HomeMy Public PortalAbout1987 PC MinutesBEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JANUARY 6,1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, January 6, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Acting Chairman Gordon presiding.
1. Meeting called to Order at 7:07 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 and Remy. Chairperson
Schuelke was excused.
4. It should be noted for the record that City Manager Robert
Bounds, Planning Director Valerie Beeler and Attorney
Ryskamp were present.
Item No. 1:
The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
December 16, 1986, and the Special Meeting of December 19, 1986,
were approved as submitted with the following insertion in the
Minutes of December 16, 1986.
The record should show that due to a possible conflict
of interest pertaining to the OeZorzi project,
Chairperson Schuelke yielded the Chair to Acting
Chairman Gordon.
Item No.2:
Proposed one (1) three (3) bedroom unit detached house and two (2)
two (2) bedroom units similar to a duplex. Oscar & Roger Berg,
(86- PP -22).
City Manager, Robert Bounds presented the staff report, project
analysis and conditions of approval recommending approval of Plot
Plan 86- PP -22, noting that a Negative Declaration is not required
under CEQA for this project. Further, that Condition No. 15
should be eliminated since according to Title 17, Section
17.20.310 which states that "where there is a sideyard adjoining
a street setback the requirement is the same as the front
setback." Consequently, this project would have a 25' setback on
8th Street as well as on Chestnut which creates a great problem
for any 60' lot. Also, that since this project is in the RHD
zone and the applicants are only asking for permission to build
three actual living units, there is the possibility of creating a
better situation for the property since it is 160 feet long, if
one of the carports was deleted, which would allow the applicants
to place an enclosed storage for trash. This would, of course,
entail a variance which the applicants are in agreement with.
,� -- 1 r1 - cathnrk on 8th Street
which they will complete the off -site improvements.
Acting Chairman Gordon then opened publicauharing
wishing.to
P.M., asking for proponents/opponents
speak.
Mr. Roger Berg, 1164 Euclid, Beaumont, addressed the commission
stating: they would appreciate a variance because they were told
by the previous Planning Director that the setback was 10' on 8th
Street before the property was purchased and cutting it down would
create a hardship; will put all the curb, gutter and landscaping
in; wants to finish the house first and then build the duplex;
each backyard will be separated; garage is not included in square
footage of units.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chairman Gordon
then closed the public hearing at 7:35 P.M., turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
The commission discussed the variance, setbacks, alley, and
parking spaces noting that Variance No. 87 -V -1 would be the number
given if this project is approved.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp, seconded by Commissioner Remy for
approval of Plot Plan 86 -PP -22 and Variance No. 87 -V -1 reducing
the side setback from the required 25' to 10' setback and
eliminating one (1) parking space, subject to the amended
conditions of approval and findings to read as follows:
Condition No. 2:
A minimum of six (6) covered parking spaces
six (6)
shall be provided.
Condition No. 6:
The parking area and the alley shall be paved
parking.
over with suitable base as approved by the
23, 86 -V -9
City Engineer.
Condition No. 15:
Deleted and replaced with the following
wording: Permission is granted to phase the
development by completion of the single family
unit and receiving the occupancy permit prior
to completion of on and off -site improvements
which shall be secured by a security bond.
Findings:
That this is a unique lot and is compatible to
the surrounding area.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Burton, Remy and Acting Chairman
Gordon.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Schuelke.
ABSTAI14: None.
Recessed at 7:45 P.M., reconvening at 7:52 P.M.
Item No. 3:
Proposed two
(2)
six (6)
unit apartment buildings with associated
landscaping
and
parking.
Salvador Valdivia, applicant (86 -PP-
23, 86 -V -9
and
86- ND -25.
maintenance; unable to keep people from driving through; carports
from the easterly end will be off of the alley and not from the
street; 10' between the balcony and 20'between the buildings; can
put in grass instead of concrete.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chairman Gordon
then closed the public hearing at 8:05 P.M., turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
There was much discussion
space between the buildings,
Mr. Valdivia, speaking aga
going to allow more space,
make it 10' and that way
backyard.
by the commission pertaining to the
balconies overhang and the variance.
in stated that if the commission was
another 5' from the northside would
each apartment could have a small
Mrs. Hershey, speaking from the audience stated that there would
be enclosed patios for each unit on the bottom and balconies for
the upstair units.
Chairman Gordon questioned as to whether another condition was
needed to cover the variance, with Mr. Bounds commenting that it
could be part of the variance if approved.
On motion by Commissioner Burton, seconded by Commissioner Tapp,
recommending approval of Negative Declaration No. 86 -ND -25 by City
Council and recommending approval of Plot Plan 86 -PP -23 and
Variance 86 -V -9 to commission to reduce the side setback from the
required 25' to 10' setback allowing the northerly building to be
moved 5' to the south and the southerly building to be moved 15'
to the south, creating a 20' space between the two buildings and
the parking requirements be reduced by 7 from 30 to 23; subject to
the amended conditions of approval and findings to read as
follows:
Condition No. 5:
Findings:
The ,parking area and the alley shall be paved
over with a suitable base as approved by the
City Engineer.
This is a unique lot and is compatible with
the surrounding area.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Burton, Remy and Acting Chairman
Gordon.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Schuelke.
ABSTAIN: None.
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that due to changes in
the Brown Act that agenda items only could be discussed.
Mr. Bounds informed the commission that there would be no business
for the meeting of January 20, 1987 and this might be a good time
to work on Title 17. He further informed the commission, that
they would be getting a copy of how the agenda would be set up
from now on and their help is needed on items that they might
want placed on the agenda for discussion.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JANUARY 20, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, January 20, 1987, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Schuelke presiding.
1. Meeting called to Order at 7:07 P.M.
2. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
3. On Roll Call, the following Commissioners were present:
Commissioners Burton, Gordon, Remy and Chairperson Schuelke.
Commissioner Tapp was absent due to illness in the family.
4. It should be noted for the record that City Manager, Robert
Bounds, and Attorney Ryskamp were present.
The study session was held from 6:00 P.M., to 7:00 P.M., with Mr.
Hostetler /Kulikov present and discussing their property located
on Brookside - Tract No. 21830 adjacent to Tract No. 19149.
Chairperson Schuelke
2 to the agenda Mr.
advised so did add
Communications and on
Commissioner Gordon
with the following ro
asked if it was in order to add
Hostetler /KUlikov's discussion
Item No. 2 to the agenda
motion by Commissioner Burton,
Item No. 2 was then placed on
L1 call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Schuelke.
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
Commissioner
ABSTAIN:
None.
Item No. 1:
as Item No.
and being
under Oral
seconded by
the agenda
Burton, Gordon, Remy and Chairperson
Tapp.
The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January
6, 1987, were approved as submitted.
Item No. 2:
Discussion with Mr. Hostetler /Kulikov pertaining to the property
located on Brookside - Tract No. 21830.
Planning Director Beeler opened the oral communication discussion
informing the commission that a variance could not be done on the
property in question and commented that the commission has to
consider as to what direction they want to go,- e.g., duplexes,
apartments, possibly smaller lots, zero lot lines, something like
Mr. Hostetler was proposing or 6000 minimum sq. ft. lots.
Attorney Ryskamp wanted to know if there are drawbacks for a
smaller lot and if it makes a difference in terms of quality of
requirements allowing single family dwellings at 4500 minimum,
should there be some type of percentage restriction in the RHD
zone and if it is going to effect the potential response to the
affordable and available housing element which is being met in
the RHD zone. He further commented, that it is possible by
development agreement to establish an agreement that would allow
this type of change based on what is coming as to what exists.
This way you will be able to facilitate any developer legally in
terms of the direction that is being taken.
Mr. Ryskamp then explained some of the new changes in the Brown
Act, noting that the City Council had passed a resolution and
that the new provisions provided that an agenda must be posted 72
hours before the meeting and that the time to submit items for
the agenda closes six (6) calendar days prior to the meeting.
Nothing will be discussed at the meeting unless it appears on the
agenda.
Chairperson Schuelke then announced that the oral communications
discussion will close and it be referred to staff to bring back
at a proper time.
Commission recessed at 7:53 P.M., reconvening at 8:03 P.M.
Item No. 3:
A Textual Code Amendment for an Ordinance repealing Sections
17.55.005 through 17.55.210 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and
adding a new Chapter 17.55 to the Municipal Code concerning
Off - Street Parking and Loading.
City Manager, Robert Bounds, noted that the heading under
Ordinance Number should read 17.55.005 through 17.55.200 instead
of .210.
There was much discussion by the commission with the following
changes made pertaining to the above referenced item:
17.55.010 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Page 1 - no corrections /additions.
Page 2 (e) first line should read areas not spaces.
Page 2 (f) first line should read Chapter not Ordinance.
Page 2 (g) last line, delete (Prior Code Section 35.11 (Part).
Page 2 (h) should read: No street setbacks shall be used for re-
quired parking spaces or loading spaces.
17.55.015 MINIMUM STANDARDS.
Page 2 (a) delete "two family and duplex" and "or carport ".
Page 2 (b) second line, after the word "each" insert "studio
apartment or ".
17.55.020 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING.
Page 3 - no corrections /additions. '
Page 4 (1) line 2, after each, "required" should be inserted.
Attorney Ryskamp stated that after reviewing Beaumont's Municipal
Code he had drafted the amendment and had incorporated the "more
�rr;rrtPnr�� romiirements for narking and loading and in proposing
Commissioner Burton requested that at the next meeting, there be
an agenda item for discussion and possible instructions to staff
regarding RHD zone.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
t" O�
Plannin Comm sion Secretary
D R A F T
ORDINANCE NO.'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CIT COUNCIL OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIAY F Y
REPEALINGSECTION S
17.55.005 through 17.55.210 OF THE BEAUMONT
MUNICIPAL CODE 55
STREET
PARKING AND LOADING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Chapter 17.55, Sections 17.55.005 through
17.55.200, inclusive of the Municipal Code or the City of Beaumont
are repealed
SECTION 2: Chapter 17.55 is added to read as tollows:
17.55.005 Off- Street Parking and Loading - Intent
17.55.010 General Provisions.
17.55.015 Minimum Standards for Off- Street Parking Facilities.
17.55.020 Development Standards
17.55.100 Plans and Specification to Prequisite Building Permit.
17.55.105 Approval of Off- Street Parking Plan.
17.55.110 occupation and Final Inspection or Building
17.55.200 Loading Space General Requirements.
17.55.205 Schedule of Off- Street Loading Requirements.
17.55.210 Loading Area Development Standards
;_7 x,005 == STREET PARKING Ln T.OADING - INTENT. In order �o
prevent alleviate congestion, parking and loading areas shall be
provided in accordance with this section wnen a building or structure
is constructed or a new use is established. Additional otf- street
parking shall be provided in accordance witn tnis section it an
existing building is altered, or dwelling units, apartments or guest
rooms are added, or a use is intensified by the addition or rleor
space or seating capacity, or there is a change of use, at the time or
such alteration, addition, intensification or change of use. The
number or parking spaces and loading bertns snail be in proportion to
the need for such facilities created by the particular type of use.
Off- street parking and loading areas snail be laid out in a manner
that will protect the public safety and ensure their usetuiness.
17.55.010 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
a. Off- street parking and loading spaces with adequate
ingress and egress thereot shall be provided for any new
structure and for any new use established; for any addition to or
enlargement of an existing structure or use; or for any change in
the occupancy of any structure or the manner in which any use is
conducted that would result in additional parking or loading
spaces to be required.
b. For any addition or any enlargement or an existing
structure or use, or for any change of occupancy or manner or
operation that would increase the number of parking or loading
spaces required, the additional parking or loading shall be
required only for such addition, enlargement, or change and not
for the entire structure or use except that no additional parking
- _ . _ ,.,h.,a the tntal number of spaces
d. Where the application of the schedule results in a
fractional number of spaces, a fraction of one -half (1/2) or
greater shall be resolved to the next higher whole number.
e. All parking and loading spaces required by this
ordinance shall be maintained only for the duration of the use
requiring such facilities and they shall be used only for the
temporary parking of passenger vehicles not exceeeing one ton in
capacity, and for pedestrian ways, landscaping, parking
structures, permitted signs, and lights, and snail not be used
for sale, display, or repair of motor vehicles. Each parking
area shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner, in gooa
repair and with spaces clearly marked. Temporary use or such
spaces and areas for uses not specifically permitted may be
permitted after public hearing in each case under a conaltional
use permit,
f. For the purposes of this ordinance, gross rluor area
shall not include enclosed or covered areas used for ott- street
parking or loading.
g. Where a maximum distance is specified, sucn uibtance
shall be the walking distance measured from the nearest point ur
the parking facility to the nearest point or the building or area
that such facility is required to serve. (Prior Code Section
35.11 (Part).
h. Front and street side set backs snail not be used for
parking spaces or loaning spaces.
17,55,015 MINIMUM STANDARDS, Off- street parking spaces ur areas
required by this chapter shall be provided in accordance witn the
following minimum standards:
a. For one - family, two - family and duplex dwellings, two
parking spaces within a private garage or carport on the same lot
for each dwelling unit.
b. For multiple family dwellings, one4 na one =Half /
parking spaces tor each dwelling unit containing onestcrioom, and
two and one -half parking spaces for each dwelling unit containing
two or more bedrooms. Such parking shall be provided on the same, �3 0
lot or parcel for each dwelling unit. Any resulting fractional
space shall be resolved to the next higher wnole number. -At--
- - - - - ---
r- cent— or -tlse r�quired- parking space tsnalr be
.in_caepo-rt -s-or- ga-rpes. j, Catvd. (LFf' 0 1),(et .y
CY C_z C & -�PFL ... ws-/�. s ».,.� C.FF G.t A.n u- h 2_ 9 ����yr�c •tJSP NC(.a.��- � � 1��� -
C. For mooiienome parks, two parking spaces ror each of
mobilehome spa-". At least one on the mobilehome space and cne
second within one hundred -fitty teet or the mobilehome space.
Go Additional parking in a separate designates storage area shall be
provided at the ratio of one parking space for every tour
mobilehome spaces. At- .- lea-s- t -srxty (60%) percent of the requl:ea
parking paces- shall- be -in- carports or garages.
d. For motels, hotels, boarainghouses; lodgingnouses,
fraternity or sorority houses, guest rancnes, student
dormitories, student housing facilties, homes ror une aged,
charitable or welfare institutions used for dwelling purposes,
one parking space on the same or aojoining lot; for each
individual sleeping or living unit. In cases wnere larger units
f. For auditoriums, theaters, churches, staciums, school
multi- purpose rooms, clubs, funeral chapels and other Places of
public assembly, one parking space for every three permanent
seats in the principal assembly area or room. Where no permanent
seats are provided, one parking space tor every twenty square
feet of floor area in the principal assembly room. Sucn spaces
shall be located on the same lot or within three hundred re'et,
g. For day care centers and nursery scnools, one parking
space for every one hundred (100) square feet gross door space.
Such spaces shall be located on the same or adjoining lot;
h. For elementary and junior nigh scnools, two parking
spaces on the premises for every classroom plus any applicable
requirements in subparagraph (f) above.
i. For high schools, junior colleges and trade scnoolb,
ten parking spaces on the premises tor every classroom plus any
applicable requirements in subparagraph (f) above.
j. For every neighborhood or community shopping center (CN
Zone), at least three square feet or parking for every one square
foot of gross door space. The parking area shall constitute an
integral part of the snopping center.
k. For offices, businesses and commercial buildings except
as otherwise provided, one parking space for each two hundred
fifty square feet or major fraction tnereot of gross floor area.
Such spaces shall be located on the same lot or within three
hundred feet;
1. For banks, public or private utility utrices, medical,
optometric and dental ortices, one parking space on the same lot
or within three hundred feet ror each one hundred eighty bquare
feet or major fraction tnereot or gross floor area. For an
automated teller racility situated as part ur its associated
financial institution, tnere is no additional parking
requirements beyond that of the tinancial institution buildi,gg
itself. For an automated teller tacility situatea independent of
its associated financial institution, two parking spaces for the
first automated teller station and one parking space ror earn
additional station. Parking must be on the same lot or witni„
100 feet;
m. For furniture stores, housenold appliance stores,
drapery shops, plumbing stores, floor covering stores, motor
vehicle and machinery sales buildings, one parking space for
every five hundred square feet or major fraction thereot or yruss
street floor area and one parking space for every seven hundred
fifty square teet of gross floor area above or below the street
floor. Such spaces snail be located on the same lot or within
three hundred feet;
n. For restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, drive -in or
fast -food restaurants, take -out food establishments, bars,
nightclubs, taverns and similar uses, one parking space on the
same lot or within one hundred fifty feet for earn one hundred
square teet or major traction thereof of gross tloor area snail
be provided; in addition to the above requirement, drive -in or
fact- rnnA roatanrents with drive- throuan servicing facilities
p. For industrial and manufacturing establishments, one
parking space on the same lot or within three nundrea feet for
every three hundred fifty square feet or major rractiun tnereot
of gross floor area;
q. For warehouse and storage buildings, one parking space
on the same lot or within three hundred feet for every one
thousand square feet or major fraction thereof of gross floor area.
r. For outdoor sales, display or storage, five parking
spaces plus one additional parking space on the same lot ror each
two hundred fifty square feet or major fraction tnereor of gross
sales office floor area;
S. For automobile service stations or centers, six parking
spaces on the same lot, plus two parking spaces for each service
bay on the same lot or within one hundred feet;
t. For contractor's storage yards in any zone, one parKiug
space on the same property for each four thousand square feet ur
net lot area or one parking space for each two nundred fifty
square feet of office space or one parking space for earn rive
hundred square feet or encloses storage, whichever is greater.
U. For uses not speciifically mentioned, the requirements
for off- street parking spaces shall be the same as ror similar
mentioned uses and the Planning Director shall determine in
writing the parking requirements for the proposed project. In
the event the determination of the Planning Director shall be
deemed unsatisfactory or unreasonable, the applicant may present
the matter to the Planning Commission in writing for rosti,ny on
the agenda of a regularly scneauled commission meeting, for
determination.
17.55.020 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EQ$ OFF -STREET PARKING
FACILITIES. The following standards shall apply to the development of
all parking facilities whether the space is required or optional.
a. Dimensions and Space Indications.
1. Except as provided in sub- paragraph (2) below,
each off - street parking space shall consist of a minimum
rectangular area nine feet wide by twenty feet long,
together with drives, aisles, turning and maneuvering
areas meeting the established standards ana specifications
of the planning department and having acFess at all times
to a public street or alley. 711a . ee ocau-
2. In par King lots or structures wnicn exceed the
space capacity and serve non - residential uses, thirty
percent or the required spaces may have a minimum
rectangular area or seven and one -half feet wide by
fifteen feet long to accommodate small cars. Small car
spaces shall not be permitted to meet the off - street
parking requirements for residential uses. Small car
spaces shall be fully enclosed by striping and clearly
marked "SMALL CARS ONLY ".
3. All off- street par King spaces except for one
and two family residences shall be inaicatea,by white ^` ^
1. One and two - family residences. Where the
residences are located on parcels less than 20,000 square
feet in area, all parking areas and driveways snail be
paved with concrete, asphaltic concrete, brick, or equal
surfacing. If the parcel is 20,000 square feet in area,
or larger, all parking areas and driveways may be impruveo
with at least three inches of decomposed granite, or equal.
2. All other uses in commerical, mobilenome park,
multi - family residential, or industrial use, all parking
areas and driveways shall be paved with:
(a) Concrete surfacing with a minimum
thickness of 3 1/2 inches and snap include
expansion joints, or
(b) Asphaltic concrete surfacing compacted to
a minimum thickness or two and one -halt inches.
c. Grading. All parking areas and driveways snail be
graded to prevent ponding and to minimize drainage run -off Crum
entering adjoining property without the permission or the owner
or the ajoining property.
d. Lighting. Parking area lighting may be requirea. If
required, such lighting facilities shall be located, with hoods
provided and adjusted so as to preclude the direct glare or
the lights from shining directly onto adjoining property or
streets.
e. Walls. All paved parking areas, other than those
required for residential uses, which adjoin property zoned for
residential use shall have a six -foot high solid masonry wail
installed in such manner as to preclude a view of the parking
area trm such adjoining property, except that any walls within 10
fet or any street or alley shall be 30 inches high.
f. Landscaping. All parking areas snail be landscaped as
follows:
1. Required front and street side yards shall be
landscaped and continually maintained and shall not be
used for off - street parking or vehicles or loading spaces.
Turning and maneuvering areas and entrance and exit drives
to off- street parking and loading areas shall be
permitted. Any planting within 10 feet or any entry or
exit driveway snail not be permitted to grow higher Lnan
30 inches.
2. In addition, where more than 4 automobile
spaces are required on a lot or a parcel or land, not less
than 3 percent of the interior parking lot area shall be
landscaped, not including parking lots located in enclosed
structures. Planting along the exterior perimeter of a
parking lot will not be considered as a part or the 3
percent interior landscaping. At least one fitteen- gallun
size tree for every 10 spaces or major rraction thereof
shall be included in the development of the landscaping
program. All open areas between any curbs, walls, and the
property line snail be permanently landscaped with
4 I_ .nA m.i nrni nam
5. An automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed in all landscaped areas to insure the proper
maintenance of plant materials. Hose bibs shall be placed
at intervals of not less than 200 feet.
6. Where mature trees already exist, the parking
lot shall be designed to make the best use of this
existing growth and shade.
7. All parking areas abutting property lines
except those with a six foot masonry wall shall have at
least a 3 foot landscaped planter area.
8. Landscaping shall include shrbs, trees, vines,
ground covers, hedges, flowers, bark, chips, decorating
cinders, gravel and similar material which will improve
the appearance of parking areas. At least 858 of the
landscaped area must be covered with growing plant
materials. The growing plant materials must achieve at
least 508 coverage of the landscaped area within one year
of planting.
1. The location and dimensions of aisle areas
adjacent to parking spaces shall be arranged in accordance
with the minimum parking standards outlined below.
2. For all uses other than one - family and
two - family dwellings, the parking layout shall be arranged
so as to permit vehicles to move out of the parking area
without backing onto a street. For all uses other than
one - family and two- family dwellings, driveways which are
more than 100 feet long or which lead to parking areas
with more than 10 parking spaces shall be not less than 20
feet wide. All other driveways shall be not less than 10
feet wide.
3. Barriers meeting approval of the Director of
Public Works shall be provided to channelize traffic into
travel lanes and prevent unrestricted movement through and
across parking stalls.
4. No parking space shall be located within 3 feet
of any property line, except where a six foot high masonry
wall is erected on the property line.
5. Wheel stops shall be provided so that no
portion of any parked vehicle shall touch any wall, fence
or building, nor shall project beyond any lot lines, or
encroach on any sidewalk, bounding such facilities.
6. Driveway locations on arterial highways shall
be located to coordinate with future median openings in
accordance with the designed standards established by the
Division of Highway design manual.
h. Covered Spaces. Carports or garages covering parking
spaces, including those required for residential housing under
Section 17.55.015(a), (b) and (c) shall meet minimum construction
1. One and two - family residences. Where the
residences are located on parcels less than 20,000 square
feet in area, all parking areas and driveways snail be
paved with concrete, asphaltic concrete, brick, or equal
surfacing. If the parcel is 20,000 square feet in area,
or larger, all parking areas and driveways may be impruveo
with at least three inches of decomposed granite, or equal.
2. All other uses in commerical, moeilenome park,
multi - family residential, or industrial use, all park1:19
areas and driveways shall be paved with:
(a) Concrete surfacing witn a minimum
thickness of 3 1/2 inches and shall incluae
expansion joints, or
(b) Asphaltic concrete surfacing compacLea to
a minimum thickness of two and one -half inches.
c. Grading. All parking areas and driveways shall oe
graded to prevent ponaing and to minimize drainage run -off frum
entering adjoining property without the permission of the owner
of the ajoining property.
d. Lighting. Parking area lighting may be requirea. If
required, such lighting facilities shall be located, with hoods
provided and adjusted so as to preclude the direct glare or
the lights from shining directly onto adjoining property or
streets.
e. Walls. All paved parking areas, other than those
required Lor residential uses, which adjoin property zoned for
residential use shall have a six -foot high solia masonry wall
installed in such manner as to preclude a view of the parking
area frm such adjoining property, except that any walls within 10
fet of any street or alley shall be 30 inches high.
f. Landscaping. All parking areas snail be landscaped as
follows:
1. Required front and street side yards shall be
landscaped and continually maintained and snail not oe
used for off - street parking or vehicles or loading spaces.
Turning and maneuvering areas and entrance and exit drives
to off- Street parking and loading areas shall be
permitted. Any planting within 10 feet or any entry or
exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher Lnan
30 inches.
2. In addition, where more than 4 automobile
spaces are required on a lot or a parcel of land, not itss
than 3 percent of the interior parking lot area shall be
landscaped, not including parking lots locateo in enclosed
structures. Planting along the exterior perimeter of a
parking lot will not be considered as a part or the 3
percent interior landscaping. At least one fifteen- gallun
size tree for every 10 spaces or major Traction thereof
shall be included in the development of the landscaping
program. All open areas between any curbs, walls, and the
property line snail be permanently landscaped with
5. An automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed in all landscaped areas to insure the proper
maintenance of plant materials. Hose bibs shall be placed
at intervals of not less than 200 feet.
6. Where mature trees already exist, the parking
lot shall be designed to make the best use of this
existing growth and shade.
7. All parking areas abutting property lines
except those with a six foot masonry wall shall have at
least a 3 foot.landscaped planter area.
8. Landscaping shall include shrbs, trees, vines,
ground covers, hedges, flowers, bark, chips, decorating
cinders, gravel and similar material which will improve
the appearance of parking areas. At least 858 of the
landscaped area must be covered with growing plant
materials. The growing plant materials must achieve at
least 508 coverage of the landscaped area within one year
of planting.
g. Circulation An�d Parking Space Layout.
1. The location and dimensions of aisle areas
adjacent to parking spaces shall be arranged in accordance
with the minimum parking standards outlined below.
2. For all uses other than one - family and
two - family dwellings, the parking layout shall be arranged
so as to permit vehicles to move out of the parking area
without backing onto a street. For all uses other than
one - family and two - family dwellings, driveways which are
more than 100 feet long or which lead to parking areas
with more than 10 parking spaces shall be not less than 20
feet wide. All other driveways shall be not less than 10
feet wide.
3. Barriers meeting approval of the Director of
Public Works shall be provided to channelize traffic into
travel lanes and prevent unrestricted movement through and
across parking stalls.
4. No parking space shall be located within 3 feet
of any property line, except where a six foot high masonry
wall is erected on the property line.
5. Wheel stops shall be provided so that no
portion of any parked vehicle shall touch any wall, fence
or building, nor shall project beyond any lot lines, or
encroach on any sidewalk, bounding such facilities.
6. Driveway locations on arterial highways shall
be located to coordinate with future median openings in
accordance with the designed standards established by the
Division of Highway design manual.
h. Covered Spaces. Carports or garages covering parking
spaces, including those required for residential housing under
Section 17.55.015(), (b) and (c) shall meet minimum construction
standard specifications as required by the Planninq Director.
one-half equivalent ing
ano
shall be maintained in good repair.
j. ma ins Parkinc Eac +�itieG To ComF . Where
off - street parking facilities are provided but not required by
this Title, such facilities shall comply with the cevelopment
standards seven an ces
d
one -halt teet wide by fifteen feet long when tully enclosed by
striping and ciearlly marked "SMALL CARS ONLY ".
1„i'1.55, 100 PLANS &M SPF(:TFICATIONS PREREO[7T_�&U TQ BUILDING
PERMIT• No building permit or license snail be issued for any
building or structure or use requiring parking spaces until plans and
specifications clearly indicating the proposed development, including
location, size, shape, design, curb cuts, lighting, landscaping ano
other teatures and appurtenances or the proposed parking area are
approved by the planning department and the public works department or
if so required elsewhere in this ordinance by the planning commission.
17.55.105 APPROVAL QF QFF-STREET PARKING PLAN. A plot plan,
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.70 of this ordinance shall be
filed for approval of all off - street parking facilities, except for
one and two - family residences, unless the off - street parking
facilities are approved as a part of a comprehensive conditional use
permit or plot plan approval. Modifications to the Circulation,
Landscaping and Parking Layout requirements where conditions as
described in Section 17.70.105(a) make it impractical to require
strict compliance with these requirements, may be permitted through
approval of a Variance.
17,55,11Q nCCU PATTON. BN.R EixaL TN SPE _TTON QE all LDING. No
building shall be occupied and no final inspection shall be given by
the building division of the public works department until off - street
parking spaces are provided in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter.
17.55.200 LOADING SPACE GENERAL-REOUIREMENTS.
a. When the lot upon which the loading spaces are located
abuts upon an alley such loading spaces shall have access from
said alley. The length of the loading space may be measured
perpendicular to or parallel with the alley.
b. Loading spaces shall be so located and designed that
trucks need not back into a street.
c. No part of an alley or street shall be used for
loading excepting areas designated by the City for loading.
d. No loading space which is provided for the purpose
of complying with the provisions of this ordinance shall
hereafter be eliminated, reduced, or converted in any manner
below the requirements esctablished in this ordinance, unless
equivalent facilities are provided elsewhere, conforming to this
ordinance or the Planning Commission shall determine that the
need for the loading space no longer exists.
Planning Commission
20,001 to 50,000 2
50,001 to 100,000 3
For each 60,000 over 100,001 1
b. Hospital, hotel, motel, nursing home, sanitarium,
office building, and institution:
10,000 to 50,000 1
50,001 to 100000 2
100,001 and over 3
a. Each off- stree+
rectangular area not less
(40) feet long, and shall
than fourteen (14) feet.
and maneuvering areas and
public street or alley.
loading space shall consist of a
than twelve (12) feet wide by forty
have an overhead clearance of not less
Each space shall have adequate turning
shall have access at all times to a
b. All off - street loading areas shall be constructed
and improved in accordance with loading area details on file with
the Department of Public Works. Such details shall include, but
shall not be limited to: paving, drainage, circulation and
accessibility, bumpers, loading docks, markings and other
vehicular control, lighting, walls, and screening adjoining
residential zones, landscaping and planting, and maintenance
shall be the same as set forth for parking areas in this Chapter.
c. Where off - street loading facilities are provided
but not required by this ordinance, such facilities shall comply
with the development standards prescribed for required
facilities.
d. Approval for loading areas shall be in the same
manner as required for parking plans as set forth in Section
17.55.105.
SECTION 3: This Ordinace shall take effect as provided by
law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this day of
1987, upon the following roll call vote.
AYES
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
BEAUMONT
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 17, 1987
Study Session from 6:00 P.M., - 7:00 P.M.
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 1987, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding.
Meeting called to Order at 7:02 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
On Roll Call the following Commissioners were present:
Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Gordon, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
it should be noted for the record that Attorney Ryskamp was
present.
1. Affidavit of Posting read by the Secretary.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Jim Schulties, P. 0. Box 3055, Beaumont, addressed the
commission pertaining to the zoning of the property at 1201
Beaumont Avenue. Mr. Schulties stated that when he purchased
the property in 1976 he went through a zone change to C -1
and the present zoning map reflects the property to be zoned
RSF - wants the present zoning map changed to reflect that
the property is zoned C -G.
Planning Director Beeler informed the commission that the
present zoning map shows the property to be residential and
this is the map that she adhers to. Further, that the
present zoning map was adopted in 1985 by council and that
she would need direction from the commission in order to
initiate a zone change zoning it back to C -G.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that it should be referred to staff
for review for appropriate recommendation or other action
and place it on the next agenda for the meeting of March 3,
1.987.
3. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
February 3, 1987, were approved as submitted.
4. Discussion and possible instructions to staff regarding the
RHD Zone.
Discussion by the commission pertaining to all the zoning in
r_he City of Beaumont with Planning Director Beeler giving
copies to each of the commissioners of her analysis of the
------------ i..... ,.a +ho rir" o,h; oh t- hp cnmmission had
deleted and the sentence "Each linear dimension of such
space shall be a minimum of 6 feet" to be inserted.
Second paragraph, last sentence, after the word "front
yard ", the word "setback" should be added.
This matter was also continued to the meeting of March 3,
1987.
6. Continued meeting from February 3, 1987 of 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.
In the heading of the Second Draft under Ordinance No, it
should be corrected to read "17.55.200" instead of
"17.55.210 ".
Changes made under Section 17.55.015 Minimum Standards:
(a) no change;
(b) line 5, should read "three" bedrooms instead of "two ";
last sentence, after the word "depth" add "and a maximum
clearance of 10' height" per parking space;
(c) held in abeyance until staff can furnish information
pertaining to mobilehome parks;
(d) no change;
(e) no change;
(f) no change;
(g) no change;
(h) no change;
(i) no change;
(j) no change;
(k) no change;
(1) no change.
At this time, the discussion was continued to the next
meeting of March 3, 1987.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
h annin ommiotion Secretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 3, 1987
Study Session from 6:00 P.M., - 7:00 P.M.
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, February 3, 1987, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Schuelke presiding.
Meeting called to Order at 7:20 P.M.
Oath of Office Administered to Commissioner Burton and
Chairperson Schuelke by Mayor Partain for a period of another
four (4) years.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
On Roll Call the following Commissioners were present:
Commissioners Tapp, Burton, Gordon, Remy and Chairperson
Schuelke.
It should be noted for the record that City Manager, Robert
Bounds and Attorney George Ryskamp were present.
1. Affidavit of Posting read by the Secretary.
2. Re- organization of Commissioners.
Commissioner Patti Burton was elected Chairperson with
Commissioner Gordon re- elected Chairman Pro Tem.
Former Chairperson Schuelke then yielded her chair to
Chairperson Burton stating that she appreciated the
confidence that the other commissioners had given her during
her time as Chairperson.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATION: None.
4. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
January 20, 1987, were approved as submitted.
5. Request by Commissioner Burton for discussion and possible
instructions to staff regarding the RHD zone.
There was discusson by the commission pertaining to the RHD
zone with City Manager, Robert Bounds, commenting that the
commission should between now and the next meeting find a
happy medium as to what the density should be for the RHD
zone.
Commissioner Gordon stated that he would like to see the
overall percentages of zoning in order to have some kind of
an idea as to what the city might develop in the areas
.._ -1 4 - ."_ , � ...,+ ", i- i nrnrnnrAf-nd in the City
seeing RHD zoning coming before them for the next couple of
months - a big push this month for GP Amendments.
6. Continued meeting for discussion of 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.
The commission upon discussing Section 17.55.015
MINIMUN STANDARDS, and after lengthy discussion, re- phased
Section 17.55.015 (b) on Page 2 to read as follows:
For multiple family dwellings, one parking space for
each studio apartment which shall be covered; for one or
two bedroom units two parking spaces one of which shall
be covered; for three or more bedroom units two and one
half parking spaces one of which shall be covered. Such
parking shall be provided on the same lot or parcel for
each dwelling unit. Any resulting fractional space
shall be resolved to the next higher whole number. All
coverd spaces shall mean carports or garages with a
minimum clearance of 9 feet width and a 20 feet depth
clearance per parking space.
Section 17.55.020 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR OFF- STREET
PARKING FACILITIES, shall have the following included at the
end of the paragraph on page 4 -1.
"No required parking spaces shall be tandem."
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that he would make
all the necessary changes on his word processor that the
commission had made so far and bring back for the meeting of
February 17, 1987.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 9:22 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Pn C000ission Secretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MARCH 3, 1987
Study Session from 6:00 P.M., - 7:00 P.M.
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, March 3, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding.
Meeting called to Order at 7:03 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
On Roll Call the following Commissioners were present:
Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Gordon, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
It should be noted for the record that Robert Bounds, City
Manager and George Ryskamp, City Attorney were both present at
this meeting.
1. Affidavit of Posting read by the Secretary.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
3. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
February 27, 1987, were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 86 -GP -4 and 86 -RZ -5, a proposed General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change, located at the Northwest Corner of 14th and
Beaumont Avenue and on the Northwest side of Noble Creek.
Beaumont CKS Partnership - FCE Associates, Inc.
Planning Director Beeler presented the staff report
recommending approval of 86 -GP -4, 86 -RZ -5 and Negative
Declaration 87 -ND -2. She noted that in the staff report #2
after the word "park" the word "plan" should be inserted.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:13
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Ancois Elahl, FCE Associates, addressed the commission
explaining that there were two parcels involved; area had
been studied for 5 years and will be presented to Flood
Control; County is prepared to build a bridge on 14th
Street; first class development; improving the corner is a
. - . . . , , - -- - - - -. , , l _ , I A
Minutes of
March 3, 1987
Page 2
Robert Bounds, CitX Manager, after reading Mr. Ross' letter,
aadressec�t a commission and Mr. Ross, stating that we cannot
proceed with the Negative Declaration since it is only for
the zone change and general plan, with Mr. Ross commenting
that he will have to talk to their attorney regarding this.
Mr. Bounds further recommended to the commission that they
consider the fact that there cannot be any impact on a
recreation park district merely by changing a general plan
or rezoning.
Mr, amp, City Attorney,
this letteritself provides
that this project would hav
letter is very general in
specific information to the
in terms of zoning this was
informed the commission that
no detail whatsoever to indicate
e any type of an impact, that the
its comments and does not give
impact. Mr. Ross stated that
not the intent.
Mr. Bounds, City Manager, at this time requested Mr. Ross to
withdraw his letter otherwise the planning commission will
have to overrule.
Mr. Ross, Park & Recreation District, stated that he would
withdraw the letter in terms of t e zoning as applied to the
plot plan.
It should be noted for the record that the public hearing
was not closed on this project.
Planning Director Beeler, commented that the Plot Plan
Number is 87 -PP -2 as referred to in the letter.
Commissioner Remy questioned this area as spot zoning with
PD Director Beeler stating that when she looked at the plan
she didn't see spot zoning because she could see a
trend from Beaumont North of having gone into the high
density situation.
Mr. Bounds, Cites Manager, commented that Flood Control has
done studies in this area so we do have some data on
Marshall Creek.
There was lengthy discussion by the commission with Mr.
Bounds explaining that the general plan change is to get
into conformity with the medium density request and that
there is a zoning problem because as of January 1, 1985, by
the zoning map it was RSF which cannot have any multi on it,
and that the commission should not be concerned with the
number of apartments because if they approve the zone change
and general plan change for the medium density 16 is the
maximum - they have to comply. Further, he commented that 10
acres is difficult to call spot zoning explaining that
across the street it is multi as well as CG. The impact
Minutes of
March 3, 1987
Page 3
project may be and if the commission approves this
tonight
then the next step that the applicant will have to
start
looking at is the engineering feasibility of building
what
they would like to build and if we mitigate it to
death
we're still going to have raw land regardless of the
zoning.
Further, in return we may get a concrete lined
channel
and traffic signals as well as an improvement of a situation
that right now just floods out when it rains.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to continue this
public
hearing for 86 -GP -4 and the rezone 86 -RZ -5 to our
next
meeting in order for staff to bring before us
more
information regarding the plot plan.
Planning Director Beeler informed the commission that we
cannot bring you a plot plan on zoning that does not exist.
Mr. Bounds, City A94mley, commented that the earliest that
you can see a plot plan on a piece of property that has been
zoned properly or has a general plan amendment is 30 days
after the council has approved the zoning.
At this time, Commissioner Schuelke withdrew her motion.
Mr. Bounds, City Manager, commented that the zoning is RSF
and does not comply with the General Plan which is PUD with
Commissioner Schuelke asking if it would be appropriate if
rather than have a zone change from RSF to RMF to have it
from RSF to PUD. Mr. Bounds noted that to do this you would
have to go through new hearings and property owners
notified. ffowever, the zone change could be city initiated
but to do this the commission would have to deny this
request tonight and make a request that staff go through the
proper notification.
Planning Director Beeler, commented that we are looking at
10 acres which was the reason she suggested that they bring
in a general plan amendment and zone change because it is a
smaller parcel and not a large development situation.
On motion by Commissioner Gordon to deny the request for 86-
GP-4 and Rezone 86 -RZ -5 for the reason that there was
already sufficient multi - family zoning within the city
limits seconded by Commissioner Remy if spot zoning is also
included in the motion. Commissioner Gordon included this
in his motion as well as the Negative Declaration 87 -ND -2.
Mr. Bounds, City Manager, stated that "I don't think I would
make that part of the motion" with Commissioner Gordon
withdrawing the spot zoning.
Minutes of
March 3, 1987
Page 4
particular lot and for the circumstances involved
considering the zoning in the County which is in our sphere
of influence which has to be recognized as a factor, staff's
recommendation was that this was the better approach rather
than merely changing the zoning designation to match the
general plan, that this would provide greater consistency
throughout the area considering the side of the commercial
development and the creek running through and the mobilehome
park. Doesn't think spot: zoning means non- contiguous, it
means there is not a continuity over an area and he
feels there is when you consider all of the area
especially the sphere of influence.
At this time, Chairperson Burton asked for roll call since
there was a motion on the floor.. On roll call the motion
failed for lack of a quorm.
AYES: Commissioners Gordon and Remy.
NOES: Commissioeers Tapp, Schuelke and Chairperson
Burton.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Planning Director Beeler explained that had the parcel of
land been larger, she would have gone with a PUD - specific
plan situation.
Commission recessed at 8:16 P.M., reconvening at 8:25 P.M.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke for denial of 86 -GP -4
from PUD and recommending an amendment to the General Plan
to RSF to be consistent with the zoning map and further,
denial of Zone Change 86 -RZ -5, recommending denial of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -2.
Mr. R skamp, City Attorney, wanted to point out that
we are only allowed four (4) amendments by the state and
only three (3) by our ordinance, so your direction would
hopefully recognize that this be brought in, and in
conformance with several other items.
PD Director Beeler noted that at this time you can deny what
is before you and approve something else without going back
to a public hearing.
Commissioner Schuelke then withdrew her motion to be
reworded to deny 86 -GP -4 from PUD to RMF recommending an
amendment of the General Plan to RSF to be consistent with
the zoning map and further, denial of Zone Change 86 -RZ -5,
recommending approval of Negative Declaration 87 -ND -2 to
City Council. Motion carried unanimously with the following
Minutes of
March 3, 1987
Page 5
requested a continuance to March 17, 1987, stating the
County Health Department had not responsed yet and that the
City Engineer was in the process of putting together
conditions of approval. Did not feel that it was possible
to bring a recommendation this evening due to environmental
concerns.
It was the consensus of the commission that this matter be
continued to the next regular meeting of March 17, 1987.
6. 87 -GP -1 and 87 -RZ -1, a proposed General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change, located at the N/E Corner of Beaumont and
Cougar Way to High Density Residential. American Housing
Corporation, John Sims, President.
PD Director Beeler presented the staff report recommending
approval of this matter stating she had a letter from parks
a recreation stating their concerns at development time.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:40
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mr. John Sims, applicant, addressed the commission stating:
does not propose to develop the property with high density
use, would probably propose between 14 and 16 acres be
developed in a configuration of one and two story
structures around a community building, swimming pool,
tennis courts saunas, etc., not looking for the low end of
the market in this project for tenants nor looking for
people that cannot afford a reasonable rental rate in order
to justify the particular development investment; particular
location is not in anyway representative of what generally
is referred to as spot zoning; will have on -site property
managers; life support systems; 128 units now under
construction in Banning; will do a site plan in cooperation
with staff; would request an approval or denial of the
proposal at this meeting since a continuance is not one that
would be in their best interest; considering a setback both
from Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue - will lose dwelling
units if necessary in order to do this; will have
sufficient landscaping and setback areas along interior
streets as well as exterior roads of Beaumont Avenue and
Cougar Way.
Chairoerson Burton then asked Mr. Sims why he didn't ask for
multi- family zoning instead of high density with Mr. Sims
stating that this application was put together in one day in
order to meet the deadlines so they asked for the maximum
density knowing they could come back to less density.
After speaking with his market people does not want to go
high density.
Mr. Brian Ross, Park 8 Recreation District, addressed the
commission distributing another letter (see attached)
stating that when the project gets to the plot plan stage he
would like to look at the information, withdrawing anything
in the letter that would reflect on specific zoning
questions.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:54
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
Much discussion was had by the commission pertaining to the
access road, traffic flow access, Deodara trees, zoning of
commercial along Beaumont Avenue.
Minutes of
March 3, 1987
Page 6
PD Director Beeler commented that one of the concerns she
had from a public agency was about the Deodara trees which
would be talked about at the plot plan level.
Robert Bounds, City Manager, noted that the developer had
been made aware of t e access road.
Mr. John Sims, addressed the commission again stating that
Fie feels it is wrong to put commercial at this location; it
is an ideal corner for a multi - family development; urges not
to consider access streets but will work with whatever is a
sound good judgment.
Discussion was had by the commission pertaining to rezoning
the property to CMR and on motion by Commissioner Schuelke
to deny 87 -GP -1 from PUD to R11D with recommendation that the
General Plan be changed from PUD to CMR and denial of Zone
Change 87 -RZ -1 from RSF to CMR making it consistent with the
General Plan change and recommendation of Negative
Declaration 87 -ND -4 to City Council.
PD Director Beeler noted that we need to make sure that
there is a general plan designation for CMR and at this time
the general plan map wa checked with the finding that there
is no general plan classification that will fit the CMR
zone.
Chairperson Burton then asked how you provide a CMR on the
general plan with Attorney Ryskamp responding that the
solution would be RMF.
PD Director Beeler commented that the CMR and several of
the other zonings were set -up because of the Residential
Planned Unit development that requires a specific plan, the
specific plan then allows you to bring in your mixed use
zonings (e.g., CMR's, CRO's, etc). This parcel is too small
to burden the applicant with a specific plan.
Commissioner Schuelke then corrected her motion to read to
deny 87 -GP -1 from PUD to RHD and to rcommend approval of
87 -GP -1 from PUD to RMF and to deny Zone Change 87 -RZ -1 from
RSF to RHD and to recommend approval for 87 -RZ -1 from RSF to
RMF and approval of the Negative Declaration 87 -ND -4 to City
Council, seconded by Commissioner Tapp. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote;
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Gordon, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. 87 -GP -2, a proposed General Plan Amendment, located at the
N/E Corner of 6th and Illinois, approximately 1350 E. 6th
Street. Jasper Stone - Ron Whittier.
PD Director Beeler presented the staff report recommending
approval of the above referenced project subject to the
conditions of approval showing the area involved on the map.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 9:46
P.m., asking if there were any proponents /opponents from the
audience wishing to speak.
Dave Sumner, speaking in behalf of Ron Whittier who was also
in the audience stated that the water and sewer had been
addressed by the city engineer; has agreed to grant an
Minutes of
March 3, 1987
Page 7
the westerly side will remain as they are.
There being no one else in the audience wishing to speak,
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 9:50
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
Chairperson Burton stated she had a request to speak form
from a Mr. Roger Berg; however, he was no longer in the
audience.
Commissioner Schuelke wanted to disclose to the commission
that she owns the property at 685 and 689 Illinois and asked
if there was a conflict of interest.
Attorne Ryskamp, noted that he didn't see any potential
inl value gain.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke recommending approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -5 based on the findings that this
project will not have a significant effect on the
environment and further recommending approval of General
Plan Amendment 87 -GP -2 from RHO to CG to City Council
subject to the conditions of approval as well as the
additional conditions outlined in the staff report. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Gordon, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
8. Request for an Extension - Thomas Medina, Plot Plan 86 -PP -5
and 86 -V -5 (4 Unit Apt).
PD Director Beeler presented the staff report recommending
approval of Extension stating that the grading and
improvement plans are to be approved by the City Engineer,
subject to the additional conditions which are as follows:
1) Applicant to provide proof of payment of current school
fees at time of building permit;
2) Improvement Plans and Grading Plan to be approved by
City Engineer.
Thomas Medina, addressed the commission stating he had
submitted the Grading and Improvement plans to Ron Larson -
whether they are approved or not he does not know.
PD Director Beeler explained to Mr. Medina that the Grading
and Improvement Plans were needed in order for the City
Engineer to approve and informed Mr. Medina that his
engineer should have the originals in his office.
On motion by Commissioner Remy to recommend approval of 86-
PP-5 for an extension of one year, subject to the additional
conditions, seconded by Commissioner Gordon. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Gordon, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Minutes of
March 3, 1987
Page 8
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
9. Request for clarification of zoning, James Schulties, 1201
Beaumont Avenue.
PD Director Beeler stated that on research an Ordinance had
been found showing Schulties' property approved from R -1
zoning to C -1 on October 23, 1978. Further, she asked
Attorney Ryskamp if a city initiated zone change needed to
be done?
Attorne R skam , after listening to the commission and Mr.
Schu ties felt that an error had been made in that the zone
change had inadvertenly been left out - an error had been
made in the preparation of the zoning map.
Jim Schulties, addressed the commission pursuant to
Chairperson Burton's request and stated that he owns the
property at 1201 Beaumont Avenue. He informed the
commission that he started the zone change of the property
back in 1977 from R -1 to C -1 which was completed. Further,
the underground storage tanks had been removed pursuant to
the conditions of the CUP.
This matter was resolved with the finding of Ordinance No.
497 which states that in 1978 the property in question was
rezoned to C -1 and that the present zoning map, when
updated, will reflect this property to be C -G instead of
RSF.
10. Continued discussion and possible instructions to staff
regarding the RHO zone.
This matter was continued to the next regular meeting of
March 17, 1987.
11. Continued definition for Usable Open Space.
This matter was continued to the next regular meeting of
March 17, 1987.
12. Continued meeting from February 17, 1987 of 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 meeting of
March 17, 1987.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:19 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Pin omm' Rio cretary
[3eu eation park ID �mont= Cherryvalley Recr " 4
& ri
Noble Creek Community Center W P.O. Box 490 Beaumont
38900 Fourteenth Street Calif. 92223 1714) 848.
7
•:K�t4.FS.T.;r _ `.. . ;�.' � - �i _ ':; ! •<.:,li, ": i" i;4 J:. i; , +,v;: t�ta'!:[}:: .: i;Y.2L5;il Xtq
March 2, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Beaumont
550 E. Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Re; Proposed Plot Plan to Develop 192 Apartment Units
on Property Located at Beaumont Avenue and Fourteenth Street
Applicant: Beaumont Cks Partnership (86 -GP -4, 86 -RZ -5)
Honorable Chairman and Members:
The purpose of this letter is to comment on and call to your
attention severe and significant environmental implications of
the referenced project which have not been previously considered,
and to request that a full Environmental Impact Report be
prepared pursuant to the City of Beaumont's Rules to implement
the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District objects
to consideration of a Negative Declaration being associated with
this project until sufficient measures are incorporated to
mitigate the adverse impacts which the referenced project will
have upon the Recreation and Park District's provision of high
quality recreational activities to the children and adults of
the Beaumont community.
The proposed project will of course result in physical changes in
the environment including, but not limited to, the reduction of
the amount of land available for the development of park sites.
The significant number of residents which will inhabit the 192
apartment units also necessitate expanding the Recreation and
Park District's already over - extended facilities. At least one
r
Beaumont
2/18/87
Paget
Cks Partnership
For the reasons stated herein, the Beaumont - Cherry Valley
Recreation and Park District believes that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and that the City of
Beaumont should either continue its consideration of the proposed
Negative Declaration until adequate mitigation measures are
incorporated, or require an EIR to be prepared for the project
pursuant to Section 15065 of Title 14 of the California
Administrative Code which requires a lead agency find that a
project may have a significant effect on the environment and
thereby require an EIR to be prepared where the project has the
potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment.
As part of that environmental impact report process, the
Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District of course
stands' ready and willing to discuss its own concerns with respect
to the ,provision of recreation facilities within the referenced
project and the impacts the said project will have upon the
Beaumont community.
Very truly yours,
Brian A. Ross
General Manager
Beaumont- Cherry Valley
Recreation and Park District
BAR /br
�i t^! A 'JfAS't:FttiiAY.`DiG�Tlilydtr'l .r .ir.. r'�,' �i- e1,i
UeaumcnteCherryNalley
Noble Crook Community Center
38800 Fourteenth Street
IJTf�! 6w.' :lfl�9 ru v[::�6M1{{YfYIOY F' ., r
i
March 2, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Beaumont
550 E..Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Im [Astru
P.O. Box 490 Beaumont
Calif. 92223 (714) 848 -1
Re: Proposed General Plan Amendment to Develop 150 - 200 high
density Multi- family Residential Units on Property
located at Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Streets
Applicant: American Housing Corp. (87 -GP -1 and
86 -RZ -1)
Honorable Chairman and Members:
The purpose of this letter is to comment on and call to your
attention severe and significant environmental implications of
the referenced project which have not been previously considered,
and to request that a full Environmental Impact Report be
prepared pursuant to the City of Beaumont's Rules to implement
the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District objects
to consideration of a Negative Declaration being associated with
this project until sufficient measures are incorporated to
mitigate the adverse impacts which the referenced project will
have upon the Recreation and Park District's provision of high
quality recreational activities to the children and adults of
the Beaumont community.
American Housing Corp.
.2/18/87,
Page .2
districts by increased development, by establishing a
"Quimby" -type ordinance to mitigate.the adverse impacts resulting
from new development.
For the reasons stated herein, the Beaumont - Cherry Valley
Recreation and Park District believes that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and that the City of
Beaumont should either continue its consideration of the proposed
Negative Declaration until adequate mitigation measures are
incorporated, or require an EIR to be prepared for the project
.pursuant to Section 15065 of Title 14 of the California
Administrative Code which requires a lead agency find that a
project may have a significant effect on the environment and
thereby require an EIR to be prepared where the project has the
potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment.
As part of that environmental impact report process, the
Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District of course
stands ready and willing to discuss its own concerns with respect
to the'.provision of recreation facilities within the referenced
project and the impacts the said project will have upon the
Beaumont.community.
Very truly yours,
Brian A. Ross
General Manager
Beaumont - Cherry Valley
Recreation and Park District
BAR /br
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MARCH 17, 1987
Study Session from 6:00 P.M., - 7:00 P.M.
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, March 17, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding.
Meeting called to Order at 7:06 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present.
Commissioners Tapp, Gordon, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Schuelke was excused.
It should be noted for the record that Mr. Bounds, City Manager
and Mr. Ryskamp, City Attorney were present at this meeting.
1. Affidavit of Posting read by the secretary.
2. Oral Communications: None.
3. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
March 3, 1987, were approved as submitted, with the
correction on page 3, paragraph 4 to read "City Manager"
instead of "City Attorney."
CON'T PUBLIC HEARING:
4. 87 -PP -5, a proposed two story office building - 165,000 sq.
ft., Light Manufacturing and Warehouse, located at 700 E.
3rd Street. Dura Plastic Products.
Planning Director Beeler presented the staff report
recommending approval of Plot Plan 87 -PP -5 and Negative
Declaration 87 -ND -3. Further, commenting that Dr. Randhawa
who owns Abbeys Animal Hospital was requesting that the
applicant (Dura Plastic) put in sound - proofing and a block
wall in order to protect his business from noise.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:14
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mr. Willy Rost, 533 E. 3rd St., Dura Plastic, Beaumont,
addressed the commission outlining his proposed plans and
answering questions that was asked by the commission. He
does anticipate putting in a rail spur for the plant.
Mr. Willy Woelke Civil Engineer /General Contractor,
addressed the commission stating that the major problem was
lino Hac nn nhiactinn to Ttem No. 3 (a)
Planning Commission Meeting of
March 17, 1987
Page 2
lift.station will be necessary in order to pump the water up
and put it onto 3rd Street.
Dr. Randhawa owner of Abbey Animal Hospital, addressed the
commission stating his concerns were pr.icnarily health pro-
blems and noise, which would interfer with his doctoring and
feels he should be reimbursed when someone connects to the
sewer.
Mr. Woelke, again addressed the commission commenting that
the sewer line was located on their property and as far as
noise, the entire facility complies with Title 29 of the
California Code for environmental. No toxic chemicals will
be used - the only waste in the sewer will be human waste.
Explained that a draft curtain is a legal curtain for fire
proofing and is a requirement by the Fire Department and by
the County of Riverside.
Dr. Randhawa, again addressed the commission stating that the
sewer was not on the applicant's property and questioned the
gas pump station.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then
closed the public hearing at 8:06 P.M., turning the matter back to
the commission for discussion.
Planning Director Beeler requested that Condition No. 3 (a)
be worked out so there can be a continuance of curb and gutter.
She also felt that Condition No. 3 (b) (the elimination of
sidewalks) is not a problem.
Mr. Robert Bounds, City Manager, expressed to the commission that
they should determine whether there will be sidewalks or not in
the ML District since this decision was being made tonight.
There was lengthy discussion by the commission pertaining to the
pump island, drainage, parking area, sidewalks, trash enclosure,
toxic chemicals used, flammable materials, relignment of the sewer
line, easement, etc., with Mr. Bounds noting that the applicant
must comply with all the requirements from the various agencies
which had responded.
on motion by Commissioner Gordon to approve Plot Plan 87 -PP -5 and
recommendation of approval to City Council of Negative Declaration
87 -ND -3, subject to the amended conditions of approval, seconded
by Commissioner Tapp. Amended conditions of approval to read as
follows:
Condition No. 3 (b):
To be deleted.
Condition No. 6: An insertion of: "submitted to the City
Engineer and to Riverside County Flood
Control" after the word "and" in the
second line.
Planning Commission Meeting of
March 17, 1987
Page 3
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schuelke.
ABSTAIN: None.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp, seconded by Commissioner Gordon,
Items 5, 6, and 7 under SCHEDULED MATTERS were continued to March
31, 1987 at 6:30 P.M.
There being no further business before the commission, the meeting
adjourned at 9:02 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Planninytommi ion Secretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNED MINUTES OF
MARCH 31, 1987
The Planning Commission met in an Adjourned Meeting on Tuesday,
March 31, 1987, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson
Burton presiding:
Meeting called to Order at 6:40 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
It should be noted for the record that Attorney Ryskamp was
present at this meeting.
There was discussion pertaining to a resolution from the
commission commemorating Mr. Gordon's dedication and service to
the commission. Chairperson Burton will contact Julia and then
bring it back to the commission.
1. Affidavit of Posting read by the secretary.
2. Oral Communications: Planning Director Beeler noted that it
has been brought to her attention that Mr. Hayes who owns
the motorcycle shop is not in conformance with his
Conditional Use Permit.
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that any item
brought up during oral communication is referred back to
staff and placed on the next agenda.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
3. Continued discussion and possible instructions to staff
regarding the RHD zone from March 17, 1987.
Page 49, modified to read: 111100 sq. ft. for 3 bedroom,
sm ingle family detached."
Page 7, to read: "No main building shall be closer than 25'
to any other main building on the same lot," delete, "two
story."
Page 5, changed to read: "7000" sq. ft. lots. Minimum width
of 70 feet.
Page 5, "Average" be deleted from lot width.
4. Continued definition for Usable Open Space from March 17,
1987.
Under Usable Open Space, delete line 5 and insert: "Each
inear d mension of such space shall be a minimum of 6'."
(500) hundred ";
Page 11, Open Space becomes #11.
Usable Open Space, #3, at the end of the sentence add:
"except balconies and patios."
On motion by commissioner Remy to continue Item Nos. 3 and 9 in
order to give Attorney Ryskamp time to make all the necessary
changes in the form of a draft and bring back to the commission
at the meeting of April 7, 1987; seconded by commissioner
Schuelke. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. Continued meeting from March 17, 1987, of 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.
On motion by commissioner Remy, seconded by commissioner
Schuelke, it was the consensus of the commission that this
item be continued to the next meeting of April 7, 1987.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:03 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Pn in Cot Sion Secretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
APRIL 7, 1987
Study Session held from 6:OO P.M., to 7:00 P.M.
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, April 7, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
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:
Commissiners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
It should be noted for the record that Attorney Robinson and City
Manager, Mr. Bounds were present at this meeting.
1. Affidavit of Posting read by the secretary.
2. Oral Communications: None.
3. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
March 17, 1987, were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87 -PP -6 and 87 -V -1, a proposed Mini -Mart, located at the
Northwest Corner of 6th Street and Highland Springs Road.
Arco Petroleum Products (AM - PM Mini - Market).
Planning Director Beeler
recommending approval of
Variance 87 -V -1 and Plot Pla
underground storage tanks
report will be supplied
department.
presented the staff report
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -6,
1 87 -PP -6. After testing, the
were reportedly safe and the
to the environmental health
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:20
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
P1r. Crai Yamaski, Real Estate Representative for Atlantic
RichfMl Petro eum Product Co., addressed the commission
stating that he was at the meeting to answer any questions
that the commission might have. Had read the conditions and
noted they would adhere to them.
Planning Director Beeler stated that one of the conditions
is to see an actual parking plan.
There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:23
P.M., turning the matter back to the; commission for
discussion.
Planning Commission Meeting of
April 7, 1987
Page 2
5.
Planning Director Beeler noted that the tanks can only be
left in if they are used - must be removed if abandoned
which is state law.
On motion by commissioner Tapp to recommend approval by City
Council of Negative Declaration 87 -ND -6 since the project
will not significantly impact the environment and approval
of Variance 87 -V -1 and Plot Plan 87 -PP -6, subject to the
attached conditions with an addition to Condition No. 8 to
read "Space #1 not to be marked as a parking space - for air
and water only ", seconded by commissioner Remy. Motion
carried unanimouly with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
87 -PM -3 & Parcel Map No. 22284, a proposed division of an
existing parcel into 2 lots, located at 809 E. 14th Street.
(Southeast Corner of 14th Street and Palm Avenue). Francis
M. Dowling, Jr.
Planning Director Beeler presented the staff report
recommending approval of Negative Declaration 87 -ND -8 and
Parcel Map 87 -PM -3.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:31
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Commissioner Schuelke brought to the attention of the
commission that she owns property adjoining Mr. Dowling's
property.
Attorney Robinson stated that an apparent conflict of
interest could exist and that being the case, advised her
that she should abstain.
D1r, ilarvey [darcell, representing Mr. & Mrs. Dowling, Jr.,
ad r essed the commission and stated concerns of Condition
No. 5 and 6 which are relevant to street and sewerage. His
conce ns were:
1) would like to have the improvements to Parcel 2 tied in
with the building permit;
2) suggested that the existing house can be sewered with a
4' lateral to the existing main by way of a sewer. easement.
Further, explained that the berm is part of the drainage and
traffic control for the transition of the narrow pavement to
the wider pavement.
Planning Director Beeler pointed out that the City Engineer
felt that when there are two or more separately owned
properties, he would prefer to see the sewer pipes in the
public right of way, in the alley, or in the street - mostly
for a maintenance situation.
Planning Commission Minutes of
April 7, 1987
Page 3
commission stating that he felt it wasn't necessary to tear
up the alley and put in an 8" main when there is a 6" main
presently there; existing sewer comes from the end of the
alley and angles across to the house; can see the necessity
of clearing this up in order to do a lot split, but feels
that it could be done just as well by coming along the edges
of the alley on the dirt with an easement rather than
tearing up the alley and then repaving it.
tor. Harvey Marcell, addressed the commission noting that the
preparation of the street improvement plans and the plan
check fees be tied to the building permits where it could be
paid prior to recordation of the final maps.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:50 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
Planning Director Beeler commented that if they want to do
the construction of the improvement at the time of building
occupancy, it is not a problem - would like to see the
improvements approved and bonded, or if deemed not necessary
to bond, would like to see a certificate on the final map
that there are improvements to be constructed prior to
occupancy or prior to a building permit of the structure.
Mr. Bounds commented that a new buyer of Parcel 2 would have
to put in the improvements if there were a Deed Restriction.
A title report will show that there are some improvements to
be made. Further, if we remove the one condition
pertaining to the handicap ramp and place it as Condition
No. 10, the remainder conditions will be covered by a deed
restriction on Parcel 2.
On motion by commissioner Remy to recommend approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -8 by City Council, since this
project will not significantly impact the environment and
also recommended approval of Parcel Map 87 -PM -3, subject to
the amended conditions, seconded by commissioner Tapp, to
read as follows:
6. Deed Restrictions:
A) To provide a deed restriction on Parcel 2 on the Final
Parcel Map providing street improvements, curb, gutter
and sidewalk installation in conjunction with any
building permits.
B) Across the
construct:
a) (reads
b) (reads
c) (reads
C) (B now beco
entire 14th Street frontage of Parcel No. 2
the same).
the same).
the same).
mes C and reads the same).
Planning Commission Minutes of
April 7, 1987
Page 9
6. Report from Staff concerning the alleged violations by
Beaumont Yamaha Sales raised under oral Communications at
the Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting of March 31, 1987.
James L. Hayes, 85- CUP -3.
Planning Director Beeler presented the staff report on this
matter pursuant to an investigation that was made on April
2, 1987
Mr. James L. Hayes, 680 Beaumont Avenue, addressed the
commission stating he did not understand why this has to
come up every two years; claims he is not interferring with
anyone's business; keeps his bikes in a neat and oarderly
manner.
Chairperson Burton explained to Mr. Hayes that this was
brought up in order for him to conform to the Conditional
Use Permit - he is not being asked to pay any additional
fees. His Conditional Use Permit states that the display
out front will conform to Exhibit A. Further, to conform to
Exhibit A and having 35 motorcycles in front is not
conforming to the 19 spaces in front of his business.
Mr. Hayes commented that there never was a specific number
of motorcyles that he could put out front, further
explaining that the marks displayed on the map merely
reflects where the motorcylces would be parked - has nothing
to do with how many motorcyles would be displayed.
Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Hayes that there was oil from
the bikes leaking on the sidewalk in front of his business
and that his trash bin extended out into the alley.
Attorney Robinson informed the commission that the
Conditional Use Permit would be the basis upon which any
citation would be issued; appears as though if they (bikes)
are kept in an orderly fashion - this would be the term that
would be controlling. Difficult wording to interpret.
This matter was resolved with Mr. Haves adhering to the
following:
1. remove oil in front of his business;
2. motor bikes will not extend across the neighbors frontage;
and
3. the trash bin will not extend into the alley.
Mr. Bounds commented that the City and the Chief of Police
are preparing a letter to each person /business that is now
utilizing the setback in anyway, informing them that they
are now violating the proper use of the right -of -way in
front of their business.
7. Continued discussion and possible instructions to staff
regarding the RHD zone from the Adjourned Meeting of March
31, 1987.
8. Continued definition for Usable Open Space from March 31,
Planning Commission Minutes of
April 7, 1987
Page 5
a new Chapter 17.55 to the Municipal Code concerning Off -
Street Parking and Loading.
This Item was continued to April 21, 1987 for the study
session as well as to be placed on the agenda for discussion
and possible instructions to staff regarding the above
referenced code sections.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 9.02 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
nni Co sion Secretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
APRIL 21, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting called to Order at 7:08 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
It should be noted for the record that Attorney Ryskamp and City
Manager Bounds were present at this meeting.
1. Affidavit of Posting read by the secretary.
2. Oral Communications: None.
3. The Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 31, 1987 and
the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 7, 1987
were both approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87 -PM -2 (Parcel Map 20501) .95 acres to be divided into
three (3) parcels. Parcel fronts on both Magnolia Avenue
and Orange Street between 11th and 12th Streets. Applicant,
G. Halbeisen.
Planning Director Beeler presented the staff report
recommending approval of Negative Declaration 87 -ND -10 and
Parcel Map 87 -PM -2, noting that on the agenda PM # should
read 20501 instead of 20502.
Chairperson Burton asked if there were any questions by the
commission and there being none, she then opened the public
hearing at 7:14 P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from
the audience that wished to speak.
Mr. Harvey Marcell, 461 W. Ramsey, Banning, addressed the
commission — informing them that the applicants would like to
divide the parcel on Orange into two (2) parcels and since
the parcel on Magnolia Avenue is contiguous, they are
required by the Subdivision Map Act to include this within
the parcel map; owner does have the option to sale Parcel 2
and 3 just like it is; lack of maintenance on the City's
part; proposes that the owner install improvements with
Parcel 1 and the improvements on Parcel 2 and 3 be
conditioned with the building permit; if not acceptable -
asked that this matter be continued in order for them to
prepare an accurate estimate of i-.he costs invnlvarl fn coo if
Planning Commission Meeting of
April 21, 1987
Page 2
that the engineer wanted to know what the applicant is going
to use as a physical barrier since it has been used as a
street. Mr. Bounds commented that Parcel No. 1 would have
the option to pick up the alley or divide it equally with
Parcel 2 and 3.
Mr. Marcell, commented that the alley that exists now does
not extend to the north and when people reach the applicant's
property they have no place to go, so rather than turn around
and come back down the alley, they just drive across the lot
out into Orange.
Planning Director Beeler stated that there would be a "Not a
Through Sign" posted beginning on 11th Street along with a
barrier.
Mr. Marcell again noted that they do not have a problem
woth the conditions on Orange - feels that the conditions
are needed, its a matter of timing. Applicant is willing to
correct problems on Magnolia with the exception of the fire
hydrant and sidewalk.
Mr. Iialbeisen, speaking from the audience, commented that
the reason he applied for the lot split on Orange was
because the one parcel is only 15' wide, so by adding the
two together he could make two lots. Understands that the
15' was the driveway to the house he is presently living in
on Magnolia before the street was put through.
There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:40
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
Lengthly discussion was had by the commission with
Commissioner Schuelke making a motion to approve this
project, deleting Condition Nos. 9 and 11 on Magnolia Avenue
and that the Orange Avenue Conditions be accommodated
through a Deed Restriction, seconded by Commissioner Tapp.
Planning Director Beeler explained the problem that could
arise in the event only one of the parcels should sale in
reference to the deed restriction on Orange Avenue.
Commissioner Schuelke then withdrew her motion and restated
her motion recommending approval of Negative Declaration 87-
ND-10 by City Council and Parcel Map 87 -PM -2, subject to the
Conditions of Approval with the deletion of Condition Nos. 9
and 11 on Magnolia Avenue, seconded by Commissioner Tapp.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: Commissioner Remy.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1987
Page 3
during the last 3 months in the study session, the
commission had been working on high density residential and
since it was now in final form and had been published as a
public hearing, she felt that the public hearing should be
opened and comments made.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:19
P.M. There being no one in the audience, Chairperson
Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:20 P.M. asking if
everyone was in agreement with the changes that had been
made.
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
Schuelke, recommendation was made for approval by City
Council of an Ordinance for the City Council of the City of
Beaumont repealing Sections 17.20.30 through 17.20.310, and
17.20.115 -9 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and adding
Sections 17.20.300 through 17.20.310, 17.20.115 -9 and
17.20.119 -11 dealing with certain requirements for
Residential High Density and Residential Multiple Family
Zones. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
6. Continued meeting from April 7, 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.
Beginning with (c) under 17.55.015 MINIMUM STANDARDS shall
read as follows:
C. For mobilehome parks, two parking spaces for each
mobilehome space; at least one on the mobilehome space
and covered and a second within one hundred -fifty feet
of the mobilehome space. Additional parking in a
separate designated storage area shall be provided at
the ration of one parking space for every five
mobilehome spaces.
To be deleted. At least sixty (608) percent of the
required parking spaces shall be in carports or garages.
RV Parks parking to be incorporated under mobilehome parks
at the next meeting. This item was continued to the next
meeting of May 5, 1987.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MAY 5, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, May 5, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
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.
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 Airport Dr., Riverside,
addressed the commission n, 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.
z) 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
_lanning 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% - 808) 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 1008 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
t h�F +ho nnmmiccinn nave fhpm rnmaing the camp_ 1-hn wpg1•
manning 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 would 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 to Review Requirements for
Mortuary, Funeral Iiome and Wedding Chapel, located at 6th
and Edgar (N /E Corner).
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 Nam, addressed the commission commenting that the
park— i g area was 78' wide instead of 681. 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
-1 .a__ .t hof"r }-}in
_lanning 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 furnis}ied, 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-
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MAY 19, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, May 19, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting called to Order at 7:02 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke, and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Tapp was excused.
Study Session held from 6:00 P.M., to 7:00 P.M.
It should be noted for the record that Attorney Ryskamp was
present at this meeting.
1. Affidavit of Posting read by the secretary.
2. Oral Communications: Commissioner Remy requested
clarification of zoning in area of Cherry, Pennsylvania, 8th
& 9th Streets - was positive it was re -zoned in 1985 to RHD.
3. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
May 5, 1987, were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87- ANX -1, Pre- zoning Determination, 2.94 Acres, located at
13140 American Avenue, Sunny Acres Guest Home. Applicant,
Dolores Mezori.
PD Beeler presented the staff report noting that there was a
correction on the application which should read 4.19 acres
total instead of 2.94 acres. Further, recommending approval
of 87 -ANX -1 and 87- ND -13, since it will not have a
significant effect on the environment and also noting that
property owners to the south are willing to extend the sewer
line to the back of their property (will be adjacent to Ms.
Mezori's property).
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:12
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mrs Thomas, addressed the commission, stating she lives on
the corner and wanted to know what was going to be put in
with Chairperson Burton explaining that Ms. Mezori was only
annexing to the City. Mrs. Thomas indicated that she would
also like to be annexed if she could hook -up to the sewer.
rhnirnPrGnn Burton informed her to contact the Planning
Planning Commission Meeting of
May 19, 1987
Page 2
87 -ND -13 since it will not have a significant effect on the
environment, seconded by Commissioner Ingrao. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp
ABSTAIN: None.
5. 87- ANX -2, Pre - zoning Determination, 4.26 Acres, located at
Cougar Way and Sunnyslope. Applicant,
Development Co.
PD Beeler presented the staff report, recommending approval
of this annexation since it will not have a significant
effect on the environment and that this be forwarded for
action to the City Council and LAPCO for approval.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:24
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mr. Dave Sumner Sanborn & Webb En ?ineering, addressed the
commission on stating a was representing the applicant, Jasper
Stone, and commented that originally there was 5 acres with
the streets; however, without the streets it is about 4.26
acres; applicant hopefully intends to build single family
homes; water and sewer will have to be accommodated.
Mr. Bill Elliott, 1181 orange Avenue, addressed the
commission, commenting that he owns the property across the
street from the property in question and wanted to know what
medium density allows.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:26
P.M., turning 'the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
Mr. Bill Elliott, again addressed the commission noting that
he was trying to establish the city limits.
Much discussion was had pertaining to this annexation with
PD Beeler noting the present zoning that the county has
for this property is medium density which is MDR - R -2.
Mr. Dave Sumner, addressed the commission commenting that he
thought the County's density was about the same as the
City's would be if annexed.
Commissioner Remy felt there wasn't anyone that lived within
the 300' radius notified unless they saw it in the paper
with CD Beeler commenting that notices were mailed to the
300' radius from each boundary - 11 property owners were
_,f;f;o�
Planning Commission meeting of
May 19, 1987
Page 3
P.M., the matter back to the commission
p,problem
discussion asking Commissioner Re my
nf she had annexation.
about bringing this property l
Commissioner Remy commented that the people in this area
were very adamant about keeping their rural life style and
felt that she wanted to check this out further.
Chairperson Burton then reopened the public again at 7:51
P.M.
Mr. Dave Sumner, again addressed the commission commenting
that al property owners within the boundary of 300' were
notified and none of them seemed concerned about it.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:53
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission with
Commissioner Remy still feeling uncomfortable about the
zoning and commented that she would like an updated map.
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao to recommend approval
by City Council of 87 -ANX -2 for Pre - zoning Determination and
87 -ND -12 since the annexation will not have a significant
effect on the environment, seconded by Commissioner
Schuelke. Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ingrao, Schuelke and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: Commissioner Remy.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: None.
6. 87 -PP -4, Solid 1iaste Transfer Station,
E.located
at the N /F.
Corner of 1st and American. Applicant,
PD Beeler presented the staff report and conditions of
approval recommending approval of this project based on the
local and state agency review.
Chairperson Burton opened the public hearing at 8:10 P.M.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing
to speak.
Mr. Gar Koontz, CM En ineerin & Associates, 225 E. Airport
Dr., San Bernardino, addressed the commission giving a
brief overview o his project as follows:
1) The definition of a transfer station is a facility that
consolidates wastes into larger loads to be hauled to a
place for final disposal;
2) Site will not be opened to large trucks, it is simply a
convenience facility for the general public;
3) heavily regulated - presented permits from other
Anpnries:
Planning Commission Minutes of
May 19, 1987
Page 4
8) Bins to be emptied at least every 24 hours.
Jean Bailie 162 S. Maple Beaumont,
addressed the
commission asking about the partially covered bins;
questioned weight inspection facilities.
Mr. Gary Koontz, explained that the trucks are very heavily
regulated - the CHP has the right to go back to the land
fill through their computer system and will be able to
identify every truck that is over weight, thus enabling them
to issue citations; facility will be closed with winds of 25
mph or more.
Mr. Ron Belshe, 113 Maple Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission questioning if a temporary out -house is allowed
once a business has acquired a permit to operate.
Dr. Randhawa, 754 E. 3rd St., Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating that he did not from the public's point
of view feel this type of situation was needed.
June Cassid , 110 S. Palm Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission asking how many trucks will be going down lst
Street with Mr. Koontz commenting that there will be a
maximum of 11 trips per day.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 8:40 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to deny Plot Plan 87 -PP-4
and 87 -ND -1 due to the wind condition in the area and
feeling that there already exists adequate land fill dump
sites. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Chairperson Burton then reopened the public hearing at 8:52
P.M.
Mr. Gary Koontz, addressed the commission again explaining
teat he is required to submit a completed Plan of Operations
which consists of the City's Conditions of Approval, the
Health Department's approval and the State then reviews it.
It then goes through another public hearing before the Local
Enforcement Agency in Riverside and is then transmitted to
California Waste Management Board where there is another
hearing on it in Sacramento.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing again at
8:54 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
The commission again discussed this item at great length
with the feeling that this project should have further
review and on motion by Commissioner Schuelke to continue
ni>. R7 -PP -4 and 87 -ND -1 in order to review and clarify
Planning Commission Minutes of
May 19, 1987
Page 5
Applicant, Fairfax.
Chairperson Burton, opened this public hearing at 9:01 P.M.,
and continued this project to the next sPlanning
Commission Meeting of June 2, 1987, p
Commission recessed at 9:02 P.M., reconvening at 9:12 P.M.
8. 87- CUP -1, Sandblasting operation, located at 238 Maple at
3rd St. Applicant, Keith Burton.
Chairperson Burton wanted it noted for the record, that Mr.
Keith Burton was not in anyway related to her.
PD Beeler presented the staff report,
approval recommending approval of this
the various reports she had pertaining
nuisance and commenting that various
contacted including the Riverside C
Health. Further, she had received one
this project, namely, Dur.a Plastic and
Dr. Randhawa.
and conditions of
project, outlining
to noise and dust_
people had been
)unty Environmental
letter in favor of
one letter against
at 9:20
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing audience
P.M., asking for proponents/opponents
wishing to speak.
Those speaking in favor were:
Laura V Castellon, 186 S. Maple, Beaumont,
commission stating that the noise oes not
Mr. Keith Burton, 238 Maple, Beaumont,
commission stating that an enclosure would
you cannot close in a diesel engine and
very expensive, making it prohibitive.
Those speaking in opposition were:
addressed the
bother her..
addressed the
be out of line -
�xpect it to run;
Jean Bailie, 162 S. Maple, Beaumont, addressed the
j— — - --
commission presenting a petition; however, she di no
circulate the petition, also stated that the applicant was
violating the city ordinance with parked vehicles.
Dr. Randhawa, 754 E. 3rd St., Beaumont, addressed the
commission presenting a peti�`tion signed by 36 people (see
attached); he elaborated on the harmful effect that the
noise and dust would have on humans and animals.
Aurora Morales, 138 Maple, Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating she was concerned about the noise and
dust.
June Cassidy, 110 S. Palm Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating she doesn t feel this operation is needed
Planning Commission Minutes of
May 19, 1987
Page 6
Howard Elm, 803 California, Beaumont,
addressed the
commission commenting that t e noise condition inside the
clinic was far greater than the recording Dr. Randhawa
played to the commission.
Ron Belshe, 113 Ma le, Beaumont, addressed the commission
stating that it shou d be mentioned that animals are much
more sensitive to noise and that telephone industries
operate with emergency generators which are housed
underground in cement enclosures.
Dr. Randhawa, addressed the commission again stating that
Dr. Ben Kaplin was at the meeting and he would like to have
him speak.
Dr. Ben Kaplin Cherry Valley, addressed the commission
commenting that the concerns about noise levels are
justified; however, he felt he did not have enough
guantitative measurements in order to measure the potential
effects of the noise on humans and animals.
Dr. Randhawa, again, wanted it noted that animals are much
more sensitive to noise than humans.
Chairperson Burton then asked Mr. Burton if he wanted to
speak in rebuttal to those speaking in opposition..
Mr. Keith Burton, addressed the commission questioning the
qua ifications of the expert; has had permits since 1976 and
contends there is no health hazard.
Virginia 238 Maple, Beaumont, addressed the
commission commenting that they are in the process of
tearing out the building and the day that Jean Bailie saw
dust and heard noise they were blasting their own pool -
Mr. Bounds can verify that they were doing work for
themselves.
Jean Bailie, addressed the commission again stating that the
po ice had investigated and had informed her that Burton's
permit was not proper for him to be operating his business.
Also for her to call them in the event she saw anything
going on.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 10:21 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
Commissioner Remy informed the commission that she had
called the Air Quality Control and spoke with the
supervisior of metalurgy, Mr. Joe Tramma who informed her
that the permit to operate is intended for Portable Units to
be used at various locations (see attached memo).
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that "plant" is not
restricted to a concept of a building and that more
__ -14 t4 --c nn thi,
Planning Commission Minutes of
May 19, 1987
Page 7
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: None.
Attorney Ryskamp also noted that information was needed as
to what type of ventiliation is required and what is
considered a completely enclosed building.
9. Election by Commission of a Chairman Pro Tem.
Commissioner Schuelke was elected as Chairman Pro Tem.
10. Continued meeting from April 21, 1987, for discussion and
possible instructions to staff regarding the Textual Code
Amendment for an Ordinance repealing Sections 17i.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 item was continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of June 2, 1987.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:41 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Pling mm�on Secretary
MAY 13,1987
�J WE THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO BURTON SANDBLASTING
CONDUCTING THEIR BUSINESS ON THE PREMISES, 238 MAPLE, BEAUMONT
DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURSit
_ L-l"o �
q _-
I
f
F
d 4.May.19, 1987
Rat - ;Burton ..Sandbla sting
My concern-about the .above applicant' s. permit. to cover "shop
_- sandblaa:ting" (per Staff report) prompted me to call the.Air
Quality. Hanagement.District ' in E1 Monte.'today. I spoke with
the.supervisor of metalurgy, Mr. Joe Tramma, who told me the
Permit to Operate is intended for Portable Units to be.used
at various locations on houses, bridges,.tanks, etc,- and.is.
;.w•�;; .not intended to cover an outdoor ermaneat location,-as
concentrations of debris £rom sandb asting is.a. health hazard
and.can cause.silicosis.
It, is prohibited bylaw to sandblast.any parts 161•x 8' x_81
or= smaller -in.the open-air at any permanent.location and must
be:done within a building constructed.in: accordance with
.State standards for this industry and- must_be ventilated to
State,specifications.
i
Any violation..of this law can be reported as _a nuisance.law
complaint to-Mr. Larry Stiles in their-Enforcement-Dept.-at,
Colton, and.the operator could lose his permit..to.operate.
May 13,89
The planning Commission,
City of Beaumont.
References- Burton Sandblasting operation - CUP.
We the resident of the areas, hereby request that the intent of our city
ML zoning code ( The M -L zone is intended to provide for and encourage the
grouping together of light industrial uses that can maintain high standards as to
the appearance of the building and the treatment of land about them and so
and residential uses.
be preserved and applied to Leis cuU.400=1 •.w �--- -- serious,
business, if the sandblasting to be allowed on the property, are very
which are s-
(a) Air pollution, especially from lead and silicon etc. Lead poisoning -very
dangerous for growing children.
'Children
(b) Detrimental hearing effects m sandblasting noise
are g� very susceptible tohearingimpairement, (Plaseseeattachedletter)
Based on these serious detrimental health hazards, we request that this business
be conditioned not to do any sandblasting on the property or if allowed, then
should do in bag -house system (to control air pollution) and sound proofing
building (to control noise nuisance). The concensus of the community as shown
before by voting to keep the chemical plant and prison etc. out, is that we want
open clean environment in this city. A non - polluting, non health hazardous
business is welcome.
petition against sandblasting business, 238 Maple St.
Last Name First Middle Address
l4 �111p�sU511�_
3 7 h7i9 ,1'- S% dzd-e
11,3
S ifsrn/a�ture''
/�Z�
r'
2
I
,
t
Petition against sandblasting business, 238 Maple St.
Name 1 -r L..._• - --_ ..Middle.. 4dress
M 0 Q LEJ Y&V AIA"c
13�
n
6!
I '
._�.:�
1
A
Signature
627
yr
do 7Y1,aLfi
Petition against sandblasting businessp 238 Maple St-
Address
ast --middle
31
L,,J
ILI
V,
limy 1) 0 n �A -O
310 'I
31
Signature
P
LI w,"n R%nojkw
I arn --- - --- - - - - - -
Petition against sandblasting business, 238 Maple St.
ast Name ..Middle Address
Address
3 9
I
I
i
�j
I
I _
-777
I
i
I
I
•n Si t
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JUNE 2, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, June 2, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting called to Order at 6:32 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Tapp was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
It should be noted for the record that Attorney Robinson was
present at the meeting.
1. Study Session held from 6:32 P.M., to 6:55 P.m., instead of
from 6:00 P.M., to 7:00 P.M., due to lack of a quorm.
Recessed at 6:55 P.M., reconvening at 7:02 P.M.
2. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
May 19, 1987, were approved as submitted.
3. Oral Communications: Response to Commissioner Remy's
inquiry for zoning matter.
PD Beeler's response to Commissioner Remy's inquiry for
zoning clarification for property bounded by Cherry, 8th and
9th Streets was, it is still zoned as single amily and the
property known as Pennsylvania Apartments V he Tavaglione
project located between 9th and 10th Streets which is zoned
High Density Residential.
Discussion was had pertaining to the property on American,
Xenia and the North side of 6th Street. On motion by
Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner Schuelke
requesting staff to investigate the zoning where the
businesses are located on 6th Street and the RMF Use fr"
between Pennsylvania, Cherry, 8th and 9th Streets
with possible recommendation for a change of zone. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Schuelke ask staff for an update on the status
Planning Commission Meeting of
June 2, 1987
Page 2
zoned R -2 and that on this date, she again called and was
informed that it was zoned R -A -1. Commission felt that
their approval was based on the information that the
property was already zoned County R -2 which was consistent
with the City's zoning of medium density.
Attorney Robinson informed the commission that he would have
to check this out since the commission acted on erroneous
information in reaching their vote.
PD Beeler commented that the application received from the
owner showed the property to be zoned MDR.
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao, seconded by Commissioner
Schuelke to direct the City Attorney to investigate the
voting as to what could be done pursuant to erroneous
information given the commission on Annexation 87 -ANX -2 and
that City Council be apprised of this information. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Schuelke requested that a copy of the
Assessor's Parcel Map be included in the agenda packets of
the items listed on the agendas.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Remy, staff was directed to include this in the agenda
packets. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call votes:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Ingrao questioned the policy in operating a
manufacturing retail business out of a residence.
CON'T PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87- PP -10, 6 Unit Apartment Complex, located at 649 Michigan.
Applicant, Fairfax.
This item was continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of June 16, 1987.
5. 87- CUP -1, Sandblasting Operation, located at 238 Maple at
3rd Street. Applicant, Keith Burton.
Planning Commission Meeting of
June 2, 1987
Page 3
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mr. Gar Koontz, CM En ineerin , 225 E. Air ort Dr., San
Bernardino, addresse the commission stating that they
concur with all the conditions; introduced Mr. Steve
Samaniego who is a Supervising Sanitarian with the County
Health Department Environmental Health Services Division and
also serves as Supervisor for the Local Enforcement Agency
(Health Dept.) and wanted Mr. Samaniego to answer any
questions the commission might have.
Mr. Steve Samanieqo, Riverside County Environmental Health,
3575 11th Street Mall, Riverside, addressed the commission
commenting that the Loca Enforcement Agency is mandated
by the State to oversee any solid waste facility within the
County of Riverside and they incorporate any conditions
regarding city planning, water quality, land use, etc., into
the permit as long as it goes through the whole CEQA
process; Health Dept. sees no problem - would approve;
usually the port -a - potties are on a temporary basis if there
is no near -by connections for sewer available; some
facilities in the county have port -a- potties being
used as permanent facilities; however, these sites are out
in the desert areas and rural areas where it is not feasible
to connect to a sewer for an operation that is small.
Mr. Ron Belshe, 113 Maple Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission commenting on the spring cleanup that the City
has provided; opposed to a continued use of a portable
toilet; this temporary waste transfer site is in close
proximity to the existing landfill - wonders personally if
there is a possibility that it could be used for some other
reason other than a collection of local solid waste for
transfer purposes or if by some chance vehicles that
could not make it to the landfill on time could park
overnight at the site; doesn't believe we need this facility.
Dr. Randhawa, 754 E.3rd Street, addressed the commission
commenting that we want something like Presley's project on
this section of the city; doesn't feel it is needed; wanted
to know who will be watching for toxic waste that will be
dumped.
Jean Bailie, 162''S. Maple, Beaumont, addressed the
commission questioning
the paved portion of 1st Street; also
questioned that this type of business might set a
precedence; asked procedural question - how is she notified;
Wanted to know if reports are open to the public.
PD Beeler noted that if she wants to receive agendas for
everything, then she should supply the Planning Department
with stamped, addressed envelopes; otherwise, if in
attendance at the meeting you would know of the continuance.
Planning Commission Meeting of
June 2, 1987
Page 4
There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:52
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
PD Beeler explained that when this facility opens
they will be responsible for cleaning up the trash in
the area pursuant to the maintenance agreement. Under this
agreement they will have three (3) hours in which to clean
up the trash.
Lengthy discussion was had by the commission pertaining to
the need for this facility, portable toilet, trash in area,
fencing and zoning in relation to the Loma Linda Annexation.
Recessed at 8:02 P.M., in order for file to be pulled on
Loma Linda and Dorn Properties.
Meeting reconvened at 8:10 P.M.
Commissioner Remy felt that manufacturing should not be
South of Second Street with Commissioner Schuelke
feeling that the area would be better zoned as Industrial
Park. PD Beeler commented that under the Residential Planned
Unit Development, they are allowed a mixture of some
commercial.
Chairperson Burton ask the question "is it a disposal
service" with Attorney Robinson stating he didn't know if it
could be defined this way or not, it sounds like its a waste
management system, a transfer of waste, as opposed to a
disposal waste at this point. Doesn't have an answer to the
question at this time.
PD Beeler ask if the commission would like to add a
condition to the plot plan to renew or review it in a
certain amount of time. Also, if the project grows, they
will be coming back before the commission and then we will
be looking at paving the street, etc.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by
Commissioner Remy to deny this project with the following
findings:
1. there already exists adequate landfill dump sites in the
area in close proximity to this project;
2, that it is not compatible with the area immediately
south, which is zoned Planned Unit Development;
3. not a permitted use in the ML Zone.
Motion carried unanimously to deny 87 -PP -4 with the
following roll call vote:
Planning Commission Meeting of
June 2, 1987
Page 5
filed how does the general public know about it.
Chairperson Burton informed her that it would be advertised
as a public hearing before the City Council and property
owners within 300' would be notified.
Dr. Randhawa, addressed the commission again wanting to know
why the employees' we are paying in the City did not find it
as a permitted use, with PD Beeler responding that she and
the City Manager had discussed this project and decided to
pursue this under Title 17 uses that are allowed.
Dr. Randhawa, again commented about the difference in
zoning in relation to 87 -ANX -2 and getting official
information in writing with PD Beeler responding that the
County of Riverside was notified and asked that they
response in ten (10) days - normally, if they do not respond
it means they have no comment - no objections.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
7. Approval of Updated Zoning Map.
PD Beeler asked the commission to look at the new zoning
maps as well as the general plan which was just completed,
in order to see if all changes were made pursuant to all
research that was done - all employees have looked at it
pertaining to their special areas and no changes were made.
There was lengthy discussion pertaining to the updated
zoning map and it was felt that the commission needed more
time in order to review the maps.
This matter was continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of June 16, 1987.
PD Beeler noted that June 13, 1987, is the CEQA /Developer's
Meeting here at the City of Beaumont.
7 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 Off- Street
Parking and Loading.
This matter was discussed in part and then continued to the
next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 16, 1987.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 9:07 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JUNE 16, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, .June 16, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting called to Order at 6:15 P.M.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Ingrao, Schuelke, Tapp and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Remy arrived at 6:30 P.M.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
It should be noted for the record that Attorney Ryskamp was
present at the meeting.
1. Study Session held from 6:15 P.M., to 6:54 P.M.
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that the purpose of
Oral Communication is to allow citizens of Beaumont to raise
issues that they want to bring before the commission and
then refer to staff if need be. Feels that the frequency
with which items are brought up by commissioners is in
appropriate for the concept of oral communication and very
well may violate the Brown Act intent of having a 72 hour
posting. If an item is discussed, it must be on the agenda.
If a commissioner wants to place something on the agenda for
discussion, a request is made to the Planning Department as
an individual commissioner other than during the meeting.
Recessed at 6:54 P.M., reconvening at 7:05 P.M.
2. The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
June 2, 1987 were approved as amended.
Attorney Ryskamp explained that reference to motions and
votes contained in the Section under Oral Communication is
superfluous and does not need to be there. Should read at
the end "item referred to staff." He further noted that for
each of the Items where it says "discussion was had
pertaining to" and "on motion by ", it should read "matter
was referred to staff for investigation" and that this
should be the case in each item where there was a vote
taken.
Correction: Page 1, Item 3, 1st paragraph, 4th line, to read
"and" after Pennsylvania Apartments instead of "is ".
The rest of the Minutes stand as submitted.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 16, 1987
Page 2
Meeting of July 7, 1987.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
6. Approval of Conditions for Minor Plot Plan 87- MPP -1, Chapel
of Roses, located at 200 E. Sixth Street, Beaumont.
Applicant, Dora Rynio.
PD Beeler presented the staff report outlining Amended
Condition #2 which was on appeal by Councilwoman Connors.
Chairperson Burton then asked if there were any
proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak.
Ms. Dora Rynio, 11198 Western Hills Dr., Riverside,
addressed the commission stating they wished to comply and
sees no problem in entering 6th St., in an orderly manner.
There being no one else from the audience wishing to speak,
Chairperson Burton then turned the matter back to the
commission for discussion.
It was the feeling of the commission that there was no
problem in stopping the traffic in order for the procession
to turn right on 6th Street - a matter of common courtesy.
No problem with the amended condition.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that it does not say they cannot turn
left - it says no traffic can be stopped to turn left.
PD Beeler commented that she did receive the letter from the
State and that the State needs to see a business license
issued before final clearance can be granted.
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that they can uphold
the appeal and modify the condition since it appears to
conform with the request made in the appeal through a
motion.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Tapp, to uphold the appeal and the Amended Condition #2 to
read:
No. 2:
a) Loading and unloading to be done on Edgar Street
only. No loading or unloading to be allowed on 6th
Street.
b) No traffic to be stopped to allow left turns onto
6th Street. Processions to be directed only into
the westbound slow traffic lane in a rapid and
orderly manner.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1987
Page 3
7. Application for Sign Permit No. 87- SNP -6, located at 1265 E.
6th St., Beaumont. Applicant, Jayant B. Patel.
PD Beeler presented the staff report explaining that the
applicant is proposing a lighted sign which would be a
continuation of his existing sign (pole). Wanted the
commissions' feelings as to whether it would be considered
one sign or two signs and also are lighted signs with a
flashing arrow going to be allowed.
Chairperson Burton then asked for proponents /opponents from
the audience wishing to speak.
Mr. Jayant Patel, 1265 E. 6th St., Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating he is the owner ot the Windsor Motel. He
then drew a picture of his existing pole and showed the
commission where he wanted to place the new sign which would
be on the ground connected to the already existing pole.
There was much discussion by the commission with the feeling
that this sign on the ground would detract from Mr. Patel's
business with Commissioner Ingrao commenting that if the
applicant is required to attach the sign to the post then
the arrow would not be needed. If not attached, then the
sign would be approximately 1' to 18" away from the post
with a wire connecting it to the post. The code does not
allow two signs and flashing signs are strictly disallowed
by the ordinance.
On motio
Tapp to
redesign
' waived.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
z by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
deny 87- SNP -6; however, should the applicant
his sign and reapply, then all fees would be
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Ingrao, Schuelke, Tapp and
Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Remy.
None.
None.
8. Report from City Attorney on question raised in Oral
Communication relative to vote on Pre- Annexation
Determination.
See Attorney Ryskamp's comments on Page 1.
9. Reconsideration of Pre- Annexation Determination 87 -ANX -2 as
requested by City Council.
PD Beeler presented the staff report on this item,
recommending approval of Pre - Annexation Determination to
Residential Single Family on this property.
Chairperson Burton then asked if there were any
proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1987
Page 4
PD Beeler then ask Mr. Whittier if he was requesting that it
be zoned to medium density, with Mr. Whittier stating yes,
medium density rather than the high density - then he would
have the latitude to go either way." He further commented
that the corner of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way was
approved for an apartment project and that next to this was
medium density and that across the street was a mobilehome
park and an apartment project. IIe stated that he "didn't
know the procedure of this coming back - thought it had
been approved."
The commission then discussed this matter, noting that Mr.
Whittier had previously requested single family dwellings
on smaller lots than allowed in the RMF zone which would
have required an RHD zone. Also, you can now put single
family homes in the RHD zoning on 5,000 sq. ft. lots.
PD Beeler noted that the reconsideration for single family
would go into effect as of June 27, 1987 requiring 7,000
sq. ft. lots for single family dwellings.
Mr. Whittier, then commented that it would not be
econom caly feasible at all to build on this size of
acreage.
Mr. Richard Ree1ey,_S_unnyslope, addressed the commission
m
comenting that he elt it should be single family; does
not want the life style changed; very narrow street.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by
Commissioner Remy, for recommendation of approval by City
Council of staff's recommendation of Negative Declaration
87 -ND -12 and Pre- Zoning Determination of 87-ANX -2 to RSF.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke and Tapp.
NOES: Chairperson Burton.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Whittier that he had appeal
rights on a reconsideration.
10. Report from staff relative to zoning of property located
between American and Xenia on the north side of 6th Street
as requested during oral communication.
PD Beeler presented the staff report informing the
commission that the easiest thing to do would be to change
all of the existing zoning on a city initiated zone change
to commercial general in order to bring it into conformance
with the general plan. Further, applicant submitted a plot
plan for RMF, he would be inconsistent with the general
plan. This means he would have to submit a General Plan
Amendment to the City to change the General Plan from CG to
R7oAinm flonci4v
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1987
Page 5
Mr. Ron Gerwin, addressed the commission noting that they
wanted to develop on 6th & American; portion of lot could be
commercial - could make a flag lot. Iie had by chance, come
to City Planning to find out about building apartments.
Mrs. Gerwin, commented that if it could be called something
other than apartments, it could be in the commercial zoning.
Mr. Ron Gerwin, commented that a Security Home Complex for
Seniors is really what it would be and they are not in favor
of a rezone to CG. Feels it will be a long time to develop.
PD Beeler advised the commission that if they should decide
to go with the General Plan Amendment, it would have to be
in no later than 7/12/87 in order to be heard in August or
September.
It was the consensus of the commission that this matter be
continued to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
July 7, 1987, in order to have more time for consideration.
11. As requested by Commission during oral Communication, for
staff to include an Assessor's Parcel Map for each project
on the agenda.
See Page 1, Attorney Ryskamps's comments.
12. Approval of the Updated Zoning and General Plan Maps.
PD Beeler presented the Updated Zoning Map asking for input
on zoning.
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
Ingrao to approve the updated zoning map with the following
corrections:
1) The N/E Corner of 12th & Beaumont should show zoning of
CG;
2) At approximately the City Limits line of 6th & Illinois
should show zoning of CG;
3) Loma Linda & Dorn Properties to show PUD, PRMF and a
portion located at the bottom (southern tip) to show
zoning of RA;
4) The City Limits line at Highway 79 to show zoning of CN.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke, Tapp and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
PD Beeler noted for the record that the General Plan Map is
not yet ready;. however, the part that was finished was
Planning Commission Meeting
June 16, 1987
Page 6
Matter continued to July 7, 1987.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 9:02 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning3mmionretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JULY 7, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, July 7, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting called to Order at 6:25 P.M.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Remy, Ingrao, Schuelke and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Tapp was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
The record should show that Attorney Ryskamp was present.
1. Discussion was had pertaining to the Textual Code Amendment
for an ordinance repealing Sections 17.55.005 through
17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Off- Street Parking and
Loading.
This item was continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of July 21, 1987.
2. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of June 16, 1987, were approved as submitted.
'' 3. Oral Communication: None.
CON'T PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87- PP -10, 6 Unit Apartment Complex, located at 649 Michigan.
Applicant, Fairfax.
This item was continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of July 21, 1987.
5. 87- CUP -1, Sandblasting Operation, located at 238 Maple at
3rd Street. Applicant, Keith Burton.
This item was continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of July 21, 1987.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6. 87 -PP -8, Am #2, Proposed 30 Unit Apartment Building, located
at the Northeast Corner of 8th and Pennsylvania. Applicant,
Clifford.
PD Beeler presented the staff report /project analysis
recommending approval of Plot Plan 87 -PP -8 and Negative
Beaumont Planning Commission
Minutes of July 7, 1987
Page 2
inserted in the staff report under paragraph 4, after the
wo d "whatever" and before the word "fee ". Also, she
coUented that during inhouse research, staff discovered
that the northerly property is zoned RSF, making it
impossible for the developer to build 4 of the units on this
portion. It will be recommended in the conditions of
approval that the area zoned RSF be used as an expanded
recreational facility for use of the residents of the
complex. 11
Commissioner Schuelke noted for the record that she would be
abstaining on this project since her brokerage is involved
in the sale of the property.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:10
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Pete Volbeda, 199 S. Monte Vista, Suite 4, San Dimas,
addressed the commission commenting there was a mistake on
the scale; net area of site is 47,934 s.f.
PD Beeler noted that the first time the Fire Department saw
this plan they asked for a re- design because they wanted a
hammerhead turn - around situation; thus the reason for the
Amended #2 Plan.
Pete Volbeda, continued speaking, explaining his project.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:20
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
Commission discussed the setbacks, removal of trees from
parkway, block wall, fire dept. requirements, apt. overhang,
width of driveway, etc.
Chairperson Burton then reopened the public hearing at 7:30
P.M., in order for Mr. Volbeda to speak.
Pete Volbeda again addressed the commission commenting that
if the requirements were 24' clear width, full width could
be provided and parking stalls could be moved back 4'.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:32
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
additional discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao, to approve 87 -PP -8, Am #2,
subject to the amended Conditions of Approval to add
Condition #91 and recommended approval of Negative
Declaration 87 -ND -16 by City Council, seconded by
Commissioner Remy. Condition #9 to read as follows:
Driveway to be 24' wide and clear of all portions
of buildings and parking spaces, including any
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 7, 1987
Page 3
th4 Northeast Corner of Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, American Housing.
PD Beeler presented the staff report /project analysis
recommending approval of this project. Correction under
staff report, 4th sentence, after thw word balconies "on"
should read "or" patios. She noted that staff had received a
letter signed by 3 people who were in opposition to this
project. Also this project is not being asked, basically for
security reasons, to have a frontage through their property.
She referred to City Council Minute Order recently received
by staff.
Commission discussed back 2 or 3 years ago, it was
decided when this project developed there would be no access
or ingress or egress from Beaumont Avenue. When developed a
frontage road would be put in where the access came in off
of Cougar or from Brookside.
PD Beeler again referred to the Minute Order noting no
access on Beaumont Avenue and a frontage road behind the
Deodora trees. Further, commenting because of this project
and other projects, a lot of time was spent with Mr. Bounds,
and Mr. Dotson communicating with the County to get what is
in the packet which is a copy of the Beaumont Avenue 170'
right -of -way. This is what was agreed upon several years
ago because half of the road at this point is in the County.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the plan as
coordinated /reviewed with the county was the subject of
` the Minute Order, calls for one set of trees to end up in the
median. There is to be an additional road the same width as
the existing road running down - in effect you have a
boulevard with a new row of Deodora trees.
Commission noted that there already is a project which has
been approved across the street that has a frontage
road (Shelton) who was not allowed to come out onto Beaumont
Avenue.
PD Beeler commented that Mr. Shelton needed the frontage
road and wanted to save the Deodora trees for his park. He
did not want to take all of his access off of Cougar.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:59
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mr. .john Sims, 924 Westwood Blvd., Los Angeles, President of
American Housing Corporation, addressed the commission
commenting that he wanted to reserve his comments until he
heard the opposition.
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 7, 1987
Page 4
will be paid; immense on -site recreational amenities; on -site
property management 24 hours per day.
Commissioner Remy ask Mr. Sims if people will have to go to
Perris in order to sign up for an apartment with Mr. Sims
stating "no" just on -site - units are not being subsidized
as the units that were built on Beaumont Avenue and 15th
Street.
Commissioner Ingrao asked Mr. Sims if this was not a
subsidized housing project with Mr. Sims stating "not in the
sense that we have subsidizing for the project that we
built on 15th Street in Beaumont. We intend to provide
financing for this project through tax exempt multi - family
bond issues, the amount of that will be approximately 7 to 8
million dollars and for that we would provide 208 of the
units for low and moderate income persons. The differential
between what our market rate rent is and what our subsidized
rate rent is, is approximately $125.00 per month. There
isn't a significant difference between what our tenant
profile is expected to be and what we need to qualify for low
and moderate income persons for tax exempt bond financing
purposes." Has nothing to do with the Dept. of Housing and
urban Development. Has to provide what the state requirement
is for handicap purposes.
Mr. Steve Fleishman, 336 Bedford, Fresno, addressed the
commission commenting that the state .law now requires
adaptability and accessibility; have designed all of the
units so they are easily adapted to fit in the handicap
+ fixtures; units can be adapted.
The commission questioned the fact that all units were
adapted for the handicap instead of only certain units.
Mr. John Sims, commented that it was his understanding after
talking with the Planner and Jim Dotson that what the intent
is, is to alleviate the traffic at some future date on
Beaumont Avenue and also the better plan is to build the
other portion of the road to the west so that as Beaumont
Avenue now exists it would be "one way" with an intersection
and when the other property is annexed into the City
then the requirement would be that is where the road
goes. To put an access road on this property would serve
no particular purpose. Will be exiting all on Cougar Avenue
with the exception of emergency purposes through a crash
gate at the north end of the property onto Beaumont. Felt
that if a frontage road is put in it will become an alley.
PD Beeler explained to the commission that the Police and
Fire departments had requested accesses onto Beaumont
Avenue for an emergency situation. Attorney Ryskamp
Commented that it is an entrance not an exit. People
entering onto Beaumont is a real problem and for that reason
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 7, 1987
Page 5
PDT Beeler informed the commission that if they had this
information staff would like to have it since Mr. Sims'
project has been held up for almost 6 weeks while she and
Mr. Bounds worked with the County of Riverside in order to
come up with access or no access on Beaumont Avenue. The
City Engineer needed to know for conditioning purposes do we
or do we not have access on Beaumont Avenue. It went to
City Council and the response from them Jas "no access on
Beaumont Avenue."
Attorney Ryskamp noted that that decision was based on the
existing County's Specific Plan for that area calling for
the concept for an additional one roadway to the west of
Ithe Deodora trees. *"I
After much discussion, Chairperson Burton closed the public
hearing at 8:40 P.M., turning the matter back to the
commission for discussion.
The question arose that there might not be sewer capacity
for this project with PD Beeler explaining that the city
engineer did not say that we were out of sewer capacity when
he prepared the conditions.
Lengthy discussion pursued pertaining to the frontage road,
parking, sewer, fencing, etc.
On motion by Commissioner Remy to continue Plot Plan 87 -PP-
12, Am #1, and 87- ND -17, in order to clarify the sewer
capacity situation, the Beaumont Avenue Plans to preserve
the Deodora trees and the frontage road, seconded by
Commissioner Ingrao.
PD Beeler noted that the commission will attempt to find the
paper work which staff has not been able to find.
Mr. John Sims, addressed the commission noting that the
sewer and water was the first thing they ever did before
they put this property into escrow. Stated he would request
as the applicant that "you deny the project and he would
appeal to the council or go to another community." The issue
of access is the only one remaining and since the
council has already looked at these plot plans and they've
already ruled on it, he would prefer to take it directly to
them. In the interest of time, he asked to please deny it.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: None.
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 7, 1987
Page 6
not receive any money nor is she
Mi chell.
now employed by Mr.
It was decided that since there were people in the audience
pertaining to this property, the commission would open the
public hearing and hear testimony before continuing the
project.
PD Beeler presented the staff reportAproject analysis
recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 87 -CUP -2 and
Negative Declaration 87- ND -18.
Mr. Loren Ward, 1071 E. 1st., Beaumont, addressed the
commission, wanting to clarify the location; well will not
support this project; increased traffic; waste and sewer;
fence - will it be enclosed; strangers and transients every
week -end.
Mr. Delbert Ward, 86 Michigan, Beaumont, addressed the
commission and expresse is concern pertaining to the water
since it is very limited; wanted to know about the entrance
and fencing.
Mr. Albert S. Gardner, 2217 Lyndine St., Lemon Grove,
addressed the commission representing the .owner TRS
Enterprises for the management of design and construction.
He commented that they have no intention of using the
existing water -well; 6' high masonry wall; very sophisicated;
will produce income for the community; mostly people on
vacation; respectfully requests a continuance.
Mr. Delbert Ward, commented that in the 28 years that they
have lived there the water table has dropped from 18' down
to 35' down.
It was the concensus of the commission that this item be
continued to the next Regular Planning Commission of July
21, 1987.
Recessed at 9:15 P.M., reconvening at 9:21 P.M.
9. Proposed Amendment to Section 17.60.020 of the Beaumont
Zoning Ordinance relating to On -site Advertising Structures
and Signs.
PD Beeler presented the staff report recommending approval
of Negative Declaration 87 -ND -20 and approval of the
Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 9:25
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak. There being none, she then closed the
public hearing at 9:26 P.M., turning the matter back to the
commission for discussion.
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 7, 1987
Page 7
10. Proposed Amendment to Section 17.50.100 of the Beaumont
4
Zoning Ordinance relating to permitted uses in the
Commercial -Light Manufacturing Zone.
11. Proposed Amendment to Section 17.50.200 of the Beaumont
Zoning Ordinance relating to permitted uses in the Light
Manufacturing Zone.
PD Beeler presented the staff report recommending approval
of Negative Declaration 87 -ND -19 and approval of the
Proposed Ordinance Amendment.
Commissioner Schuelke noted that by allowing Valley Fresh to
open the existing poultry facility with a MPP, they would
not be required to do all of the improvements that would
normally be done under a Plot Plan.
PD Beeler noted that the applicant cannot do anything until
this is approved and a plot plan coming in during this
period is not going to slow anything down or speed anything
up but will bring everything to the surface. Code does
not allow slaughtering, thus, the reason for an amendment
which will allow them to slaughter chickens.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to recommend approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -19 and approval of an Ordinance
repealing Sections 17.50.100, 17.50.105 and 17.50.205,
Amending Sub - section 17.50.110 and adding new Sections
17.50.100, 17.50.105, and 17.50.205 to the Beaumont
Municipal Code, thereby adding Poultry Processing as a
Permitted Use in M -C and M -L Zones, seconded by Commissioner
Ingrao. Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: Commissioner Remy.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
12. Approval of Updated General Plan Map.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to approve the Updated
General Plan Map, seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: None.
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 7, 1987
Page 8
followed by public hearings at 7:00 P.M.
15. Official ruling pertaining to Spot Zoning as requested by
Commissioner Remy.
Attorney Ryskamp explained that spot zoning is an island
that is not contiguous to the surrounding area.
There being no further business before the! commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:09 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Plannin ommion Secretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JULY 21, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
' Meeting on Tuesday, July 21, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting called to Order at 6:34 P.M.
On Roll Call the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
It should be noted for the record that Attorney Ryskamp was
present.
1. Discussion was had pertaining to the Textual Code Amendment
for an ordinance repealing Sections 17.55.005 through
17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Off- Street Parking and
Loading.
This item was continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of August 4, 1987.
2. Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July
7, 1987, were approved as submitted with the addition of the
word "way" on page 5, second paragraph, line 3, after the
word "one ".
3. Oral Communication: None.
CON'T PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. X87- PP -10, 6 Unit Apartment Complex, located at 649 Michigan.
Applicant, Fairfax.
Applicant withdrew his project due to the large water fee
they were unable to pay at this time.
5. (87 -CUP -1 and 87- ND -}Y, Sandblasting Operation, located at
238 Maple at 3rd Street. Applicant, Keith Burton.
PD Beeler presented the amended staff report recommending
approval of Negative Declaration 87 -ND -15 based on the
findings, since this project will not have a significant
impact on the environment and further, approval of
Conditional Use Permit 87- CUP -1, subject to the conditions
of approval.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:12
.. .. __i.:. _ a.:.- from the audience
r
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 2
produce the product that was tested; would it become
hazardous if by- products were allowed to accrue on the
property; quoted article from National Geographic- - April
issue pertaining to poisoning the air; feels the commission
has been mislead in the staff report of May 19th; suggested
that an addition be placed on conditions to read "any
building and /or buildings to be used for sandblasting must
include a baghouse and sound - proofing ", questioned "personal
use" in the conditions; keep option to have a hearing and
proposed several conditions.
Commissioner Tapp commented that normally when standards are
set by the Health Dept. there is a level of lead in almost
every area you are in.
Dr. Randhawa, 754 E. 3rd Street, addressed the commission
commenting on the pamphlet that was delivered to the
commission and also commented on the analyses done by the
Section of the Departmental Health. Ask for people to stand
up in the audience that, were against the sandblasting
operation.
Keith Burton, in rebuttal addressed the commission again
commenting that they do have a parking area; a large
percentage of the people that stood up in the audience do
not live in the area; soils tests showed no contamination;
was promised he could do sandblasting before he purchased
the property; wherever the truck goes they are allowed to
sandblast; on -site operation is a very small part - maybe
10% on site overall; 8 hours of blasting in 2 months;
samples were taken from the sandblasting area with no
significant amount of lead; can't build a building and
insulate and have it pay off due to the expense; not
restricted in size for sandblasting.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:56 P.M., turning the
matter over to the commission for discussion.
Discussion was had by commission pertaining to the number of
portable units, permits, noise, pollution, size of objects
to be sandblasted in an enclosed facility, designated area
for trucks, etc.
Attorney Ryskamp reading from a rule book quoted the
definition as "confined abrasive blasting shall be used for
all abrasive blasting operations at a facility except under
the following conditions: When steel or iron shot /grit is
used. When the item to be abrasive blasted exceeds 8 feet
in height, 8 feet in width, or 10 feet in length." He
noted, that automobiles, reefers and tanks would be an
exception and could be blasted in the open air.
Chairperson Burton commented that anything smaller than
the above dimensions has to be sandblasted within a confined
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 3
significant impact on
Conditional Use Permit
Conditions of Approval to
the environment. Also, approve
87- CUP -1, subject to the amended
read as follows:
Condition No. 2: Applicant to apply for Building Permits
including Plot Plan review with Public Hearing for
additional shop expansion, including any facility for
enclosed abrasive blasting.
Condition No. 4: Applicant to show proof of "Shop /Fixed
Location" Permit from Air Quality before operating permanent
facility.
Condition No. 6: Applicant is not allowed to perform any
on -site =sting at subject property.
Seconded by Commissioner Schuelke. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Rece,s§,,aty 8:44 P.M., reconvening at 8:51 P.M.
6. 87- PP -12, Am. #1, and 87 -ND -1 Proposed 156 Apartment
Uni s, ocared a. a Northeast Corner of Cougar Way and
Beaumont Avenue., Applicant, American mousing Corp.
This Continued Public Hearing was transcribed verbatim
pursuant to Attorney Ryskamp's request.
Burton: We continued this to ascertain the standards regarding
Beaumont Avenue.
Ryskamp: Alright, Julia and Mr. Bounds with at least Ethel's help
and maybe one or two of the others of you, have been
attempting to find out what the City has done in the
past and that's not always as easy as it would seem it
should be. She has extensively gone through previous
minutes of the City Council as well as utilizing some
information from the Planning Commission for that time
period including listening to tapes of old meetings -
colorful enough to keep you awake at times. Just prior
to the time I became City Attorney, there was an action
initiated to amend the General Plan Circulation Element
for part of it for relative to several things and
included among those items was the Beaumont Avenue area.
A recommendation and report went up from the Planning
Commission recommending that the County plan requiring
the two lanes, the current Beaumont Avenue plus a
similar street to the west of the trees was rejected in
favor of a plan - for what we have so far since we've
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 4
Planning Commission
decision was made.
Beeler: 1983.
report was brought forward, no
Ryskamp: Pardon, 1983, pardon the year. The 13th of June 1983,
Planning Commission report was put in, it was noted in
those Minutes that the report had been submitted and
that the Council had 40 days in which to approve or
disapprove. There is in the Minutes for the 11th of
July of that same year, one month before I became City
Attorney, a motion being made to approve the Planning
Commission recommendations.
Beeler: By the City Council.
Ryskamp: And it was adopted by the City Council, approving
Planning Commission recommendations. I do not recall
the matter being dealt with and now that I've got that
kind of - this, by the way was all handed to me when I
arrived a little before 6 this evening to review. They
just finally found it all this morning and so where we
are now is we know it was taken that far appropriately
following the steps. As the Code existed, Government
Code Section 6356 called for adopting an amendment to a
general plan or any element thereof, which has been
approved by the Planning Commission, the legislative
body may approve, modify, or disapprove the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. O.k. they
did that; however, Section 65357 requires the adoption
of the general plan or any amendment to such plan, shall
be by Resolution of the legislative body of the county
or city. Where we are now is we have not been able to
determine if in the ensuing weeks there was any type of
resolution. A search of our resolution files, we find
no resolution showing the general plan to have been
amended pursuant to the approved report.
Remy: Are you referring to the Circulation Element?
Ryskamp: Yes.
Remy: Well I have here, I found it at the last minute, a map.
It says revisions 9/11/84 City Council Resolution No.
1984 -59, I think.
Ryskamp: What does that show for the frontage road?
Remy: It shows specific design and we did this when we did
Westward and they put them all in together.
Beeler: Showing the specific design road doesn't - yeah, this is
what everybody has, showing the specific design road
doesn't answer our questions as to what is a specific
Aocinn rnar.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 5
about.
Remy: Well here it says street - typical street section of the
frontage road that Emeline came up with and it shows the
Deodoras and the frontage road west of the Deodorrs on
the Beaumont side, course there will be a county side
also, but this is the section that their - says typical
street sections, I think everybody's got this.
Ryskamp: What I'm suggesting to you, is that we need to find a
definite resolution amending the General Plan. This
unfortunately, indicates that thats a special design
street, it gives us no indicating - a special design
street either one of the alternatives being discussed
would be a special design street. A boulevard like Palm
Avenue is a special design street.
Remy: Yes, its true but its already been stated in other
documents that it was a frontage road that was decided
on.
Ryskamp: The law . . .
Remy: Says you gotta. .
Ryskamp: Says that to amend your general plan you shall have a
resolution. Now there - and what we have at this point
we haven't found enough inclusive evidence, if we could
find the maps that were drawn at the time and definitely
tie them in -
Burton: Would they be up stairs?
Ryskamp: They're looking. Basically my recommendation at this
point is that you're going to need to continue this
primarily because I can't give you a definite indication
as to what the general plan says concerning that street.
Remy: We got to hunt some more.
Beeler: When you look at all the different things that we've
heard, we've heard "leave it like it is, put the two
frontage roads ", the decision that we have - that they
voted on on July 11th, says "change Beaumont Avenue
requirement to delete requirement for another roadway on
the westside of trees which provides the frontage road
on each side ". We don't have a split median, we just
have the street as it exists in two others - which
negated what you had found to adopt what the County of
Riverside wanted to do for the specific plan. That's
where we have to continue to search and find. . .
Burton:. Right. I'm not - I have an appointment in the morning
at 8:30 and it shouldn't take much more than an hour,
.., .. .. u.... —A L,.1 F T ...i 1 1 1 nl nnhonr my 1-i ma to
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 6
Remy: Some of it is in there.
Ryskamp: But Ethel, did you collect what the council did?
+ this is - the problem is, what we're looking for.
Burton: For - is what the Council finished.
See
Ryskamp: (inaudible) there was a resolution by the Planning
Commission -
Burton: We know that far
Ryskamp: The Planning Commission followed the law, it was
completed up to the point of approval of the Planning
Commission recommendation. What I have not found -
Burton: Is the Council approval.
Beeler: And the map.-
Ryskamp: Is the Council approval so that I can define it by
resolution and a map or some type specific description
so that we know exactly what is the special design
that's being mandated.
Schuelke: Then we need a council member then.
Remy: You didn't find a council - you found a council
approval. . .
Ryskamp: Approval of the recommendation but no resolution.
Remy: No resolution.
Ryskamp: No actual amendment to the general plan and it would not
be uncommon to have that approval and then hold the
actual general plan amendment until your next scheduled
general plan amendment because you're only allowed
three.
Remy: I know.
Burton: But they were doing it on schedule at that time - were
they -
Ryskamp: Well
Remy: There were -
Ryskamp: We don't really want to enter into a discussion of how
things were being handled at that point.
Burton: Yeah.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 7
Remy: And then they put it all together and they were going to
make a resolution on that, I don't know if they_ever did
all that amending on the circulation element.
r
Beeler: That's the question, if it all got set aside, somebody
had to take all of it to do something, if they didn't
then we're in limbo.
Schuelke: But a few weeks ago we couldn't find anything where
Planning Commission had taken any action, now we found -
(inaudible, several speaking at once).
Ryskamp: That's why I'm suggesting that we get a chance to
continue it. The records during this time period are
not well organized.
Schuelke: Is there any way to allow the applicant to at least get
started somehow subject to this. (inaudible).
Ryskamp: Not and impose a frontage road on this. If we were .
Schuelke: Not to impose -
Ryskamp: You cannot let him proceed and then impose a frontage
road because he has to completely redesign his project
if you're going to require a frontage road and we don't
know where that frontage road is suppose to go -
Schuelke: But we're talking -
Ryskamp: Your City Engineer is strongly opposed to placing it
right by the Deodora trees.
Schuelke: But we talked of frontage road for that property when
they were here for their zone change.
Ryskamp: The applicant may want to listen and hear that you're
wanting the frontage road and start thinking along those
lines.
Remy: I tell you where it might be - they came up with the
frontage road idea and then after that they came up
with the street light signaling. Some of the property
owners up between 15th Street and Brookside are paying
into, so if we can come up with the signaling program -
Beeler: When the signaling ordinance came in?
Remy: There was something that people are paying in to it.
Ryskamp: It could be buried in that.
Beeler: There is an ordinance of 14th Street north of $150.00 a
,,.,; r
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 8
Ryskamp: He was more than willing to preserve the Deodoras, it
was the frontage road he was protecting too.
Remy: He didn't when he was here.
Ryskamp: In the council.
.Remy: Oh well, I don't know about that. He didn't when he
was here.
Schuelke: They say different things here than they do at council.
Burton: So your recommendation is to continue this?
Ryskamp: My recommendation is to continue it until we determine
what the general plan says - since your actions do need
to conform with the general plan.
Burton: o.k.
Schuelke: I make a motion that we follow Mr. Ryskamp's
recommendation and staff that we continue this until we
have definite and clear information regarding the plan
for Beaumont Avenue.
Remy: I second that.
Burton: We have a motion to continue to the next meeting and a
second - in order to clarify the actual location of
Beaumont Avenue and any frontage road -
Ryskamp: It's August 3rd.
Beeler: August 4th.
Burton: To August 4th. Roll call please.
Schuelke: With Patti Burton's assistance.
Sims: May I address the commission before the vote is taken
please as the applicant - it will take 2 minutes.
Burton: We don't have the public hearing opened Mr. Sims. . .
Sims: It's certainly open ma'am this is a very important
issue and two minutes (inaudible).
Burton: The whole point is, Mr. Sims, if I open the public
hearing and let you speak then I have to allow the
opponents to speak and vise versa. Whether. . .
Sims: Madam, I've sat here for 2 1/2 hours listening to a
lecture on sandblasting and I don't think this issue is
something that can merely be delayed, if you would like
to hPAY A ctAfamnnt nlnacn_ T wnn1A liko to vivo nno
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 9
make it quicker than that. The only thing I would like
to urge is to find out what you really want to.do. We
were given a plan for the widening of Beaumont Avenue
which is acceptable to us, which we will comply with.
We're informed by your representative, Mr. Dotson, your
City Engineer, who has recommended to the Council which
is this plan approved in 1971. I would just urge - I'm
sorry which was prepared in 1971. I would just urge
that you discover and find out what it is that is the
best plan.
Burton: That's what we're doing.
Sims: Not necessarily what was done in 1983 or was approved
in 1984 but what is best for the community and we'll be
more than willing to comply with that.
Burton: That's what we're attempting to do is find the records
cause if there is a resolution that's been adopted we
have to abide by that.
Sims: Either abide by it or'amend it if that's the best plan.
Burton: Whatever - but we first have to determine if its there
Mr. Sims.
Sims: We've been in processing on this project now about 4
months and I would very, very much like either
to kill or get on with it; and if you would just
advise me what it is you wish then we would know what
we need to comply with I'd sincerely appreciate it.
Thank you for your time.
Remy: I wonder if Mr. Sims knows that that's county plan that
he is looking at, Beaumont - it was this body's
decision to adopt the frontage road.
Sims: Ma'am I don't care if its prepared by the Ayatollah
Khomini, whatever you want to -do just tell me what it
is - that's all we need to know and we can then, make
our decision as to whether or not to go forward with
the project.
Schuelke: Mr. Sims in your opinion the plan you have there for
widening Beaumont Avenue, that's the best solution in
your opinion? That's a one way -
Sims: I will tell you that on the strength of losing maybe a
ten million project that in all honesty I have to agree
with your City Engineer. That to do a frontage road,
and I'm not a traffic engineer, please understand that,
that to do a frontage road is a terrible mistake
because it probably will wind up killing the trees
which we don't want to do, we chose this site because
nf thnse trees_ But to do a Plan which will permit an
J
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 10
Burton: And take this lady's house.
(Inaudible)
Remy: Where
Sims: I just
all.
Burton: That's
do it,
:hey live.
want to know what you all want to do. That's
what we're attempting to find out whether we can
o.k.
Sims: Thank you.
Remy: So you've got about 15 lanes going into about 2 up in -
which is silly.
Burton: I know, which is - we have roll call please, oh wait
we've got a public hearing. Mr. Ryskamp -
Ryskamp: At this point, let me'point out, while I appreciate Mr.
Sims's concern I do believe that he well knows the law,
if in fact we violate the general plan he would prefer
his delay now than begin his project and find himself
delayed by a law suit for violating the general plan
which would nullify any approval and that's why we, need
to make that determination. If that determination is
made after the fact and he has already progressing and
this approval is reversed by the court because we
violated our general plan, then his project is going to
stop and the cost will be considerably greater. That
is why we need to find out whether or not the general
plan has been legally amended and that is the concern.
Procedurally, there is a vote, a motion on the floor
and discussion from anywhere else is out of line. You
are not discussing the issue of where to put the
frontage road, that is not being decided, all that we
are concerned with tonight is being given enough time
to figure out what the general plan says as to which
plan. The decision will be made later - much of the
last half of what Mr. Sims' said beyond his comment
about "hey, give me something so I can move, let's get
this thing over with ", which is appropriate and we all
feel that concern, all the rest of that was unnecessary
and irrelevant to the motion on the floor. You'll get
your chance to speak.
(inaudible)
Burton: We'll close our public hearing at 9:12 P.M. Roll call
please.
Sec: Commissioner Tapp.
Taoo: Yes
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21, 1987
Page 11
Burton: Continued to August 4th.
Remy: O.k. yes.
r
(Inaudible)
7. 87- CUP -2, Proposed 97 Space
at the Southwest Corner
Applicant, TRS Enterprise.
Recreational Vehicle Park
of 1st and Pennsylvania.
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that there is
a dispute going on between the City and State and the
applicant, Mr. Gardner, as to what restriction can and
cannot be placed upon a recreational vehicle park.
Section 18300 of the Health & Safety Code clearly does
indicate that the City has rights.
PD Beeler explained that at the last Planning
Commission Meeting Mr. Gardner wanted a continuance to
contest some of the conditions.
Attorney Ryskamp further commented that the question is
are Mr. Dotson's regulations excessive, do they exceed
the extent to which the state can regulate the project.
The initial review and determination is that the City
can regulate. Their opinion (State) does not agree
with that of Mr. Dotson as to what his authority and
power is. Attorney Ryskamp quoted one item
the State raised that "common trenching for sewer
and water are accepted under State law and will be
allowed by the department." Mr. Dotson is opposed to
common trenching. That is you dig one trench and you
bury your sewer and water line in the same trench."
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to continue
Conditional Use Permit 87 -CUP -2 to August 4, 1987,
seconded by Commissioner Tapp. Motion carried with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy
and Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
8. k7 -P! 13, oposal to expand existing facility for 'Mini -
sto -r ts, located at 1315 E. 6th St. Applicant,
Guardian Storage, J. Smith, Co.
PD Beeler commented that the staff report is an expansion
for his existing facilities.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public 'hearing at 9:23
Planning Commission Meeting
July 21,1987
Page 12
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
SCHEDULED MATTER:
9. An Appeal o Medical Clinic, located at 1131
Beaumont Avenue by Commissioner Schuelke. Applicant, Dr.
M.M. Hossain.
PD Beeler commented that she had spoken with Dr. Hossain
about adding Condition 10 and 11 and he has no problem with
either of the conditions.
Discussion was had pertaining to parking, handicap ramp,
garage, etc., and on motion by Commissioner Schuelke,
seconded by Commissioner Ingrao to approved Minor Plot Plan
87- MPP -2, subject to the amended conditions of approval to
read as follows:
Delete: Condition No. 1-A;
Delete: Condition No. 11 -B;
Motion carried unanimously
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp,
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
with the following roll call
Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning/Cbmmis on Secretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
AUGUST 4, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with chaiuperson Burton presiding:
tieatinj caller' to Or.-der at 6:42 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present;
Ccm tssioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Ingrao was excused. Attorney Ryskamp was also
present at the meeting.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pl.-dge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
Attorney Rvskamp explained to the commission that legally
continued public hearings did not have to be re- noticed;
however, due to the nature of some hearings that generate
considerable public interest and controversy, if re- noticed,
we can actually state that we have had more than one public
hearing.
1. Discussion was had pertaining to the Textual Code Amendment
for an ordinance repealing Sections 17.55.005 through
17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Off- Street Parking and
Loading.
This item was again continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission .Meeting of August 18, 1987.
Pacossed from 7:00 P.M., to 7:09 P.M.
2. 7inutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July
21, 1987, were approved as submitted.
3. Oral Communication: None.
CO' PUBLIC H7A?TNG:
4. 87- PP -12, Am. #1 and 87- ND -17, Proposed 156 Apartment Units,
located at the Northeast Corner of Cougar Way and Beaumont
Avenue. Applicant, American (lousing Corporation.
Before starting with this case hearing, PD Beeler wanted to
know if the commission would like to direct her to do a
General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element showing
Specific Design /for Beaumont Avenue. Chairperson Burton
notes that the City Attorney had advised commission to do a
gnncral plan amendment. Commissioner Remy made a motion to
this effect.
+li Fill ; os of PC %Ieeti nq
Auqunk 4, 1937
Page _
a special design street but is not locked in place. We have
an indication of what the intent of the City Council was in
198',3 and--nothing more.
P! Beeler informed the commission that the City Engineer is
adamantly opposed to a frontage road directly behind the
noouora Lrees. Tt has been suggested that the frontage road
actually start at the main entrance to Mr. Sims' property
and turn parallel with Cougar and go north around;
parallel Beaumont Avenue to Brookside and then parallel
Brookside. People who would develop on Brookside would also
have the road parallel with Brookside and come into their
main entry. That would create a U -shape situation.
Otherwise you would have major intersections that would
calks a liability problem.
Attorney 'yskamo noted that the whole purpose of the
frontage road is to take all of the local traffic and access
off of Beaumont Avenue in this area and shift it internally
within the projects and the entrance onto Cougar and
Drop; side
P9 Beeler again noted that the city engineer is completely
onooscd to this whole concept.
Commissioner Remy felt that 24' was not wide enough for the
frontage road and suggested 32'.
Chairperson Burton noted that Commissioner Remy had made a
motion that we direct staff to do a General Plan Amendment
anO a second was needed.
Attorney Ryskamn explained that there are two approaches
that the commission can take: 1) you can require a general
elan or 2) have a specific plan for Beaumont Avenue rather
than :Waking it a general plan amendment.
Commissioner aemy then re- stated her motion for staff to
d °sign a specific plan reflecting a minimum of a 32'
frontage road on both sides of Beaumont Avenue. Attorney
K"skamp noted that procedurally a specific plan is equally
>inding and the advantage is, we do not have to use up one
of our general plan amendments in order to move forward.
saconded by Commissioner Schuelke. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AY'':;: Cnmmissioner_s Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSKYT: Commissioner. Ingrao.
ABSTAIN: None.
4nirperson Burton then noted that Mr. Sims' project still
had to be approved or disapproved with this in mind.
yinutes of PC mooting
August ^, 1987
Page ?
On motion by Commissioner Tapp to recommend approval of
egative Declaration by City Council and approve Plot Plan
87- PP -12, subject to the amended conditions to read as
follows:
Condition 9(a): Applicant shall install "No Parking Signs ".
Condition No. 10(a): To be deleted.
Condition No. 16: 4' sidewalks and landscaping to be
provided along the easterly side of the frontage road and
along the frontage road of Cougar Way.
Condition—No. 17: All interior drives shall be a minimum of
24' clear as per code standards.
Condition No. 18: All parking spaces shall be 9' x 20'
It was felt by Commissioner Tapp that this project did not
need to be brought back before the commission; however, due
to the concensus of the commission that the revised plan be
brought back to the commission for review, he then included
this in his motion. Seconded by Commissioner Schuelke.
AYLS: Commissioners Tapp,
Burton.
NOBS; None.
P,BSLNT: Commissioner Ingrao.
AP; >TA.IN: None.
OUT OF SEOL'} "JCL:
Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
6. 86- PP -16, Request for Extension of Time, Applicant, Menley.
On motion by Commissioner Remy that an extension of one (1)
year be. granted to Mr. Menley to August 21, 1988, seconded
by Commissioner Tapp. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
Ay-;S; Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOLS: '!one.
ABSENT: Commissioner Inqrao.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. 87- PP -12, Request for Extension of Time. Applicant, Renna.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp that an extension of one (1)
year be granted to Mr. R.enna to August 19, 1988, seconded by
Commissioner Remy. Motion carried unanimously with the
follcwing toll call vote:
AY1;:3: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
Durton.
NOES: None.
MtnuLP3 of PC Nooting
August 4, 1987
Page 4
awns a tiny parcel between the general plan amendment and
the railroad has requested (and submitted a letter) that he
be included in the general plan amendment and zone change.
his property is landlocked and should be included, His
Parcel No. is 414- 130 -011.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:40
P.N., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Dave Sumner, 930 _leaumont Avenue, engineer for the project
commented that rt seems to be in conformity with the
activities best suited for the highway frontage and area has
boon a vacant area for a long time; appropriate use.
Tentative plans are commercial such as a restaurant, truck
stop and a motel; will put in their own well; practically
confirmed water to the fire flow of 1500 gpm; will put in a
12" casing probably 900 feet deep and have ample water and
the fire department has told them what they need for storage
and Chey can satisfy that; will have to put in own
sewer /septic.
There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:43
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
Ciscu scion.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to recommend approval of
87 -GP -3, 87 -RZ -4 and 87 -ND -21 by City Council changing the
General Plan Zoning to Commercial Highway Service and to
include. Parcel 414- 130 -011 along with this general plan and
zoning; seconded by Commissioner Tapp. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYE^,: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
0 E3: "lone.
ABSPNT: Commissioner Ingrao.
ABSTAIN: None.
9. 87- PP -11, Am. #1 and 87- ND -22, Proposed Retail and Medical
Office Bldg., plus Mini- warehouse facilities. 5.49 Ac.
North side of 6th Street, between Illinois and American.
Applicant, Jasper. Stone Development Co.
Cnairoer.son Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:45
P.r., asking for proponents /opponents wishing to speak from
the audience.
Davo Sumner, 930 Beaumont Avenue, representing Sanborn &
Webh Engineering for the applicant VTC, Ron Whittier. Have
met all conditions requested by the city engineer and
planning department; in conformance; will be improving the
flow of water along Gth St., from what it tentatively is.
P9inutesv of PC Mect.ing
Annii�;L 4, IIV. 7
Paq e, 5
of Mini.- storage in the immediate area and feels this is too
mane for a town of this size.
Pon - Whittier, 1171 Bel-Aire Corona, addressed the commission
commentinq that Beaumont is going to he in need of mini -
storage. A mini- storage can survive easily with 50%
occupancy.
There bring no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:58
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp recommending approval of
`ogative Declaration 87- AID -22 and approve Plot Plan 87 -PP-
11; seconded by Commissioner. Remy. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
Ali'S: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOBS: bone.
ABS ^;NT: Coiunissione.r Ingrao.
ABSTAIN: `lone.
10. 87- A *NX -3 and 87- ND -24, Proposed 4.26 Ac. Annexation at
Corner of Cougar Way and Sunnyslope. Applicant, VTC.
PD Beeler informed the commission that this project came
before the commission once before and was approved for
single famly. Mr. Whittier withdrew his application and has
Come back requesting High Density Residential with a
quarantee of single family i.n order to get the 5000 sq. ft.
lots. Staff again recommends Single Family Residential
mainly because we still have 6000 sq. ft. lots allowed in
Beaumont which appears to be sufficient.
At'or.ney P.yskamp felt that it could be considered spot
zoning; however, the fact that it is spot zoning does not
-ma:,e it illegal. fie also stated that the City could accept
a covenant on the land for single:, homes only in the HDR.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 9:12
P.V., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishinq to speak.
Ron Whittier, 7111 Bel Aire Dr., Corona, addressed the
commission asking to use the blackboard to explain his
nroiect. lie has problems with configuration of the corner
lot, the expenses, and the depth ratio even if he had 6000
SO. ft. lots. With 50' frontage he would still end up with
7000 sq. ft. lots which would allow 18 hourses instead of
24. It just would not work. lie is sorry that he needs to
go with high c'onsity, but would gurarantee the City if the
City Attorney would in some way back it up, that he can go
ah.eaci and nut a covenant on the property.
Minutes of PC Meeting
August. 4, 1987
Page 6
coming in with a guaranteed single family rather than high
density apartments; and is surrounded with a density of
other projects that are much higher than his per acre.
Mr. Whittier has a minority interest in the 40 acres to the
avast with another partnership which is zoned RMF.
Mr. Sumner also wanted to add that the configuration of the
plan does not lend to 6000 sq. ft., he can either. go 5000 or
7000, the 6000 is not workable.
Choi-person Burton then closed the public hearing at 9:19
P. ^1., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
Ph Beeler commented that staff's recommendation was single
family; however, if it could be guaranteed by covenant then
shP would leave it up to the commission.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that if the commission is going to
adopt the 5000 sq. ft. lots then you have to have some
specific findings as to why you have taken this approach on
tKis parcel. The next time the issue comes up and a
determination is made for the new parcel, you will have to
show how the new proposal is different from this one. Does
not have a problem with spot zoning.
Ron !'hittier, feels this is an unusual circumstance and the
5000 saw _ ft, will not net 5000 because of the configuration
of the land, but would net around 5,500.
PD Beeler stated that the 40 acres (RMF) had been submitted
today,
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to approve 87 -ANX -3 and
£37- ND -24; to deny the pre- determining zoning to RIID; to
approve pre- determining zoning of RSF zoning per staff's
recommendations and findings; seconded by Commissioner Tapp.
Kotion carried with the following roll call vote:
Ayr,S: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, and Remy.
TOPS: Chairperson Burton.
ABSENT: commissioner Ingrao.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Whittier that he has ten
(10) Pays within which to appeal to City Council.
11. 47 -PP -2, Am. 41, Proposed 152 Apt. Units plus amenities at
the N/W Corner of 14th and Beaumont Ave., West of drainage
channel on 9.5 acres. Applicant, CKS Partnership.
PD Poolor informed the commission that originally there was
1.92 apartments hut with the constraints of the hydrology
study, and having to move things around for the channel.
I!inutes of PC riceP_inq
August 4, 1987
Page 7
taken care of; will eliminate the flooding condition on the
14th St., by -pass which will take considerable work;
bringing utilities approximately 300 to 400 feet up to the
site and underground; corner of Beaumont Avenue and 14th
S!., will have islands; will be a nice looking traffic light
traffic control; very extensive traffic control study done;
will be a proud site; expenses incurred really dictate the
economically of the site; will be long lasting.
PD Beeler commented that the applicant did request from the
City Engineer was a complete set of improvements
specifications for all of 14th and Beaumont Avenue. They
want to do all. of their engineering for the whole corner at
one time.
Francois Elahl, 7254 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, addressed
the commission commented he would answer any questions the
commission might have; plot plan has been designed to
accommodate the rules of the fire department (letter. dated
7/30/87); Eucalyptus trees will stay in as a wind break
until construction of buildings; showed commission design of
buildings.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 9:56
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp recommending approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -23 by City Council and approval
of Plot Plan 87 -PP -2 Am. #2 for 144 apartments, subject to
the conditions of approval. Commissioner Tapp amended his
motion to delete Conditions 1.01 from the City Engineer's
conditions of approval; seconded by Commissioner Schuelke.
Plotion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Burton.
NOES:
None.
ABS: NT:
Commissioner
ABSTATN:
:Done.
OUT OF SECUENCP
Tapp, Schuelke, Remy and Chairperson
Ingrao.
5. 87 -CUP -2 and 87- ND -18, Proposed 97 Space Recreational
Vehicle Park at the Southwest Corner of 1st and
Pennsylvania. Applicant, TRS Enterprise.
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that the applicant
had requested a continuance. IIe further commented that he
had met with the applicant, went over the engineer's
cond..itions and when "asked if everythings o.k., in Section
8 - no changes ?" they said "everythings o.k., in Section
8 ". The applicant somehow assumed that having said that, we
%acre stall anina to mndifv Seat-inn 8 in acanrdance with the
Minutes of PC
August 18, 1987
Page 2
the commission commenting that by approving Tract 22561 you
would eliminate the dog -leg that would exist; otherwise, on
Vasili Lane it would increase the traffic flow and make a
better cirulation in the project. Also, if Tract
22561 was approved, it would allow the development of 15
additional lots for residential construction - he feels this
project is a real plus for the community if developed in
this manner.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing turning
the matter back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Remy recommending approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -26 and 87 -TM -2, Am. #1 by City
Council, per staff's recommendation and findings, seconded
by Commissioner Ingrao. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Burton.
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
Commissioner
ABSTAIN:
None.
OUT OF SEQUENCE
Tapp, Ingrao,
i
i
Schuelke.
Remy and Chairperson
5. 87- CUP -2, Proposed 97 Space Recreational Vehicle Park at the
S /VW Corner of First and Pennsylvania Avenue.
. - -This item _appeared on the agenda with the location as the
Southwest Corner of Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue. Should
have read "Southwest Corner of First and Pennsylvania
Avenue."
Attorney Ryskamp explained that Section 8 of the Revised
Engineer's Conditions, dated August 18, 1987 had been
modified so that it reflects the concepts that had
previously been discussed. Further, he informed the
commission that the City does not have the right under State
law to control what goes into a RV Park. In this particular
case the central issue was that the State had pre - empted the
City of Beaumont from placing restrictions on-
site /internally on the RV Park.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:49
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Todd Schoesinger 14405 California, Beaumont, addressed the
commission explaining the quality o t e park; each space is
designed 25' x 60' which allows an RV as well as two cars;
4.85 ac. is the size of the property; however, Mr. Bounds
indicated that the City would dedicate to them an additional
7' along Pennsylvania so they would be within the 5 acres;
,.,nn1A livo 4n havn QQ cnanec inci-AAA of Q7. will have the
Minutes of PC
August 18, 1987
Page 3
conditions that parks
not be feasible; City
25.
could not be built because it would
cannot exceed the standards of Title
Al Miller, San Bernardino R'
Sc oesinger and lives in t
take the best points out of
in Beaumont that would be
people that Mr. Schoesinger
behind the park.
I Park, works with Mr.
Ze new SB RV Park; has tried to
each park and try to design one
very comfortable for the type of
is looking for; big culvert runs
D. J. Ward, 86 Michigan, addressed the commission stating
that he owns the property adjacent to the RV Park; asked if
the commission had considered the petition he presented on
the 20th of July; called attention to the fact they are
building a well just 125' from his well; their well (Ward's)
pumps around 80 or 90 feet and they (RV Park) are planning
on going down 600 feet and put a 1000 gallons a minute pump
on it; what recourse doe.s he have if the RV Park well
affects the level of water he has.
Mr.. Ryskamp informed Mr. Ward that unfortunately this is an
area where the City is pre - empted and the two agencies that
will have to deal with these questions are Water Quality
Control and the Fire Department. Will have to produce
sufficient water and guarantee it to meet the pressure
requirement that the Fire Marshal will impose upon them.
Albert Gardner,
own 508 of the
Ward owns 258;
present well e
Will have a well
that are there
District between
again addressed the commission stating they
well that is presently there and that Mr.
however, he has no plans to go into the
Kcept for enough water for quality tests.
that will supply the RV Park and structures
now. Possible plans are to form a Water
the RV Park and the other property owners.
Mr. Ward, commented that he felt their objective was not an
RV Park but a Mobilehome Park.
Chairperson Burton noted that in a mobilehome park they
would have to have 4000 s.f. per lot.
PD Beeler commented that the City will be getting copies of
reports from Water Quality Control Board and informed Mr.
Ward that as a concerned citizen he should make the Water
Quality Control Board aware of the closeness of his well to
the one the RV Park would be putting in.
Loren Ward, 1071 E. 1st, Beaumont, again addressed the
commission calling attention to Item No. 6 on the petition
pertaining to the water level.
Albert Gardner, in rebuttal commented that this project
would solve their (water) problem. He promised not to use
anv of their water except for testing. The Water Control
Minutes of PC
August 18, 1987
Page 4
discussion.
Attorney Ryskamp reminded the commission that the "review
power" is always there when someone requests a CUP.
Mr. Gardner, commented that there will be a break - through
gate onlst Street for emergency vehicles.
There was much discussion by the commission with
Commissioner Ingrao wanting it noted for the record that he
objected to the State pre - empting the City from on -site
regulations.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp to recommend approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -18 by City Council and approval
of 87 -CUP -2 for a RV Park with the number of spaces open,
seconded by Commissioner Remy and subject to the amended
- conditions of approval to read.as follows:
Condition 5: Applicant shall comply with all conditions
from City Engineer as revised, dated August
18, 1987.
Motion failed for labk of a majority with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp and Remy.
NOES: Commissioner Ingrao and Chairperson Burton.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schuelke.
A13STAI14: None.
On motion by Chairperson Burton, recommending approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -18 and approval of 87 -CUP -2 for a
97 Space RV Park, seconded by Commissioner Ingrao and
subject to the amended conditions of approval to read as
follows:
Condition 5: Applicant shall comply with all conditions
from City Engineer as revised, dated August
18, 1987.
Motion carried unamiously with the following roll call vote:
AYSS: Commissioners Tapp, Ingrao, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schuelke.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:26 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
O O_
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MI14UTES OF
AUGUST 18, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
t-Ieeting on Tuesday, August 18, 1987, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Neeting was called to Order at 6:41 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Tapp, Ingrao, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Schuelke was excused. Attorney Ryskamp was also
present at this meeting.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Discussion was had pertaining to the Textual Code Amendment
for an ordinance repealing Sections 17.55.005 through
17.55.200 of the Beaumont'Municipal Off - Street Parking and
Loading.
This item was again continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of September 1, 1987.
2. E :inutes for the Regular. Planning Commission Meeting of
August 4, 1987, were approved as submitted with a typo on
Page 1, Item #4, second paragraph, line 4, the number "8"
should be deleted.
3. Oral Communication: None.
4. 34 -TM -1, (Tr. 20011),
Applicant, Devcorp.
Request for Extension of Time.
PD Beeler informed the commission that an extension was not
needed since the recordation of the final map, had been
ap ?roved by City Council, and that this Item be deleted from
the agenda.
OUT OF SEQUENCE:
6. 87 -TM -2, Am. #1, and 87 -ND -26 (Tr. 22561), 27 lots on 4.9
acres, East of Beaumont Avenue and North of Cougar Way.
Applicant, Devcorp.
PD Beeler explained that this property was originally a part
of Tract 20011 and was approved for 4- plexes on each lot.
Since Mr. Hostetler acquired the property, he has asked for
a new tract map showing the configuration which is now
before the commission.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:10
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 1, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, September 1, 1987, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting was called to Order at 6:37 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Remy was excused. Attorney Ryskamp was also present
at this meeting.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Discussion was had pertaining to the Textual Code Amendment
for an ordinance repealing Sections 17.55.005 through
17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Off- Street Parking and
Loading.
This item was again continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of September 15, 1987.
2. Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
August 18, 1987, were approved as submitted.
3. Oral Communication: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87 -PP -3, Am. #2 and 87- ND -27, request to build industrial
type metal building at 552 - 558 California. Applicant,
Cosner.
There being no questions from the commission, Chairperson
Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:03 P.M., asking
for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak.
There being none, she then closed the public hearing at 7:04
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
PD Beeler informed the commission that anything in the MC or
ML zone requires an administrative plot plan and a lot that
is over 10,000 s.f., requires a public hearing by CEQA.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the issue is not the size of
the building but the usage and the location.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke recommending approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -27 by City Council and approval
of Plot Plan 87 -PP -3, Amendment No. 2, as per staff's
findings and subject to the conditions of approval, seconded
by Commissioner Tapp. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Tapp,
Schuelke, Ingrao and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
Commissioner
Remy.
ABSTAIN:
None.
5. 87 -PUP -1
and 87- ND -28,
request to
expand existing facilities
to include Gymnasium at
650 E.
14th Street. Applicant,
First Southern
Baptist
Church.
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 1, 1987
Page 2
There being no questions from the commission at this time
for staff, Chairperson Burton opened the public hearing at
7:09 P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Bob Meacham, 690 E. 13th Street, Beaumont, addressed the
commission on 2 occasions noting that the agenda should read
"First Southern Baptist Church." He further commented:
they are trying to develop 22 acres to provide facilities
for the City for worship, education and recreation; trying
to mitigate some of the existing problems such as dust;
there had been some misunderstandings; questioned traffic
signal fee; will be treating the east parking lot with a
Wesley 120 solution to settle dust; intends to pave all
parking areas pursuant to staff's requirements; was informed
by the City Engineer that they could not do anything with
the curb and gutter until they go through this PUP process.
Steve Quinn, 695 14th Street, Beaumont, addressed the
commission as an opponent. His reasons for opposing this
project were: they are in violation of their last CUP
permit, outlining 5 of the 7 conditions that they were in
violation of; cannot open windows for the dust due to their
unpaved parking lot; presented pictures to commission
showing parking congestion; feels they cannot be trusted to
adher to the PUP since they failed to abide by their CUP;
wanted the permit they are operating under now rescinded;
had previously made a written complaint.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 7:26
P.M., turning the matter over to the commission for
discussion.
Commissioner Tapp noted that he was abstaining from
discussion and voting from this public hearing.
PD Beeler informed the commission that because of Mr.
Quinn's concerns, she and the City Engineer had gone to the
site and then had spoken to the City Manager and feels that
all of the concerns will be mitigated since they will not be
granted their occupancy permit until they have paved all of
their parking area and put in all of their curbs and gutter.
Chairperson Burton then asked about the existing CUP.
PD Beeler explained that this request (PUP) will supercede
the CUP and that they should have had a PUP instead of a CUP
in the first place. Further, they would have about 460
parking stalls according to their plans.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that enforcing of the parking
regulations was the police department's problem. However,
if there are regular and continued violations, it is
possible to either red curb or green curb for restricted
parking.
Commissioner Ingrao noted that this project will take a
while to develop and in the meantime something should be
done to alleviate the dust problem, with PD Beeler
commenting that they can be asked to oil it again.
Commissioner Tapp commented that they had had a semi - trailer
parked out to one side for storage, however, it had been
moved from this location.
Commissioner Ingrao inquired about the flooding on 14th
Street and wanted to know if it would be addressed by the
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 1, 1987
Page 3
City Engineer. PD Beeler commented that the sewer and
drainage which would be resolved in the final stages of
engineering.
Chairperson Burton noted that all the concerns in the CUP
that Mr. Quinn had stated would be mitigated by this new
development.
Commissioner Ingrao wanted to know if the rights pertaining
to the CUP would be given up, if this present project is
abandoned with Attorney Ryskamp "yes ", to the extent that
they relate to overlapping issues, then the old CUP would be
in effect. Commissioner Ingrao then asked if the verbal
complaint by Mr. Quinn had to be addressed. Attorney
Ryskamp explained that_ the action you take in addressing
this type of complaint would be to refer it to staff and
request a report back to determine the extent and nature of
the violations."
Attorney Ryskamp commented that if the PUP becomes null and
void and of no effect whatsoever, and if they are violating
their CUP then they could be brought in for cancellation of
their CUP. When it specifically states it becomes null and
void and of no effect, that is as if no action has been
takened, which the CUP would remain in effect. If complied
with it will eliminate the CUP.
Attorney Ryskamp further noted, that in the conditions of
approval, the paragraph where it says "this project shall
commence development within 12 months from approval of the
Planning Commission; otherwise, it shall be null and void
and of no effect whatsoever," include "and the currently
existing CUP and conditions on this property shall be
maintained." For a church to be there, it should have been
with a PUP.
Chairperson Burton then reopened the public hearing at 7:56
P.M., with Mr. Meacham speaking.
Bob Meacham, addressed the commission again on 2 occasions,
stating they had been trying to come into line with the CUP;
has been trying for the past 3 years to put in curb and
gutter but the City hadn't told them where to put it until
about 6 months ago; fully intends to pave the parking at the
completion of the project; willing to spray a Wesley 120
solution in the parking area as often as necessary for the
dust problem.
John Davis 8001 Bluff Rd., Banning, addressed the
commission commenting that to the east of this project is an
area that is a dust bowl which is still being used for
agriculture purposes - cannot mitigate this problem since
"Mr. Farmer" was there before the rest of us and has the
legal right. Also, immediately to the east of where Mr.
Quinn lives there is some on -going construction for over a
year and he has never seen a water truck on the property -
no one there attempting to mitigate the dust from this
project - mitigating the dust problem is part of the
building permit but does not see this being enforced. Feels
the church is being victimized over some other conditions
that they cannot control; has been pursuing getting curb and
gutter put in for at least 3 years.
Steve Quinn, again addressed the commission in rebuttal to
Mr. Davis' statement commenting that the farming area was
there when he moved in and that only about once a year is
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 1, 1987
Page 4
dust created from the field. The church; however, is
creating dust all day long because of the amount of cars
driving in and out. Stated that he would like to formally
rescind the Conditional Use Permit No. 1002 issued in 1982,
because they have not complied with any of the CUP.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:03
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
Lengthy discussion was had by the commission pertaining to
the issues raised.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke recommending approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -28 by City Council and approval
of Public Use Permit No. 87- PUP -1, pursuant to staff's
findings and subject to the revised conditions of approval
which shall read as follows:
11. Trash enclosures shall be required in accordance with
City standards.
12. Sidewalks shall be required along the frontage of the
property in accordance with City standards and Planning
Department requirements.
Further, in the paragraph of conditions of approval
that reads "otherwise, it shall be null and void and of
no effect whatsoever" insert "and the currently
existing CUP and Conditions on this property shall be
maintained and complied with."
Seconded by Commissioner Ingrao. Motion carried with
the following foll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Remy.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tapp.
6. 87 -V -4 and 87- MPP -8, Request for expansion of present
facilities and Variance for parking on Magnolia Avenue.
Applicant, BCVWD.
There bring no questions from commission for staff,
Chairperson Burton opened the public hearing at 8:12 P.M.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak. There being none, she then closed the public
hearing at 8:13 P.M.
PD Beeler explained that there is curb and gutter on both
sides and they can just line it up with a "string line" when
they are ready to put in their curb and gutter. They do
have to get clearance from the County Fire Department for
fire flow before occupancy.
Chuck Butcher, from the audience, explained that they have a
dump truck from Cherry Valley pick up the trash and do not
need trash enclosures.
on motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Tapp for approval of Variance No. 87 -V -4 and Minor Plot Plan
87- MPP -8, subject to the conditions of approval. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao and
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 1, 1987
Page 5
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Remy.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. 87- PP -15, & 87- ND -30, Request for an addition of
approximately 75,000 s.f., forDwarehouse and office, located
at 533 E. 3rd St. App
There being no questions from commission for staff,
Chairperson Burton opened the public hearing at 8:26 P.M.,
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Emanuel Baldi, addressed the commission presenting an
elevation of the building and commenting that: the offices
will be approximately 8000 s.f., almost a duplicate of the
building that was built on California Avenue; owners have
agreed to all of the conditions; parking to the back.
Nathan Guerriero, 174 Beaumont Avenue, addressed the
commission and stated he was concerned about Magnolia Avenue
being closed off, otherwise, he would be landlocked.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 8:35 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao, seconded by Commissioner
Tapp, recommending approval of Negative Declaration No. 87-
ND-30 by City Council and further, approval of Plot Plan 87-
PP-15, subject to the conditions of approval.
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Remy.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
6nin oMM sio Secretary
r.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MII4UTES OF
SEPTEMBER 15, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
:tecting on Tuesday, September 1, 1987, in the City Council
Chamb;rs ,•,ith Chairperson Burton presiding:
.11-e1:inc %..as called to Order at 6:42 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Tap? was excused. Attorney Ryskamp was also
present.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Discussion was had pertaining to the Textual Code Amendment
for an ordinance repealing Sections 17.55.005 through
17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Off - Street Parking and
Loading.
This item, was continued to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of October 6, 1987.
2. ,`mutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
September 1, 1987, were approved as submitted.
3. Oral Conununication: Drone.
PUBLIC :?T.ARINGS:
4. 86- PP -14, Request for an Extension of Time for Cougar
Mountain Apartments. Applicant, Slagle.
PD Beeler commented that technically they did not need an
extension of time, but because they are in the process of
selling the property, they wanted to make sure that the new
buyer would have time to close escrow with an additional
\,ear.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Ingrao, the Planning Commission approved an Extension of
Time for 87 -PP -14 to October. 8, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AY.-1S. Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
N 3: None.
ABSTNIT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: Done.
:!inute, of PC Meeting
September. 15, 1987
Paae 2
entrance and apartment layout, located at the N/E Corner of
Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Applicant, American Housing
COrD.
PO Beeler explained that the developer, after having to
revise his plan, increased the number of apartment units
from 156 to 168 in order to off -set the additional cost of
construction of the frontage road. Further, they turned the
entrance back to where it was originally when the applicant
thought they had access to Beaumont Avenue. Now the access
is to the frontage road that runs between Beaumont Avenue
and their. property. Also, the applicant will be working
with the City Engineer for the exact placement of the road
depending upon the root system span of the Deodora trees.
Commissioner Remy questioned as to what happened to the wall
that had been asked to be across the front and that he had
some of the garages in the 25' setback. She further noted
that the applicant had three different amounts for acreage,
with PD Leeler commenting that he had 9.9 acres net, based
on 11.38 acres gross and she could not find anything in the
ordinance defining whether high density is on net acreage or
gross acreage.
Attorney P %yskamp noted that this problem had come up before
and he then referred to Section 17.12.130, page 19 of Title
17 and the definition on page 15, under Site or Lot Area and
quoted: "the total horizontal area including within
boundary lines of the area of access corridors, streets or
portions of the site or lot within planned street lines."
Also, if there are two sections in conflict, we go with the
more stringent requirement. Therefore, the density is based
on net acreage.
PD Beeler noted that she didn't feel you will find any
developer who will spend the money for the final survey and
engineering until he ]mows he has a project. Further., PC
can approve the project for 144 units, then the applicant
car" apPeal if they so desire.
There 17as lengthy discussion pertaining to sidewalks,
frontage road, blockwall, increase in number of units,
-arking in the setback, fencing around patio area, etc.
Commissioner Remy noted that they had specified there
would be landscaping and then the wall.
Attorney Ryskamp noted then that "you don't want the wall at
the curb, you want it back out of the setback completely
and this defines what he has done wrong on this plan."
He further noted that we now have the basic concept and
since this is the third revision of that basic concept we've
r
I;.tnutes of PC fleeting
September 15, 1987
Page 3
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: Clone.
ABSENT: Commissioner Tapp.
ABSTAIN: None.
6. 87- Ttl -1, Am. #1, and 87- ND -31, (Tract #22523), 44 lot single
family subdivision on the North side of Cougar way, East of
Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Devcorp (Country Crossing).
Chairperson Burton opened the public hearing at 8:04 P.M.,
�,s'-ing far proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
soeaY:.
David Hacker, 490 S. Farrell Dr., Palm Springs, addressed
e co
thmmission commenting that basically what they are
asking for is to continue this project and provide an
orderly build -out of this low density single family
residential area. The planning commission and staff has
indicated that they are very much interested in seeing
developed and continued in this City. working very closely
with the City Engineer for the realignment of Marshall
Creek. 1:e commented that the name "Jonathan Lane" could be
changed to whatever the City would like.
John Hostetler, 19861 Salt water Circle, Huntington Beach
addressed the commission commenting that the lots that front
the flood channel ultimately would be protected with some
form of bridge structure. Since it will be an expensive
process, there will be a contribution held in trust on the
applicant's behalf towards the bridge. when all four
corners are developed there would be funds.
PD Beeler read Condition #8 of the City Engineer's letter:
"as determined by City Attorney, deposit funds into City
Trust Account for future improvement of Marshall Creek
Crossing at Cougar Avenue." Attorney Ryskamp commented that
the details will go into the Subdivision Development
Agreement.
The block wall was again mentioned since this project will
be abutting Mr. Sims' property with Commissioner Remy
commenting that the block wall on Sims' property would be on
this side.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 8:16 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao, seconded by Commissioner
Schnel!:e recommending approval of Negative Declaration 87-
ND -31 and 87- Tt1 -1, Am. #1 by City Council, subject to
staff's findings and conditions of approval.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COt"MISSION
MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 20, 1987
Tha Planning Co;;tnission met in a Regular Planning Commission
'InetJ.ng o:1 Tues(:ay, October 20, 1987, in the City Council
Cha:a:c: *_re; :ith Chairperson Burton presiding:
,eet_ng ::as called to Order at 6:38 P.M.
01; ao11 Call, the following conuni s s ioners were present:
I- Owlissicncrs Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and Chairperson
urto;:.
: %,_- i('avit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
Attorney DSOSes Johnson was introduced to the commission and
commented that he would be filling in for r4r. Ryskamp on
occasion when there is a conflict.
1. 30 '.;inute discussion pertaining to the continued meeting from
Se•_)tember 15, 1987, and possible instructions to staff
rcaardino the Textual Code Amendment for an Ordinance
repealing Sections 17.55.005 through 17.55.200 of the
Geau:.iont riunJ.cipal Off- Street Parking and Loading.
:'his 'ten saes taken out of order and placed at the end of
tike agenda as Item Plo. 10 for discussion.
?. lnnroval of minutes for the Regular Planning Commission
:;e -ling of October 6, 1987.
'I re gas discussion pertaining to Page 2, Paragraph 6,
Condition NO. 1 with Commissioners Schuelke and Remy
coro,,ent_n that although it reads as to what was said,
i.t coes not read as to their intent. The intent being that
number of units be reported to commission prior to
7uil�ing T:crmits being issued and that the commission be able
to see the revised plans." Commissioner. Ingrao noted that
);rova1 as based on Mr. Sims being in compliance with
ti-in ordinance and that the commission should leave it to the
JuCg;nent of the City Engineer.
",ti:orney Johnson interrupted the commission commenting that
unCer the Brown Act only items on the agenda can be
riiscussed - Ninutes should be approved or corrected, but an
extensive argument should not be gone into as to what
t,aonened at the last meeting.
on moticn by Commissioner Schuelke to disapprove the minutes
on Page-. 2, Paragraph 6 where it states Condition fkl, as to
ths� intent of the readina. with PD Beeler asking
:mutes of PC sleeting
October 20, 1987
Page 2
Oil :.t ", with Attorney Johnson commenting that "he would
speculate that this is true, but doesn't know for sure."
ABSTAIid: Chairperson Burton.
ABSENT: None.
PD Beeler suggested that the minutes be continued to the next
scheduled meeting and that the tape be reviewed with
Co :inissioner Schuelke commenting that she didn't question
what the tape said, but her question is to the intent.
Chairperson Burton then suggested that the minutes be
continued to the next meeting of November 17, 1987, and she
will listen to the tape since she was not at the meeting of
October G, 1987, with Commissioner Remy malting a motion to
this effect. notion was then set aside and it was the
concensus of the commission that the minutes of October 6,
1987 be continued to November. 17, 1987.
3. Oral Communication: None.
Planning Director's Report:
PD Beeler roported that November 3, 1987 is election day and
that there will be no meeting - no new cases coming up.
NeXt rieeting will be November 17, 1987.
Explained that she has
for conmcrcial and
different purposes for
a ?;-)roved ;ny January 1,
penalty of $100 per
version" will go to
reta.iler.'s penalty.
been working on a Recycling Ordinance
manufacturing and would establish
recycling everything. This has to be
1988; otherwise, there will be a
day for supermarkets - the "short
City Council immediately to avoid
On ;;overaber 17, 1987, the commission will be getting a
detailed ordinance of all the different zones and all the
different recycling facilities that could be available.
Si:udy area of Gth, Olive, 11th and Illinois will be done by
the next Planning Commission :fleeting. There has been a
misunderstanding between staff and Planning Commission /City
Council which affects Agenda Item No. 7 being continued.
Assessor's maps have been ordered; however, there is still
work to be done on the study in order to bring back
percentages as to what is on the lots, what condition they
are in, etc. Plan to have a detailed report by November 17,
1987.
P[JBhIC II :;ARINGS:
4. 87- T:1-4, Ara. #1 & 87 -ND -36 (Tr. 22525), 57 single family
lots, located at Brookside Avenue and Noble Street (S /W
Corner.). Anolicant, Devcorp.
'ii nu tes of PC iieeLing
October 20, 1987
Page 3
;150.00 per unit; no direct access on to Brookside Avenue;
fees will be rnai.d to Recreation Dept., to help mitigate the
impact on the City; fencing will be installed to give privacy
to the backyard to the homes along Brookside Avenue; lots net
out at 5,000 s.f., will have a sidewalk and landscaped area.
Ir. John liostetler, 19£361 Salt Water Circle, Huntington Beach,
addressed the commission commenting that they have
rec:esigned this project and the other two items on the
agenO..a three different times.
Raney Dawes, 603 Cypress, Beaumont, addressed the commission
stating that she purchased property in Country Crossings and
has had problems with flooding, grading not done properly;
feels that Devcorp should not be allowed to build more homes
until the work that has already been done be corrected.
3_11 S;illiams, 1235 Wellwood, Beaumont, addressed the
commissaon speaking for Zane V Flood Control Commission.
:anted to know if anyone had been up to loot: at Marshall
" Canyon ", money budgeted for study as to what Flood Control
.)ist. could do with Marshall Creek; had planned to fill it
i_ip r•,ere or less level and put a trapzoidal ditch something
li',:e crosses Beaumont Avenue at Noble Creek; Noble
s *_re- drainage into Marshall Creek has eroded very badly;
if they co ;xrt a street in on Noble they are going to have to
put a cu;:b in on both sides and do something about the
cascading of the water down into Marshall Creek.
PD Bc ^1cr commented that she has seen the plans of Marshall
Creek and there are approximately 4 or 5 street overcrosses
that will have to be constructed.
P,it.sy Roelea, 11105 Sunnyslope, Cherry Va -,I ce , addressed the
commission stating she has concerns about: traffic, water
sho °::age in area and flood control; drainage ditch which
comes fro. -. 1:ob1e Street; crime; increase burden on
schools. lCanted to know if the developer would be putting a
fence in on the east side of the new Noble street; will the
houses face or back up to Noble Street and what type of
earl <ing will be allowed.
PD Peeler commented that the City and the developers are
trying to get together to build all of Marshall Creek. Then
as the homes sale or the property develops with the bonding
Issue, monies will be reimbursed back to the developer.
Cha_rDerson Burton wanted to know if they were going to
bui'_d the houses and then do Marshall Creek or do Marshall
Creei: and then build the houses. PD Beeler commented that
they will probably do Marshall Creel: first.
Co- r ^.issioner. Tapp noted that in some cases it is not
practical to go ahead with the drainage and then move the
Minutes of PC Meeting
October 20, 1987
Page 4
Owen J. Cothron, 82 -099 Sunset Court, Indio, addressed the
commission commenting that he owns property at 11 -203
Sunnyslope and his concern is, if Noble Street extends down
through, there is a drainage ditch and wanted to know if
Noble Street would be built to the property line with a curb
put on the east side to contain the water where it will not
continue to erode their property.
David Hacker: stated that Noble will come down from
Broode to Marshall Creek, then vear and parallel along
the north side with an 8" berm, it will not cross Marshall
Creek itself, the 8" berms provided is a temporary means to
control the water so the water won't go into backyards.
John Hostetler, spoke again to address the complaints. He
commented that the matter has been referred to the State
Contractor's Board - has reached an impasse on this case and
decided that it is best for the third party to step in to
judge who should correct the problem, or if they are in fact
in error, so they are awaiting that judgment in relative to
the complaint that he heard this evening.
In regards to the channel to be developed, he felt that it
is important to realize that in most projects that are
developed, an estimate is made and possibly contributions
are made for the parcel that is being developed, so that
funds are there or the contractor can bond. Feels that the
overall project will run somewhere well in excess of 1
million dollars for the flood channel. Suggests that in
this particular case, the engineer will come up with a
general cost estimate and then they will form an Assessment
District and all parties that will be developing in the area
will be contributing either by way of cash or a bond action
will be formed and leveraged against the property so that
the whole project can be done and developed at one time. In
all likelihood it will be put in about the time they start
developing on the first phase.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 8:03 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
PD Beeler explained Condition No. 8 - (No access on
Brookside), if access is restricted, then owners cannot park
in the backyard - will not be able to get an encroachment
permit. When impaction starts, there will be money
available that can be used for new schools if needed.
PD Beeler commented that the Initial Study should have been
marked where it reads "flood & drainage, fire and erosion ".
She then asked Mr. Hacker, "when you have a 50' interior
street how much asphalt do you normally have," with Mr.
Hacker responding, that normally it is 32'; however, in
xinutc:; of: PC !'.ect.ing
October 20, 1987
Page 5
not 11no ", "Flood or drainage ", "erosion" and "fire" should
also bo checked.
City Engineer's letter dated October 13, 1987, to have an
additional 5 (a) and 5 (b) and to read as follows:
5 (a) To construct Marshall Creek according to the precise
alignment drawn by the City Engineer to a point of
discharge.
5 (b) said construction shall be subject to reimbursement
as other properties in the contributing area are
developed.
Conditions of Approval:
Condition No. 2: Letter should be dated October 13, 1987
not October 14, 1987.
Condition No. 11: Added: Noble street shall be 33' of AC
Paving with "No Parking" signs to be installed on the
east side and installation of 5' of sidewalk on the
west side of Noble Street.
Motion carried with the following roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao and Remy.
NOES: Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: hone.
AP.S?ldT: !lone.
5. 87- TI Am. #2, & 87 -ND -37 (Tr. 22524), 49 single family
lots, located at Palm Avenue between Cougar Way and
BrooksiGe Avenue. Applicant, Devcorp.
PD Beeler explained that the City Engineer's letter is dated
October 13, 1987 and under "Plans Required" 5 (a) and 5 (b)
should be included. Also, under Evaluation No. 1 of the
Initial Study "Flood or drainage" should be checked.
Chairoerson Burton then opened the pubic hearing at 8:38
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
David Hacker, addressed the commission stating they are in
agreement with the conditions; sharing cost in the traffic
signals; standards streets installed; Parks & Rec., will
also be paid; fencing around perimeter of the subdivision.
There being no one else in the audience wishing to speak on
this project, Chairperson Burton then closed the public
hearing at 8:43 P.M., turning the matter back to the
commission for discussion.
I•'i: lutes of PC P,eeting
October 20, 1987
Page 6
PD Bocler explained that what is envisioned for Palm Avenue
is a street that will be used in place of Beaumont Avenue
for local traffic and when you have a street with this kind
of anticipated traffic flow, you want as little access into
tho individual lots as you can get. The look that is trying
to be carried, is the median in the middle.
John tIostetler, addressed the commission commenting that he
feels t11e fencing along Palm Avenue is important; suggested
something in the nature of a split- face - block; will support
whatever fencing the commission feels important along Palm
Avenue.
There was lengthy discussion pertaining to the fencing that
would be along Palm Avenue and the graffiti that would be
nainted on the fence. It was decided; however, that since
fencing, would go in, there should be some sort of a
decorative block wall with anti- graffiti coating.
On :notion by Commissioner Remy recommending approval of
^Iegative Declaration 87 -ND -37 by City Council, with the
correction under Evaluation No. 1 of the Initial Study and
recommendation of Tract Map 87- Tb1-5, Am. #2 (Tr. 22524), by
City Council, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval
and an additional No. 5 (a) and 5 (b) under "Plans Required"
in the City Engineer's letter dated October 13, 1987.
Seconded by Commissioner Tapp. The corrections /additions to
read as follows:
Under Evaluation No. 1 of the Initial Study "yes" should be
checked not "no ". "Flood or drainage" should also be
checked.
City Engineer's letter dated October 13, 1987, under "Plans
Required" should have an additional 5 (a) and 5 (b) to read
as follows:
5 (a) To construct Marshall Creek according to the precise
alignment drawn by the City Engineer to a point of
discharge.
('a) Said construction shall
as other properties in
developed.
Conditions of Approval:
be subject to reimbursement
the contributing area are
Condition No. 2: Applicant shall comply with City
Engineer's letter dated October 13, 1987, not October
14, 1987.
Conditon No. 9 (a): Palm Avenue shall have a decorative
block wall with an anti - graffiti coating.
t- iinutcs of PC Meeting
October 20, 1987
Page 7
PD Beeler informed the commission that the City Engineer's
letter dated October 13, 1987 has the same conditions
of 5 (a) and 5 (b) as the other two projects.
David hacker, informed the commission that this map was
revised to reflect Mr. Dotson's concern that the street be
improved to 33'. Also, the number of lots is 54 not 52.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 9:18
P.r1., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Patsy Reeley, addressed the commission wanting to know where
the majority of the water would be directed; wanted to know
why the developer wouldn't talk with the people in that area
- might possibly consider widening the street on their
property; what type of retaining wall is going to be put on
Noble street.
PD Beeler commented that this is part of the precise
alignment that is being worked on.
Owen Cothron, would like to know if they know exactly where
the property line is on the east side of their property
adjoining his property.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 9:25
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for
discussion.
Commissioner Ingrao wanted to know the reason that Noble
Street was 50' when on Cherry Valley Acres it was 601.
David Hacker, explained that it is part of the precise
alignment that was worked out by the City Engineer. He
suggested because of the additional right -of -way required
for Marshall Creek, that the street adjacent to it be
reduced down to 50' but keep the same width between curbs
which is 40'. There will be a 5' parkway and everything
else with the exception of the 2' adjacent to the adjoining
property will be paved - 33' of paving. Where it turns the
corner, Mr. Dotson suggested that they go with the 50' road
section and the curb would be at 20' from centerline.
On motion by Commissioner Tapp recommending approval of
Negative Declaration 87 -ND -38 and 87 -TM -6, Am. #2 (Tr.
22526) by City Council, subject to the amended Conditions of
Approval with an amendment to the City Engineer's letter
adding 5 (a) and 5 (b) under "Plans Required" dated October
13, 1987. Also the staff report should read "54" lots
rather than "52" lots; seconded by Commissioner Ingrao.
The following corrections /additions for this project to read
as follows:
!IinLI tees of PC t:ceting
October. 20, 1937
Page s
Condition 110.
Engineer's
14, 1987.
Condition No. 11:
have 33' of
side.
2: Applicant shall comply with City
letter dated October 13, 1987 not October
Addition. Noble Street on east side to
AC Paving with "No Parking" sign on east
'!otion car -i.ed with the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao and Remy.
'ME"S: Chairperson Burton.
AB, ^,T ",I1;: i ?one.
Ar, '"NT. 14one.
7. 37- PP -17, 87 -V -6 & 87- ND -39, 5 unit apartment project and
variance for front setback at 736 Chestnut (between 7th and
8th St.). Applicant, Schiro.
This agenda item was continued to the meeting of November
17, 1987, in order to complete the Special Study area.
6. 2,7- P.Z -5, & 87- ND -40, City Initiated Zone Change for
properties on the N /side of 6th St., between American &
Xenia from RNT and CG to CRO. Applicant, City of Beaumont.
Clair ?erson Burton opened the public hearing at 9:37 P.M.
as`:ing for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
nnea!:.
Bob !tiller, 1462 F. 6th St.,Beaumont, addressed the
co!- u:,,ission wanting to know the advantage of the zoning of
CRO.
PC Beeler explained that changing the zone to CRO provides
property owners in this area to have residential if they so
desired. It does not change the existing general commercial
uses, it just makes it more concise.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 9:47
P.t:., turning the matter back to the conmlission for
discussion.
Lengthy discussed pursued with Comnissioner Ingrao insisting
that 6t'n Street is designed to be zoned commercial general
and should not be re -zoned to CRO allowing residential. PD
Dueler commented that originally (sometime ago) staff
informed comnission that it should be rezoned to CG in order
to conform with the general plan. At this time, Mr. Gerwin
aas in the office and he was informed by staff that this
would be discussed at the planning commission this same
evening as to whether to do a general plan amendment and
zone change. !r. Gerwin appeared at the planning commission
r,.ctina and informed the commission that he wanted to build
a �srf cnn+c hahinrl h i R hnn Rn Anil thin WAR the t'i mp i-hP
Minutes of PC Meeting
October 20, 1987
Page 9
so if you do not want to approve this change of zoning, you
have to vote to disapprove it and then place it on the next
agenda as a change of zone to CG - the property owners have
to again be notified that the change of zoning being
requested is CG.
PD Beeler informed the commission that you can deny the
request for CRO, ask that it be brought back on the agenda
for the November 17, 1987 and staff will send out notices
again to property owners requesting change of zoning to CG.
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao to deny Zone Change 87 -RZ -5
and continue the Negative Declaration 87 -ND -40 to November
17, 1987; seconded by Commissioner Tapp, with the findings
as follows:
1) Peels that it is better zoning, planning and should
be brought into conformity with the general plan to be
zoned as CG rather than CRO;
2) Request that staff bring back on November 17, 1987 this
proposal as zoned for CG.
Motion carried with the following roll call:
AYES: Commissioners Tapp, Schuelke, Ingrao and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: Commissioner Remy.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
SCHEDULED MATTER:
9. Appeal of 87- MPP -9, by Commissioner Remy re: single family
residence to business, located at 551 E. 6th St. Applicant,
Kinard.
PD Beeler informed the commission that this item is to be
withdrawn from consideration. She contacted Mr. & Mrs.
Kinard about oiling the alley in the back parking area and
was informed that they had changed their mind about the
project.
Item No. 1: Off- Street Parking & Loading.
It was decided that Item No. 1 on the agenda that had been
placed at the end for discussion, be continued to November
17, 1987. PD Beeler explained that Mr. Ryskamp would have
the landscaping ordinance ready by November 17, 1987, which
goes with the parking ordinance.
There bring no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 17, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 1987, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding.
Meeting was called to Order at 6:39 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following
Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao,
Attorney Ryskamp was also present
Attorney Johnson.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
commissioners were present:
Remy and Chairperson Burton.
at this meeting, as well as
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
OUT OF SEQUENCE:
1. The 30 Minute discussion pertaining to the continued meeting
from October 20, 1987, regarding the Textual Code Amendment
for an Ordinance repealing Sections 17.55.005 through
17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Off- Street Parking and
Loading was placed at the end of the agenda for discussion.
AGENDA ITEI4S CON' T:
2. Approval of the Continued Minutes from the Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of October 6, 1918 and Approval of
Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
October 20, 1987.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to approve the Continued
Minutes of October 6, 1987 and the Minutes of the Regular
Planning Commission Meeting of October 20, 1987, seconded by
Commissioner Remy. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
3. Oral Communication:
Nancv Dawes 603 Cypress Street, Beaumont, addressed the
commissions commenting that she is still having problems with
Devcorp making all the necessary repairs at her residence
and asked that the matter be placed on the agenda for the
next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 1,
1987.
November 17, 1987
Page 2
Commissioner Schuelke wanted to know how this issue would
involve the commission with Attorney Ryskamp explaining that
when oral communication issues come up, according to City
Resolution and the Brown Act, they should be referred to
staff for a report back to commission; however, Planning
Commission may not be the place for this issue.
4. Director's Report:
1) Commissioner Tapp's resignation and replacement;
2) Planning Commission requirement as of November 25, 1987,
will consist of five (5) members instead of seven (7).
3) Planning Director's last day (12/10/87) with the City
and her replacement.
CON'T PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. 87- PP -17, 87 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, 5 unit apartment project and
Variance for front setback at 738 Chestnut (between 7th and
8th St.).
This item was continued to the meeting of December 15, 1987.
_6. 87 -RZ -5 and 87- ND -40, City Initiated Zone Change for
properties on the N /side of 6th St., between American &
Xenia from RMF to CG. Applicant, City of Beaumont.
PD Beeler explained the Addendum that is attached to the
staff report of October 20, 1987, (to rezone the properties
in question to CG) will bring the affected properties into
conformance with the General Plan.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:08
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak; there being none, she then closed the
public hearing at 7:09 P.M., turning the matter back to the
commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao recommending approval of
Zone Change 87 -RZ -5 and Negative Declaration 87- ND -40, by
City Council, rezoning from CG and RMF to CG per staff's
findings; seconded by Commissioner Schuelke. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
SCHEDULED MATTER:
7. Urgency Ordinance No. 651, Special Study Area, 6th Street to
11th Street and Olive Avenue to Illinois /Cherry - Downtown
Beaumont.
PD Beeler presented the staff report explaining the method
�ti� ,aaeq in Aeterminina the parcels and percentages,
November 17, 1987
Page 3
necessary to determine if this amendment is a major one
- if it will be affecting the Housing Element and the
reason this is a concern is the Housing Element is a
state ,mandated element with a series of restrictions on
how you amend it and requirements that have to be
included in the interest of maintaining low and
moderate income housing for those who need this type of
housing. If enough residential high density is rezoned
that would affect the mandates of the Housing Element,
then an amendment to the Housing Element would have to
be made in its entirety.
b) Questions that need to be raised is how much RHD would
be eliminated effectively compared to the total amount
that is still available in the City, OR advantages to
putting RHD elsewhere if regulations have to be met,
or, is there a good number of RHD projects that is
built out to where the City is meeting the housing
needs and in effect, has already complied with the
mandates.
c) A legal question as to whether or not there is a
"taking" should be given consideration and what
constitute a "taking ". Most important of all, is what
you will be creating is a record of facts supporting
your action and one of the key issues in the "taking"
is the issue of public health, welfare and safety.
There must be a "finding" to justify the types of
changing you will be proposing.
d) If the Commissions' recommendation to City Council is
to downzone properties to RMF or RSF, then they
(Council) will follow the procedures for both general
plan amendments and zone changes and go through the
necessary public hearings. The City Council must also
decide on December 14, 1987 what to do with the Interim
Ordinance - between now and when those hearings are
completed. Further, at this time, City Council will
look at the information that Commission has given them,
and with the assistance of staff, staff's report, will
decide what the "plan of attack" will be and how long
it is going to take and whether or not they want to
extend the interim ordinance, having at that point
according to the law, given notice so that there can be
public input on the issue of the extension.
Florence Duell, 9 E. 11th St., Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating 01 that when she purchased her property it
was zoned R -1 and that now it was zoned R -3. Questioned as
to why she was not notified.
Attorney Ryskamp explained that the law requires that notice
be given to all property owners within a 300' radius of any
zone change; however, there is an exception to the notice
requirement when there are over 1000 property owners
affected by the change. The law specifically requires that
. .. I I _ - ,.-- I .c nnnnaaA i-n a
November 17, 1987
Page 4
look at all the low and moderate income individuals in our
region (which would include Riverside) and compare that with
the total population, Beaumont should have its percentage
share. However, Indian Wells is an interesting example of
how you try to twist the whole concept of having your share
of the regional low income needs and still have a very elite
high income community.
After considerable discussion, Attorney Ryskamp
commented that the more you reduce the percentage of the
change, the less likely it is that the housing element will
be effected. He then collected the memo that had been given
to each commissioner commenting that he wanted to
incorporate into the memo more comments that he had made
this evening.
There was lengthy discussion pertaining to the study
area
(e.g.,
downzoning and the
repercussion thereby)
with
Attorney
Ryskamp commenting
that North of 6th Street
might
be the
kind of area for
redevelopment. Redevelopment
doesn't
automatically mean
putting businesses
into
commercial;
funds can be
used for upgrading and
making
available
affordable housing
in terms of older homes.
on motion by Commissioner Schuelke to continue this matter
to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December
1, 1987, vending more additional information from staff,
seconded by Commissioner Ingrao. Motion carried unanimously
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
In answer to Commissioner Ingrao's question pertaining to
"net acreage" Attorney Ryskamp stated that the commission
has to reach a point where they approve a project as a
concept and rely on staff to enforce it.
Discussion of Aqenda Item No. 1:
The discussion and corrections /additions were completed for
this Section of the Beaumont Municipal Code for Off - Street
Parking and Loading and on motion by Commissioner Schuelke
for Attorney Ryskamp to bring this agenda item back to the
commission in final form; seconded by Commissioner Ingrao.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 1, 1987
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, December 1, 1987, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting was called to order. at 6:39 P.M.
On 'toll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners .Ingrao, Remy and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner
Schuelke arrived shortly after: roll call.
Attorney Ryskamp and Attorney Johnson were both present at this
meeting as well as the new Community Development Director, Mr.
Steve Koules. Planning Director Beeler was absent due to
illness.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
Mr. Steve Y.oules, the new Community Development Director was
introduced to the commission.
1. 30 Minute discussion for Review of the Textual Code
Amendment to Landscaping Ordinance 17.65.205 and possible
instructions to staff.
This item was discussed at length with Attorney Ryskamp
noting that insertions relating to "usable open space"
would be made and brought back to the commission for
recommendation to City Council.
2. Aaoroval of the Regular. Planning Commission Meeting of
November 17, 1987.
Correction rude on 2nd line, typo on year - should read
"1987" instead of "1918 ".
Wscussion ensued about report made by Chairperson Burton on
the Continued Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission
,Meeting of October 6, 1987 - Minutes to include report by
Chairperson Burton. Minutes stand as amended.
3. Oral Communication: None.
9. Director's Report:
Chairperson Burton read the Director's Report pertaining to
the oral Communication from November 17, 1987 Meeting re:
503 Cypress, for the record, with Ms. Dawes and Ms. Dean
?resent. Memo dated 10/19/87 to Paul Turner and list of
PC Minutrt: of
DCCeltlber 1, 1987
Page 2
5. 87- P11 -5, Am. #3, PM #22620, 23.32 Ac. to be split into two
(2) parcels at S117 Corner of Beaumont Avenue and Brookside
Avenue. Applicant, R. Whittier.
There was uiscussion pertaining to this agenda item with the
feeling that this matter was advertised to be heard on
October 6, 1937 and was withdrawn without the public hearing
ov�-r being o;)ened.
Attorney 7�yskamp felt there was not sufficient notice and if
the hearing of October 6, 1937 was not opened and closed or
opened and continued, then it should be continued in order
to advertise for a public hearing for the meeting of
December 15, 1987.
It was the concensus of tile commission that this item be re-
noticed for public hearing for the meeting of December 15,
19'7.
6. Textual Code Amendment for an Ordinance repealing Sections
17.55.005 through 17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Off -
Strcet Parking and Loading.
This item was discussed with the following insertions made:
Page 4 (s), 3rd line, should read designated instead of
"designed ". Page 5, f. Landscaping, No. 2, second line from
bottom, after the word "landscaped" should read "by the
cleveloper. ". Further, since it will be in its final form, it
is to be noticed for public hearing for the meeting of
December 15, 1987.
7. 87- SNP -13, Request for Billboard Sign Permit at 950 western
Knolls Rd. Applicant, Leonard & Co.
A'_torne,,, Ryskamp commented that staff had reviewed the
application and the site and except for the plan showing
25'4" at the top which should be no higher than 25',
everything complies with Title 17; therefore, staff
recommends the sign permit be granted, subject to Caltrans
aerm.it issuance and inspection by the Building & Safety
Department.
on motion by Commissioner Schuelke to approve 87- SNP -13,
located at 950 western Knolls Rd., per staff's findings and
that the applicant comply with the height limitation of 25';
subject to Caltrans permit issuance and inspection by the
Building & Safety Department; seconded by Commissioner
Ingrao. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll
C,7,11 vote:
AY:^: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABS'VAIN: None_.
ABSENT: None.
PC 1.1inut(,!; I ) I
necomber I., 1987
Dane 3
zoning on resulting non- conforming uses (see attached) with
some tentativn issues to be considered as to what the
current non - conforming use ordinance does to people who are
in non- conforming zones.
The commission discussed the following at length:
1) PIon- conforming uses for apartment;
2) effect on apartment buildings;
3) Sections narrowed down;
9) Time frame set for each section;
5) Concern for the IIousing Element, General Plan and all
rrocedures in going through the changes;
6) Bootlegged apartments in single family zones;
7) Granny flats;
Attorney Ryskamp explained that a Granny Flat has some very
specific types of requirements and if they should not be
there, then it is a code enforcement problem and would have
to be handled on a case by case basis.
Attorney Ryskamp further explained that the commission needs
to accomplish two things this evening pertaining to the
study area, which are:
First, you are .required by law and by the Interim Ordinance
that was adopted to provide to the City Council a report of
stc,Ds that are beina taken, review the problem and look for
solutions.
Second, a recommendation to the City Council of either
permanent action or, in the alternative, a recommendation as
to what you want them to do with the Interim Ordinance.
Mr.. Ryskamp further explained that he had spoken with the
Planning Director about her initial recommendation and she
wanted it clarified that she felt she needed a minimum of at
least 60 days just to get her materials together before they
come to the commission, which means you would be looking at
a minimum of 120 days. Also, she was operating under the
assumption that there will not need to be a revision of the
Housing Element.
Attornev Ryskamp went on to explain that in his opinion
there was not evidence to make the determination whether the
Ilousing Element needed to be revised or even parts of the
General Plan at this time. If the Housing Element has to be
revised, it will take at least: the full 10 months and 15
days. iiis recommendation to the commission, is to recommend
ado,tion of the Interim ordinance for another 10 months and
15 days and request from staff a plan and some type of
reporting system where once a month there is a report
oresented to the commission.
he further commented that if the study area were divided
into several areas, the commission could specifically direct
PC Minutes of
December 1, 1987
Page 4
Council.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that he thought it was excellent
that the commission wanted to study in sub areas, but to let
staff select the areas in the order that would make it
easier for them to handle, since staff has to deal with the
problem on how to handle notices as well. He further noted
there had been a lot done already on the study area, but
cautioned that this study was fairly complexed and taking it
slowly is the best way to do it.
Commissioner Schuelke noted that she agreed with Mr. Ryskamp
in that there had been analyzation done as well as outlining
of procedures and a lot of information given to commission;
however, she felt that the commission had not actually been
able to discuss with each other as to how they felt
concerning certain areas.
Attorney Ryskamp again noted that basically what is expected
from the commission tonight is whether or not to extend the
Interim Ordinance. If you look at the Interim ordinance,
legislation is set up where you have 45 days from the date
it is adooted until it dies if an extension is not granted -
during this time a public hearing before the City Council is
required.. the Planning Commission is required to look at
What is to be done and what has been done, then make a
recommendation and report to City Council - at this point,
the law envisions an extension of up to 10 months and 15
days in which to accomplish the job.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, that Planning Commission
(1) recommends to City Council an extension of the Interim
Ordinance for a period of approximately 90 days, in order to
give the Planning Commission time for further study and to
determine a clearer approach on how to study; (2) forward as
a report to City Council information from staff on the
statistics regarding the study area as well as procedural
steps to be taken; (3) request that City Council consider
carefully all implication of taking the study area as a
whole and rezoning it; (4) recommend that Planning
Commission take the approach of looking at the study area in
sub -areas with staff to determine the order in which areas
are to be studied based on research into issues such as how
hearings should be noticed.
Attorney Ryskamp then questioned the 90 day extension,
explaining that all work within the planning department as
well as commission and city council level would have to be
done.
At this time, Commissioner Schuelke withdrew her motion and
on motion by Commissioner Remy to recommend to City Council
an extension of the Interim ordinance for 10 months and 15
days including the rest of Commissioner Schuelke's motion;
PC Minute's of
December 1, 1907
Page 5
intent. would be to write it up so that he can satisfy the
need and not change the Housing Element.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Plannin ommis on Secretary
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: COMMISSIONER BURTON
SUBJ: 87 -PP -12 - MOTION CONCERNING WHETHER PROJECT TO COME BACK TO COKAISSION
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS
After listening to the October 6, 1987 tape, and in some instances re- listening,
I feel that some things need to be clarified:
1. During the entire discussion regarding Mr. Sims project, the net acreage
issue as to how many units could go on his property was one of the upper-
most things discussed, and that the concensus of the commission was that
"they could not approved a project for a specific number of units without
knowing the number of units involved ".
This was evident throughout the entire discussion of the project.
2. I think that it was Ccnrdssioner Schuelke's, as well as Commissioner Ingrao's
intention that this project would core back to the commission prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
The following is some verbatim of the October 6, 1987 meeting including the
actual motion of Commissioner Ingrao.
k
Prior to the motion Camdssion Schuelke asks:
SCHUEiiiE: Could we request that when. the final calculations are made that
notice be given to us as to how many units he finally arrived at prior to
be issuing a building permit?
COMYIISSION INGRAO'S MOTION:
"Final project to be in substantial conformance to 87 -PP -12 Amended Exhibit
"A" as submitted and dated October 2, 1987. Total number of units to be
determined by final net acreage calculation per City Code as verified by
City Engineer, have it cane back to us what the net acreage ended up being
and total number of units prior to building permits. All Units fronting
Beaumont Avenue to be single story. Commissioner Tapp seconded motion.
However: Prior to the vote on the above motion, which by the way was amended
to include 6' sidewalks which are outlined in amended conditions 6a and 16a,
Commissioner Remy asked the following:
"Are you having it came back to us to show us what he's done ?"
Commissioner Schuelke answered:
I think Cherry has that frcan the original motion.
Secretary Taylor:
That was part of the original motion for it to care back prior to building
permits.
HOWEVER: Planning Director Beeler responded:
"What you stated is that "final project to be in substantial conformance
to 87 -PP -12 Amended Exhibit "A" as submitted and dated October 2, 1987.
Total number of units to be determined by final net acreage calculation
per City Code as approved by City Engineer prior to Building Permit. Final
number to be reported to commission."
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 15, 1987
The Planning Commission
ssion met in a Regular Pl nning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, December 15, 1987, Y Councl
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Remy arrived shortly after roll call.
Attorney Ryskamp and Attorney Johnson were both present at this
meeting.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1
2.
Approval of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
December 1, 1987.
The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
December 1, 1987, were approved as submitted.
Oral Communication:
Dennis Ingrao, Commissioner, addressed the commission from
the floor commenting about re- paving of Beaumont. Felt that
the City should look at every street they are re- paving and
consider tearing down some of the streets before they
repave, since a lot of the driveway approaches in the
business district are almost inaccessible for the newer cars
which are lower and drag on the pavement. Appreciates the
fact that streets have been re- paved, but paving over and
adding to the existing paving is posing problem::.
Attorney Ryskamp noted it would be appropriate to refer this
matter to the City Manager.
3. Director's Report:
CDD Koules informed
Council's Meeting of
discussion and input
absent, to extend the
ninety (90) days to Ma
staff study.
the commission that at the City
December 14, 1987, after much
they did vote by 4 - 0 with 1 member
Interim Ordinance 651 for a period of
rch 23, 1988 (midnight) for additional
Commissioners were given a copy of the petition that was
presented to the City Council on 12/14/87 relating to the
__. ..., r....r�n nntinn that some of the
TRANSCRIPT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATED DECEMBER 1, 1987
RE: 87- SNP -13, REQUEST FOR BILLBOARD SIGN PERMIT AT 950 WESTERN
KNOLLS RD., APPLICANT, LEONARD & CO.
Listed as Item No. 7 under Scheduled Matters on Agenda dated
12/1/87.
Ch. Burton:
87- SNP -13,' Request for Billboard SignaPer &1Co at
App
950 Western Knolls Rd.
report? Does Mr. Koules have
Do we have a staff
anything he would like to add?
I'm really not in a position right now to comment
CDT) Koules:
of these so (inaudible).
on any
Ch. Burton:
Anybody have any comments on this?
I have a brief statement that staff reviewed the
Atty Ryskamp:
application very carefully - has reviewed the site
except for a criticism of the fact that the plans
they
would show the sign as 2514" at the top and
25' which would require
have to be no higher than
in the size - everything else
a 4" reduction
the requirements of Title 17 and
complies with
has recommended that the sign permit be
staff
granted subject to Caltrans permit issuance and of
course the state inspection by the Building and
Safety Department.
Ch. Burton:
Do you have anything Commissioner Remy?
No, I just I'm wondering about the billboard
Com. Remy:
(inaudible) there is another one out there.
Ch. Burton:
Do you have anything Commissioner Ingrao?
Com. Ingrao:
No, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Ch. Burton:
Commissioner Schuelke?
Com. Schuelke:
Other than they should comply with the to the 251.
Ch. Burton:
25 foot.
Com. Schulke:
Are we open for motion?
Ch. Burton:
Yes I am.
Com. Schuelke:
I make a motion that we approve 87- SNP -13, for the
Knolls Road
billboard to be located at 950 Western
the applicant to
as per staff's findings with
comply with the height limitation of 25 feet and
that the sign permit be subject to Caltrans permit
Building and Safety
issuance and inspection by the
Department.
Ch. Burton:
Do we have a second?
Com. Ingrao:
Second:
Ch. Burton:
We have a second. We have a motion to approve 87-
findings located at 950
SNP-13, as per staff's
Knolls Road. Applicant to comply with the
Western
height of 25 feet as well as Caltrans permit.
Have roll call please?
Sec:
Commissioner Schuelke.
Com. Schuelke: Yes.
Sec: Commissioner Ingrao.
Transcript of 87- SNP -13 Page 2
PC ideeting
December 1, 1988
Com. Ingrao: Yes.
Sec: Commissioner Remy.
Com. Remy: Yes.
Sec: Chairperson Burton.
Ch. Burton: Yes.
Audience: Can I say something (inaudible).
Ch. Burton: Certainly.
Caltrans has already approved it, we just haven't
got the paper work on it yet.
Com. Schuelke: That's even better.
Ch. Burton: Even better.
Ch. Burton: (inaudible) are you Mr. Bisel?
Bisel: Yes.
END OF TRANSCRIPT
Minutes Of PC Meeting
December 15, 1987
Page 2
5. 87 -PM -5, Am. #3, PM #22520, 23.32 Ac. to be split into two
(2) parcels at the S/E Corner of Beaumont Avenue and
Brookside Avenue. Applicant, R. Whittier.
Chairperson Burton opened the public hearing at 7:21 P.M.,
and pursuant to applicant's request, continued this item to
January 5, 1988.
6. Textual Code Amendment for an Ordinance repealing Sections
17.55.005 through 17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Off-
Street Parking and Loading.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke recommending approval of
Ordinance 652 by City Council, repealing Sections 17.55.005
through 17.55.200 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and
repealing 17.80.105(d) (5) and adding a new Chapter 17.55 to
the Municipal Code entitled Off- Street Parking and Loading;
seconded by Commissioner Remy. Notion carried unanimously
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chair_erson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
7. Textual Code Amendment to landscaping Ordinance 17.65.205
and recommendation to City Council.
After discussion, the commission requested that this item be
noticed for public hearing for the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of January 5, 1988.
8. Appeal of Minor Plot Plan 87- MPP -11, located at 1540 E. 6th
St., Cars 4 U. Applicant, Irene Testerman.
CDD Koules informed the commission that staff had uncovered
a violation of the State Subdivision Map Act in the proposed
layout of the property pertaining to this Minor Plot Plan.
Attorney Ryskamp asked the applicant, Irene Testerman, if
the area specified for parking would be exclusively used by
applicant for this purpose with her acknowledging that it
would be. tie also asked if it is a separate parcel with her
stating "no ". Attorney Ryskamp then informed the applicant,
that this violates the Subdivision Map Act since you cannot
exclusively use a portion of a parcel of property for the
purpose of sale or lease without having filed a parcel map
and properly dividing it. However, the Map Act would allow
the owner to divide a parcel in two or more separate units
for the purpose of leasing the separate parcels to different
persons, with each having the exclusive right to use or
Minutes of PC Meeting
December 15, 1987
Page 3
Commissioner Ingrao commented that if she submits an
application saying this is my display area, she is telling
the State of California that this is her area for display
and then telling the commission that she has the whole area.
Attorney Ryskamp further commented that if the Lease is set
up so that all she is doing is leasing the space and the
right to use any nine parking places on the lot as a display
area for vehicles, there wouldn't be a problem, as long as
there is no exclusive use. Ilowever, he questioned the
practical effect as well as the impact on parking and the
other conditions.
Commissioner Ingrao commented that he felt if she is going
to have use of the whole parking area, and there is no
exclusive use of parking, that the commission should
consider use of parking and determine what the use of the
other part of the building is. Felt that the whole site
should be brought up to City standards.
Irene Testerman, 665 Magnolia, addressed the commission
stating that on November 5, 1987 a permit was issued in
order for work to be done on the building. Starting to re-
stucco the outside, roof repairs - most of the work is going
on inside. will not invest money until she gets approval
that she is going to get a license to go to work.
Questioned Commissioner Ingrao's conditions - did not make
any indication that she would be fencing it off; will be a
common parking area for everyone; any vehicle that she
drives will be part of the inventory; will have detailing
dorte;off premises; no mechanical work done on the lot; owner
of the property is Stan Marcus and he will not improve the
property; if paved, drainage problem will be worse than what
will exist with gravel; will be making improvements as she
goes along; cannot afford curbs, gutters, drainage now;
asked about the motorcycle shop next door.
CDD Koules noted that using a portion of the lot as an
independent use cannot be done because of the State
Subdivision Map Act. If the use is going to be dispersed
throughout the lot, this would be fine, but then we have to
have a plot plan for the whole lot and we have to review it
as the whole lot and its uses. Further, the Plot Plan
submitted would have to be comprehensive - it would have to
indicate the requirements pertaining to the zoning"
Ordinance, Section 17.70.005, showing topography, drainage
where the structures are, the adjacent streets, the signs,
parking areas and the landscaping areas.
Chairperson Burton commented that in otherwords, this
application has to be redone along with whoever else is
going to be utilizing the property.
Minutes of PC Meeting
December 15, 1987
Page 4
i.murovement of the property to City standards.
Attorney Ryskamp explained to the commission that if you are
leasing an office with a right to use the entire parking
lot, the whole site needs to be brought up to standards. if
you are only bringing up the standards for a small corner,
then it's being illegally leased and it is a violation of
the Subdivision Map Act. A parcel map would need to be
filed in order to lease a corner, in which case only the
corner would be your problem to maintain.
It was the concensus of the commission that the applicant's
$50. fee for re- submittal be waived.
There being no further business before the commission,, the
meeting adjourned at 8:22 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning ommi;iOn Secretary