Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1992BEAUMONT 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. COD 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 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. CDD 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 oart throuoh the Parks Onan Snar.a anri 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. COO 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 ling 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 items for discussion, the meeting adjourned at 7 :39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, her r ayl PC S reta attachment March 13, 1092 Mr. Stephen Koules City of Beaumont 550 East Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 RE: Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Map Dear Steve: robertson homes s div,$)on Of WART corDcranc- 6r.S] Mbomodtre dRVa h)9I9St•59lS i:$i•tI! 9e kon. ca 9sII9 Y•9> 4 7 ti.l :}tv -qyr 1 { C'Ty OF BEAUMONT PLANNING DEPT. Based on conversations 1 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 anj 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, s Joseph G. DiCristina Vice President, Forward Planning corm , C4 _4� &-/ 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 Flaa 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 Leje, 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. C00 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 CDO 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. COO 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 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. S. Discussion and background of State mandated requirements for General Plan Update. CDO 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 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 & 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 CDD, 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. CDp 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 CDD Koules to repeat what he had said about the consultants wanting to meet with each member of the planning commission individually. CDD 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 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 BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 199 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 211, 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 -NO -19 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 an 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 8.2 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. x PC Meeting May 199 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 plat plan submitted, subject to the RMF 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. 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.