HomeMy Public PortalAbout09/21/93 MinutesMINUTES OF
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1993
Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, DePalatis, Kirkland and Moreno.
Chairman Prouty was absent and was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes for the Planning Commission
Meeting of August 27, 1993 were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: PC Egger reported that an Amended
Discharge Permit for the Sewer Treatment Plant was received
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board which paves the
way for an expansion of the sewage treatment plant. Also, in
the last week, the bonds were sold for the sewage treatment
plant expansion for 8 1/2 million dollars and the design of
the facility is presently underway with construction of the
hard facilities scheduled to begin early next year with the
completion of the initial 1.4 million gallon treatment plant
scheduled for March 1995.
Concerning the redevelopment process and project that is on-
going, a community meeting was held last week at Wellwood
School and was fairly well attended by the community and staff
received some good and constructive input and participation.
This was the first of a series of meetings that will be
held in the community to maintain an open process in moving
forward with the Redevelopment Project Area and to provide all
Beaumont citizens with an opportunity to provide their input
and become informed on this effort.
Mr. Egger also repor ±ed that with respect to the items before
the Commission tonight relative to the Development
Agreements, Items No. 4 through 9, staff would like to have
the chair read the introduction to all six of the
agreements, then have staff present a staff report combining
all six items, proceed with an open and closed public hearing
on each individual item before moving on to the next. It
would be appropriate in each of the items to make a motion to
recommend to the City Council, if the Commission concurs with
staff's recommendation, for the adoption of the Negative
Declaration, approval of the Development Agreement and
approval of the Ordinance adopting each of the Development
Agreements.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: ,
Acting Chairman Echlin then read each of the Items 4 through 9
individually by title, opening the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
asking for the director's report on said items.
PC Dillon presented the staff report for Items 4 through 9
pertaining to the proposed Development Agreements, the
Negative Declarations and the Ordinances, all of which relate
to the City of Beaumont's CFD -93.
4. 93 -DA -1, SP -92 -1 and 93- NO -11, a request to approve a
development agreement for Tentative Tract Nos. 23646 and
25272, ICI, Inc. and Orangewood. The proposed development
agreement includes provisions to formalize landowner and City
obligations which relate to Tentative Tract Nos. 23646 and
25272 and Community Facilities District 93 -1.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 7 :24 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak. There being none he closed the public hearing at 7:25
P.M.
PC Minutes of
September 21, 1993
Page 2
Commissioner DePalatis offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Kirkland, recommending approval by City Council
of Development Agreement 93 -DA -19 Negative Declaration 93-
ND-11 and adoption of Ordinance No. 723. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
5. 93 -DA -2 and 93- ND -12, a request to approve a development
agreement for Specific Plan No. SP -88 -3, Hovchild. The
proposed development agreement includes provisions to
formalize landowner and City obligations which relate to SP-
88-3 and Community Facilities District 93 -1.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents wishing to speak.
Mr. George McFarlin, bond counsel to the City, addressed the
Commission by stating he was comfortable that the document
which was last sent to Mr. Lodder was as close to the
agreement as they had, and the provisions that were changed
would not change the meaning or intent of the document.
PC Egger noted that in the event subsequent discussions did
turn up anything substantive, staff would bring the item back
to the Planning Commission.
Acting Chairman Echlin closed the public hearing at 7 :29 p.m.
Commissioner DePalatis offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moreno, recommending approval by City Council of
Development Agreement 93 -DA -2, Negative Declaration 93-
ND-12 and adoption of Ordinance No. 724. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
6. 93 -DA -3 and 93- ND -139 a request to approve a development
agreement for Specific Plan No. SP -93 -3, Seneca Springs. The
proposed development agreement amendment includes provisions
to formalize landowner and City obligations which relate to
SP -93 -3 and Community Facilities District 93 -1.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. David Saunders, an attorney representing Loma Linda
University, addressed the Commission stating they may have
some minor modifications or clarifications; however, this
would not affect the provisions of the agreement.
Acting Chairman Echlin closed the public hearing at 7 :33 p.m.
Commissioner DePalatis offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Kirkland recommending approval by City Council of
Development Agreement 93 -DA -3, Negative Declaration 93-
ND-13 and adoption of Ordinance No. 725. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
PC Minutes of
September 21, 1993
Page 3
7. 93 -DA -4 and 93- ND -14, a request to approve a development
agreement for General Plan Entitlements, Heartland. The
proposed development agreement includes provisions to
formalize applicant and City obligations which relate to
General Plan Entitlements and Community Facilities District
93 -1.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents wishing to speak. There being
none, he closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Commissioner Kirkland offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moreno recommending approval by City Council of
Development Agreement 93 -DA -4, Negative Declaration 93 -ND-
14 and adoption of Ordinance No. 726. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
8. 93 -DA -5 and 92 -ND -5, a request to approve a development
agreement to SP -92 -2, Rolling Hills Ranch. The proposed
development agreement includes provisions to formalize
landowner and City obligations which relate to SP -92 -2 and
Community Facilities District 93 -1.
(It should be noted for the record that Negative Declaration
92 -ND -5 was changed to read 93- ND -15).
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents wishing to speak.
Mr. Joe DiCristina, representing High 60 Associates, addressed
the Commission stating they have some minor changes and
wanted this noted for the record. (See attachment Mr.
DiCristina delivered to the Commission).
Mr. McFarlin noted that a copy of the Revisions to the
Development Agreement, consisting of five pages (see
attachment), was distributed this evening to the Commission
pertaining to changes.
Acting Chairman Echlin closed the public hearing at 7 :38 p.m.
Commissioner DePalatis offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Kirkland recommending approval by City Council of
Development Agreement 93 -DA -50 Negative Declaration 93-
ND-15 and adoption of Ordinance No. 727. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland,- Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
9. 93 -DA -6 and 93- ND -150 a request to approve a development
agreement to SP -88 -20 Three Rings Ranch. The proposed
development agreement includes provisions to formalize
landowner and City obligation which relate to SP -88 -2 and
Community Facilities District 93 -1.
(It should be noted for the record that Negative Declaration
93 -ND -15 should read 93- ND -16).
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. John Stewart, representing 3 Rings Ranch, addressed the
Commission noting they do not have any changes.
PC minutes of
September 21, 1993
Page 4
Acting Chairman Echlin closed the public hearing at 7 :41 p.m.
Commissioner DePalatis offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Kirkland recommending approval by City Council of
Development Agreement 93 -DA -6, Negative Declaration 93 -ND-
16 and adoption of Ordinance No. 728. motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10. 89- TM -3(R) and 93 -ND -24 (Tract 24039), a revision of a
previously approved 602 lot subdivision on approximately 176
acres, located on the northerly side of I -10 freeway and
westerly of Elm Avenue. Applicant, Coscan /Stewart
Partnership.
PC Dillon presented the staff report on this project,
explaining to the Commission that this proposed revised map is
improved from the original map in several aspects. He then
explained some of the revisions stating that the original
map shows a collector street (Ring Ranch Road) bisecting the
center of the property from the southeast to the northwest,
as well as a collector road adjacent to Interstate 10.
The original location of Ring Ranch Road would serve to
divide the community and to convey project and off -site
traffic through the middle of the project. The revised
subdivision directs traffic to a divided collector street
adjacent to Interstate 10. This roadway has been widened to
forty -eight (48) feet in width from face of curb to face of
curb from the previous design showing forty -four (44) feet.
Mr. Dillon went on speaking, stating the right -of -way of Ring
Ranch Road, including open space and landscaping lots, has
also been increased from sixty -five (65) feet to a width
varying from ninety (90) to one hundred (100) feet. This will
help mitigate traffic noise from Interstate 10. Also, a sound
attenuation masonry wall with earthen berming will further
mitigate freeway noise to acceptable levels.
A landscaped parkway is located alon both sides of Ring Ranch
Road. It is proposed to be twenty �20) feet in minimum width
and will contain a meandering sidewalk which is six (6) feet
in width on the east side. This design proposes sidewalks six
(5) feet in width on each side of every road in the
development. This design complies with the latest City
requirements for sidewalks, improves the amenity value of
neighborhoods and improves safety of pedestrians.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 8:56 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. John Stewart, 1920 Main Street, Irvine, the applicant,
addressed the Commission stating that generally they concur
with the staff report and conditions of approval; however,
there were a couple of things he wanted noted, one is that
the design manual which was submitted by Coscan /Stewart takes
precedence over the Specific Plan and, second, that he would
ask that the Condition of a 10 foot minimum side yard be
varied to permit what is already ordained in the Specific
Plan.
PC Egger responded by stating that for a point of
clarification the 10 foot side setback applies to corner side
yards - side yards which abut the street as opposed to
interior side yards.
PC Dillon commented that it reads that all street, side yard
setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
PC minutes of
September 21, 1993
Page 5
Dr. Jesse DeVerra, 38550 Florence St., Beaumont, addressed the
Commission asking if there would be a block wall constructed
along the entire length of the property abutting the Florence
Street neighborhood, with Mir. Dillon commenting there is a
view fence proposed for the lots backing onto the open space
area which would be appropriate in that location. Mr. Dillon
commented that in terms of access to the park, all of the
access will be from Ring Ranch Road. There will be no access
from any of the lots backing onto the park. Also, to the best
of his knowledge Florence Street is a cul -de -sac located in
the County and does not provide access from the end of the
cul -de -sac into the open space area.
Mr. Stewart approached the mike again in answer to Mr. De
Verra's question pertaining to the price of the homes stating
there was a consultant in connection with the CFD who deemed
that in order to make the CFD work the minimum house price
would have to be about $87,000, so it was his (Stewart's)
contention that the prices would be somewhere between that
price and $1209000.
PC Dillon mentioned the City Engineer's letter noting that it
clarified what the obligations of the land- divider were in
relation to off -site roadway improvements as well as the
mitigation for cumulative impacts which requires the landowner
to contribute their fair share to the mitigation of cumulative
roadway impacts no matter where they are in the City.
Commissioner DePalatis questioned as to whether staff had
talked to Beaumont- Cherry Valley Parks and Recreation District
about their interest in trails, with Mir. Dillon informing the
Commission that staff had not yet discussed the issue of
trails with the District nor had staff worked with them on the
alignment of the trails; however, he believed this would be
required prior to recordation of the map. Mr. Dillon went on
speaking, stating the design plan for the park was fairly
conceptual. The concept plan that was provided illustrates
some tot lot play area equipment, open lawn play areas in the
Parks covered areas for picnics and the necessary parking to
accommodate the use of the park. He informed the Commission
that an additional condition could be generated if the
Commission would like to see something in the park other than
what has been mentioned.
Commissioner DePalatis then commented that he would like to
see a site plan for the park before the project goes before
the City Council in order to see what facilities would be a
part of the park construction, with Mr. Egger noting he
thought it would be acceptable for the Commission to condition
the project to bring back a park design for review at the
Planning Commission prior to recordation of the map.
Commissioner DePalatis questioned the length of the cul-
de -sacs with Mr. Dillon noting they have tried to keep the
cul -de -sacs at 800 feet. He informed the Commission that
the County standard on cul -de -sacs is a maximum of 1320 feet.
Further, he was interested in getting input from the
Commission on future projects in terms of what is an
appropriate length for cul -de -sacs.
Commissioner Moreno asked about the plan for the back lots
on the northwestern corner adjacent to Marshall Creek and the
visual character when coming in on I -10.
PC Dillon explained that the bluff is proposed to be
maintained in a natural condition. There is, however, a fuel
modification plans to be submitted in order to mitigate any
potential fire hazards from the native vegetation along this
slope. He further explained there is a view fence proposed in
order for the homeowners to be able to look out onto the
park in the open space area. The intent for the landscape
treatment along Interstate 10 is for it to be densely
landscaped and there is also a proposed entry monument in this
location.
PC Minutes of
September 21, 1993
Page 6
PC Dillon went on informing the Commission. that this project
will not in of itself cause any changes to the area's
intersections; however, with cumulative development in the
City, that is this project with all the other projects that
are envisioned by the General Plan, there will be some changes
as you come off of Interstate 60. For example, right now
there is the ability to make a quick right or quick left turn
onto Veils which is really too close and it is expected that
ultimately Ueile will have to be closed down between 6th
Street and 8th Street. He further noted that Elm Street has
been identified by the General Plan as the major north /south
route and again it is not this project that is causing Elm
Street to have that designation, it is all of the
developments in the area. For traffic to move north out of
this project to Interstate 10 freeway it would be by way of
Ring Ranch Road which has been designated as a two lane
divided roadway. The first development's access to the I-
10 freeway would either be Beaumont Avenue or the
interchange at Highway 60' however, as soon as Ring Ranch
Road is tied to 14th Street traffic can go directly up Ring
Ranch Road.
Acting Chairman Echlin closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Commissioner DePalatis offered a motion, seconded by
Commission Kirkland, recommending an approval by City Council
of Tentative Tract No. 89- TM -3(R), Negative Declaration 93-
ND-24, subject to staff's conditions with an additional
condition to read "The applicant will work with staff to
identify park improvements prior to the project going to City
Council and that the landscape plans for the park will come
back for review and approval by the Planning Commission ".
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
11. 93- ANX -29 93 -RZ -7 and 93- ND -23, a proposed pre- annexation
zoning to R -SF (Residential - Single Family) on a 320 acre site,
APN #s 421 - 240 -016 and 421 - 240 -0179 located southwesterly of
the terminus of Highland Springs Avenue accessible via Circle
C Road. Adoption of a Negative Declaration pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act will also be considered.
Applicant, TMP Inland Empire, IV.
PC Egger presented the staff report, noting that it would
without inclusion of this site in the Lockheed annexation
proposal to LAFCO become a County island. Undoubtedly in
considering the Potrero Creek application, LAFCO would have
either insisted the application be revised to include this
parcel or would have required the applicant file an annexation
application as a condition of approval. LAFCO will, for
convenience's sake, combine these two applications and process
them as a single application.
Commissioner DePalatis informed the Commission that he
received a call from the applicant whereby the applicant
stated he would not be able to attend tonight's meeting, but
he had read staff's conditions and was in agreement with the
conditions and requested the Commission move forward.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak. There being none he closed the public hearing at 8:40
p.m. turning the matter back to the Commission for discussion.
Commissioner
DePalatis offered
a motion,
seconded by
Commissioner
Kirkland, recommending
approval
of this project
by City Council of Annexation No.
93- ANX -2,
Zone Change No.
93 -RZ -7 and
Negative Declaration No.
93- ND -23.
Motion carried
unanimously
with the following roll
call vote:
PC minutes of
September 21, 1993
Page 7
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and Acting
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
12. 93- ANX -3, 93 -RZ -8 and 93- ND -22, a proposed pre- annexation
zoning to R -A (Residential Agriculture) on a 40 acre parcel,
APN# 421 -090 -003, located to the southwest of the intersection
of First Street and California Avenue. Adoption of a Negative
Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act will also be considered. Applicant, George Witter.
PC Egger presented the staff report, noting that this site is
somewhat identical in terms of physical uses to the prior one
Item 11. This site is located on the south side of Cooper's
Creek about 1000 feet south of the intersection of First
Street and Minnesota. Avenue, which is in effect the extension
of Veils. He noted there are some easements which will
potentially constrain the full development of the site, which
are the southern pacific pipeline company (northerly side)
petroleum line easement, the SCE electrical easement and the
MWD easements which cross the site in a northwest to southeast
direction.
Acting Chairman Echlin opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak. There being none he closed the public hearing at 8:45
p.m. turning the matter back to the Commission.
Commissioner Kirkland offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner DePalatis, recommending approval by City Council
of Annexation No. 93- ANX -2, Zone Change 93 -RZ -7 and Negative
Declaration 93- ND -23. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Kirkland, Moreno and
Chairman Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
13. Setback Adjustment /Minor Variance No. 93 -MV -2, a proposal to
develop a six -foot high wrought iron fence which encroaches
into required setback areas at 800 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Applicant, Robert M. Reeves.
Commissioner Kirkland noted that he had a conflict of interest
on this item as well as Item 14 and would not be participating
in the discussion or ruling on either project.
PC Egger presented the staff report, noting that due to a
need to establish a policy that had not been dealt with
previously pertaining to this item as well as the next one, it
was felt it would be best to present these items to the
Commission in order to provide some direction so staff can
begin to treat these items and other future items with some
consistent policy direction. Mr. Egger explained that what is
proposed at the two driveway openings into the site are
electric swing gates to basically allow sufficient room for
one car to pull off the road and to activate the gate and
subsequently enter the site. Also, along 8th Street frontage
a 6 foot high fence is proposed directly adjacent to the
sidewalk. Mr. Egger went on speaking stating that the Code as
it is presently written allows a 3 1/2 foot high solid wall
within required street side setback areas and a 4 foot high
open work such as wrought iron or other metal types of fences
which are permitted within setback areas as a matter of
course without any special approval. In this particular
case the applicant is requesting a 6 foot high fence
within the setback areas which is probably a manageable
situation from staff's perspective; however, also an
PC minutes of
September 21, 1993
Page 8
encroachment within the public right -of -way. is proposed along
Pennsylvania Avenue which raises some issues pertaining to
liability should anything occur relative to fencing within the
right -of -way should a child on a bicycle for example, get
entangled in the fence and incur injuries. Mr. Egger noted
that staff would like some policy direction on this, as well
as the subsequent item, relative to both encroachments within
the public right -of -way and also the precedent that the City
would be setting in terms of a 6 foot high fence within
setback areas.
Commissioner Moreno asked if there would be a conflict of
interest as he knew the applicant, with PC Egger stating he
did not think so since there was no economic benefit derived.
Mr. Robert Reeves, the applicant in this issue and owner of
the property for both Item 13 and 14, addressed the Commission,
commenting that he had brought with him a sample of the fence
for the Commission to see. This sample was brought to
demonstrate that the fence would be attractive and will make
it more conducive to attract better tenants since they will
feel more secure. It will be combined with automatic gates
for vehicular access and remote operated pedestrian gates
with electronic access to each apartment. At the present
time they are contemplating an automated system so that
non - residents would not be able to get on the property.
Commissioner DePalatis commented that in a multi - family
situation a higher fence in his opinion would be acceptable;
however, the question of location in the right -of -way needs
further consideration. Also for the fence to be placed
further from the sidewalk the question of maintaining the lawn
would be a consideration, with Commissioner Moreno noting that
if the fence is up against the sidewalk a child's handle bars
on a bicycle would obviously hit the fence when riding by. He
then suggested a setback from the sidewalk of approximately 12
inches.
PC Egger stated that a 12 inch strip would not be easy to
maintain and noted that normally what is considered a
maintainable landscape width is something along a four foot
width. He further stated that it had not been determined as
yet how far off the sidewalk edge the right of way line was.
He noted it was probably along the order of about 10 feet on
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. Reeves responded by stating that he was told that the
public right -of -way is 40 feet from the center of the roadway
and if one measures 40 feet from center of the roadway, the
approach is only 5 feet of space between the existing building
and the public right -of -way.
PC Egger then asked how wide the landscaped area was with Mr.
Reeves responding that it varies between 20 to 30 feet.
PC Egger noted that to consider an encroachment the City
would need some sort of written agreement which would
essentially acknowledge on the applicant's part that if the
City were ever to come in and exercise the full width of the
right -of -way and want to build a new street, there would be no
claim against the City for removing the fencing and
improvements that are there.
Mr. Dillon commented that the City Engineer indicated that the
standard conditions for an encroachment permit provide for an
indemnity clause and although it is not full proof, the
applicant would have to obtain an encroachment permit for the
area on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. Reeves' commented that he would like to agree to some
reasonable setback from the sidewalks that would be wide
enough that the grass could be maintained in order to proceed
with his project.
PC minutes of
September 21, 1993
Page 9
PC Egger commented that if the Commission were to work with
Mr. Reeves relative to five foot setbacks on both street
frontages from the sidewalk, staff would also be agreeable,
but would need to consult the City Attorney pertaining to
the City's liability.
Commissioner Moreno offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
DePalatis, to approve a 5 foot setback on the property for
a 6 foot wrought iron fence, black in color and pursuant to
the City Attorney's response pertaining to liability for the
City.
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Moreno and Acting Chairman
Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kirkland.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
14. Setback Adjustment Minor Variance No. 93 -MV -39 a proposal to
develop a 6 foot high wrought iron fence which encroaches into
the required setback areas at 799 Allegheny Avenue.
Applicant, Robert M. Reeves.
PC Egger presented the staff report noting that the Commission
could go with something similar as was suggested on the prior
application. Mr. Egger did question the mailboxes that exist
along Allegheny as to whether or not they would be inside /out-
side the fence and if it was acceptable to the post office.
Mr. Reeves commented that the mailboxes would be inside the
fence and it is acceptable to the post office.
PC Egger then asked Mr. Reeves if the postal carrier would be
provided with a key for the gate and if this had been
discussed with the post office, with Mr. Reeves stating he had
not discussed this yet; however, the contractor that is doing
the work informed him that this was the routine way of
handling it.
Mr. Reeves further commented that if they are required to
place the fence back five feet from the sidewalk, this would
encroach directly t'..rough the trees and the middle of the
mailboxes, consequently, they will have to make further
measurements to see what kind of setback will be feasible.
Commissioner Moreno offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
DePalatis, to approve a minimum of a five foot setback with a
6' high wrought iron fence and to work with staff and the
City Attorney pertaining to the City's liability. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DePalatis, Moreno and Acting Chairiman.
Echlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kirkland.
ABSENT: Chairman Prouty.
There being no further items on the agenda, the meeting
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
VZ
Chhee rry ylo
attachments