Ana, A 2 alm THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE VIOLATION OF ANY ZONING ORDINANCE 9'4 "x32 SECTKWSUS PAOVIDESTHATTHESSUANCE OFAPERMRDOESNOTAFFECTTHEOBUOATI ONOFTHEOWNEROFTHEADVERfISINO ggpl,Wi0 COMKY WDH A ZONWG ORDNANCE APPLICABLE TO THE ADVEATISNO DISPLAY UNDER THE PROVISION OF THIS CHAPEER MDR DOES THE FEW PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE APPLICABLE ORDNANCE BY THE COUNTY. EXPIRATION DATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR' DECEMBER 31, 1988 �.G 0 O e:MPARTLIXT OF TRANMRTAMN . OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BRANCH .. PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF CHAPTER 39, STATUTES OF 1959 AND AS OF4= 00 AMENDED PERMISSION ISGRANTEOTOPLACEANDMAINTAIN AN ADVERTISING "BRT1, Jul DISPLAY. PERMIT NUMBER 37348 DISPLAYS HIGHWAY FEE PAID 310100 DISTRICT 8 COUNTY RiV POST MILE 6.29R ROUTE 10 PENALTY Rychecky PRIOR 3C.Cp DISPLAY ID PRIOR PAID ZZ�� LOCATION TOTAL PAID 3'•iD,OV Adams Ad DISPLAYOWNER 19081 RoDATE ISSUED; 09/14/88 ADDRESS Santa An SIZE 914 "x32 THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE VIOLATION OF ANY ZONING ORDINANCE FEnFr PIavENr THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE APRIC MORDINANCE SYTHE COUNTY. - - -- - -- EXPIRATION DATE DEPUTY DlRecroR DECEMBER 31, 1988 Al Is e @ �PANT�WTOITMNWIITATION I OUTDOOR ADVER 1SIN0 BRANCH PURSUANT To T Y AMENDED PERMI SIE Osq/,N}Ep ipPUCF DyyMT�N F 1039 RND AS BR67N un . AW=tIRE 1 NUMBER 37180 DowuY $ HIGHWAY DISTRICT 8 COUNTY RIV POST MIL[ 3028E FEEPAID $IBM ...ROUTE 60 . ,II PENALTY DISPLAY RYCBECKY PRIORY . 3C.cA IACATgN � ke%'D PRIOR Y0. DISPLAYOWNER ADAMS AD TOTAL PAID 00.00 ADDRESS 19081 ROC ca OATEISSUEDI '7212 -88 SANTA ANAF 92705 TNU PERYR DOES NOT A $a -9'4"x32 N'C"D LWPRDYEUWATMW{UMCEOFA E"OTArPwT 0 na0NaFTNiIEoORDINANCE . PEISRYFAt1N"HYD�T BONNO ORDNANCE APPLICABLE TOINE ADVOM0ODISPLAY LSIDER TIE ADVERMWODISpAYTO EKORCBRNT OF THE 0KCIINE OROEWIC [EYI1EOOlNR1: PR 404 OF THE ovpm NOR DDEE TILE EXPIRATION DATE Dapm DIRECTOR, DECEMBER 31,1988 no DOAFaUaWT all TRANPORTAMN w OUTDOOR ADVERMWO BRANCH PURSUANT TO THE TERMS G CHAPTER 3E, STATUTE$ OF AMENDED PERMISSION ISORANOTOPLACEAOMNNTAINANWD BRCDEBLI[ 1EEILAI'1,1W DISPLAY NUMBER 37179 q "�YS x HMRIWAY DISTRICT 8 COUNTY RIV POSTMRB 30.28L FEEPAID $IaoO ROUTE 60 PENALTY owuv RYCHECKY APpJCADON SO.00 LOCATION PRIOR Y0. NSPLAYOWNER ADAMS AD O� TOTAL PAID $40.co ADDRESS 19081 RO p� DATEISSUFAO 7- 12-88 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 • $DIE: ''9'4 "x32 TFpS PEW DOES NOT AUTHORIZE VIOLATION OF ANY ZONING ORDINANCE SFC710M/ 7MPAOYDFiTMATTtiER $UANCEOFAKAWI^^�••••••• - -____ I . COB•LY WON A B71E4 ORDSuNCE AypACAeI, TO TN PEIMO MEVD'T THE DiO DS"T OF THE APPUCAEU EXPIRATION DATE DECEMBER 31,1888 DEPUTY DIRECTOR of DRAWER 158, BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA 92223 - 845.1171 DATE: April 5, 1984 Tom & Country R.V. Center, Inc. 1425 East Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 RE: Sign Permit Application (84— SNP -1) Dear: Gibboney J. Sechrest The above referenced project was before the Planning Commission of the City of Beaumont for hearing on April 3, 1984 , and the project was: ® APPROVED M DENIED Please note that there will be a Five (5) working day appeal period from the date of approval of the project. DENIAL PROCESS: Projects that are denied by the Commission can be appealed within 15 days of the date of the denial by doing the following: 1. Complete an Appeal Application form (obtained from the Planning Department). 2. Make out a check for $50.00 to the City of Beaumont. 3. Submit a properly completed application form and check to the Planning Department prior to the end of the appeal period. APPROVAL PROCESS: During the Five (5) T+orkino day appeal period, your Project cannot be released for clearance; however, you are encouraged to come in and sign your conditions of approval letter. I. Please call the Planning Department for an appointment at your earliest convenience to come in and sign your conditions of approval letter. 2. Your Appeal period will be over on April 11. 1984. At this time please come in at your earliest convenience and apply for a Land Use Clearance and your building permit. Sin erely, ALAN (NE - MA MANEE PLAT DIRECTQR _ BY ar 1 CBPD - 4384 -1st mot 1_�Ent DRAWER 158, BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA 92223 - 845.1171 CITY OF BEAUMONT PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE CASE NO.: 84 -SNP -1 P.C. AGENDA: April 3, 1984 ACTION TAKEN: Approval (3 -2) CITY OF BEAUMONT PLANNING DEPARTMENT F I N A L STAFF REPORT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: 1. Applicant: TOWN & COUNTRY R.V. CENTER, INC. 1425 E. Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 2. Project Description: The applicant seeks to construct an on- premise sign for the exclusive advertisement of their business which shall be at the back of their property and oriented to freeway viewers. The sign is: on three masts, has a total height of 35' and the double faces advertising area measures 30' x 12' on each side. 3. Location: At the rear of the property addresses 1425 E. 6th Street, and known as Town and Country R.V. Center, (see attached map). 4. Parcel Size: 2.82 acres. 5. Existing Roads: Sixth Street 6. Existing Land Use: Commercial 7. Surrounding Land Use: Commercial. 8. General Plan of Site: General Commercial. 9. Project Site Zoning: General Commercial. 10. Surrounding Zoning: General Commerical ,;�11. eEnvironmental Review:, - This project,i exempt „from further a V, ;environmental review based on the findings pf_Ca,, @,gorical %pExempti'mn-35ection 15313.°°1Accessory',Structuresl ; EPORT - FINAL VN' The.following analysis represents the most significant issues involving this proposal and includes all pertinent environmental issues. 12. PROJECT ANALYSIS: This is a substantial sign and represents a significant expenditure to the applicant. However, the key to this sign's acceptability is its impact on our community or lack of impact. It would represent one of the larger signs in the Beaumont Community and would be visible from the immediate community area (i.e., from 6th Street and other near by areas. It would be very visible at night.). Compared to other neighboring communities, this sign is not out of scale or proposed in an inappropriate area. This applicant's business is very motorist oriented and the sign is viewed by the applicant as necessary for continued viability in this business endeavor. 13. RECOMMENDATION: The approval of this sign could -in the .long run- signal the beginning of more applications for "freeway oriented" signs along our freeway. We think, however, that this eventuality always existed and has been set by nearby communities permitting large freeway oriented signs in their areas along the freeway. , We recommend to the Commission that this permit be approved and recognize the need to the spacing and frequency of future signs in this area. 14. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. That the final location of the sign be identified and a revised project map be submitted showing this exact location. That, further, the Planning Director be required to review the selected site first hand, either Monday or Tuesday of any following week. 2. That this sign be used exclusively for the advertisement proposed (see attached map) . Any change carried out without prior approval shall constitute the grounds for removal of the sign. 3. That the sign shall..be maintained in accordance with the ;highest standards of maintenance. The sign shall be kept ,in a "like new" condition fore,,ailong,as it is used. Wy 4eglect that resukts:-4n the sig#ii iAppeArance.,being un- Coightly or in a state of disrepair "shall - constitute grounds ,for removal of the sign and revocation of the permit. 14.'- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Continued. 4. That the Planning Director require the sign Company to clarify that the sign materials are made out of metal and plastic or similar material and that the art work on the sign face itself is durable and%# v attractive. `� Ib /fit uµ y �` g it 5. It all be onfirme b the P annln Directo the the City of Beaumont is in no way affected by the O' Scenic Highways laws for this project site. l: is oject shall commence development within twelve months from the approval by the City Council; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. Commencement of development shall mean submittal of development and improvement plans. Failure to faithfully comply to conditions shall be sufficient of this project. 15. AGREEMENT all of the above referenced grounds to nullify the approval I, TOWN AND COUNTRY R.V. CENTER INC. as appplic t and owner of.the property described on on file with the City of Beaumont, have react, undetstand and agree to all of the conditions set forth in this Staff Report. Witnessed by: jG+ctJrJ j Cert/J%��/1 -f% agOOKi.i^,"-- .L+Gf Applicant Y/ CITY OF BEAUMONT YI Pt Aw W.IN I I AI I I U,'NIA 4(j;; - d4S' 1111 CITY OF BIAUMONT Pl.1;fvmi!G rIVAR'i MENT "I LI. Ia:a'Y OU NUT REMOVE �l C17Y OF BEALW= PLANNING DEPARrAM INITIAL STUDY SE NOW / y/ ADDITIONAL INFO, REWJESPED: 1,) te: Items: 2,) Date: Items: pllcant DETERMINATION: Negative'5ecfaration: _ Date EIR: Other: ief Project strict /Area: vlronmental Setting: IALUATICN Is the site subject to any of the following hazards? Yes Ground subsidence. _Fire Surface Fault rupture Flood or drainage Expansive soil —Liquefaction —Noise (over 60 dBA) Significant Groundshaking Ground Cracking Other — Landslide or mudslide Erosion I -- Does the site encompass, have, or is it;adjacentortoo yygefthe following: Biologically sensitive area Hazardous materials — Archaeologically sensitive xie / _Areas requiring quiet _ Conflicts in land use Will the project produce any wastes following at an Noise --g�� Solid Fumes Ash _Substantial tr is Z� st cars, trucks, ane traffic, railroad, r. adverse level? . Hazardous /toxic wastes " bisaharges Local growth inducement Additional areas of potential impact: Cumiative: „ aiona nowt n cameo ER I31, BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA 97217 - 813.1171 Fbr Official Use Only se SNP ;e v 3 Paid sg 79 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION ease follow the "checklist" provided when submitting your project r consideration. be Checked by �licant ;laded Absent x X x x oes not apply) Number of Copies Required I T E M N/A $25 check made out to the City of Beaumont for signs less than 10 feet square and $75 for signs greater than 10 feet square. 3 Site Plan (See question #12 of application) 3 Copies oflthe signed and completed Sign Permit Application i 3 Signage and Elevation Plans with material notes. (See question #13 of application.) 3 Electrical diagrams and Plans* (Free- standing wooden sign.) \ To be Checked By STAFF amY Acceptable Deficient 'E: Additional information may be required once the information submitted is reviewed and analyzed. To be filled in by Applicant PLEASE INCLUDE ASSESSORIS SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 1 MAP COPIES OF ALL P CELS T INVOLVED (please prt in Bla& ink or ink - Thank You) ,S NAME Bill Cushman PHf�7�41845 -775 - LANDMMR 79 (hl3,: APPLICANT'S (Write "same” is owner) ACM'S NAME outdoor Difl - 1 - • ! - = ! - - 1 • u q2Anq PROJECT NAME " " PROJECT ADDRESS _. „.. (If no street address, briefly give description and location to nearest intersection.) ENGINEERING /SURVEY FIRMS NAME C Contact Person Sign Firs Name p (714)535 -3304 Contact Person 10. GJOSS LOT SIZE acres square feet 11. NET LOr SIZE acres square feet 12. SITE PLAN: To scale show: - All structures - Easements and rights -of -way - Location of proposed sign (identify existing - Location of existing signs on property ( Y signs as temporary or permanent). - Show off -site distances to nearest: roads, signs greater than 25 square feet, structures. 13. SIGNAGE AND ELEVATION PLANS WITH MATERIALS NOTES: To scale show: Footings, aerial supports and calculations - Drawings of the front and rear faces of the proposed sign. Show a true- 'color tpno bar and a drawing code for each 1316 December 11, 1986 Mr. Ronald L. Larson j City of Beaumont:;; 550 E. Sixth. Street Beaumont, CA 92223 . `: ;+• Dear Mr. Larson j' We are interested in securing a permit for an off -site sign in the City of Beaumont«::: The sign will be a 3' x 5' wooden directional sign,,advertising the "Sun Lakes" housing project which is part''of.a:Master Plan Community., 4% would like to direct traffic off "H`ighland, south to the project: j We have .`already ,,r'ec {eived.,approval for placement of the sign from the owner of ttie.aExxon station.' I,am enclosing a: COPY of the.signed, Standard Ground•Lease Contract for your x-' n,' information: Attached you will also find our Sign Permit. "Application, a map showing.the proposed sign location, and the specs of the sign itself.'.Also enclosed is our check number 15879 in the amount of $75, to';coyer ;t; a permitting fee. 1lM :�• d .�:., If you have any'questions;,I would appreciate hearing from you. Thank you for'your ",consideration of this ,matter 1 a .. Y« Janna Watson' t }�, Enclosures t''r�; j7141;545-3304. Street, Anaheim, California 92605 /Telephone (714) 535 -3304 � § \ \ § ■ k� Ik � co M CO GB C� . \� }C4 ° w \ k� ;i]K- }2P- ) }i)/ S, «,; W \ ® §\ \t )\«(\ }K\ \} y \\ mo o .CO T. 2E Al ® «; :3 ©�,&o § \ \ go /mw } /� \\ � �\ \t\\\ 0 ro X00 0 0 g rr 40 — ;2�.� � , krt0, to ro � �\�Fl ft &M f « Do 10 A k 2; «q[� E�2$o n rt «M �Amg =$@q; . �§... .; \ -j P. =eon %00 y��nm $§� ) " 0% M \.�E \\� ,- ��� \ \ \\\ \\\ƒ§ » 2 °&� ggS,- tm r m °R § « 5 Q } ( \m E \ � § \ \ § ■ k� Ik � co M CO GB C� \� }C4 m W \ ® §\ \t � y .CO T. ; $ � § \ \ § ■ k� Ik � co M CO GB C� 3� is z y1'O 1 i c n � !i 0 �o O ., c rn� z► Ohl °;l> rn: .1 1 i ru4 O- t� DANIEL A. CAW ARTHUR R. KNOWLSON, JR.- MICNACL J. SCNROCDCR•T MICHAEL W. SURNCTT' GARY S. MOSLEM BARRY A. YOCH RICK A. CIOEL MICHAEL F. WRIGHT STCPNEN F. DIAL AVARCLLC SILUCR•WLSTRIGR ELIEASCTM PETCRSOK HALL STCRLINC A. SMITH LYNN S. MARCUS 4 MORSSIOMAL CORPORATION TALSO MESS. OF RAwul RAR LAW OFFICES CASE, SCHROEDER, KNOWLSON, MOBLEY & BURNETT A IYITNCMNIP INCLUDING PROFCSSIONAL CORPORATION$ ONE NEWPORT PLACE, SURE 260 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE 17141 955 -1050 TELECOPICR (7141 651 -9112 December 6, 1988 George R. Ryskamp, Esq. Beaumont City Attorney c/o Ryskamp & Robinson 6608 Palm Avenue Riverside, California 92506 LOS ANGELES 1900 AVCHUC OF THE STARS, SVITC 1900 LOS ANGCLCS, CALIFORNIA 90097 TCLCPNONC 9171 [01.7555 TCLCCOPICR (2131277-0342 Re: ADAMS ADVERTISING, INC. - CITY OF BEAUMONT Appeal of Denial of Billboard Permit Aun ications Dear Mr. Ryskamp: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of December 6, 1988, concerning the above- referenced applications for billboard permits currently on appeal before the Beaumont Planning Commis- sion. As you know, this matter is currently set for hearing this evening. I called to request this matter be continued because, based on our prior discussions and the events that occurred at the last Planning Commission hearing on this matter, Adams Advertising was preparing and intends to submit later this week variance applications for the subject permits. While Adams Advertising does not believe that the variance applications are even necessary, we thought it would be most appropriate if the variance applications were heard at the same time as the pending appeal so that all issues could be addressed in the same proceeding. During the course of our conversation, it became clear that the parties apparently have a vastly different understanding of the nature of the proceedings now pending before the Planning Commission. As stated in our Notice of Appeal dated September 221 1988, our contemporaneous confirming letter to the City Clerk and my comments to the Planning Commission at the last session, Adams b1 George R. Ryskamp, Esq. December 61 1988 Page 2 Advertising has always been operating under the belief thaththe present proceedings constitute an appeal of the de_ ial permit applications and the principal issue on appeal is the ubstantive interpretation of the City's Municipal Code as to whether my client is entitled to these permits as a matter of right. However, you stated that the City is. taking the position that the only issue presently pending before the Planning Commis- sion was the procedural issue of whether the Planning Director properly refused to accent and process the permit applications. You further stated that the Planning Commission's determination on this issue will constitute a final administrative decision, which is not subject to review by the City Council or by any further administrative proceedings. Accordingly, you indicated that, since Adams Advertising was intending to submit variance applications, these applications would essentially render the present proceedings moot because the applications would then be accepted and processed by the Planning Department. You further stated that we could address the substan- tive issue of whether my client is entitled to the permits as a matter of right in connection with the proceedings on the variance applications. I indicated that I had no objection to addressing this 'substantive issue of whether a variance was even necessary in the proceedings on the variance applications themselves, but wanted it specifically understood that Adams Advertising was reserving its right to assert this substantive argument and that the City would not argue that Adams Advertising in any fashion had waived or is estopped from raising the issue of the validity or applicability of the setback requirements in connection with the variance proceedings. You gave me such assurances. Based on the foregoing, we do not intend to appear at the hearing tonight and instead request that this procedural issue be heard and determined by the Planninc Commission. Instead, we will be preparing an filing the variance applications, at which time we will re -assert our argument that we do not believe the setback requirement applies to the present applications. George R. Ryskamp, Esq. December 6, 1988 Page 3 I would appreciate it if your office would bring this letter to the attention of the Planning Commission at the hearing tonight and request that it be made part of the record on appeal. Many thanks for your courtesy in this regard. GSM /ld ryks.ltr bcc: Robert C. Adams Very truly yours, CASE, SCHROEDER, KNOWLSON, BLLEEY^ & BURNETT Ga S. Mobley, P. LAW OFFICES OF RYSKAMP AND ROBINSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 6608 PALM AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 925062344 GEORGE IL RYSKAMP (714 }781 -1%0 HARRY M. D UGHERTY WO. ROBINSON MOSES W. JOHNSON. IV RUTH A. NOBLE PATRICIA J. SEOAL. CPA PARALEGALS FAX (714) 682-2531 December 91 1988 S Gary S. Mobley, Esq. Case, Schroeder, Knowlson, Mobley & Burnett One Newport Place, Suite 260 Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Adams Advertising, Inc. - City of Beaumont Appeal of Denial of Billboard Permit Applications Dear Mr. Mobley: This letter will confirm that copies of your letter of December 6, 1988 were delivered to the Planning Commission at their meeting on that same day by my partner W. 0. Robinson. At that time, the Commission denied your appeal and sustained the Planning Director's refusal to accept the applications. While your letter accurately reflected most of our conversation, I did want to clarify one additional point. The single variance application will be submitted along with the applications for sign permits. I think this is what you meant, but as it was not clear and we have had some questions, I felt that we should make it clear that there will be applications for the four permits and a single variance application covering those four permits. Assuming that the variance applications are properly prepared and do reach the issue of this property's qualifying for a variance on the 500 -foot requirement, the Planning Director will accept the application. This will then allow us to deal with the substantive issues we have previously discussed. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, RYSKAMP AND ROBIN$,QN r BY: GEORGE R. RYS P GRR:pjs cc: Mr. Steve Koules �ORTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE 10 650' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (KUNZ) 1100' WFST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (KUNZ) 1600' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (NEAGLE) 2500' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (NEAGLE) 4000' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (NEAGLE) 4500' west of HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (NEAGLE) 5000' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. " SOUTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE 10 650' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (HMOOD) 1750' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (HEYWOOD) 2600' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (HEYWOOD) 3250' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (HEYWOOD) 3750 " " (HEYWOOD) 4500' WEST OF HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE. (HEYWOOD) ZONE - CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONE - CG ZONE - CG ZONE - CG ZONE - CG ZONE - CG ZONE - ML LIGHT MANUFACTURING ZONE - ML ZONE - ML ZONE - ML ZONE - ML nterstate 10 at Highlandsprings ave to Pennsylvania Ave. — 13 6i5WS tE�15 15-r From Pennsylvania to Veile underpass is landscaped freeway. No signs exsist. Approx. 1.4 /10s mi. (PRESENTED BY ATTORNEY MOBLEY RE: ADAMS ADVERTISING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1989) SOUTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE 10, 450' WEST OF VEILE UNDERPASS NEAGLE SIGN. ZONE- ML SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 60 approx. 3000' east of western knolls KUNZ SIGN ZONE - RSF RESIDENTAL SINGLE FAMILY SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 60 approx. 3500 east of Western Knolls Ave. Heywood Sign ZONE _ RSF SOUTH SIDE OF 60, 200 West of western Knolls Ave. Neagle Sign ZONE - PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SOUTH SIDE OF 60, 900' West of Western Knolls Ave. Neagle Sign ZONE - PUD NORTH SIDE OF U.S. 60, 800' East of Western Knolls Ave. Kunz sign ZONE - CHS COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY SERVICE NORTH SIDE OF U.S. 60, 800 West of Western Knolls Ave. Lenoard Sign ZONE - CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL HIGHWAY -- 79 east side north of third street. HEYWOOD SIGN ZONE - ML LIGHT MANUFACTURING Surface Street Signs 1. On 6th Street 100' east of Wellwood Neagle zone - m.c. - light commercial manufacturing 2. On 6th Street 150' east of Wellwood Neagle zone- M.C. flat i5 NcT LAnG15CGl�� The only m.c. zoning along Int. 10 or•US 60Tis the property which Adams Advertising has applied. The only zone which billboards have a permitted use is the zone which Adams Advertising has applied. Twenty -one off site signs are located in the CG, CHS, ML, PUD, and RSF zones. They are located in the-city of Beaumont, and all are located within 500' of the freeway. A G E N D A BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1988 th:eeting called to Order at 7:00 P.M. Fries,, Bruner , Schuelke_, .— Roll Call: Commis sioandsChairperson Burton_ Remy_, Affidavit of Posting. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 4, 1988. 2, Oral Communication: 3. Director's Report: 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. PUBLIC EiEARING OPENED AT P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT P.M. PdOTIO14 SECONDED AYES NOES ABS. 5 87- PP -19, a proposed three apartment units, located at 673 Xassachusetts. Applicant, Howard Haig. PUBLIC HEARI[1G OPENED AT P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT P.M. t1OTI0N SECONDED AYES NOES ABS. 6 88 -pp -3, 88 -V -4 and 88- ND -14, a proposed 60 unit Travelodge Hotel and a Variance to allow a 55 ft. high sign with a 200' square foot surface area, located on the south side of Fourth Street about 300 feet east of Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Sam Lee and Daniel Tsai. . Agenda October 25, 1968 Page 2 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. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT P.M. NOTION SECONDED AYES SCHEDULED MATTER: NOES ABS. 9. Appeal of Community Development Director's decision reference Outdoor Advertising Displays (Billboards) per Section 17.60.015 of Beaumont Municipal Code. MOTION SECONDED Meeting adjourned at AYES P.M. NOES ASS. I L7of aawwnt DRAWER 158, BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA 92227 - 845.1171 August 5, 1987 Mr. John Thomas BEAUMONT ASSOCIATES 21202 Kroll Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Dear Mr. Thomas: Re: Sign;PerMit 87- SNP -10 160 Ac. fronting h mile „on South side Hwy 60, West % mile of intersection of interstate 10 & Hwy 60. Pursuant to your telephone call to Ms.. Beeler on 8/4/87, 1 am hereby approving the above referenced sign as a temporary use. According to the drawing submitted, the sign will be 8' x 16' with all: black lettering and shall have a Logo of the City of Beaumont with Beaumont's colors. Sorry contact v Planning Department at 8455 . please 1171 ct the /ct Sincerely, 'CH RRY jetary Plann ng M YY BK. 4/4 77 • , •.,•'..Y !iE 2 /b8 R 172 d :: t C232 23 �- 4eASE% 5 4 n 9 a.. S 2323/24L� O,t/ s�rc 7E /9.oGlP„ P ¢ 4'6e?5E 6 /Vf • 'J ' /46 64,E 1 A SS E5o R FA � � �/ZI 060 -o07- 3e�v M0r)t t� ssoC, 0 17 J7 -T�) 0 n N•.r .. _ —s. •. II x /43 � <Pi TV �•EA� �� s'3 I ( 1.2t•'70� \SyBASEy/ 0 " C46 y 0 h ASSESSORS MAP BY 421 P C6 RIVERSIDE COUVTY , CALIF 4r V% CLASSIFIED "LANDSCAPE FREEWAYS" 11 / CLASSIFIED "LANDSCAPE FREEWAYS" October 20, 1988 DISTRICT 08 County Route P.M. Limits RIV 10 ^16.98/8.21 p�nn��{LVNTc-\ 8.90/9.12 9.60/9.83 10.18/10.46 10.75/R14.81 Sed 10 0.00/6.30 14.22/14.54 14.69/15.07 16.01/16.45 18.20/18.85 19.76/20.23 R21.76/R23.56 R23.97/25.27 P.D. 4/5/85 26.10/26.44 30.17/32.72 RIV 15 3.02/5.40 (Cont'd) 5.65/7.77 29 BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 1989 The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, April 4, 1989, in the City Council Chambers with Acting Chairperson Remy presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7:05 P.M. Affidavit of Posting was read. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 1989, were approved as submitted. 2. Oral Communication: Mr. Francis Dowling addressed the commission explaining that his access through "B" Street had been blocked and wanted to know if something could be worked out for streets /accesses (see attached material). After discussion, the Planning Commission requested that City Council review the need for updating the Circulation Element and give priority to the "B" Street closing and that it be placed on the agenda as soon as possible. On motion by Commissioner Fries, seconded by Commissioner Schuelke, it was requested that City Council review the Circulation Element with priority given to "B" Street. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Bruner and Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. 3. Director's Report: COD Koules reported that at the City Council Meeting of March 27, 1989, Hovchild's Specific Plan and EIR were approved. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. 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. This continued public hearing was opened at 7:25 P.M. and on mnfinn by rnmmicci nnor Cr, e_ -- - - -A -A ti., r--- :___---- PC meeting April 4, 1989 Page 2 that at this hearing (10/25/88), the commission suggested the City Attorney prepare a lot merger ordinance and that it be adopted; however, in order not to hold up the applicant, his (Koules) recommendation is to include in the conditions of approval that before the final occupancy of the building, there must be a lot merger ordinance or a certificate of compliance in order to allow the applicant to use the driveway in combination with the driveway to the south in the same ownership. Also, since the applicant has three - quarters of a 4th unit by th'e density, the variance request is to allow the 4th unit. Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the continued public hearing at 7 :30 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Vince Schiro, 726 Chestnut Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the commission and commented they now have a 24' driveway and everything that was discussed at the meeting of October 25, 1988, has been accomplished. Commissioner Schuelke asked if these units were going to conform with the units next door with Mr. Schiro stating "yes "; however, these units would be further back, would have open parking, a basketball court in the back and would be completely fenced - no access at all from the rear. Commissioner Schuelke questioned the condition of the alley way with Mr. Schiro noting he has no problem in paving the alley and would contribute his share. CDD Koules commented that the City Engineer's Condition No. 3.02 says to dedicate 10 feet of the alley right -of -way across the entire frontage of site. There being no one else from the audience wishing to speak, Acting Chairperson Remy then closed the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.. COD Koules commented that the alley way is vacated and in order to improve the alley, you would have to get the cooperation and consent of each of the property owners along both sides. Commissioner Schuelke noted there should be some type of provision (beginning with the first development) to pave the alley since city services uses the alley way. COD Koules commented there is no problem if there is a real alley way; however, the ownership belongs to the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Schuelke again stated her concern pertaining to the alley way noting that the property owners do need to be required to pave the alley way at some point and time. CDD Koules suggested that the commission refer this concern n2rtnininn fn tho .1 1.,, hnnL +_ c+_V4C v.... - . - - - - a __� _1_1� PC Meeting April 4, 1969 Page 3 AYES: Commissioners Remy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Bruner and Chairperson Burton. 6. 88 -PP -6 and 89 -ND -4, a proposed 4,200 sq. ft. full service car wash and a proposed 3,760 sq. ft. auto service center on 0.8 acres, located on the west side of Highland Springs Avenue about 300 feet north of its intersection with Sixth Street. Applicant, Dick Garcia. CDC Koules presented the staff report noting that one of staff's concerns is to minimize or eliminate stacking onto Highland Springs. At staff's request, applicant changed the plot plan to show the automobiles coming in for car wash running along the southerly side of the building and entering the building from the rear. It is staff's recommendation that the auto service center at the rear of the project be restricted to retail auto uses and not allow body works and major auto repair, paint shops and steam cleaning. For the commission's information the C -G (Commercial General) line ends at the northerly property line of this property; the property adjacent to the north is zoned CRO (Commercial Residential Office) and it is staff's hope and intent, that future land uses to the north of this be more in office medical complex uses. Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing at 7:46 P.N. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Dick Garcia, 563 La Casa Dr., Banning, addressed the commission and commented they wanted to build a nice quality project on this site. He commented that the construction would be wood frame, block wall, lath and plaster and is willing to comply with all of the conditions. He noted that the service center of the project has 3 bays which would be for lube and tune and the 4th bay will be for tire mounting, wheel aligning - the corner of the building will be for retail, Mr. Garcia noted that the lot is 350 ft, deep and has a setback of 60 ft. and that cars would be exiting onto Highland Springs, COD Koules noted a condition of approval is that they improve the alley way with Mr. Garcia commenting that the alley would be 24 feet wide. Mr. Koules further commented that soon a request for a mini warehouse at the rear of this property (Denise) would come before the commission and then there will be an opportunity to have full improvements the length of the alley. Mr. Garcia commented that there would be access to his project through the alley. Mr. George Salata, 5399 Via Carrizo, Laguna Hills, addressed - ---- - - - - -- - - -- .. . a, PC meeting April 4, 1989 Page 4 decorative block wall that would be attractive. Feels that the footings should not encroach on the property line of the wall and there be no encroachment of the footing underneath the wall. 3. Stacking - feels that the project provides for about 10 cars on site plus one car making its turn into the wash and one car making the turn off Highland Springs - the 13th car will be blocking the driveway next door. This would also have an impact on the person selling their property next door. 4. Would like to see the service building at the back end of the site moved forward 12 feet and an easement granted so if people got landlocked inside the lot they would have some possible way to get out. Mr. Dick Garcia. again addressed the commission and noted that if they gave up 15 feet of their property, they would lose their parking and thereby reduce the feasibility of their project. He noted that they have two stacking lanes and will have capacity for 20 cars. They have set the car wash back 95 feet and will have a 6 ft. block wall. Does not feel they have the responsibility to build a block wall pursuant to the neighbor's approval. They have given 4 ft. to increase the size of the alley so there is adequate fire traffic flow and their trash enclosure will be built into the project to control litter on site. Mr. Romero Cabrero, 1523 E. Bth St., Beaumont, addressed the commission noting he lives approx. two blocks from this project and stated there will be no litter on Highland Springs, the litter will be in front of his house. Mr. Garcia, addressed the commission again pertaining to the noise issue. He commented that the machinery is all in equipment rooms, the only thing that is exposed are the blowers that blow the cars dry at the end which has a 15 horse power motor. He commented that there is a certain amount of noise in a car wash but it is only open from 8 to 5 and that you do not sit in your car with the motor idling while waiting to get your car washed. CDD Koules noted he did identify noise as a possible concern; however, it was his feeling that a 6' wall would mitigate the noise. Mr. Crandel Goodmanson, 1543 E. Bth St., Beaumont, addressed the commission asking if the car wash is an appropriate place to be put at this location. There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience, Acting Chairperson Remy, then closed the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. PC Meeting April 4, 1989 Page 5 of putting the footings within two inches of the property line. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner Fries to approve Plot Plan 88 -PP -6 Revision #3 as proposed per staff's recommendations and findings, and that the project will conform to all conditions of approval, all issues have been mitigated including the noise level and litter and that applicant has agreed that the structure will be a frame and stucco construction. Further, that Negative Declaration 69- ND -4, be recommended for approval by City Council. Mr. Garcia, stated he wanted to clarify that the project will be concrete block, steel framing, wood frame, lath and plaster - a combination of all - will not be a metal building. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Bruner and Acting Chairperson Remy. ABSTAIN: None. As an informational item (if there is an agreement), staff is directed to report back to the commission the results of the agreement between the applicant and property owner (north) reference the block wall. 7. 88 -PP -1 and 89 -NO -5, proposed first phase consisting of 39 dwelling units of a four (4) phase apartment complex with a total of 160 units, located on the east side of Xenia Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of its intersection with 8th Street. Applicant, K -C and Associates /Chu Wann. COD Koules presented the staff report and explained that although the drawing before the commission was for the whole project, the first phase only is what is being considered. For any development to take place other than Phase 1, it has to come before the commission again as another public hearing with a plot plan and an environmental impact report. Improvements to the streets are addressed just for Phase 1 only. Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Richard Chang, 300 S. 3rd St., Alhambra, addressed the commission commenting that all street improvements will be done at this phase. He questioned Condition No. 10 (Traffic Signal Fee) with COD Koules explaining that the fee is based on the number of units. Mr. Chang then noted that he was here to answer any questions that the commission might have. Commission questioned as to what type of exterior would be ,. .. ,a ...: •ti, m_ rte___ _i_is__ _ i .._... � � _ PC Meeting April 4, 1989 Page 6 pertaining to this project next to Existing Roads - should read Xenia Street). The commission felt that the pictures and materials submitted by the applicant be made a part of the application and that no wood siding is to be used. CDC Koules noted that Condition No. 1 could be amended to the commission's satisfactory. Mr. Romero Cabrero, 1523 E. 8th St., Beaumont, addressed the commission asking if the service entrance which is 25' wide, would be used for this project's equipment when building the other phases. Mr. Chang explained the timing for the other phases depends on how they solve the sewer and drainage and that the City Engineer recommends they may consider putting another street in located at the back portion' of the project. CDD Koules noted that Mr. Dotson is working with the ownerships to get a Master Plan that will jointly solve the drainage and sewer to satisfaction. Mr. Cabrero, stated the service entrance does belong to this applicant; however, he has it in writing that certain people could use this service entrance. Mr. Victor Schiro, 3680 Danbury, Riverside, addressed the commission commenting he is in favor of the project but noting that this project's street should be 40' wide instead of 33' the same as Noble Creek. Mr. Ray Felton, 1515 E. 8th St., Beaumont, addressed the commission to clarify the block wall wanting to know if it was going to be put in with the first phase. Acting Chairperson Remy then read the City Engineer's condition pertaining to the fence for the first phase. Mrs. Felton, addressed the commission stating her concern was that of maintenance. Kathy Wang, addressed the commission stating that the project would be maintained properly and that the color of the buildings would be just as the pictures shows them to be. There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience, Acting Chairperson Remy then closed the public hearing at 9:35 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission. There was discussion by the commission pertaining to all issues, with Commissioner Schuelke asking about the temporary fence with Mr. Chang commenting that they had proposed a chain link fence with vines growing, also, they will remove the temporary fence and vines when the masonry block wall is required. PC Meeting April 4, 1989 Page 7 Condition No. 13: (Added) Appliciant shall comply with Landscape Plan Sheet No. A- 2.1 as submitted. Also, recommendation was made that Negative Declaration 89- ND-5 be approved by City Council. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Bruner and Acting Chairperson Remy. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, PC Sec teary //' I.AW OFMC'ES OF RYSKA.MP AND ROBINSON A PROF MoNAL CMPORAnON 6W PAI M AVEMSE YIVERSZnB, t;AJ,TYOQMA 925k Z344 w +Y4Y s4. MD�U • )OMMiti1, N FA.X t7w) Orb -mi T4; CHE.RRY TAYLOR FPOM: GEORGE ;YSYAMP DATE: April 4, 1989 RE: John Th0IN!s /BP.aUlont A9sociates Pages tc f011c,w: One (1) µ.nP 4'(Kl. CNFFn oy c All yy $-T bv:iuv/r'ielecQ;-i -r iU:l'_,_.ti- ;= @: ; a1P1�, ;. �}1;•G�15�Dit- 1pw C/f IS:[O T.tiLDi]> FI. TYLBP, IATR ?dER. WILUBLU be VIALDROO . r„n.lrllla. W41MA0 ft,,M 1 .vw VA.n1•..1.V'� A00 r, 0 d ..., 1.11 m• loam F. W.U. DO:n 1' XIMI .. RIVIIIA' av//t c. In1nt• Nilulft ! 4M I,a L•• L4r1,1 S. N1wNM•r• Otllfl•a V jNA)(' OM +O 0. PA 0 CwRVa N u.w.a +• t. ur.Nnu 1,t.�u •..mr.. A. At,1Asa1&v LO.. IA.IE.a 4L400vv u, r,an t « A1R1CA a lYltI MYD JWm 1. lln,.1 t lutt N. . Wr, c cr, 1120f0A0 J, ryIIQtZ. dot& A FM "Ion W N• FW1,0010 NII. V.V J Aoc.M1 0A•ACa N.M... f"111. JR. CARE C. N1'.li Ul'.IVi NtRN A, 1 AIW. A 1LA A ot. W a Wr II cC wt N. tfOLA VIA. SBLEC.OPIER +CAO roAc♦Rl1+VK ■VVt.tv.,we chtl 74w101, SWirt '000 NCWO -ORT YWCN, CAI.10of411a Milo I »•I a" 0400 George R. RysKwnp, Esq. Ryakamp L Robinson 6608 Palm Avenue Ri. +:Srside, CA 92506 April 9, 1989, Re: 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3 De1r N_:. Ryskamp: 66YSS1l+a Z -� 1 1 iy(9y A. O. solm ►OOa r.�w +L7�f atwdrl. CA OILER i. Mlttbf DIRCCT DIAL MNNN01 851 -7238 MICC MR (7l+) W 1.6* AYII 1pN ON+1 lt&tnt 40/04110 i Rt /an 10 FRA 00. 138265-002 PUI5uant to our diwcusEi.anb, the applicant? John Thcmas,Beaumont Associates) and the CSty have Ayreea to eAteTJ6 the April 29, 1989 deadline estbbl.ished by the 'City for taking action on the anove- captioned project to June 15, 1989, and to cc,nti.nue' tree publac hearing to Ray 21 1g$4, Again, this egraoment in no way prejudices the applicant's positicn tARCt the &bove- captioned project was approved as a matter of law pric.t t6 the September 61 1988 Planning Commission nteet.:,ng parsuAnr t•p the pz0vic5.onc of the Permit StraWnlining Act, Or th•D City's position to the coAtrary. pleaee Call rf:e if you have any eg GNW j 0 .m cc; Mr. Jobrl Thomas my your ,N. W t E OFFICERS ALBERT HASKELt- MAYOR J. C WARD. Cm' MANAORR MAE S. OOULARTE. CITY CLERK ALLIE HARORAVE OBARR. Cm TREAOURUI NICKS S HAR7WICK. ENOINELRO 47 E. OLIVE. IRDLANDO. CALIF. DAVID N. M. BERK, CITY ATTORNEY 074 SEAUMONT AVENUE 04UMONT, CALIFORNIA 01 Francis Dowling, Jr. 28021 Highway 60 Beaumont, California 92223 Dear Hr. Dowling: July 17,1973 CITY COUNCIL N T ALBERT HASKELL SALVADOR D. VALDIVIA HOWARD R. HIGHTOWER WALTER L. RODEMAN RALPH S. MASON TELEPHONE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, AREA CODE (714) 045.1171 SUBJECT: Permission to cross upon your property located at 38021 Highway 601, 417- 020 -001, 57.02 acres County of Riverside. Whereas you, Francis Dowling, owner of the property located at 38021 Highway 60, County of Riverside, grant the City of Beaumont permission to cross upon the extreme south -west portion of your property, in the event that all other cross- ings are closed leading to the south end of the City of Beaumont due to the blockage of crossings by the railroad. In return for the privilege of allowing the City of Beaumont to cross upon your property, it shall be the City's obligation to keep the road located on the south -west portion of your property graded and in driveable condition at all times. In the event that either party requests to dissolve this agreement, a letter shall be given to the other party, and the agreement at that time shall be void. r �. i Nancy S. Robbrts Attorney at Law 53174 Loyd Avenue Oakland. Ca. 9R 4618 14151652-9315 Mire Moulis Coussalis Realty Co. 108 Orange Street Suite u 5 Redlands, Cd, 91373 Dear Mr, Moulis: 23 May 1986 I upologi;Le for my lung delay in following up on our telephone conversation of April S, 1986. As I explained to you in that conversion, my mother, Margaret P. Roberts, is the owner of a ten acre parcel in the south -west corner of Beaumont, California. Her residence is located ou the parcel, which was uriginally port of an eighty acre ranch. It is my understanding that the remaining seventy acres of the undeveloped ranch land is now owned by Mr. Nick Coussalis. That seventy acres surrounds Mrs. Roberts' property on the south and west sides and cuts her property off from the nearest developed street to the south, Fourth Street. To the east of Mes. Roberts' and Mr. Coussalis's properties lies another, lower parcel let one time but no longer also owned by Mr. Coussalis) which cuts both their properties off from the nearest developed streets to the east, Minnesota and Viele Streets, There are no other accessible roads to the west or north. For the past twenty- seven years my family has used as access an unimproved dirt road extending accross the lower parcel, up the 1.111 from 1 Viele Street. Although from time to time Mrs. Roberts had verbal permission from the various owners to cross, she has no verbal easement from the current owner nor any written easement of any type. The express, written easement which my utother retained when she sold the seventy acres Mr. Coussalis now owns applies to that seventy acres. The Jeed to that property states: Present Access road being used by Grantor over within described property may be replac- ed with better access road by grantee at some future time, as agreed between said parties. M: s. ;WDerts txplalns that this odd wording is due to the fact that at the tune of the sale (and many other times, in the intervening years] there were plans for development of the seventy acre parcel, all of which included the development of a proposed 60 foot "B" Street between the seventy acres and her ten acres. [Express grants of this and other, utilities, easements also appear in the deed.] It was understood that when this occurred Mrs. Roberts' driven: ay would be moved to hook up with "B" Street, so that the developers would not necessarily have to build her a road all the way through to Fourth Street. Obviously a lot of time has passed and none of the proposed developments has yet become a reality. We are bringing the matter to your attention at the present time for two reasons. First, the current owners of the lower parcel presently have a development plan on file with the Beaumont Planning Commission whicb would eliminate the dirt road now used by Mrs. Roberts and cut off her present access. Secondly, and more importantly, the "floating" nature of the easement Mrs. Roberts' retains haj made it difficult for her to market her property; at least one title search described it as landlocked. While not legally accurate this was enough to squelch a sale. Mrs. Roberts would like to be free to dispose of her property. 2'J When I spoke with you on the telephone 1 told you that Mrs. Roberts thought the matter could be resolved by an express easement dependent on the development of the proposed "B" Street as part of the lower parcel development. However, it now appears that that development too may never materialize. Therefore, it now seems that the best alternative is express access through to Fourth Street along the eastern border of Mr. Coussalis' property [which I think you had mentioned]. Mrs. Roberts is willing to discuss any reasonable alternative. As I told you my mother is more knowledgable about this matter than I and you may feel free to call either of us if you have questions. [Her telephone nuulber is [7141845-4928.1 We would appreciate a response In the near future. Many thanks for your attention to this matter. cc. Margaret P. RubcrLs 3 Yours truly, Nancy S. Roberts N N .I.ly Q •' G,q E • N �f = 5 4. STA r£ HIGHWAY --------- --------� ` - - - • O 57 01 Ac. f i / to 4 !! •I H L w w 0 PU AC,! S1Ar£ HIGHWAY i ?2.75 s�a•�, PU ._ �o3.08Ae.t 2.26 Ac!* rRA 070 - 00/ Q --= --- -=-= --= - =-ia -- ----------- rHA 00? .0 00 I /0.00 Ac. N Ot /6 61. 46AC.•{' 0 %55Ac.t O m .h h 4 4 4 !h S!rea! c/rr t.Ay, rs rRA056.0o4A'92•' NI J'4,501 /ri O tt/.ss I . ;96.11 ,• 1 Sir � 4 " 6 rC.. ` " t• -° / N"j 40 �7 /3.64 Ac N (3%601 ys'e twos' .;jt•` Z I: Naf'a'1$_e'.., °7�lGP� -Ni / (39.701 y Yr 4115; C .,BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 2, 1989 The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, may 2, 1969, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7:01 P.M. Affidavit of Posting was read. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 4, 1989, were approved with the following corrections: Page 5, Item 6: On Roll Call "Absent" should read, "Commissioner Bruner and Chairperson Burton ". Page 7, Item 7: On Roll Call "Absent" should read, "Commissioner Bruner and Chairperson Burton" and "Abstain" should read "None ". 2. Oral Communication: 3. Director's Report: COD Koules noted that at the City Council Meeting of April 24, 1989, Adams Billboard Variance was continued to the City Council Meeting of May 6, 1969. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 4. 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. COD Koules addressed the commission noting this item was continued from the last meeting at the request of the attorney for the applicant. Also, Mr. Ryskamp informed him (Koules) that neither the applicant nor his attorney would be at this meeting and did not wish to request a continuance. Attorney Ryskamp explained he contacted Mr. Weiler shortly after 5:00 p.m. and Mr. Weiler stated he had just spoke with Mr.Thomas and the sale they were contemplating was not at this time taking place - they did not wish to appear and did not wish to request a continuance. Mr. Ryskamp noted that this - Minutes of PC Meeting May 2, 1989 Page 2 Attorney Ryskamp briefly outlined for the commission the events that took place in 1988 on this project, noting that he would recommend moving forward, the commission make findings relative to the effort of the City complying as well as the deficiencies that have been observed in the project, specifically relative to the fact there has been no EIR prepared and the requirements of CEQA have not been met. Chairperson Burton then ask if there were any proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. There being none, she closed the public hearing at 7:13 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. The commission felt Mr. Thomas had been given every opportunity to work with the City and had not responded nor participated in meetings that would be beneficial to his project. On motion by Commissioner Bruner to deny this project (87 -DP -1 and 87- TM -3); seconded by Commissioner Fries. The findings for denial was as follows: 1. Deficiencies in the development plan; 2. No EIR prepared - not meeting any requirements of CEQA; 3. No clear -cut access off of Highway 60; 4. No interest in attending meetings pertaining to the new sewer plant; and S. Staff has made every effort since early 1988 to help and assist Mr. Thomas. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy, Fries and Chavirperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PUBLIC HEARING: 6. 89-TM-2, 89 -V -3 and 89 -NO -6, for a proposed subdivision project consisting of 24 single family lots, located on the west side of Elm Avenue, between 10th and 11th Streets, and a variance request for a reduction of required minimum lot depth of 100 ft. to 95.4 ft. on Lot 6. Applicant, Kenneth Cokeley. CDC Koules presented the staff report noting that on April 27, 1989, a letter was received from the County of Riverside, Department of Health stating certain requirements and these requirements should be added as Condition No. 11 in the Conditions of Approval. He noted that the applicant had requested a Vesting Tentative Map; however, the City of Beaumont does not have a Vesting Ordinance but is presently in the process of preparing one. The applicant has agreed to work with staff in supplying additional information that is customarily required of vesting map proposals. Also, applicant can be conditioned to provide a ten (10) foot side yard requirement for each lot. Staff's recommendation is to nranf tho Ilo rinnro fnr +ho i_. � __ i _. c Minutes of PC meeting May 2, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Jim Unland, 41640 Florida Avenue, Hemet, with James W. Unland & Associates, Civil Engineers, addressed the commission commenting they agree with the findings and explained the drainage easement. He noted that since there is an existing easement that goes through the center of this project, the City Engineer has requested they pick up the sewer line just north of Lot 24 and take it to Olive Avenue along the southerly boundary of Lot 17. He noted that the Lot to the north of this tract (northeast corner) drains to the rear or to the west of the property and the drainage needs to be picked up from this property as well. Lots 23 and 24 collects the drainage at the back and takes it out through the drainage easement on the south side of Lot 17. Since there is not much water being collected, a 10' easement is sufficient. fir. Unland then went to the map pointing out to the commission the way the drainage is proposed. He noted there was a catch basin at the south end on the south boundary and it takes the drainage west out to the open channel that carries it on out to 8th Street. Mr. Unland noted that the house on Lot 15 as shown on the map, should be reversed and will have the proper yard setback. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. COD Koules commented that the plan could be revised to meet the requirements of having a 10' side yard for each of the lots. Apparently, it would not cause a hardship in changing the housing type with Commissioner Bruner asking if it would basically be "the same type of house? Mr. Unland answered "yes it would be" has several plans which are designed to fit narrow lots as well as wider lots. Mr. Unland noted they had already submitted a Hydrology Report for fir. Dotson's review. Mr. Dotson provided them with the Grading Plan, Street Improvement Plans, and the Storm Drain Plan and these were used in the submittal of their report. He stated they had been conditioned to put a retaining wall along the south and west boundaries which would be some kind of concrete block wall and a 6' high fence on every lot. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke recommending approval by City Council of Tentative (Vesting #23570), map 69-TM-2, on condition that this project comply with the side yard setback requirements and that the configuration of the unit on Lot 15 as shown over the easement be adjusted, and subject to the amended Conditions of Approval to read as follows: Condition No. 11: (Added) Applicant to comply with the County of Riverside, Department of Health's letter dated April 19, 1989 (see attached). minutes of PC meeting May 2, 1989 Page 4 SCHEDULED MATTER: S. Reconsideration of Mr. Dowling's request heard at the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1989, pertaining to access to his property, which required placement on the agenda prior to the Planning Commission taking their vote of April 4th. This item was placed on the agenda for reconsideration since action was taken by the Commission from the floor at their meeting of April 4, 1989 and as Attorney Ryskamp explained, it must be placed on the agenda in order for action to be taken. It was agreed that this issue is a civil matter to be resolved between property owners. Mr. Dowling was so advised, and no action was taken by the Planning Commission. There being no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, PC Sec tary� BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 1989 The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 1989, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 P.M. Affidavit of Posting was read. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner Remy arrived shortly thereafter. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 2, 1989, were approved as submitted. 2. Oral Communication: None. 3. Director's Report: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. 89 -PP -2, Amendment 11, and 89 -ND -7, a proposal to construct approximately 32,827 sq. ft. of mini - warehousing facilities (mini- storage) on 1.55 acres, located on the east side of Allegheny A enue about 300 feet north of its intersection with SixtK Street. Applicant, Vincent Denise. COD Koules presented the staff report explaining that the City's zoning ordinance does not address mini - warehousing in its parking requirements; consequently, he used the City of Banning's parking requirement pertaining to this project. Also, he noted that the applicant informed him verbally that he would like a continuance. COO Koules noted that he was informed by the City Engineer there would be no negotiations on the conditions. Further, CDD Koules had written the conditions very stringent to assure that there would be only one use - expressly permitted to be built for mini - storage. Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:09 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Vincent Denise, 10570 Jonathan, Cherry Valley, addressed the commission commenting he was asking for a continuance since he had not had an opportunity to address the conditions of approval with his engineer - would like to come back in a month. There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience, Chairperson Burton closed the public hearino at 7:1n n_m_ PC Meeting of June 6, 1989 Page 2 Chairperson Burton then re- opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. and continued this project to Wednesday, July 5, 1989. 5. 88 -PP -2, Amendment /4, 89 -V -4 and 89 -ND -89 a proposal to construct a 2,000 sq. ft. restaurant (to replace existing restaurant) and a 2,800 sq. ft. retail commercial building on 0.64 acres, located at the northwest corner of Sixth Street on Palm Avenue, and a Variance request to reduce the required side street setback from 25 ft, to 15 ft. and a Variance request to reduce the drive -thru stacking lane requirements from 200 feet to approximately 140 feet. Applicant, Gus and Frances Poulopoulos. CDD Koules presented the staff report informing the commission that the plans submitted have been incorrectly drawn and the most recent plan does not show the proper alignment of where the curb would be and the width of Palm. There is a question of the required setback along Palm Avenue and the need of a variance on the side street setback from 25 ft. to 15 ft. to accommodate the parking proposed in that area. Also, the applicant has been looking at the Christante project across the street on the south side of Sixth on Palm. Physically on the ground Christante shows a sidewalk of 5' and then 10' of landscaping, with the parking within the side street setback. There was no variance request granted on the Christante's project and if the City is going to allow the same type of relief as Christante, then this project should request a reduction from 25' to 51. CDD Koules feels it is fair to the applicant to get a sense of direction from the commission as what their feelings are. Further, this project has to be continued because it was advertised asking for a variance Vrequest from 25 ft. to 15 ft. Mr. Jim Dotson, City Engineer, addressed the commission stating that this plan in effect is showing zero setback. Christante's project across the street has at least 5 feet setback and that should the Planning Director recommend 5' to be consistent with what is across the street, then there are problems the applicant will have to work out since there will not be enough parking. Further, diagonally parking is a common practice and a car 20' long can park in a 18' diagonal parking space. Chairperson Burton noted from Title 17 that "each required off - street parking space consist of a minimum rectangular area of 9' by 20' long." CDD Koules commented that he would like to have some direction from the commission as to what they could support in terms of a side street setback variance for parking and he then noted that just because Christante was inadvertently allowed a setback reduction from 25' down to 51, does not mean this project should not have to meet the required setback of 251. After discussion, it was the concensus of the commission that 4,.e It-,; .1 km 1SI -eLi. -_G -- 4-k- . - {.1.. ..F 0.,7..E PC Meeting June 6, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Poulopoulos, then commented that he felt this was discriminatory. Chairperson Burton again noted that Christante's project was an oversight and informed Mr. Poulopoulos that this matter had to be continued to July 5, 1989. 6. Discussion of City Riding Trail Proposal and Concept Approval. COD Koules explained the riding trail proposal asking for input from the commission and if they would like to pursue the idea of having a riding trail encircle the City. He felt it would be beneficial to the City to have a riding trail and explained that the City is in a very unique position in that developers of large acreage size are willing to negotiate with the City within reason, a portion of land for a riding trail. Mr. Koules noted that the City of Beaumont should dictate what takes place within the lands that will be a part of the City of Beaumont. Mr. Jim Dotson, then explained the easements from Southern California Edison that could be utilized for this trail. Mr. Brian Ross, General Manager, Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park Dist, addressed the commission commenting that for the past couple of years the County has had a Regional Trails Task Force working with a number of groups throughout the County including local agencies for this type of a project and it is his (Ross') feeling that it should be an overall cohesive development for the trail - doesn't feel that anyone agency can do this kind of thing alone. Further, there are a number of questions that are being addressed in terms of how will these trails be dedicated and who is going to maintain ythem, etc. The American President's Commission on America's Outdoors has tried to link up trails and green belts and perhaps one of the things that is the most familiar is the Santa Ana River situation where there is talk of extending it through this area. Mr. Ross noted their principal function is to gain information concerning this endeavor and to participate in developing this project - does not feel that a strictly City effort is the best way to go. Mr. S. Cullen - Carroll, Recreation Superintendent for the Recreation and Park District, addressed the commission stating this is not a local issue but a regional issue - does not feel it should only be a horse trail. COD Koules commented that the City is working on a different time frame and is now being pressured for new developments and the need is to get something going. Willow Creek has expressed their willingness to dedicate a primary riding trail through their property and now is the time to come up with a concept that would relate this offer to a larger picture in order to meet the City's needs. The Planning Commission unanimously endorsed staff's concept proposal for a riding trail along the perimeter of the City and it was their concensus that the Citv move fnriaarrl in BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 5, 1989 The Planning Commission met in a Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, July 5, 1989, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M. Affidavit of Posting was read. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner Schuelke arrived shortly thereafter. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 6, 1989, were approved as submitted. 2. Oral Communication: None. 3. Director's Report: COD Koules reported that the City Council at their meeting of June 12, 1989, approved the concept plan for the riding trail. He also distributed Request Forms to the Planning Commission, as well as a letter from the Park and Recreation Dist. dated July 5, 1989 (Item #6) and a letter from the School Dist. dated June 19, 1989 (Item #6). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. 89 -PP -2, Amendment #1, and 89 -ND -7, a proposal to construct approximately 32,827 sq. ft. of mini - warehousing facilities (mini storage) on 1.55 acres, located on the east side of Allegheny Avenue about 300 feet north of its intersection with Sixth Street. Applicant, Vincent Danise. COD Koules noted that this item was continued from the hearing of June 6th at the request of the applicant to study the conditions of approval. Mr. Koules wanted it noted that this property was rezoned to commercial general to comply with the general plan which shows it as commercial which was done several months ago. A layout was worked out utilizing the same parking requirements that the City of Banning utilizes and staff's recommendation is to approve the project with the conditions of approval. Mr. Vincent Danise, 10570 Jonathan, Cherry Valley, addressed the commission noting he was willing to accept the conditions as written. There being no opponents wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the continued public hearing at 7:10 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. PC Meeting of July 5, 1989 Page 2 In response to Commissioner Schuelke's question regarding improvement of the adjacent alley, Mr. Dotson noted that if the carwash delays and Danise goes ahead, the applicant will have to improve the alley to the end of his property, plus he has to go back to the back of Kragen Auto Parts (showing exit for all the runoff which will be heavy). If the carwash comes in before Danise, their requirement is to construct the alley back to Denise's part. COD Koules noted that there is no special setback requirement due to the residential area to the north. On motion by Commissioner Bruner to approve 89 -PP -2, Amendment #1 and 89 -ND -7, a request to construct approximately 32,827 sq. ft. of mini - warehousing facilities (mini storage) on 1.55 acres, located on the east side of Allegheny Avenue about 300 ft. north of the intersection of 6th Street per staff's findings that the proposal conforms to the development standards of the C -G Commercial General Zone. The recommended conditions of approval will mitigate the impact of the project on surrounding land uses and assure a quality project; seconded by Commissioner Remy. motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, and Remy. NOES: Chairperson Burton. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. 88 -PP -2, Amendment #5 and 89 -ND -8, a proposal to construct a 2,000 sq. ft. restaurant (to replace existing restaurant) and a 2,080 sq. ft. retail commercial building on 0.64 acres, located at 'the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Palm Avenue. Applicant, Gus and Frances Poulopoulos. Mr. Gus Poulopoulos, 6214 N. Loma Street, Temple City, addressed the commission commenting that he was not asking for a variance or anything. Chairperson Burton then asked if there were any opponents wishing to speak against this project. There being none, she then closed the public hearing at 7:25 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. COD Koules noted there should be a staff report and commented that the revised plot plan meets all of the setbacks and all of the parking requirements. The need for the variances advertised are no longer valid since the applicant has complied with all the requirements as per our ordinance. Commissioner Schuelke questioned the stacking lane with COD Koules noting that it was advertised for a reduction from 200 ft. to 140 ft.; however, the applicant chose not to utilize the variance request. He also noted that the parking spaces for the commercial building does not back up into the stacking lane. He further noted, that there would be 20 parking spaces for the restaurant and 10 for the commercial building. Also PC Meeting of July 5, 1989 Page 3 Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Remy. NOES: Chairperson Burton. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PUBLIC HEARING: 6. 89 -TM -6 (Tr. 23646) and 89 -ND -9, for a proposed subdivision project consisting of 51 single family lots, located on the north side of Cougar Way about 1,800 ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Aware Development. CDD Koules explained that this project was originally submitted for a 50 single family lots on a 13.3 acre portion of a 40 acre parcel; however, the State Subdivision map Act does not allow for the partial subdivision of an existing legal lot. Consequently, the applicant revised the original map proposal in order to include the whole 40 acre parcel within the boundaries of the tentative map, thereby creating Lot 51 as a remainder parcel. The applicant and his representative have been notified that any further subdivision of Lot 51 would require the final recordation of the map now under consideration prior to any application being accepted for further subdivision of Lot 51. The conditions of approval have to all be met before the map can be recorded. Chairperson Burton then asked if Palm, Agnes, Alexe, etc., will eventually flow into this project with City Engineer Mr. Dotson answering "yes ". City Engineer Dotson noted that there is a plan which encompasses everything between Beaumont Avenue, Cougar, and Brookside which was done primarily because of the channel which will go through and because of Palm Avenue - there is a comprehensive plan of the whole area. He further noted that he had recommended the applicant come back with a concept plan like the commission reviewed on Palm south of Cougar Way. Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:44 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Dennis Farnsworth with JDR Corporation, Engineer for this project, addressed the commission stating he feels they have a very nice layout. Mr. Farnsworth noted there were only three conditions which he would like to slightly chan a if possible which were 4.06 and 1 and 2 under Section 5 Page 9). He wanted 4.06 changed to read "to guarantee a minimum of 15 or 201 useable rear yard space" and explained that in some cases only 3' high retaining wall would be needed to guarantee a useable back yard rather than a 5 or 6' retaining wall with City Engineer Dotson acknowledging he would go along with this. Mr. Farnsworth then questioned 1 and 2 under Section 5 wanting to know if he could start his grading operation while PC Meeting of July 5, 1989 Page 4 Mr. Farnsworth noted that the Planning Commission, City Council and staff would get a complete new approval on Lot 51. They had already signed an agreement between the developers of the Devcorp project and their project showing where the money will be coming from in building their portion of the channel. Ms. Barbara Voigt, 38537 Orchard St., Cherry Valley, addressed the commission asking that the letter that was submitted by the School District be read into the record and also how the developer is responding to it. Chairperson Burton then read the letter from the School District dated June 19, 1989 for the record (see attached). Mr. Farnsworth commented that the fee mentioned in the letter is to help provide for new schools and classrooms with CDD Koules noting that this was also included in the conditions of approval which has been a standard condition. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:14 P.m., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. There was discussion pertaining to this project with Mr. Dotson noting that the commission can approve this Tract subject to whatever the council accepts in the agreement. Mr. Farnsworth noted that it is going to take the City Attorney, the developer and their attorney, City manager and City Engineer about 4 months to resolve what this agreement is really goving to be - quite a long process. Mr. Dotson again noted that every Tract in this whole zone including those down stream all the way to 14th Street will be effected by the agreement. On motion by Commissioner Remy to approve Tract map 89 -TM -6 (Tr. 23646) and 89 -ND -6, for a proposed subdivision project consisting of 51 single family lots, located on the north side of Cougar Way about 1,800 ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval with an amendment on 4.06 of the City Engineer's Conditions to read as follows: Along the rear of Lots 32 -39 inclusive, retaining walls along property lines shall be utilized in lieu of slopes to guarantee a minimum of 20' useable rear yard spaces. Seconded by Commissioner Fries. motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Bruner, Fries and Remy. NOES: Commissioner Schuelke and Chairperson Burton. ABSENT: None. nasrnrN- Kl„�. June 19, 1989 Mr. Stephen Koules Director, Community Development City of Beaumont P.O. Box 158 Beaumont, CA 92223 RE: Case #89 —TM -6 Dear Mr. Koules: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to case #89 —TM -6. As described in the Project Review Transmittal Form this project proposes a 50 S.F. Subdivision. It has been the past practice of our District to provide your agency with infor- mation on the effects of proposed projects in terms of identifying the number of students for who we would be expected to provide adequate school facilities. Since the draft does not presently contain commentary related to schools, we would like to suggest that the following concerns and /or comments be considered for inclusion in the final EIR. The project will be served by the Beaumont Unified School District. While the District is at capacity it has been its practice to accommodate increased enrollments through the acquisition of temporary classrooms located on its existing six (6) campuses. Depending upon the phasing and completion dwelling units in this project, the District may no longer be able to accommodate growth in this manner. The reason for this is that not only are the existing classrooms at capacity but the campuses themselves are close to capacity. Although there remains sufficient area for the placement of relocatable classrooms at some campuses, it is no longer possible for the District to ensure that there will be available classrooms to house the students coming from this project. We are concerned that this project will increase traffic on both Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue. The location of the proposed E St. and a new portion of Palm St. may necessitate the redesigning of the H.S. student parking lot, review of pedestrian flow, and review of traffic flow in consideration of present location of Transportation and Maintenance Facilities. �/ hDVt BOARD OF TRUSTEES 1 JOHN WOOD DANIEL CLJNE 1 Dbbid D ROBERT N DR JERiLYNN KAIBEL �i ti Mt4uu Supwwwad m of Budneu WUJ ARD LOVE "01 DR. WILLIAM STRATTON RONALD PARTAIN ,� O ASSWIM SupwfirW idat of BENJAMIN UPTON /.] Curckulum/Iu Vt OT URKE DR MAROOTB B DSaffDvaSpp t Ed./ June 19, 1989 Mr. Stephen Koules Director, Community Development City of Beaumont P.O. Box 158 Beaumont, CA 92223 RE: Case #89 —TM -6 Dear Mr. Koules: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to case #89 —TM -6. As described in the Project Review Transmittal Form this project proposes a 50 S.F. Subdivision. It has been the past practice of our District to provide your agency with infor- mation on the effects of proposed projects in terms of identifying the number of students for who we would be expected to provide adequate school facilities. Since the draft does not presently contain commentary related to schools, we would like to suggest that the following concerns and /or comments be considered for inclusion in the final EIR. The project will be served by the Beaumont Unified School District. While the District is at capacity it has been its practice to accommodate increased enrollments through the acquisition of temporary classrooms located on its existing six (6) campuses. Depending upon the phasing and completion dwelling units in this project, the District may no longer be able to accommodate growth in this manner. The reason for this is that not only are the existing classrooms at capacity but the campuses themselves are close to capacity. Although there remains sufficient area for the placement of relocatable classrooms at some campuses, it is no longer possible for the District to ensure that there will be available classrooms to house the students coming from this project. We are concerned that this project will increase traffic on both Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue. The location of the proposed E St. and a new portion of Palm St. may necessitate the redesigning of the H.S. student parking lot, review of pedestrian flow, and review of traffic flow in consideration of present location of Transportation and Maintenance Facilities. �/ v Page 2 In addition the Beaumont Unified School District Resolution #87 -17 levies a fee against all new construction within the District's boundaries pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080. The fee is currently $1.56 per square foot for residential construction and 261 per square foot for commercial /industrial construction. New construction includes habitable areas only. Square foot for remodels and additions includes only additional habitable area. Please keep us informed on how our concerns will be addressed by both the Beaumont Planning Department and the project. Sincerely, x "" G Y Robert T. Guil n Assistant Superintendent of Business RTG /em n: v Page 2 In addition the Beaumont Unified School District Resolution #87 -17 levies a fee against all new construction within the District's boundaries pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080. The fee is currently $1.56 per square foot for residential construction and 261 per square foot for commercial /industrial construction. New construction includes habitable areas only. Square foot for remodels and additions includes only additional habitable area. Please keep us informed on how our concerns will be addressed by both the Beaumont Planning Department and the project. Sincerely, x "" G Y Robert T. Guil n Assistant Superintendent of Business RTG /em _._......._ DeaumcnteCIM Noble Creek Community Center 38800 Fourteenth Street July 5, 1989 Mr. Steppher. Koules Planning Director City of Beaumont 550 E. Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 P.O. Box 490 Beaumont Calif. 88883 (714) 845 -9668 gD���WED JUL 0 5 1989 CITY OF BEAUMONT PLANNING DEPT. Re: Proposed subdivision project consisting of 50 single family lots, located on the north side of Cougar way about 1800 feet east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue. Applicant: Aware Development (89 -TM -6, TR. 23646) (89 -ND -9) Dear Mr. Koules: The purpose of this letter is to comment on and call to your attention severe and significant environmental implications of the referencE�d project which have not been previously considered, and to request that a full Environmental Impact Report be prepared pursuant to the City of Beaumont's Rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act. The Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District objects to considera'_.'on of a 'degative Declaration being associated with this project until sufficient measures are incorporated to mitigate the adverse impacts which the referenced project will have upon the Recreation and Park District's provision of high quality recreational activities to the children and adults of the Beaumont community. The proposed project will of course result in physical changes in the env_ronmert including, but not limited to, the reduction of the amount of land available for the development of park sites. The cicniiicant number of residents which will inhabit the 50 resid -:tial units will necessitate expanding the Recreation and Parr. District's already over - extended facilities. At least one Aware Development 7/5/69 Page 2 public agency, the County of Riverside, has responded to the strains placed upon recreation and park districts by increased development, by establishing a "Quimby" -type ordinance to mitigate the adverse impacts resulting from new development. For the reasons stated herein, the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District believes that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the City of Beaumont should either continue its consideration of the proposed Negative Declaration until adequate mitigation measures are incorporated, or require an EIR to be prepared for the project pursuant to Section 15065 of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code which requires a lead agency find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared where the project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. As part of that environmental impact report process, the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District of course stands ready and willing to discuss its own concerns with respect to the provision of recreation facilities within the referenced project and the impacts the said project will have upon the Beaumont community. Very truly yours, /eLt -n-fLM LAC - % Ld�J,�Q/ Brian A. Ross General Manager Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District BAR /br rr BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 1989 G� The Planning Commission met in a Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, August 15, 1989, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7 :00 P.M. Affidavit of Posting was read. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner Remy arrived shortly thereafter. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, July 5, 1989, were approved as submitted. 2. Oral Communication: Mr. Jack Chamberlain, 1334 Michigan, Beaumont, addressed the commission stating he opposed the sewer main being placed in the street on Michigan and further, stressed his concern as to whether the rear of his property had an alley or an easement. After discussion with the commission and the City Engineer explaining the reason for the sewer placement on Michigan, this item was placed on the agenda for discussion at the Meeting of September 19, 1989. 3. Director's Report: Community Development Director, Stephen Koules, introduced Mr. Douglas Fazekas, Assistant Planner to the Commission noting that Mr. Fazekas was hired by the City May 12, 1989. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. 89 -TM -1, (Tract 24273) and 89- ND -10, for a proposed subdivision of 7.72 acres, consisting of thirty -six (36) single family lots, located at the southeast corner of 14th Street and Michigan Avenue. Applicant, Seam Properties, Inc. COD Koules presented the staff report noting that the project is designed to prevent direct traffic onto 14th Street and meets the minimum lot size of 6000 s.f, for the zone. Staff has recommended a 61 high wall along 14th Street and applicant has agreed to this. A wall with the proper landscaping in front would serve as an attractive buffer - these would be the rear yards of lots backing up to 14th Street. Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7 :09 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. PC Minutes August 15, 1989 Page 2 There being no opponents wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7 :15 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. There was lengthly discussion by the commission with Mr. Dotson explaining the sewer main as well as the one he would like to see abandoned. He further commented there would be no vehicular access into the back yards, the only access being for Edison Company and the City of Beaumont. Also, there would be no dedicated alleyway, only an easement for sewer and power lines. Chairperson Burton re- opened the public hearing at 7:26 P.M. in order for Mr. Chamberlain to speak. Mr. Jack Chamberlain, 1334 Michigan Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the commission speaking as an opponent to the location of the sewer main. Chairperson Burton then closed the re- opened public hearing at 7 :34 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. City Engineer Dotson commented that due to the expense to the City, it was his preference that every back yard sewer be removed and this was the reason in his conditions that he asked for a stub so that in the future the sewer main can be placed in the streets. Mr. Dotson also identified 14th Street as an alternate east /west corridor in order to keep I -10 from being jammed in the event of an emergency. Mr. Dotson also explained the setbacks from 14th Street for this project commenting that beginning at the centerline over 38' you are at the curb face, then over 6 more feet you're at 44', then over 11 more feet you're at the face of the block wall and between the back of the sidewalk and the face of the blockwall will be 11 feet of dirt which will be planted. The developer will bear the expense and will then submit to a 1972 Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance Act. It is the intent to get a decorative block wall and then landscaping in front of it of a width of 6' on Michigan and a width of 11' on 14th Street and a 6' wide sidewalk. Commissioner Schuelke asked about bikeways with COD Koules noting it should be looked at in a comprehensive way. On motion by Commissioner Bruner recommending approval by City Council of 89 -TM -1 and 89- ND -10, subject to the amended conditions of approval for a proposed thirty -six (35) lot single family subdivision, located at the southeast corner of 14th Street and Michigan Avenue with the change of 4.03 of the City Engineer's Conditions to show "if needed" and the addition of Condition No. 10 to read "Landscaping Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission "; seconded by Commissioner Fries. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: PC Minutes August 15, 1989 Page 3 COD Koules presented the staff report noting that most of the lots range from 6000 to 7000 sq. ft. in size. Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:06 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Dick Garcia, 563 Acosta Drive, Banning, addressed the commission noting they were happy to accept all the conditions as proposed by the Planning Department, also his new address is 3559 West Ramsey, Suite C -6, Banning. Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8 :10 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. City Engineer Dotson, noted that the curb on this project from centerline of 14th Street will be 381. Along Pennsylvania the right of way stays at 40' width on the half side. Also, between the sidewalk edge and right of way should be 11 feet. Cherry Avenue will be 100 feet plus. He noted that the written conditions supercedes the map with CDD Koules noting that the motion could be approved as per amended corrections. Jim Dotson then asked for a correction under 4.04 (d) on his conditions to read "Lot 21 not Lot 2211. On motion by Commissioner Fries recommending approval by City Council of 89 -TM -4 (Tract 24621) and 89- ND -11, subject to the amended conditions of approval for a proposed subdivision of 7.95 acres, consisting of thirty -five (35) single family lots, located at the southeast corner of 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue as corrected, and that the Landscaping Plan come before the commission for review and approval with 4.03 of the City Engineer's Conditions to be corrected to read "if needed "; seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Fries and Remy. NOES: Commissioner Schuelke and Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 6. 89 -PM -1 (PM 24806) and 89- ND -12, for a proposed subdivision project of 1.26 acres consisting of four (4) single family lots, located at 1215 Pennsylvania Avenue. Applicant, Don Higdon. COD Koules presented the staff report noting that this project is to be split into 4 lots with each lot averaging in size from 10,692 sq. ft. to almost 15,000 sq. ft. Staff's recommendation is that of approval. Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:24 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Tom Isgro, 1241 Pennsylvania PC Minutes August 15, 1989 Page 4 Chairperson Burton explained to ms. Chaffin that at this time there are no houses being built - just splitting the property into 4 lots. Also the applicant will be dedicating 30 feet of roadway if and when the parcels develop. COO Koules noted that when this tentative map records as a final map, building permits can then be pulled. City Engineer Dotson noted that he is asking for 30 feet of dedication and an additional 20 feet for an easement. Also, contrary to constructing the half cul -de -sac as shown, it is now recommended that they construct a full 40 foot width roadway. Mr. Howard Clasen, 1160 E. 12th Street, Beaumont, addressed the commission noting that the cul -de -sac floods when there is a heavy rain. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8 :41 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. City Engineer Dotson noted that under Section 2, 2.01 addresses the run -off coming from Parcels 2 and 4; 2.02 addresses the run -off coming from Parcel 3; 2.03 addresses the run -off coming from Parcel 1. He explained that the effect of all this is to split the drainage so that it does not concentrate at a single point. On motion by Commissioner Fries recommending approval by City Council of 8 -PM-1 (Parcel map 24806) and 89- NO -12, subject to the conditio s of approval for a proposed subdivision project of 1.26 acres consisting of four (4) single family lots, located at 1215 Pennsylvania Avenue; seconded by Commissioner Bruner. motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson 'finny. Bkvton NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Commission recessed at 8:47 P.m., reconvened at 8:59 P.M. 7. 80- CUP -6 /Swap meet. Review of Conditions of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 80 -CUP -6 as approved by the Planning Commission on July 2, 1985, for swap meet property, located at 1501 East Sixth Street. Applicant, Richard & Johnny Jacquet. COD Koules informed the commission that Mr. Fazekas would be presenting the staff report for this project and that also this afternoon the applicant brought in a revised plot plan showing the spaces more accurately. PC Minutes August 15, 1989 Page 5 Chairperson Burton noted that in 1985 there was a total of 94 vendor spaces on one parcel and no approval for the second parcel. Now there is a total of 141 vendor spaces on both parcels. She then asked Mr. Jacquet if they ever split a space with Mr. Jacquet stating "yes we do, but had never exceeded the maximum of 150" and splitting a space is done primarily when the vendor has driven a long way to set up at the swap met. Mr. George Salata, 5399 -A Via Carisso, Leisure World, Luguna Hills, addressed the commission commenting that the owners as well as himself were very impressed with the swap meet and the orderliness of it. Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 9:17 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. There was much discussion pertaining to this project with Chairperson Burton noting that possibly Johnny Jacquet should make a new application. Commissioner Schuelke questioned the traffic problem coming out of the swap meet as well as people crossing 6th Street with Assistant Planner Fazekas noting that a traffic study would need to be done to find out the feasibility of crosswalks. Mr. Fazekas commented that the applicant has spoken with the property owner on the west side of Xenia and they (applicant) will post "no parking" signs. After discussion, Chairperson Burton re- opened this public hearing at 9:30 P.M. and continued the matter to the meeting of SeptemberY19, 1989, in order for the applicant to have time to bring the swap meet into compliance with the conditions of approval. CDD Koules noted that since there is some contradiction in terms of the dust control and stripping, the applicant needs direction from the Planning Commission as to what is preferred. Mr. Jacquet commented that the problem is the oil doesn't stay because the chalk absorbs it. Chairperson Burton then noted that the dust control method shall be 3/4" crushed rock or sprayed with a low specific gravity road oil which shall be applied to the roadways of the parking area, but may exclude parking stalls for stripping purposes. The entire unpaved section along the property in question of Xenia Avenue shall be sprayed with the same low specific gravity oil. The road oil shall be as specified by the City Engineer. Dust Control Method to be completed within 21 calendar days after approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Applicant is to work with staff and city engineer on what to do about the parking /stripping. SCHEDULED MATTERS: PC Minutes August 159 1989 Page 6 Mr. Francois Elahl, 11950 Elahl Court, Sunnymead, addressed the commission commenting he disagrees with the Planning Director and City Engineer. They have paid for the increase in capacity of the sewer line in the sum of about $34,000. He noted that Mr. Dotson has all their improvements except the sewer design; the water district has annexed their project, and have worked with the fire department and flood control on the water channel. City Engineer Dotson commented that he returned the applicant's plans and check since it would not be proper to accept the money and plans because of the water problem they had. If they have gone ahead with the water company, they should have immediately re- submitted their plans. Has only initial set in his files. Mr. Elahl stated they received written notification from the water district of their annexation in June 1989. Mr. Nick Saab, 6 Morro Bay Dr., Corona Del Mar, addressed the commission commenting they had had problems with the water district but that it was resolved and they are in the process of annexing. Also they are contributing money for the sewer hook -ups. Mr. Elahl further noted that he hand delivered to the attention of Mr. Koules and City Manager a letter that their design of the channel had been approved by Flood Control. In response to the Commission's questions, COD Koules noted there is not a limit on the number of extensions, there is a limit on tpe life of a plot plan which is 3 years. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to continue this matter to the next meeting of September 19, 1989; seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: Commissioners Bruner and Fries. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. 89- MPP -8, Appeal by applicant of Conditions of Approval regarding Minor Plot Plan to install Modular Unit with Security Quarters, located at 202 E. Third Street. Applicants, David and Emeline Schuelke. It should be noted for the record that Commissioner Schuelke excused herself as a commissioner, seated herself in the audience and spoke as a proponent for the project. COD Koules presented the staff report noting that the report recommended approval with certain conditions. The issue being the limitation of the building for caretaker's use as opposed to office use and on the engineering conditions that were reauested to take carp of +ho Tk- ----- , ,_ __ PC Minutes August 15, 1989 Page 7 and place it on the site, which they did". Also Anchor Forest Products had a modular unit (same location) which was moved and they (applicants) would be replacing a unit. COD Koules commented he was not aware this was a replacement of an existing use. It came to him as a caretaker's unit and partly for office use. He noted that the first application was approved by Valerie Beeler but that it expired. He also noted that the truck terminal was represented as a structure. City Engineer Dotson noted that if this matter was continued he would have the City Attorney write a backup letter supporting his position - will not withdraw his recommendation. Ms. Schuelke commented that she had spoken with Mr. Hershey and that he stated the mobile unit that had been there was not a problem to him and never was. On motion by Commissioner Fries to grant the appeal to install a Modular Unit with Security Quarters, located at 202 E. Third Street; seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Fries, Remy. and Chairperson Burton. NOES: Commissioner Bruner. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schuelke. ABSENT: None. There being no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Cherry aylo Secret y BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 The Planning Commission met in a Planning Tuesday, September 19, 1989, in the City Chairperson Burton presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7 :00 P.M. Affidavit of Posting was read. Commission meeting on Council Chambers with On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy, Fries and Chairperson Burton. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The minutes for the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, August 15, 1989, were approved with a correction on Page 4, under AYES should read "Chairperson Burton ". 2. Oral Communication: None. 3. Director's Report. COD Koules reported that at the City Council meeting of September 11, 1989, the Planning Commission's action of August 15, 1989 was reversed on the Schuelke's appeal. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 4. 80- CUP -6 /Swap Meet. Review of Conditions of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 80 -CUP -6 as approved by the Planning Commission on July 2, 1985 for swap meet property, located at 1501 East Sixth Street. Applicant, Richard and Johnny Jacquet. Assistant Planner Doug Fazekas presented the staff report and noted he had pictures and a plot plan showing Mr. Jacquet had met the conditions. At this time the pictures were given to the commission for their perusal. Mr. Johnny Jacquet for Jacquet's Swap Meet, addressed the commission commenting that the only question they had was the west side parking on Xenia Avenue, noting also they would like to propose an alternative method to chalking. They would prefer to use concrete curb stops to control parking within the swap meet thereby graveling the whole area effectively controlling the dust. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:12 P.M. turning the matter to the commission for discussion. PC Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 2 during his inspections, cords across driveways, were about 350 parking handicap spaces. Also consulted Chief Funston i Xenia. there F vendors spaces as to iho will ad been no electrical drop were clearly marked, there with four (4) additional the traffic study, staff address the problem on west Chief Funston, Beaumont Police Department, addressed the commission noting he had had only one complaint concerning traffic at 6th Street. He further commented the only thing he had looked into was the parking situation on the west side of Xenia noting, there has been no volume count or traffic study done on 6th Street. After observations as to the parking on Xenia his suggested options were 1) do nothing and allow it to go until it presents a problem at which time he will contact Mr. Koules, or 2) establish a "no parking" zone which would have to be a recommendation to the City Council. Chairperson Burton noted that pursuant to the map in her file of 1985, it did not show the trailer and it was her feeling that if it were allowed, then improvements would be needed. Mr. Fazekas commented that it was staff's opinion when it was approved in 1981, the original plot plan showed a trailer; however, there is a map which does not have the word "trailer" written in - otherwise they are the same. Chairperson Burton noted that the previous owners were told to remove the trailer then asked Mr. Jacquet if there was a trailer there in 1985? Mr. Jacquet responded by stating "not after they moved (1981 owners) the fence was torn down just prior to moving and the trailer was taken out ". Mr. Jacquet, Sr. spoke from the audience noting that the trailer was in the plot plan when he took the swap meet over and he used the same plot plan that the previous owners used in 1981. Chairperson Burton again commented that the travel trailer was not listed in the plot plan of 1985. The commission went on to discuss the parking and the chalking thereof. Commissioner Bruner noted that the people park in an orderly manner; however, if the owner wants to put in curb stops it will make it even better. Chairperson Burton noted that there is a condition that says they must chalk but it can be deleted if that is what the commission desires. Commissioner Schuelke noted that the asphalt area is in need of restripping, numbers need to be repainted, etc. maybe even patch some of the asphalt that is in poor condition. Mr. Jacquet asked if the public hearing could be reopened with Chairperson Burton reopening the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Jacquet again addressed the commission pertaining to splitting of spaces and noted this was done to avoid problems. If the vendors do not get a space they will go out and sell in the lot (usually 2 to 4 spaces split on their busy days). Alcn thpv makp rprtain i•_hai•. all vphirlpc ctav nn +hp cnprp .n,l PC Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 3 Commissioner Bruner noted that the applicant stated at the meeting that he only splits a space when vendors come in with a couple of items - he doesn't have two commercial type vendors jammed into one lot to sell. Chairperson Burton noting she wanted to discuss the travel trailer since it is not just an office but a residence. Mr. Jacquet noted he is living in the trailer while they are making improvements. Mr. Fazekas noted that it was his understanding the trailer would be used for security reasons due to the fact there has been problems with drug sells. He also noted that he does have a Conditional Use Permit for a security type RV vehicle for the site and it is not an eye sore because you cannot see the trailer from 6th Street. Mr. Jacquet noted that another reason for putting the trailer in was to be able to sell tickets on the south side - since the property is up for sell he does not know how feasible it would be to do major improvements. COD Koules commented he would favor the trailer staying on the site especially since it was shown on the plot plan in 1981. Chairperson Burton then asked what happened to the 1985 conditions with Mr. Koules stating he did not think the 1985 conditions negated the conditions in 1981. Also the trailer should stay if it is helping to alleviate vandalism, theft, and drug traffic and if that would be confirmed by Chief Funston who is present, with Chairperson Burton noting that by the same token they then could do that throughout the City. Mr. Koules stated "but this is a conditional use permit and as you know conditional use permits bestow special rights with that conditional use ". The commission then discussed the wording of Conditions 14.33 and 14.90 as well as the discussion that the building could be used for security purposes. On motion by Commissioner Fries to grant the conditional use permit 80- CUP -6, subject to the amended conditions seconded by Commissioner Bruner to read as follows: 14.33 The unpaved parking rows shall be covered with 3/4" crushed rock with concrete parking stops installed to separate rows and parking spaces. The balance of 14.33 to remain, deleting "overall stripping once a week with necessary touch -up during the week ". 14.90 Dust Control method shall be 3/4" crushed rock. The entire unpaved section along the property in question of Xenia Avenue shall be rocked with same. The use of the travel trailer will be allowed for 3 months from this date at which time the trailer is to ,,mod PC Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 4 5. An amendment to an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, adding Sections 17.20.120, 17.20.121 and 17.20.122 to the Beaumont Municipal Code (Title 17 - Zoning Ordinance): R -LM Zone (Residential - Low Medium) which proposes a new zone classification allowing up to eight (8) dwelling units to the acre. Adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -ND -13 is also being proposed. COD Koules presented this staff report noting this was primarily a housekeeping item explaining that the general plan shows a land use category of low- medium density residential of 8 du /ac; however, there is no zone in the zoning ordinance that can implement this general plan category. The area from Maple Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue from the northerly side of Highway 10 to the south side of the commercial frontage facing 6th Street is shown on the general plan as low- medium density. This area is zoned industrial, residential multi - family of 16 du /ac and some general commercial. At some future time if the City intends to bring the zoning in compliance with the general plan there would be no zone on the books to do this with. Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Ms. Barbara Voigt, 38537 Orchard St., Cherry Valley, addressed the commission wanting to know how many homes or lots per acre is at the Country Crossings Development. The commission explained the density at Country Crossing. COD Koules explained that for each dwelling unit you need 5,440 sq. ft. Also what this means is if someone has a lot that is 10,990 sq. ft. in size and it is zoned R -LM they can put two units on that lot. You would have to have a 6,000 sq. ft. lot to put one residential home. Commissioner Schuelke felt this proposal was very confusing and that this was a good opportunity to rewrite the ordinance. COD Koules noted that no issue had been taken with the Residential Multi- Family and Residential High- Density Zone which obviously allows for smaller lots and less open space. There is a plan designation on the general plan that requires a zone with no more than 8 dwelling units. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. It was the commission's feeling that this zoning would be adding to the confusion that is already in Title 17. Commissioner Schuelke commented that she felt this zoning classification was needed as per staff's recommendation but she also felt that it be recommended to amend the general plan for that area from Maple to Pennsylvania to commercial since PC Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 5 AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, and Chairperson Burton. NOES: Commissioner Remy. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. It was requested by the Commission that a review of the area between maple and Pennsylvania, along 5th Street be placed on the next agenda and that there be no approvals of multi- family dwellings in this area until this time. CONTINUED SCHEDULED MATTER: 6. 87 -PP -2 and 87- ND -23, a request for a one year extension of time for proposed 144 apartment complex, located at the northwest corner of 14th Street and Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Allied Group, Inc. COD Koules noted that this item was continued from August 15, 1989 because at that time the applicant expressed the desire to meet with the City Engineer and work out some progress on the submittals. He noted that Mr. Dotson recommends that the applicant withdraw the request for a one year extension of time on the condition that the off -site improvements which were part of 88 -PM -10 be waived, Mr. Koules noted that he did not agree procedurally with the City Engineer's approach to tie these two projects together. If it is the commission's pleasure and the applicant agrees and they want to withdraw the request for the one year extension on the plot plan, then the City would initiate a public hearing to consider the waiving of those off -site conditions; however, he could not make this commitment to the applicant. Mr. Dotson's thinking is that he would like to get the 144 units redesigned, thus, the reason for tieing the two together. Mr. Nick Saab, 6 Morro Dr., Corona Del Mar, Ca. addressed the commission, commenting that since the last meeting they had met with Mr. Dotson and that he (Dotson) suggested they withdraw their project (plot plan) and in return they would get a waiver for the parcel map. If they give up the apartment project they could possibly get their property zoned commercial with COD Koules noting he would not support this. Mr. Saab further noted they are in the process of annexing to the water district and feels they are diligently working on their project and wanted to know what else they could do. On motion by Commissioner Remy to approve the one year extension of time for 87 -PP -2 and 87- ND -23; seconded by Commissioner Bruner. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. PC Minutes September 19, 1989 Page 6 CDD Koules distributed a colored assessor's map for the commission showing the easement and commented it was his understanding that the sewer line is on the property line and that the easement runs 3' to the west and 7' to the east. Commissioner Bruner then stated that an utility easement does not grant access for anyone other than the Utility Co. and felt there was really nothing to discuss. CDD Koules also noted there was nothing to discuss because he had been advised that it is a utility easement and not an alley easement, also noting, the City has no obligation to maintain the easement but simply reserves the right to access it if it becomes necessary. Commissioner Remy explained that there are people in this area with structures /junk in their back yards climbing atop the debris, robbing and vandalizing other people in the neighborhood. She felt they were in violation of Title 17 since they are to have a setback of 15 feet in the rear and that the City should enforce the setback requirement. It was decided after discussion that this item was a code violation and CDD Koules noted that he would contact the police department concerning this matter. B. Discussion of revision to RSF (Residential Single Family) Zone to require 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size instead of 6,000 sq. ft. After discussion by the commission, staff was directed to bring to the commission on the RSF Zone a requirement that the minimum lot area be 7,000. CDD Koules noted that staff would provide an amended proposed ordinance. There being no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cherry a Secre ary iV�&NM /Hq C,oMN)(57�ON /Y/8AJej��, _Do f!� u, IJlz6j;Iva> C�,y�r,�„�E,Y% Zatir�c«dC�4 to ��✓ /7L ea <, e��ev� to et-)5 . /�vwevei2 I'�c- !�e C� �GL �eS�c�✓ew i Fed d /� e�. L141i7%