HomeMy Public PortalAbout10/21/86r
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 21, 1986
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, October 21, 1986, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Schuelke presiding.
1. Meeting was called to Order at 7:05 P.M.
2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
3. On Roll Call, the following Commissioners were present:
Commissioners Tapp, Burton, Gordon, Remy and Chairperson
Schuelke.
Study Session by Commission from 6:00 P.M., to 7:00 P.M.
Item No. 1:
The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October
7, 1986, were approved as submitted with the following
corrections /additions:
Page 1 Under Item No. 2, paragraph 2, line 5, "sale" should be
inserted after garage and before signs.
Page 3 Under Item No. 4, second paragraph, line 5 from bottom
should read "sides" not "signs ".
Page 4 Under Item No. 4, paragraph 3, Mr. Steele's statement
should read "assistance" not "assistant ".
Page 4 Under Item No. 4, between paragraph 4 and 5 from the
bottom, it should be noted that Commissioner Burton
requested whether Cougar Mountain Apts. were considering
converting to condominums.
Page 4 Under Item No. 4, 6th paragraph from the bottom, Mr. Stan
Steele's statement, last line should read "Michigan"
instead of "Orange" Avenue.
Item No. 2:
Proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes for Various
Properties located South of 6th Street, North of Freeway,
between Magnolia and Pennsylvania Avenue, (86 -GP -2 and 86-RZ-
4).
CD Director Larson informed the commission that the only thought
that staff had on this (since the report had already been given
at the previous meeting) was to try to resolve the situation with
some of the existing legal non - conforming uses particularly the
multi - family.
Chairperson Schuelke then opened the public hearing at 7:12 P.M.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak on this matter and there being none, she then closed the
public hearing at 7:13 P.M., turning the matter back to the
commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Burton, seconded by Commissioner Remy,
to drop this Item from the agenda in order to clarify some points
in Ordinance 590 prior to changing any zoning.
CD Director Larson informed the commission that they could table
-1-
it which effectively stops it until it is called back.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Burton, Gordon, Remy and
Chairperson Schuelke.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Item No. 3:
Textual Code Amendment Revising Minimum Width of Turning Areas
and Lot Density of RHO Properties. (86 -RZ -3 and 86- ND -15).
CD Director Larson infgfnied the commission that staff had
reviewed some of the past concerns of the commission as far
as apartment developments and is recommending changes and
additions to various sections of the code. He commented that the
5th paragraph in the staff report, the number 60 should have a
line through it, since this is the way it now reads. Mr. Larson
further explained that code amendments and zone changes have the
same number.
Chairperson Schuelke then opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak, and there being none, she then closed the public hearing
at 7:20 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
Chairperson Schuelke ask if the commission was allowed to
consider any part of this item or does it have to be in its
entirety.
On motion by Commissioner Burton, seconded by Commissioner
Gordon, to drop this item from the agenda. Commissioner Burton
then withdrew her motion and made another motion recommending to
City Council approval of Code Amendment 86 -RZ -3 and 86 -ND -15 and
adoption of the Textual Amendment to Section 17.55.020 g.3,
Circulation and Parking Space Layout, adding staff's recommended
wording, requiring a 24' foot wide manuvering area for portions
of driveways, and in addition, ask that staff bring back for
review to the commission different square footage requirements
for minimum building siQte areas.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Burton, Gordon, Remy and
Chairperson Schuelke.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CD Director Larson stated for clarification purposes that the
code provides for a maximum height of 50 feet and all develop-
ments that have come in have been only two story rather than
three story and ask the commission if they wanted the density
based on two story or whatever the code would permit? He stated
it is a design consideration as well as density.
Commissioner Gordon felt that the end result is to try to reduce
the number of rooms you can put on these individual house size
lots downtown.
For the record, Commissioner Burton wanted to express her concern
about being remiss as well as the commission pertaining to her
duties as a commissioner in making decisions regarding projects.
She felt that Ordinance 590 is not being applied to the projects
and has been hearing by developers that the commission was a push
over. Stated she will not be considered a pushover and if the
code is not followed to the letter the project will not get her
vote. Wants agencies such as Water Department, Fire Department,
Police Department and Engineering Department to review all plans
-2-
and that the documents be attached to the packets from these
various departments in order for the commission to review.
Chairperson Schuelke commented that prior to the building permit
being issued for the project, those agencies have to be notified
and the recommendations have to be placed with our staff
before a building permit is issued - they have to conform to
requirements. Chairperson Schuelke wanted it known that she
didn't want a new rule placed on the applicants here tonight.
Item No. 4:
Proposed Three (3) Lot Land Division of a One (1) Acre Property
Tentative Parcel Map No. 22050 (86- PM-5), Charles Moore.
CD Director Larson presented the
analysis and conditions of approval
Council of Parcel Map No. 22050
conditions. Further, that the a
will be applying for a vacation of
Third Street.
staff report, the project
recommending approval to City
(86- PM -5), subject to the
Dplicant has indicated that he
a portion of right -of -way on
Chairperson Schuelke then opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak on this project.
Mr. Chuck Moore, P.O. Box GO, Beaumont, addressed the commission
stating he had no comments - was here to answer questions that
the commission might have.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Schuelke
then closed the public hearing at 7:41 P.M., turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
Discussion was had pertaining to this project as well as
extending the vacation from Beaumont Avenue to Maple Avenue
instead of just a section.
CD Director Larson explained that the property owners have to be
notified and a legal description prepared so a Certificate of
Compliance can be recorded.
On motion by Commissioner Burton, seconded by Commissioner Remy,
the Planning Commission recommended approval by City Council of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 22050 (86- PM -5), subject to the
conditions, along with directing staff to prepare a vacation from
Maple, westward along Third Street to Beaumont Avenue.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Burton, Gordon, Remy and
Chairperson Schuelke.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Item No. 5:
Construction of 3,000 Sq. Ft. Industrial Building with Related
Parking, Landscaping and Driveways. Charles Moore, 86 -PP -18
and 86- ND -16.
CD Director Larson presented the staff report, project analysis
and conditions of approval, recommending approval of Plot Plan
No. 86 -PP -18 and 86 -ND -16 to City Council, subject to the
conditions. He commented that the 18' driveway is considered
adequate, minimum is 15' and the maximum is 301. The 18'
driveway does not encroach in anyway that would cause any
problems.
Chairperson Schuelke then opened the public hearing at 7:50 P.M.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak regarding this project.
-3-
Mr. Chuck Moore, P.O. Box GO, Beaumont, addressed the commission
stating: trying to avoid cars backing out into street; lights on
all four sides; no objections to conditions; lease type
buildings; would like to have the planter 3' instead of 5' to
leave more room between the cars for walking; has not shown plan
to the fire department as yet.
Chairperson Schuelke ask Mr. Moore at what stage does he present
his plans to the fire department and he informed her that after
he gets approval then he would go ahead and start meeting all the
rest of the requirements and indicated that this is normal
procedure.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Schuelke
then closed the public hearing at 7:56 P.M., turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
CD Director Larson stated that anyone that opens a business in
this project is controlled by a building permit and would have to
meet requirements imposed by the fire department etc. He further
commented that it might be helpful to know that all the agencies
that was contacted previously was done primarily because there
was only a part time planning director on the premises. The
Building Inspector looks at the project when it comes in and
evaluates what the requirements will be; however, all developers
are informed to go to all departments before bringing in their
applications and it is also printed on the instruction sheet of
the application for them to do this.
Commissioner Gordon gave an example that if a project goes back
to the city engineer and the engineer changes a street that the
commission has already approved based on the information that was
given to them, and the commission doesn't like the change, it is
then too late for anything to be done.
At this time Chairperson Schuelke reopened the public hearing at
8:22 P.M., asking Mr. Moore if he would like to comment on the
discussing had by the commission.
Mr. Chuck Moore, P.O Box G0,- Beaumont, addressed the commission
again stating: thought the commission had said "lighting in" the
parking area instead of "lighting of" the parking area; will have
chain link fencing - no other problems.
Chairperson Schuelke then closed the public hearing at 8:25 P.M.,
turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp, seconded by Commissioner Burton,
the Planning Commission approved Plot Plan 86 -PP -18 and
recommended approval to City Council of Negative Declaration 86-
ND-16, subject to the amended conditions of approval to read as
follows:
Condition No. 3: Outside lighting shall be required in all
parking areas and to the rear of building and
shall be hooded and directed so as not to
shine directly on ajoining property, streets
or highways.
Condition No. 4 -A: The planter adjacent to the industrial
building shall be at least three (3) feet wide
and shall be planted with such plant materials
as the applicant desires.
Condition No. 4 -C: All parking and driveway areas shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete surfacing,
compacted to a minimum of 2 1/2 inches.
Condition No. 4 -E: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the
landscaped areas with hose bibs placed in
intervals not less than 200 feet.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
-4-
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Burton, Gordon, Remy and
Chairperson Schuelke.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Recessed at 8:26 P.M., reconvening at 8:31 P.M.
Item No. 6:
Proposed Forty -eight (48) Unit Apartment Complex with associated
Landscaping and Parking. Charles Menley, applicant, 86 -PP -16
and 86- ND -17.
CD Director Larson presented the staff report, project analysis,
and conditions of approval recommending approval to City Council
of Negative Declaration 86 -ND -17 and approval of Plot Plan 86 -PP-
16, subject to the conditions. He noted that there will probably
be four (4) Solar co- generators for heating and air - conditioning.
Commissioner Gordon brought to Mr. Larson's attention that the
notice which had been published pertaining to this project had an
incorrect number of 13801 Allegheny and it should have been 13081
Allegheny and in his opinion and the opinion of the city attorney
that staff did not publish a legal notice. Mr. Larson then
explained that the number had been taken from the application,
and he then passed out page 138 from the State of California
showing the commission that no state or local agency decision
shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by any court on the
ground of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or
omission (hereinafter called "error" as to anyh matter pertaining
to notices, etc. (See attached page 138).
Chairperson Schuelke then opened the public hearing at 8:44 P.M.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishin to speak
pertaining to this project.
Mr. Jim Davis, addressed the commission stating that: is
handling the project for Mr. Menley; showed the commission his
map prepared by the Title Co., 3 houses, mostly vacant land; felt
that it was the developers /owners place to take the basic
requirements that are going to be made of both the commission and
planning department and anticipate these before coming in; has
done a flow test, pressure test; talked to the water department -
some conflict of interest and authority between the city and the
water department but about to get it resolved; 1 co- generator
unit for each 3 quadra - plexes; 650 sq. footage per unit;
turnaround at the west -end of the project - planning department
suggested a hammer -head.
CD Director Larson explained that the hammer -head is a preferable
way for the turnaround especially for trucks.
Mr. Jim Davis, still speaking: uses a standard design for the
Solar co- generators; reached an agreement with Mr. Wood and
recorded a mutual easement that goes right down the center of the
driveway for the sewer, water, etc.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Schuelke
then closed the public hearing at 8:56 P.M., turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp, seconded by Commissioner Remy,
the Planning Commission approved Plot Plan 86 -PP -16 and
recommended approval of Negative Declaration 86 -ND -17 by City
Council, subject to the amended conditions of approval to read as
follows:
Condition No. 3: Outside lighting shall be required in all
parking areas and to the rear of buildings and
shall be hooded and directed so as not to
shine directly on adjoining property, streets
-5-
or highways. - 7,C,)
Condition No. 6: All parking and driveway are �,7 shall be
surfaced with a minimum 2 1/2 inches of
compacted asphaltic concrete or equivalent
paving over a suitable base as approved by the
Community Development Director.
Condition No. 13 -A: "Sidewalks" on line two should be deleted.
Condition No. 14: Second paragraph, first word "sidewalk" should
be deleted.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Burton, Gordon, Remy and
Chairperson Schuelke.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Item No. 7:
Proposed Seven (7) Unit Apartment Building. Bernard R. Fagot, et
al., 86 -PP -19 and 86- ND -18.
CD Director Larson presented the staff report, project analysis
and conditions of approval recommending approval of Plot Plan 86-
PP-19 and recommended approval of Negative Declaration 86 -ND -18
to City Council and informing the commission that the project
meets all city codes.
Chairperson Schuelke then opened the public hearing at 9:10 P.M.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak regarding this project.
Mr. Harvey Marcell, addressed the commission to answer any
questions that the commission might have: similar to the floor
plans that is being constructed on Massachusetts; varying floor
size to accommodate the site plan; units on the end will be
somewhat larger than the interior units; elevation in the carport
area will be lower than the building; walkway will be open; the
roof will have a 2' overhang and maybe a trim at the top of the
carport line for aesthetics only.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Schuelke
then closed the public hearing at 9:14 P.M., turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
It was felt by Commissioner Burton that the uncovered parking in
the front an4l -t4,re 25' setback is not allowed. Commissioner
Gordon commented that the parking area spaces inside are only 17'
long and doesn't comply with the code and that the building
itself is only 9' from the line instead of the required 10'.
Further, he felt that if an engineer went over the figures they
would find a lot of errors.
Chairperson Schuelke reopened the public hearing at 9:17 P.M., in
order for Mr. Marcell to address the statements made by the
commission.
Mr. Harvey Marcell, addressed the commission again stating: the
Ordinance requires the 10 foot rear yard setback and we would
have to meet that with the building; if its dimensioned as 9'
that is an error on their part and an oversight; went through
this with the last project - it depends on what you call the
driveway; does not have a copy of the code with him tonight.
Chairperson Schuelke commented that if this project wasn't
allowed, she didn't think the plan would be before us and ask for
a clarification on the interpretation of the code. She ask Mr.
Marcell if he would like to read the section of the code in
question for his interpretation.
Mr. Harvey Marcell, spoke again after reading that portion of the
code in question stating: could be interpreted either way;
their interpretation is that it applies to the carports because
when you read further into the landscaping section, the
landscaping section indicates that there is a required 5' setback
for landscaping and if there was not parking allowed within the
front yard setback it would - that section would be superfluous
and it would say that. In otherwords, if the building setback is
15' or 25' or 35 in a particular zone, then the parking is
allowed up to the 51- thats our interpretation of it; as an
example Mr. Tavaglione's project on Cherry Avenue has parking
within 25' setback with quite a number of spaces.
Commissioner Gordon's objections were that the project does not
have the proper rear yard setback and as well as confined
parking.
Commissioner Tapp made a motion to approve Plot Plan 86 -PP -19 and
recommend approval to City Council of Negative Declaration 86 -ND-
18. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Gordon made a motion to continue this public hearing
and turn it over to the city engineer for his persual and
recommendation.
Mr. Larson stated that he is the city engineer and that you
already had his recommendations. Commissioner Gordon stated that
he was talking about the engineer that we had a discussion with
the other day that is under contract for his views and opinions
on this project.
Mr. Larson stated that there were not engineering questions on
this project.
Chairperson Schuelke questioned who was "we" that had the
discussion with Mr. Dotson. Commissioner Gordon stated that he
and Commissioner Burton met with the City Manager and Mr. Dotson
on Friday in a general kind of discussion and he feels that they
need a second opinion on this project of whether or not it does
conform with our ordinances. Chairperson Schuelke ask if Mr.
Dotson had indicated a concern with this project. Commissioner
Gordon stated he didn't really comment one way or the other.
Commissioner Burton stated that she had asked questions regarding
different projects - things weren't being done properly. Didn't
discuss this project at all.
Commissioner Remy stated she would make a motion to deny the
project and let it go to the City Council for their decision. PC
Secretary ask if this was a motion being made. Motion failed for
lack of a second.
Commissioner Gordon restated his motion that this public hearing
be continued and that the Community Development Director be
directed to forward this project to the Consulting Engineer for
his views and opinions. Motion failed for lack of a second.
CD Director Larson informed Commissioner Gordon that if there is
a problem with code interpretation you should ask that it be put
on the agenda and brought to the Planning Commission for a
resolution and interpretation which would then be approved or
reviewed and the recommendation passed on to the City Council.
No one has actually brought it before the commission.
Chairperson Schuelke then reopened the public hearing at 9:44
P.M., asking for Mr. Marcell to again address the commission in
order to get his opinion pertaining to the discussion that the
commission had.
Mr. Harvey Marcell, again addressed the commission stating that
they would prefer for the commission not to deny their project -
hopefully something could be resolved; doesn't think it would
benefit them to continue the matter; since the parking and
setbacks are the issue, doesn't know how a decision could be made
-7-
since there is two interpretations - matter of personal choice;
they had put more thought into the plan and had tried to conceal
the parking and eliminated the tandem parking out at the back;
eliminated one of the units downstairs and put upstairs - this
way there would be more land area to be utilized for parking;
felt that the parking was workable; caught by surprise by the
issue of the parking in the setback.
Chairperson Schuelke then closed the public hearing at 9:46 P.M.,
turning the matter back to the commission.
On motion by Chairperson Schuelke to approve Plot Plan 86 -PP -20
and recommend Negative Declaration 86 -ND -13 to the City Council,
subject to the conditions attached and to direct staff to work
with the developer prior to City Council reviewing the plan to
work out the setback requirement and that City Council take note
of the double meaning in the ordinance - to pay close attention
to 17.55.015 pg. 112 regarding the location of off - street parking
facilities and then page 114 where it conflicts under the
landscaping standards, motion was seconded by Commissioner Tapp.
Motion failed for lack of a majority with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp and Chairperson Schuelke.
NOES: Commissioners Burton, Gordon and Remy.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
On motion by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Remy,
Com. Gordon restated Chairperson Schuelke's motion except to
neither approve nor deny the project and to pass it on to the
City Council for their decision with the same recommendation as
stated above. Commissioner Gordon amended his motion, seconded
by Commissioner Remy that it should be noted by Council that one
of the reasons that they came to an inpass, was a conflict of the
aforementioned Section of Title 17.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Schuelke.
NOES:
Commissioner
ABSENT:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
Item No. 8:
Burton, Gordon,
Tapp.
Remy and Chairperson
Proposed Construction of Two (2) Seven (7) Unit Apartment
Buildings. Bernard R. Fagot, et al. 86 -PP -20 and 86- ND -19.
CD Director Larson presented the staff report, project analysis
and conditions of approval of this project, noting that he would
be assigning new numbers for the property and units.
Chairperson Schuelke then opened the public hearing at 10:00
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing
to speak pertaining to this project.
Mr. Harvey Marcel, addressed the commission stating that this
project was identical to the one before; wanted to maintain the
independence for the lots for financing reasons; house to the
north is currently rented and encroaching on the existing lot;
intent is to keep the tree as part of the landscape.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Schuelke
then closed the public hearing at 10:02 P.M., turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
The Planning Commission felt that they had the same exact
situation as before in Item No. 7. On motion by Commissioner
Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Remy, to neither deny or approve
this project and pass it on to the City Council for their
-8-
decision and review as in the motion in Item No. 7.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burton, Gordon, Remy and Chairperson
Schuleke.
NOES: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSENT; None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Information Item:
The meeting of November 4, 1986 will be cancelled due to the
election and the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting will be
held on November 18, 1986, unless a Special Meeting is called.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:06 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning XmZoon Meeting