Loading...
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.