HomeMy Public PortalAbout05/05/87BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MAY 5, 1987
The Planning Commission met in
Meeting on Tuesday, May 5, 1987,
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
a Regular Planning Commission
in the City Council Chambers
Meeting called to Order at 7:12 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke, Tapp and Chairperson
Burton.
It should be noted for the record that Mr. Dennis Ingrao was
sworn in as a commissioner by Mayor Partain prior to the
commencement of this meeting.
It should also be noted for the record that Attorney Ryskamp and
City Manager Bounds were present at this meeting.
Chairperson Burton commented that before opening any public
hearing she wanted to note that the commission did not have a
chairman pro tem, with Attorney Ryskamp commenting that it should
be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
1. Affidavit of Posting read by the secretary.
2. Oral Communications: None.
3. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
April 21, 1987, were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87 -RZ -2 & 87- ND -11, located North of 6th Street and East of
Illinois (behind Rusty Lantern), approx. 1350 E. 6th Street.
Jasper Stone Development Co. (Ron Whittier).
Planning Director Beeler presented the staff report
recommending approval of 87 -RZ -2 and 87- ND -11.
Chairperson Burton asked the commissioners if there were
any questions for staff and there being none she then opened
the public hearing at 7:16 P.M., asking for
proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak.
There being no one wishing to speak from the audience, she
then closed the public hearing at 7:17 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
Commissioner Schuelke noted that on this project she would
be abstaining from discussion and voting.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp, to recommend approval by
City Council of 87 -RZ -2 and Negative Declaration 87- ND -11,
seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Tapp and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schuelke.
5. 87 -PM -4, Cougar Mtn. Apts - Request for Waiver of Final Map
Planning Commission
Minutes of
May 5, 1987
(Cougar Way and Palm Avenue). Michael M. Slagle.
Planning Director Beeler presented the staff report
recommending approval of 87 -PM -4 noting the applicant has
complied with all requirements and should be granted a
waiver.
PD Beeler then answered questions from the commission
commenting that under the Subdivision Map Act, the four
current corners are in and that it comes under a Minor Land
Division.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:24
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Ed Adkinson Adkin Engineers, 6869 Air ort Dr., Riverside,
addressed the commission, noting that they do concur with
staff's recommendation and request approval of parcel waiver
and wanted to give some clarifications as follows:
1) In no way does parcel map waiver preclude them from
installing the street improvements as originally proposed
during the plot plan approval.
2) The original plot plan approval is remaining the same; the
only item that was variable on the plot plan approval was
the width of Michigan Avenue which is now shown on the
precise alignment as Palm Avenue.
The commission informed Mr. Adkinson that they approved 274
units on a total of 15 acres.
Commissioner Remy asked Mr. Adkinson if this was all one
parcel at the time the plot map was approved and commented
that we are after the fact dividing it into 3 parcels, with
Mr. Atkinson stating "that is correct ".
3) Mr. Adkinson informed the commission that originally they
submitted a parcel map subdividing it into two parcels and
at that time the school came in and wanted the
school fees mitigated and they then requested a withdrawal
of the parcel map.
4) The reason for the parcel map waiver at this time is to
subdivide the property which is for finance purposes only,
also entrances explained.
Mr. Bounds explained that as he remembered it, the first
drive is on Cougar Way and two drives in Phase II
off of Palm Avenue.
Tony Boyd, 30384 Point Moreno Dr., Canyon Lake, addressed
the commission informing them about the sign and noting that
there will be two entrances and two exits at all times.
The only thing that is changed is the west alignment which
is now Palm because of the increased width. The only
modification will be in trying to incorporate the same basic
design in a smaller area so the modification will be in the
loss of a few units. Palm Avenue will be installed in the
second development on the east side.
Attorney Ryskamp asked if there was an agreement relative to
putting Palm Avenue in in going ahead with Phase 1 with Mr.
Boyd stating he didn't believe so explaining Phase 1 and
commenting that the street improvements will be terminated
Planning Commission
Minutes of
May 5, 1987
at the division between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. When the
development is done on Parcel 2, they will continue the
street improvements along Cougar Way and complete the ones
on Palm Avenue. The lending institution would rather see
them do the project in smaller phases than in larger phases
in light of the new tax laws that took effect as of January
1st. Again, at the completion of Parcel 1 they will not
develop Parcel 2. The median on Palm Avenue will affect
Parcel 3 and this is the reason they will have to come
before the commission and show a revised plot plan for
Parcel 3 due to the extra width that Palm Avenue is going
to incorporate.
Commissioner Ingrao ask if there is a time frame for all
three phases.
Mr. Boyd commented that we would like to see it done as
quick as possible. The only constraint is the lending
institution. The lending institution has requested that we
complete Phase I and then when it is rented up to a certain
percentage (70% - BOB) when it is occupied to that stage,
then they will give them a loan to do Phase 2. If Phases 1
and 2 go very well they are hopeful that the lending
institution will allow 100% funding of what will be Parcel
3.
PD Beeler commented that they also only have twelve months
to submit all their development plans and if at the end of
twelve months from when they were approved, if revised map
is sent in at the same time, they will have to request an
extension of time or it all dies.
There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairperson then closed the public hearing at 7:44 P.M.,
turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that in approving a
parcel map, the plot plan layout isn't relative to an
approval of a division of land.
PD Beeler commented that if you grant the parcel map
waiver, then they will do three separate certificates of
compliance which will be recorded.
Chairperson Burton noted that one was completed and was
never recorded.
City Manager Bounds noted there is no requirement that it
has to be recorded but they cannot get their financing.
Further, when you discussed Michigan, it is what you see as
Palm Avenue today.
Chairperson Burton commented that the plot plan approval
that the commission gave them remains the same, the west
side of Palm Avenue hasn't been approved and will come
before the commission.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp, to approve the Request for a
Waiver of Final Map 87 -PM -4, based on the following:
A) Applicant has complied with all requirements of the
Beaumont Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map act;
B) Applicant is exempt from Environment Assessment as a
Class 15 - Minor Land Division.
Seconded by Commissioner Schuelke. Motion carried
Planning Commission
Minutes of
May 5, 1987
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke, Tapp and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
6. 87 -PP -23 (Revised) and Variance 87 -V -2, located at the N/E
Corner of 5th and Orange Street - 12 Apartment Units and 22
Parking Spaces. Applicant, Salvador Valdivia.
PD Beeler presented the staff report recommending approval
of the Revised Plot Plan 86 -PP -23 and Variance 87 -V -2.
Sal Valdivia, 845 E. 10th Beaumont, addressed the commission
stating that he wou d be happy to answer any questions the
commission might have.
On motion by Commissionery Remy, to approve Revised Plot
Plan 86 -PP -23 and Variance 87 -V -2 per staff's recommendation,
seconded by Commissioner Ingrao. Motion carried with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Tapp and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schuelke.
It should be noted for the record that Commissioner Schuelke
felt it better to abstain due to the relationship to the
applicant.
7. Request from City Council
Mortuary, Funeral Home and
and Edgar (N /E Corner).
to Review Requirements for
Wedding Chapel, located at 6th
PD Beeler presented the staff report stating that City
Council had referred this matter to the commission for
determination of need. Further, she wanted to know how the
commission wanted this matter as well as similar matters
handled.
Robert Ham, addressed the commission commenting that the
parking area was 78' wide instead of 68'. Does not intend
to encroach on the rear alleyway or easement.
Chairperson Burton noted that the question before the
commission is whether or not the commission will allow the
PD to approve this matter under an Administrave Plot Plan
or a Minor Plot Plan without bringing it before the
commission.
Mr. Bounds explained that in the Business License Ordinance,
it indicates that it requires the Council's approval, in
Title 17 under C -G, a Mortuary requires Planning specific
approval - this is the reason the question is being raised.
PD Beeler explained that a Minor Plot Plan with conditions
could be done and then brought back to the commission
without having to do an environmental assessment.
Mr. Mathews, 7616 Jay Hock, Riverside, addressed the
commission stating that a 1 they were applying for was a
Planning Commission
May 5, 1987
Page 5
business license, felt very frustrated.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that any type of alteration or
any use for any purpose in the C -G requires some type of
specific planning approval, specifically referring to plot
plan uses in 17.70. The code also outlines different types
of plot plan depending upon the nature of the project - one
is the Administrative and the second is the Minor Plot Plan
neither of which require a public hearing or approval by
this body and is designed for just this type of applicant
where you have an existing building. This is the type of
project which is perfect for Minor or Administrative Plot
Plan.
PD Beeler commented that she would prefer a Minor Plot Plan
since this could be conditioned.
Mr. Bounds explained that he is concerned about a street
that is as busy as Sixth Street being used for a funeral
procession - three lanes would have to be stopped in order
to get the procession over in the left side of the street.
Dora Rynio, 11198 Western Hills Dr., Riverside, addressed
the commission commenting that they had made no structural
changes in the building - only painted, carpeted. The
building was in a condition that if furnished, could
immediately be used as a mortuary and felt that from the
beginning that they had complied.
Mr. Ham, addressed the commission again stating that he felt
it very unfair by bringing in competition; providing
a parking area far better than anyone else has.
Mr. Ryskamp commented that it would appear that any change
of use would require a plot plan or at least a specific
planning approval.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke that staff will handle
this project by approving, conditionally approving or
disapproving as they determine appropriate, a Minor Plot
Plan, seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke, Tapp and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
8. Continued meeting from April 21, 1987, for discussion and
possible instructions to staff regarding the Textual Code
Amendment for an Ordinance repealing Sections 17.55.005
through 17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and adding
a new Chapter 17.55 to the Municipal Code concerning Off -
Street Parking and Loading.
This matter was continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of May 19, 1987.
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:58 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Pin Commi su ion Secretary