HomeMy Public PortalAbout05/02/89BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MAY 2, 1989
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, May 2, 1989, in the City Council Chambers with
Chairperson Burton presiding.
Meeting was called to Order at 7:01 P.M.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
April 4, 1989, were approved with the following corrections:
Page 5, Item 6: On Roll Call "Absent" should read,
"Commissioner Bruner and Chairperson Burton ".
Page 7, Item 7: On Roll Call "Absent" should read,
"Commissioner Bruner and Chairperson Burton" and "Abstain"
should read "None ".
2. Oral Communication:
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules noted that at the City Council
Meeting of April 24, 1989, Adams Billboard Variance was
continued to the City Council Meeting of May 8, 1989.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
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.
COD Koules addressed the commission noting this item was
continued from the last meeting at the request of the attorney
for the applicant. Also, Mr. Ryskamp informed him (Koules)
that neither the applicant nor his attorney would be at this
meeting and did not wish to request a continuance.
Attorney Ryskamp explained he contacted Mr. Weiler shortly
after 5 :00 p.m. and Mr. Weiler stated he had just spoke with
Mr.Thomas and the sale they were contemplating was not at this
time taking place - they did not wish to appear and did not
wish to request a continuance. Mr. Ryskamp noted that this
item should move forward since there is no request for a
continuance and one is not being recommended.
COD Koules explained that at the meeting of September 6,
1988, staff was directed to send a Notice of Preparation for
an environmental report which was done and the responses were
fed directly to Mr. Thomas as they came in. There are
letters to him which indicates staff's willingness to
cooperate with him; however, staff has not heard from Mr.
Thomas since September. The applicant has not taken any steps
to fulfill requirements and staff feels the only course of
action is a denial.
Minutes of PC Meeting
May 2, 1989
Page 2
Attorney Ryskamp briefly outlined for the commission the
events that took place in 1988 on this project, noting that he
would recommend moving forward, the commission make findings
relative to the effort of the City complying as well as the
deficiencies that have been observed in the project,
specifically relative to the fact there has been no EIR
prepared and the requirements of CEQA have not been met.
Chairperson Burton then ask if there were any
proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak.
There being none, she closed the public hearing at 7:13 P.M.
turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.
The commission felt Mr. Thomas had been given every
opportunity to work with the City and had not responded nor
participated in meetings that would be beneficial to his
project.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner to deny this project (87 -DP -1
and 87- Tm -3); seconded by Commissioner Fries. The findings
for denial was as follows:
1. Deficiencies in the development plan;
2. No EIR prepared - not meeting any requirements of CEQA;
3. No clear -cut access off of Highway 60;
4. No interest in attending meetings pertaining to the new
sewer plant; and
5. Staff has made every effort since early 1988 to help and
assist Mr. Thomas.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy, Fries and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
6. 89 -TM -2, 89 -U -3 and 89 -ND -6, for a proposed subdivision
project consisting of 24 single family lots, located on the
west side of Elm Avenue, between 10th and 11th Streets, and a
variance request for a reduction of required minimum lot depth
of 100 ft. to 95.4 ft. on Lot 6. Applicant, Kenneth Cokeley.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that on April 27,
1989, a letter was received from the County of Riverside,
Department of Health stating certain requirements and these
requirements should be added as Condition No. 11 in the
Conditions of Approval. He noted that the applicant had
requested a Vesting Tentative map; however, the City of
Beaumont does not have a Vesting Ordinance but is presently in
the process of preparing one. The applicant has agreed to
work with staff in supplying additional information that is
customarily required of vesting map proposals. Also,
applicant can be conditioned to provide a ten (10) foot side
yard requirement for each lot. Staff's recommendation is to
grant the Variance for the average minimum lot depth on Lot 6
reducing it from the required 100 ft. to 95.4 ft. as well as
approve the Negative Declaration and 89 -TM -2 as a Vesting
Tract Nap #23570, with the conditions of approval as
attached. He noted in the Subdivision map Act and after
discussion with the City Engineer, Lots 23 and 24 exceeds
(depth) the 2 112 to 1 ratio, and it was felt it would be an
unreasonable hardship to have the applicant redesign these two
lots because of the street pattern; thus, the reason these
two lots were waived.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:40
P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing
to speak.
Minutes of PC Meeting
May 2, 1989
Page 4
SCHEDULED MATTER:
6. Reconsideration of Mr. Dowling's request heard at the Planning
Commission meeting of April 4, 1989, pertaining to access to
his property, which required placement on the agenda prior to
the Planning Commission taking their vote of April 4th.
This item was placed on the agenda for reconsideration since
action was taken by the Commission from the floor at their
meeting of April 4, 1989 and as Attorney Ryskamp explained, it
must be placed on the agenda in order for action to be taken.
It was agreed that this issue is a civil matter to be resolved
between property owners. Mr. Dowling was so advised, and no
action was taken by the Planning Commission.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:37 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
PC Sec tar
Minutes of PC meeting
May 2, 1989
Page 3
Mr. Jim Unland, 41640 Florida Avenue, Hemet, with James W.
Unland d Associates, Civil Engineers, addressed the
commission commenting they agree with the findings and
explained the drainage easement. He noted that since there
is an existing easement that goes through the center of this
project, the City Engineer has requested they pick up the
sewer line just north of Lot 24 and take it to Olive Avenue
along the southerly boundary of Lot 17. He noted that the
Lot to the north of this tract (northeast corner) drains to
the rear or to the west of the property and the drainage
needs to be picked up from this property as well. Lots 23
and 24 collects the drainage at the back and takes it out
through the drainage easement on the south side of Lot 17.
Since there is not much water being collected, a 10' easement
is sufficient. Mr. Unland then went to the map pointing out
to the commission the way the drainage is proposed. He noted
there was a catch basin at the south end on the south
boundary and it takes the drainage west out to the open
channel that carries it on out to 8th Street. Mr. Unland
noted that the house on Lot 15 as shown on the map, should be
reversed and will have the proper yard setback.
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.
COD Koules commented that the plan could be revised to meet
the requirements of having a 10' side yard for each of the
lots. Apparently, it would not cause a hardship in changing
the housing type with Commissioner Bruner asking if it would
basically be the same type of house? Mr. Unland answered
"yes it would be" has several plans which are designed to fit
narrow lots as well as wider lots.
Mr. Unland noted they had already submitted a Hydrology
Report for Mr. Dotson's review. Mr. Dotson provided them
with the Grading Plan, Street Improvement Plans, and the
Storm Drain Plan and these were used in the submittal of
their report. He stated they had been conditioned to put a
retaining wall along the south and west boundaries which
would be some kind of concrete block wall and a 6' high fence
on every lot.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke recommending approval by
City Council of Tentative (Vesting #23570), map 89-TM-2, on
condition that this project comply with the side yard setback
requirements and that the configuration of the unit on Lot 15
as shown over the easement be adjusted, and subject to the
amended Conditions of Approval to read as follows:
Condition No. 11: (Added)
Applicant to comply with the County of
Riverside, Department of Health's letter dated
April 19, 1989 (see attached).
Also recommendation of approval of Variance 89 -V -3 and
Negative Declaration89 -ND -6 by City Council, since this
project will not have a significant impact on the
environment; seconded by Commissioner Bruner. motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy, Fries and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.