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'�