Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04/04/89BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 1989 The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, April 4, 1989, in the City Council Chambers with Acting Chairperson Remy presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7:05 P.M. Affidavit of Posting was read. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The minutes for the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 7, 1989, were approved as submitted. 2. Oral Communication: Mr. Francis Dowling addressed the commission explaining that his access through "B" Street had been blocked and wanted to know if something could be worked out for streets /accesses (see attached material). After discussion, the Planning Commission requested that City Council review the need for updating the Circulation Element and give priority to the "B" Street closing and that it be placed on the agenda as soon as possible. On motion by Commissioner Fries, seconded by Commissioner Schuelke, it was requested that City Council review the Circulation Element with priority given to "8" Street. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Bruner and Chairperson Burton. ABSTAIN: None. 3. Director's Report: COD Koules reported that at the City Council meeting of march 27, 1989, Hovchild's Specific Plan and EIR were approved. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3, a proposed development on 160 acres consisting of 366 detached single family units, 224 multi- family units and 21 acres of commercial uses. The residential construction is proposed to be developed in 9 phases and the commercial development at a future time; located on the south side of Highway 60, and south of Western Knolls Drive, at the westerly City limits. Applicant, John Thomas, Beaumont Associates. This continued public hearing was opened at 7 :25 P.M. and on motion by Commissioner Fries, seconded by Commissioner Schuelke, was continued to may 2, 1989, per request from a letter dated April 4, 1989, faxed to the City by Attorney Ryskamp (see attached). 5. 87- PP -17, 87 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, a proposed 4 unit apartment building, located at 738 Chestnut between 7th and 8th Streets. Applicant, Vincent Schiro. COD Koules presented the staff report explaining that this matter was heard October 25, 1988, and at that time there was concern about the width of the driveway, trash enclosure and the issue of the common ownership of the driveway which is shared with the adjacent property to the south. He explained PC meeting April 4, 1989 Page 2 that at this hearing (10/25/88), the commission suggested the City Attorney prepare a lot merger ordinance and that it be adopted; however, in order not to hold up the applicant, his (Koules) recommendation is to include in the conditions of approval that before the final occupancy of the building, there must be a lot merger ordinance or a certificate of compliance in order to allow the applicant to use the driveway in combination with the driveway to the south in the same ownership. Also, since the applicant has three - quarters of a 4th unit by the density, the variance request is to allow the 4th unit. Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the continued public hearing at 7:30 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Vince Schiro, 726 Chestnut commission and commented they everything that was discussed 1988, has been accomplished. Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the now have a 24' driveway and at the meeting of October 25, Commissioner Schuelke asked if these units were going to conform with the units next door with Mr. Schiro stating "yes "; however, these units would be further back, would have open parking, a basketball court in the back and would be completely fenced - no access at all from the rear. Commissioner Schuelke questioned the condition of the alley way with Mr. Schiro noting he has no problem in paving the alley and would contribute his share. COD Koules commented that the City Engineer's Condition No. 3.02 says to dedicate 10 feet of the alley right -of -way across the entire frontage of site. There being no one else from the audience wishing to speak, Acting Chairperson Remy then closed the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.. COD Koules commented that the alley way is vacated and in order to improve the alley, you would have to get the cooperation and consent of each of the property owners along both sides. Commissioner Schuelke noted there should be some type of provision (beginning with the first development) to pave the alley since city services uses the alley way. COD Koules commented there is no problem if there is a real alley way; however, the ownership belongs to the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Schuelke again stated her concern pertaining to the alley way noting that the property owners do need to be required to pave the alley way at some point and time. COD Koules suggested that the commission refer this concern pertaining to the alley back to staff for a report and staff will then bring it back to the commission as soon as possible without stopping this project. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner Fries to approve 87 -PP -17 and 87 -V -6, per staff's findings and recommendations and further, recommend approval of Negative Declaration 67 -ND -39 by City Council. Also staff to meet with City Engineer pertaining to the alley way and review the possibility of requiring a commitment from the developer for paving of his portion of the alley, with a possibility in the future of getting a paving of the total alley way. motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: PC meeting April 4, 1969 Page 3 AYES: Commissioners Remy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Bruner and Chairperson Burton. 6. 88 -PP -6 and 89 -ND -4, a proposed 4,200 sq. ft. full service car wash and a proposed 3,780 sq. ft. auto service center on 0.8 acres, located on the west side of Highland Springs Avenue about 300 feet north of its intersection with Sixth Street. Applicant, Dick Garcia. COD Koules presented the staff report noting that one of staff's concerns is to minimize or eliminate stacking onto Highland Springs. At staff's request, applicant changed the plot plan to show the automobiles coming in for car wash running along the southerly side of the building and entering the building from the rear. It is staff's recommendation that the auto service center at the rear of the project be restricted to retail auto uses and not allow body works and major auto repair, paint shops and steam cleaning. For the commission's information the C -G (Commercial General) line ends at the northerly property line of this property; the property adjacent to the north is zoned CRO (Commercial Residential Office) and it is staff's hope and intent, that future land uses to the north of this be more in office medical complex uses. Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing at 7:48 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Dick Garcia, 563 La Casa Dr., Banning, addressed the commission and commented they wanted to build a nice quality project on this site. He commented that the construction would be wood frame, block wall, lath and plaster and is willing to comply with all of the conditions. He noted that the service center of the project has 3 bays which would be for lube and tune and the 4th bay will be for tire mounting, wheel aligning - the corner of the building will be for retail. Mr. Garcia noted that the lot is 3SO ft. deep and has a setback of 80 ft, and that cars would be exiting onto Highland Springs. COD Koules noted a condition of approval is that they improve the alley way with Mr. Garcia commenting that the alley would be 24 feet wide. Mr. Koules further commented that soon a request for a mini warehouse at the rear of this property (Denise) would come before the commission and then there will be an opportunity to have full improvements the length of the alley. Mr. Garcia commented that there would be access to his project through the alley. Mr. George Salata, 5399 Via Carrizo, Laguna Hills, addressed the commission representing the owner of the property that is directly north of the this proposed project. He commented that the owner's property to the north is approximately twice as large as this proposed project and wanted it noted that he is in favor of this project with several conditions that he wanted to discuss: 1. Litter - would like to have the project policed twice daily for litter. 2. Noise - not addressed in the staff report but feels there should be a minimum 8' high wall the entire length of the site in order to mitigate the noise from car engines as well as the car wash machinery. Would like to have a PC meeting April 4, 1989 Page 4 decorative block wall that would be attractive. Feels that the footings should not encroach on the property line of the wall and there be no encroachment of the footing underneath the wall. 3. Stacking - feels that the project provides for about 10 cars on site plus one car making its turn into the wash and one car making the turn off Highland Springs - the 13th car will be blocking the driveway next door. This would also have an impact on the person selling their property next door. 4. Would like to see the service building at the back end of the site moved forward 12 feet and an easement granted so if people got landlocked inside the lot they would have some possible way to get out. Mr. Dick Garcia. again addressed the commission and noted that if they gave up 15 feet of their property, they would lose their parking and thereby reduce the feasibility of their project. He noted that they have two stacking lanes and will have capacity for 20 cars. They have set the car wash back 95 feet and will have a 6 ft. block wall. Does not feel they have the responsibility to build a block wall pursuant to the neighbor's approval. They have given 4 ft. to increase the size of the alley so there is adequate fire traffic flow and their trash enclosure will be built into the project to control litter on site. Mr. Romero Cabrero, 1523 E. 8th St., Beaumont, addressed the commission noting he lives approx. two blocks from this project and stated there will be no litter on Highland Springs, the litter will be in front of his house. Mr. Garcia, addressed the commission again pertaining to the noise issue. He commented that the machinery is all in equipment rooms, the only thing that is exposed are the blowers that blow the cars dry at the end which has a 15 horse power motor. He commented that there is a certain amount of noise in a car wash but it is only open from 8 to 5 and that you do not sit in your car with the motor idling while waiting to get your car washed. CDD Koules noted he did identify noise as a possible concern; however, it was his feeling that a 6' wall would mitigate the noise. Mr. Crandel Goodmanson, 1543 E. 8th St., Beaumont, addressed the commission asking if the car wash is an appropriate place to be put at this location. There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience, Acting Chairperson Remy, then closed the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. On motion by Commissioner Fries to approve Plot Plan 88- PP-6, Revised #3 (Sheets 1 and 2), subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Schuelke commented she felt that there should be a condition stating that the project should comply with a frame stucco construction and that staff come back to the commission with a report as to what the applicant and neighbor decides to use in the form of a block wall. At this time Commissioner Fries rescinded her motion. CDD Koules explained that the footings would be taken care of at construction drawing time and there would be a restriction PC meeting April 4, 1989 Page 5 of putting the footings within two inches of the property line. On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner Fries to approve Plot Plan 86 -PP -6 Revision #3 as proposed per staff's recommendations and findings, and that the project will conform to all conditions of approval, all issues have been mitigated including the noise level and litter and that applicant has agreed that the structure will be a frame and stucco construction. Further, that Negative Declaration 89- ND-4, be recommended for approval by City Council. Mr. Garcia, stated he wanted to clarify that the project will be concrete block, steel framing, wood frame, lath and plaster - a combination of all - will not be a metal building. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Bruner and Acting Chairperson Remy. ABSTAIN: None. As an informational item (if there is an agreement), staff is directed to report back to the commission the results of the agreement between the applicant and property owner (north) reference the block wall. 7. 88 -PP -1 and 89 -ND -5, proposed first phase consisting of 39 dwelling units of a four (4) phase apartment complex with a total of 160 units, located on the east side of Xenia Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of its intersection with 8th Street. Applicant, K -C and Associates /Chu Wann. COD Koules presented the staff report and explained that although the drawing before the commission was for the whole project, the first phase only is what is being considered. For any development to take place other than Phase 1, it has to come before the commission again as another public hearing with a plot plan and an environmental impact report. Improvements to the streets are addressed just for Phase 1 only. Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Richard Chang, 300 S. 3rd St., Alhambra, addressed the commission commenting that all street improvements will be done at this phase. He questioned Condition No. 10 (Traffic Signal Fee) with COO Koules explaining that the fee is based on the number of units, Mr. Chang then noted that he was here to answer any questions that the commission might have. Commission questioned as to what type of exterior would be used, with Mr. Chang stating it would be wood with stucco - frame stucco building, tile roof - he explained the colored glass is used for energy conservation for the shading; however, they might be able to use curtains instead of shaded glass. Commissioner Schuelke commented they were not concerned with the color of the glass but concerned about the color of the exterior of the building. Mr. Chang noted the project would be like the photo. COD Koules presented a map to the commission showing the landscaping and noted that this would be incorporated in the conditions of approval as Condition No. 13, if the commission so desires. (It was noted at this time, the 1st page of the staff report PC meeting April 4, 1989 Page 6 pertaining to this project next to Existing Roads - should read Xenia Street). The commission felt that the pictures and materials submitted by the applicant be made a part of the application and that no wood siding is to be used. COD Koules noted that Condition No. 1 could be amended to the commission's satisfactory. Mfr. Romero Cabrera, 1523 E. 8th St., Beaumont, addressed the commission asking if the service entrance which is 25' wide, would be used for this project's equipment when building the other phases. Mr. Chang explained the timing for the other phases depends on how they solve the sewer and drainage and that the City Engineer recommends they may consider putting another street in located at the back portion of the project. COD Koules noted that Mr. Dotson is working with the ownerships to get a Master Plan that will jointly solve the drainage and sewer to satisfaction. Mir. Cabrera, stated the service entrance does belong to this applicant; however, he has it in writing that certain people could use this service entrance. Mr. Victor Schiro, 3680 Danbury, Riverside, addressed the commission commenting he is in favor of the project but noting that this project's street should be 40' wide instead of 33' the same as Noble Creek. Mr. Ray Felton, 1515 E. Bth St., Beaumont, addressed the commission to clarify the block wall wanting to know if it was going to be put in with the first phase. Acting Chairperson Remy then read the City Engineer's condition pertaining to the fence for the first phase. Mars. Felton, addressed the commission stating her concern was that of maintenance. Kathy Wang, addressed the commission stating that the project would be maintained properly and that the color of the buildings would be just as the pictures shows them to be. There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience, Acting Chairperson Remy then closed the public hearing at 9:35 P.M. turning the matter back to the commission. There was discussion by the commission pertaining to all issues, with Commissioner Schuelke asking about the temporary fence with Mr. Chang commenting that they had proposed a chain link fence with vines growing, also, they will remove the temporary fence and vines when the masonry block wall is required. On motion by Commissioner Fries, seconded by Commissioner Schuelke to approve Plot Plan 88 -PP -1 (1st Phase), pursuant to staff's recommendation and findings, subject to the amended conditions of approval to read as follows: Condition No. 1: (Amended) Applicant shall substantially conform to Plot Plan as submitted, along with Architect's Renderings as well as construction materials submitted, which includes framing an stucco exterior construction. PC meeting April 4, 1989 Page 7 Condition No. 13: (Added) Appliciant shall comply with Landscape Plan Sheet No. A- 2.1 as submitted. Also, recommendation was made that Negative Declaration 89- ND-5 be approved by City Council. motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson Remy. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Bruner and Acting Chairperson Remy. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, PC Sec ary /J'�