HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991 PC MINUTESMinutes of PC meeting
November 19, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Steve Morgan, representative from Precision Stamping, spoke
from the audience stating they do want to be able to proceed with
their project; however, at this point and time the business
climate is not worthy of stretching themselves and thus the reason
for requesting a one year extension.
There being no one else to speak, Chairman Ring then closed the
public hearing at 7 :07 p.m., turning the matter back to the
commission.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner Kisling
approving a one (1) year extension for Conditional Use Permit B9-
CUP-2. motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Echlin and Burch.
ABSTAIN: None.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner Kisling
to cancel the Planning Commission Meeting for December 1991 and
that the next meeting be held January 21, 1992.
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Echlin and Burch.
ABSTAIN: None.
At the direction of the Planning Commission, COD Koules will
prepare a staff report for the Planning Commission Meeting of
January 21, 1992 which will consider that Landscape requirements
be done before actual project developments on specific projects.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting adjourned
at 7:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
('r r �lL� �-
Cherry //� ay
PC Seireta w
Nov � 2 ,gg1
pNN NG CEPjj
Mr. Stephen Koules
Community Development Director
City of Beaumont
550 E. Sixth Street
Beaumont, Ca. 92223
Re: (TRACT 23161) 87- TM -8(R)
Dear Mr. Koules,
WDS Development, Inc.
November 8, 1991
This is to inform you that we are withdrawing our request for the Planning Commision
to amend our tract map adjacent to the high school property which was realigning
Cedar View Drive to accomodate the drainage problem created by the high school. We
want our project to remain as originally approved by the Planning Commission on April
19. 1988. as our bank does not want to persue this any longer.
We appreciate all the hard work and time that you and Jim Dotson have spent to
rectify the drainage problems and we will continue to cooperate with you in the
future.
Sincerely,
Wayne Simo Jan
�H01�m
NOV 12 1991
CITY OF BEAUMONT
PLANNING DEPT,
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MARCH 17, 1992
Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Leja then swore in and congratulated Larry Israelson as
Commissioner for the Beaumont Planning Commission.
Roll Call: Commissioners Israelson, Kisling, Burch, Echlin and
Prouty.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman for the Planning
Commission.
On a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, Commissioner Prouty was appointed
Chairman and Commissioner Burch was appointed Vice Chairman.
2. The minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of November
19, 1991, were approved as submitted.
3. Oral Communication: None.
4. Director's Report: COD Koules brought to the attention of the
commission a letter received from the applicant dated 3/13/92
(see attached) for Rolling Hills' Project. He then read and
distributed a copy to each of the commissioners. He further
noted that the reason for the letter is there seems to be some
difficulty with the map submittal which also makes it
difficult for the City Engineer to write the Conditions of
Approval from what has been submitted.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
5. A request from Commissioner Burch for a Resolution requesting
the City Council to provide copies of the current revised
General Plan in draft or finished form to the members of the
Planning Commission in a timely manner so that review and
recommendation by the Planning Commission may be expedited.
COO Koules noted that he did not have a staff report other
than the Resolution that was written for review and action.
Commissioner Burch commented that the reason for the
Resolution is to identify a specific problem pertaining to
the General Plan which is a legal document. He mentioned that
with a Resolution it goes directly to City Council and
consequently there is not a lengthly wait. Also with the
Resolution his hope is to get some attention where they
(commission) can start working on this document and get it
ready for review (draft) or whatever form it is in in order
to get the General Plan in some type of order between the two
regulatory bodies of the city.
Planning Commission minutes
March 17, 1992
Page 2
6. A request from Commissioner Burch requesting a joint session
with the members of the City Council for the purpose of
establishing comprehensive regulations regarding developments
of all types in the City of Beaumont.
COD Koules commented that he understands Commissioner
Burch's concerns and that Commissioner Burch himself would
explain some of the background.
Commissioner Burch then explained that at the last joint
meeting in August 1991, the commissioners were asked for a
list of priorities and a joint work session /committee between
the City Council and the Planning Commission. However, due to
elections and changes of office this did not happen.
Commissioner Burch went on to say that if this panel is in
conflict with the City Council who has the ultimate vote then
the differences need to be ironed out. Through a joint
meeting, the Planning Commission can get direction from the
City Council, things can be done more effectively, and time
will not be wasted in resolving conflicts.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Burch, to approve Resolution No. PC -92 -2, requesting a joint
session with the members of the City Council of the City of
Beaumont, for the purpose of establishing comprehensive
regulations regarding development of all types in the City of
Beaumont.
AYES: Commissioners Israelson, Kisling, Burch, Echlin and
Chairman Prouty.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. A request from Commissioner Burch for the Community
Development Director's recommendation regarding architectural
standards for the City of Beaumont.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting his
recommendation regarding architectural standards for the City
of Beaumont would be that City Council form a Citizens
Architectural Advisory Committee to pursue these concerns.
He felt that Beaumont Avenue and Sixth Street were unique
streets and if dealt with in a proper way could be an
attractive central part of the city.
Commissioner Israelson asked if the completed General Plan
would also include a specific item as the Unified
Architectural Theme for the City with COD Koules responding
that he thought that language could be written to identify the
general concerns through implementing policies with the
intent addressed in the General Plan. COD Koules noted
this had been done in part through the Parks Open Space and
Scenic Plan that was adopted in concept over a year and half
ago which will be incorporated into the General Plan.
However, the City needs a orouo of citizens and oolir.v makprq
Planning Commission Minutes
March 17, 1992
Page 3
8. At the direction of the Planning Commission, staff prepared a
report regarding the feasibility of requiring landscaping for
approved projects prior to issuance of building permits.
COD Koules presented the staff report explaining to the
commission that landscape ordinances had been checked
in various cities and the survey found no real precedence
for requiring landscaping for approved projects prior
to issuance of building permits. Corona however was an
exception where larger phased projects are required to install
landscaping of later phases. COD Koules continued saying that
given the options that are available to the commission the
conditions of approval of a project does allow you to place
landscaping conditions on the project. He quoted some
suggested wording which reads: "that prior to the actual
construction the applicant shall do ." COD Koules'
recommendation is to leave things the way they are and when a
project comes in it can be addressed on a case -by -case basis.
COD Koules went on explaining that the City had enforcement
powers if there is a fire or health hazard; however, if there
is an open field with weeds that does not offer a danger to
public health, safety and welfare, then it would be a problem
getting something done if the owner of the property is
uncooperative. COD Koules further noted that the city's
ordinance does give a certain length of time to get debris off
of a particular site when it becomes a hazard.
Chairman Prouty
should have to
visible to the
from being an
property is be
entrances.
felt that developers coming in with phases
landscape a certain portion that would be
public's sight in order to keep the site
eye sore and further mentioned that when
ing developed there could be construction
COD Koules stated that when the landscape plans are reviewed
by staff and brought before the commission these things can be
very clearly identified and incorporated into the conditions
for the developer to adhere to.
There being no further
adjourned at 7:39 p.m.
attachment
items for discussion, the meeting
Respectfully submitted,
��u
herryj/�ayl
PC Se(ereta
March 13, 1992
Mr. Stephen Koules
City of Beaumont
550 East Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
RE: Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Map
Dear Steve:
robertson homes
d dMs,on of cer+nl corpora "s -
d 53 IMN76dr arwa ;iYii 95? 5941
PtKJyCn. Ca 95219 ?Cq'47, --I ibrgy. -•,
CITY OF BEAUMONT
PLANNING DEPT.
Based on conversations I have had with you and Jim Dotson, I am requesting a
scoping session with yourself, Jim Dotson, Mayor Jan Leja, a member of the Planning
Commission, CalTrans, Riverside County Fire, Department, and Southern California
Edison to review the Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Map. Next week, I ani available
Thursday and Friday, March 19 and 20, 1992,
Thank you in advance for coordinating the meeting. I look forward to your response.
Yours truly,
Joseph G. DiCristina t
Vice President,
Forward Planning
JGD /jIh
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
APRIL 21, 1992
Meeting called to order at 7 :05 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Israelson and Chairman
Prouty. Commissioner Kisling was absent.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of March 17,
1992 were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communications: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules noted that he wanted to report
on the processing of various entitlements and maps. He
reported that Rolling Hills' Tentative Tract Map has to have
approval of an access from the site to Highway 60. He
(Koules) commented that during the processing of the Specific
Plan the applicants kept stating they had legal access to
Highway 60 from Caltrans but it was for the old agriculture
uses that were on the site. At the meeting of March 30, 1992
(at the request of the applicant), with Mayor Leja, Jim
Dotson, 3 members from Caltrans, himself (Koules), and
members from the Rolling Hills' project, it was agreed
that a letter be forwarded to Caltrans asking the
Caltrans' Committee to take action confirming if the access
for a right turn in and a right turn out from the
Westerly corner of the site would still be valid for this
project. Caltrans' representatives noted it would be 5 or 6
months before they could respond with an answer. COD Koules
noted that in the meantime staff had the applicant submit a
letter relieving the City of the State Subdivision Map Act
time requirements.
Chairman Prouty then asked if the Planning Commission had been
invited to this meeting with COD Koules responding that what
happened was the Rolling Hills' people set this meeting up
independent of him (Koules). He had called Chairman Prouty
as the chair and asked what Chairman Prouty's time
availability was for a Rolling Hills' meeting. The next
thing he knew the meeting was set for Monday morning at 9 :00
a.m. without him knowing about it. COD Koules stated he did
not call to tell Chairman Prouty the meeting was at 9 :00 a.m.
since he had only found out about the meeting Friday
afternoon and knew that Chairman Prouty could not be
available. They (Rolling Hills) then wanted to meet with
Chairman Prouty and Commissioner Burch and they set a second
meeting up but COD Koules was not able to attend - he was
notified just prior to the meeting. There was not a second
meeting held to Mr. Koules' knowledge.
Chairman Prouty wanted the record to reflect that one meeting
was called for at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon whereby he and
Commissioner Burch were invited. At this time he called the
City and the meeting had already begun before 2:00 p.m.
PC minutes
April 21, 1992
Page 2
Chairman Prouty commented that when developers come to the
City he finds it rather odd that they are not meeting with the
Planning Director and going through the appropriate steps.
Instead they are going to the mayor and the City manager
which seems to be totally inappropriate and wanted the record
to reflect this.
Commissioner Burch noted that he and Commissioner Echlin were
fortunate enough to go to the Planner's Institute and a
reoccurring theme was "let your lead agency lead" and the
cities that do not do this have nothing but trouble with
Commissioner Echlin agreeing. He noted (going back to the
Rolling Hills' matter) he could not make the meeting however
he did drop by the office. His personal opinion is that he
does not want to meet with developers until they are in a
public meeting and that at that time judgment will be made
based on information obtained at the meeting. Heretofore he
will decline meeting with a specific developer for a specific
project.
5. Discussion and background of State mandated requirements for
General Plan Update.
COD Koules presented the report noting that he had prepared
some packaged material since he was aware of the commission's
resolution seeking copies of the Updated Draft General Plan.
He went on outlining the different material in the package
hoping this would give the commission a starting background.
He also distributed an Outline (attached) on Updating the
General Plan. He commented that citizen input is a very real
and significant requirement. He quoted from the 1982 General
Plan: "preparation of the Plan was guided by a sixteen member
Citizen's Advisory Committee which reviewed all staff and
consultant input ". He commented that the consultant was
selected by the City manager and the product came to him for
the first time in December 1990. He then commented in writing
objecting to the Plan and more recently the City Engineer, Jim
Dotson responded to his request and that of the City manager
on the Circulation Element with some very severe comments.
On behalf of the commission he did ask the City manager
if the commission had received copies of the Revised General
Plan as requested and the City manager informed him that he
was directed to hold the General Plans until such time he
(City manager) could arrange individual meetings for each
member of the commission with the consultants.
Chairman Prouty wanted the record to reflect that at this time
the commission does not have the General Plan in front of them
per their request from the City Council and commented that it
was imperative that the people of Beaumont have a say so in
how their community is planned and finds it highly
inappropriate that this action has not been taken prior to
this time. He feels that $250,000 has been spent on
consultants to give the City a generic general plan that fits
numerous cities throughout the State of California and that
the citizens of Beaumont will take this as a personal insult
to the planning of their community. Wants the City Council to
give the Planning Commission the General Plan as soon as
PC minutes
April 21, 1992
Page 3
Commissioner Israelson stated that it looks like there are two
unpalatable choices. If the Plan as it presently stands is
without citizen input and goes through there is a serious
problem and if the Plan is thrown out after spending a quarter
of a million dollars this is a misfortune as well.
Chairman Prouty responded that he did not feel this was the
Commission's fault since they had absolutely no say in the
Plan.
Commissioner Israelson noted that due to the fiscal crisis and
this money "down the tubes" so to speak it is really upsetting
with Commissioner Echlin asking if there was any legal
recourse if we find that the plan is not worth what we paid
for it.
Chairman Prouty noted that we might need the City Attorney to
address this problem.
Commissioner Israelson commented that he would think that
Culbertson d Adams perhaps may be guilty of misrepresentation
if they came to the City and said we are experts in the
preparation and updating of general plans and didn't
immediately raise the question of why aren't we talking
to the planning commission, why aren't we talking to the COD,
why aren't you (City) forming a Citizen's Advisory Council.
He further stated he was surprised they would have gone to
this point and written a one pound document and charged the
City a quarter of a million dollars and not pointed out these
obvious omissions to the City manager and City Council.
COD Koules noted that it was his understanding that the fee
also included the Draft EIR for not only the General Plan but
the Water District that was going to be formed.
Chairman Prouty again noted that now that the City Council has
the General Plan in front of them, the commission needs it
immediately as per requested by Resolution PC -92 -1.
Commissioner Israelson asked COD Koules to repeat what he had
said about the consultants wanting to meet with each member of
the planning commission individually.
COD Koules then restated that he had asked Mr. Bounds if he
had distributed the Draft General Plan and he (Mr. Bounds)
stated that his direction was to set up meetings with the
consultant and each of the Planning Commissioners and the City
Council members individually. Mr. Koules noted he
understands this to mean the consultant would meet with each
of the commissioners separately at different times with
Commissioner Israelson then commenting "and will bill per hour
for each one of those meetings ". Commissioner Israelson then
noted that he felt the full Commission being present is much
more efficient because it avoids repetition of questions and
concerns.
Chairman Prouty commented to COD Koules to further their ooint
PC minutes
April 21, 1992
Page 4
COD Koules then asked the commission for clarification and
direction in conveying to the City manager their desire on
two matters: 1) if consultants are going to meet they should
meet with the planning commission as a group at a public
meeting and (2) that the commission get copies of the Draft
General Plan Update as soon as possible.
COD Koules commented that it is very difficult to evaluate a
finished document if you have not been a part of the process.
It should be reviewed Section by Section as it is being
prepared. If you have had a meeting and you have talked about
high density, about circulation, about open space - you can
digest this, but to review a document which is completed and
interrelated is very difficult to do so in a meaningful
manner.
Chairman Prouty noted that he finds it totally absurd that as
Planning Director Mr. Koules was not included in this
process for the General Plan. He noted that the City is
paying him to plan the City and give his expert advise to the
Planning Commission and as a group they can plan the City
through the wishes and demands of the citizens of the City of
Beaumont. When the commission is left out of the picture and
Mr. Koules included, he finds this extremely destructive to
the planning process.
COD Koules noted that the most input we had was pertaining to
the Parks Open Space City Beautification Plan. The
consultants did meet with Doug Fazekas and himself and
received a map and some of the text work and this was the
extent of our involvement. Mr. Koules stated he did meet with
the consultants and Doug Fazekas was there as well (Doug noted
from the audience there had been 3 phone calls since December
of 90).
Chairman Prouty stated that both of you gentlemen (meaning
Doug Fazekas and Steve Koules) work for the City of Beaumont
and the City pays you an X- amount of dollars for your expert
advice. He went on to say he felt that perhaps what he was
seeing is a total mismanagement by some part of the City in
not using the expertise that staff was hired for. He
noted they were being left out of the loop with Commissioner
Israelson stating that possibly even this afternoon we had an
instance of this. This instance was when the representatives
were in the council chambers for sometime with the mayor. He
(Israelson) feels that the mayor or the City manager should
decline to hold a long discussion with developers. Before any
discussions are set in motion pertaining to City development
by Council or members thereof, it is necessary to first say
"we really should have the Planning Department involved in
these negotiations ".
Chairman Prouty noted that for a planning director and his
assistant not to be involved with the development process
and not utilize their expertise, is an injustice to the City
of Beaumont which is a total mismanagement by the City of
PC meeting
May 19, 1992
Page 2
He continued stating that he concurred with Mr. Bounds' assessment
that the 12 units per acre could never be put on the entire gross
area. He suggested that if the prezoning could be approved
subject to a plot plan in establishing the ultimate density it
might be the safest way to go.
Cm Bounds informed the commission they may want to condition on
the basis that the density would be based on the plot plan
submitted, subject to the RIMF zone requirements, this way you get
all your setbacks, open space, etc.
Chairman Prouty then closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
turning the matter over to the commission for discussion.
Cm Bounds then explained that the terminology " prezoning" is a
term that has been used since LAFCO came into existence. It is a
requirement in most counties that cities must prezone property
before LAFCO will even consider it for annexation. You prezone
now (because you have no authority to zone yet) and when it is
annexed to the city as a part of the overall action, it
automatically gets the zoning that was on the prezone. He has
never heard of any instance where there was any change unless
there was a request made by the applicant. He felt that the
commission should somehow indicate that they recognize that the
property is going to cause some loss in usable acres and that the
usable acres will be determined at plot plan time and that the
density shall be no greater than 12 units to the acre based on the
usable acres.
Mr. Brink again spoke from the audience, commenting that the shape
of the property is that of a triangle which is bisected by the
creek and he could not imagine any body using contemporary kind of
development standards to get the density on this property unless
you build a high rise or something.
Commissioner Burch asked if the developer chose a lower density
number could it be raised at the plot plan filing stage easier
than it could be reduced with Cm Bounds stating no it could not be
raised, however, if nothing is done it tells the applicant that
they have 12 units to the acre. Also (Bounds) felt it would be
appropriate to use 8.2 units to the acre since this is what is
used next door.
Mr. Brink stated that the amount of street frontage this property
has to improve, such as the channel, etc. places an extraordinary
burden on the property from a financial point of view and
consequently they need something larger than 8.2 units per acre on
the net to make any financial sense out of it.
Commissioner Israelson then asked Mr. Brink what his feel was for
the number of units that is needed on this parcel to make it
financially viable for development.
Mr. Brink then commented they selected 12 thinking that there
would be something of a 25 to 30 percent loss of property when
they got down to net usable acres. Felt it would be a 140 to 150
PC meeting
May 19, 1992
Page 3
problems and then you would go to four stories, with Mr. Brink
saying they would live with the design criteria in the zoning
ordinance which says two story and this would insure the City that
this would not be done.
Commissioner Israelson then asked Mr. Brink why he would object
to the commission placing a maximum of 8.2 units to the acre when
earlier in the meeting he (Mr. Brink) stated that with this type
of construction with the garage, you would be crowding to get 9
units per usable acre and probably more like 7 1/2 units to the
acre.
Mr. Brink noted that his concern of the 8.2 is an arbitrary net
number that they do not know about.
Commissioner Israelson then noted that if you do not have enough
usable acres for a development with the design that has been
proposed and possibly only getting 7 1/2 units to the acre, then
it would seem that if you do not have enough usable acres you may
not go ahead with the project anyway. Why then would the
commission want to approve more than 8.2 units to the acre?
Mr. Brink then commented they needed the ability to do an
attached product they think they know about right now. He
then further stated he could not commit to it because he just did
not know. He would like to have it zoned for annexation purposes
and the density would be allocated to the net usable acreage.
If it is true that there is 11 usable acres and they get 8.2 units
that would only be about 90 units; consequently, it is doubtful
they would go on to council. Mr. Brink then asked if the project
could be continued in order for him to talk to the Newsom's and
explain the dilemma since he now understands the commission's
situation and desires.
CM Bounds then brought up the slope analysis map and showed it
to the commission commenting he had a real problem with this and
noted the depth of the ditch. He further commented that one of
the requirements on KSE Development (for a smaller piece of
property) is they put in a signal light on 14th Street. He also
noted there would have to be a bridge (pointing to the triangle
on Newsom's property) since there could not be a street put in
and this would be very expensive with Mr. Brink commenting in the
affirmative.
On motion by Commissioner Burch, seconded by Commissioner
Israelson to continue this item per request of the applicant to
the next regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 16, 1992.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Israelson and Chairman
Prouty.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MAY 19, 1992
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Israelson and Chairman
Prouty. Commissioner Kisling was absent.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The record should reflect
prepared and submitted a new
of April 21, 1992, which were
this time.
2. Oral Communications: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
that Commissioner Israelson
set of Minutes for the Meeting
approved by the commission at
4. 92- ANX -1, 92 -RZ -1 and 92 -ND -1, a proposed preannexation zoning
of 17.23 + acres from R -R zoning (Riverside County) to the R-
MF (Residential - Multiple Family) or more restrictive zone, on
property located at the south side of 14th Street approx.
3,000 feet east of its intersection with Interstate Highway
10. (APN# 414 - 070 - 001/002 and 007). Applicants: Robert and
Martha Newsom.
City Manager Bounds presented the staff report outlining the
details of this project and noting that the application
indicated that 17.23 + was the gross acreage as well as the
net acreage. Based on his findings he explained there would
be a dedication of land on 14th Street for a six lane road
which would be a loss of .27 acres, the Noble Creek Channel
easement which is 150' wide would be a loss of 2.69 acres and
a slope on the south side of the property (this is a very
critical slope) would be a loss of 3.13 acres (based on the
engineer's estimate) - making a total of 11.14 usable acres.
This is assuming that everything is well and good on the 11.14
acres.
He further commented that the request for the RMF zoning is in
keeping with the adjacent zoning on the KSE Development on the
east side of the subject property and that they (KSE
Development) was given an approval for a small amount of RMF
zoning with a density of B.2 units per acre. If however the
approval was given for an RMF zone then the entire property
could be 12 units to the acre and this would be misleading
since there needs to be a definite determination as to how
much is usable and how much is not.
CM Bounds stated his recommendation is approval of 92 -RZ -1
prezoning 17.23 + to RMF with a consideration of some kind of