Loading...
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