HomeMy Public PortalAbout1991BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
- JANUARY 22, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:12 p.m.
Commissioners Echlin and Prouty were reappointed by the City
Council at their meeting of January 14, 1991, and Mayor Connors
conducted their swearing in on this :date with terms expiring
December 31, 1994.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read:
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of December
18, 19909 were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
4. 87- TM -8(R) Tract 23161, revision of a previously approved 2O1
lot subdivision on 63.01 acres in order to allow a lot
redesign of the easterly arm of the project, located at 14th
and Palm Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development.
CDD Koules informed the commission that the applicant and City
Engineer needed to work out some design problems and requested
that this matter be continued to the meeting of February 19,
1x91.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, this item was continued to the meeting of February -19,
1991. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
Ring.
NOES:
None,
ABSENT:
None.
ABSTAIN:
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
S. SP -90 -3, EIR -90 -3 and 90 -RZ -9, a proposed zoning to Specific
Planning Area Zoning (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre) from
(PUD) Planned Unit Development on 155 acres proposed for 532
single family dwelling units and two acres of retail
--- _--_,_, rL-- —4-46 s- tmnaieA An 4--ho amith Side of
PC Minutes of
January 229 1991
Page 2
extensively with the City Engineer in order to work out ,the
drainage, circulation patterns and grading of the site. Mr.
Koules also noted that the applicant had questioned Condition
No. 7.05(x) and the applicant would also like to add Condition
4.06 to the City Engineer's recommended conditions whereby
the applicant would be reimbursed by adjacent property
owners at some point and time. Also, it was noted by Mr.
Koules that Revised Conditions of Approval from the City
Engineer had been distributed to the commission.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :24 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Bill Ehrlich, 6700 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, addressed
the commission stating his only concern is Section 7.05(e).
whereby the City Engineer has requested they agree to pay any
fees for purposes in amounts not yet determined nor
established by the City Council. He noted that the State Map
Act has certain conditions which they operate under which
appear to be in conflict with this condition. The Map Act
requires that a tentative map approval can only be based on
standards in effect when the application is complete.
Additionally, Section 66483 which is the ,fee portion in
Article 5 in the State Map Act allows that any local ordinance
may impose fees for storm drainage, sanitary sewers and off -
site improvements as long as the ordinance has been in effect
for a period of at least 30 days. prior to filing of the
tentative map. His understanding is that the only fees that
can be applied to him are those that. are in effect that have
been approved by the City of Beaumont for at least 30 days
prior to this hearing. Requests that this condition be
amended or deleted.
Mr. Jim McGillyray, Sanborn & Webb. 600 E. Tahquitz Way, Palm
Springs, addressed the commission stating he had researched
the fee basis and presented copy to commission (see attached).
Mr. Dave Sumner, Sanborn & Webb, 795 E. Sixth St., Beaumont,
addressed the commission stating this project would definitely
clean -up this end of town since it is a very viable project.
Mr. Jim Dotson, addressed the commission informing
them that 7.07 of his conditions is recommended being
deleted because at the time he had not received the
preliminary title report nor soils report. Also he felt that
7.08 was appropriate to add to the conditions since it says
that the City and Mr. Ehrlich will form a reimbursement
agreement for expenses incurred in constructing the storm
drain since the applicant is creating a storm drain for
developments around his project and wants to be reimbursed for
the expense. Requested that the revisions be accepted by the
commission.
PC minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 3
7.03.x. 6) Corrected. Public Utility Easement for storm
drains through lots 7 and 9.
7.07 Deleted. For lack of a thoroughly adequate
Tentative Map illustrating all proposed
improvement; for lack of a Preliminary Title.
Report; and, for lack of a 'Preliminary
eddnibY al the Reportp other
City Engineer during y
during conditions the
imposed imp
Review process.
7.08 Added.
Applicant shall enter into an Agreement
with the City of Bea0mont which document shall set
forth terms and conditions whereby Applicant may
be partially reimbursed for expenses incurred in
constructing storm drain facilities
ben oher nearby and future developments
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Killing, Prouty and 'Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. 90 -PP -3 and 90- NO -129 a proposed Industrial Center consisting
of thirteen 12.458escres a located at aViola and "8 f "B" Streets•
sq. ft. on
Applicant, Bill Ehrlich.
C00 Koules presented the staff 'report commenting that the
project meets all the zoning requirements in the M -l. zone,
feels it is a high quality project and further noted there
were some changes in the Planning Department's conditions of
approval.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m•
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Bill Ehrlich, 6700 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, addressed
the commission wanting it to be noted for the-record that he
was requesting that Section 2.07 in the Engineer's report
(which is included in the Parcel Map) be deleted on the
plot plan. Mr. Ehrlich went on to explain his project stating
that if someone wanted two buildings they could merge lots and
that building size would be from approximately 9,000 to 36,000
sq. ft. Also the conditions do allow changes and in the event
a tenant or buyer has a particular use then they would
resubmit a new plot plan within the slot structure from
this plot plan and seek approval. The building styles
have to be compatible and if it is changed then it would have
PC Minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 4
Planning Department's Conditions:
Condition No. 5, Corrected. County cant Firs shall Department's
Riverside
requirements dated December 199 1990, as
attached.
Condition No. 11. Addition. Applicant shall improve parking
spaces to the satisfaction of the Planning
Department. Parking. is not. permitted
within the required setback areas as
defined by Section 17.50.215(8) of the
Zoning Ordinance. ►.
Condition No. 20. Correction. All trash bins and /or
refuse collection areas shall conform to the
setback requirements and shall be completely
screened by a solid fence or wall, or shall
be enclosed within a building. Also,
applicant shall follow approval of Inland
Disposal 'requirements dated in a letter of
August 29 1990 (see attached).
Condition No. 24. Deleted. All roof mounted equipment shall
be at least six - inches (80) lower than the
parapet ball or top of equipment well and
shall be painted to match the building.
Evidence of compliance shall be included in
building plans.
Correction. Page 2 of the Conditions of
Approval should read "Project shall commence
development within twenty -four (24) months"
not twelve (12) months. 1.
Revised City Engineer's Conditions:
1.01 Correction. All On -Site rough grading,. all utility and
storm drain improvements, all curbs and gutters and at
least a single layer of asphalt roadway paving shall be
completed prior to the commencement of any buildings'
or On -Site improvements are constructed.
1.06 Correction. Along that portion of the westerly boundary
that is adjacent to RSF Zoned property, construct 6'-
high masonry screen wall,. said wall to. be designed for
20 psf lateral wind load. The footings for said - screen
wall shall be constructed wholly within the boundaries
of the Site or within easements provided for that
purpose.
1.10 Corrected. All on -site drainage shall be directed to
antrances to each lot and no drainage shall be directed
PC minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 5
Sewer Facilities Fees
Water Facilities Fees
Public Facilities Fees
Drainage Facilities Fees
Parks & Recreation Fees
Wastewater Reclamation Facilities Fees
Motion carried unanimously With the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None. '
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
8. Letter from Mitzi Adams appealing denial of Sign Permit No.
90- SNP -16, proposed location northwest orner Aof Beaumont
Avenue and First Street. Applicants
Advertising, Inc.
CDD Koules presented the staff report explaining that the
applicant filed for an Outdoor Advertising Billboard on the 84
Lumber site and there is presently an existing billboard
across the street on the westerly side of Beaumont Avenue and
within 500 feet of the proposed location of this billboard.
The Ordinance reads in Section 17.60.015(&)4, that each
display shall be at least 500 feet from any such display
unless in a particular zone a different interval shall be
specified in which event the minimum distance between Koules
displays shall be not less than such -interval.
further noted that staff's reading"'is 500 'feet in any
direction and believes the applicants position, is that 500
feet should be measured in a lineal line along Beaumont
Avenue. based Heon Kthee ordinance Attorney
# the recommendation is a
that of
and
denial.
Ms. Mitzi Adams, 19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ana, addressed 'the
commission stating she felt there was a discrepancy in the way
the ordinance was interpreted and she then distributed
material numbered 3 through 23 (see attached) to- the
commission. She went through this.material outlining items on
each page to the commission. Ms. Adams then showed various
documents from a binder that she passed to each of the
commissioners (no copies distributed) elaborating' on the
lawsuit that between the Leonard City settledmpthisancase a and the 8 on
noting sign is
standing at Western Knolls.
rnn Kniilwa noted that the Leonard billboard was erroneously
PC minutes of
January 229 1991
Page 6
Attorney Ryskamp then noted that Ms. Adams had reviewed
extensively all of the previous sign applications and had
spent a number of hours going through the permit applications
and files available to her to Which she acknowledged-in the
affirmative.
There being no further discussion, Commissioner Echlin made e-
motion to uphold the denial of 90- SNP -16, seconded by
Commissioner Kisling. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring..
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
9. Consideration of Development Agreement for Deutsch Specific
Plan (SP- 89 -1).
CDD Koules informed the commission that Mr. Ryskamp would make
a brief presentation of what a Development Plan is and noted
there were some corrections he would like to offer Which are:
Page 5 - should read "maximum of 4,716 residential units"
instead of "minimum of 4,851 ". Also at the close of
the paragraph it should read "4.1 d.u. ac" instead of
"4.2". Exhibit "E" (benefits to the City) replaces
the blank page of Exhibit "E ".
Page 9 - at the bottom starting with "Notwithstanding" delete
& 10 all four lines as well as the next 3,lines at the top
of Page 10 and substitute'the following:
11. General Development of the Project
11.1 Project. Page 9 last sentence:
As part of the tentative'subdivision map review, the
applicant shall submit architectural drawings showing
building treatment, elevations, material samples, and
landscaping as part of the review and approval
process for the residential portions of the Project.
Attorney Ryskamp "plained the Development Plan Agreement to
the commission stating that in 1979 the Government Code was
amended to allow the City to enter into development
agreements. It is a contract between the City and the
developer about how this particular project is going to be
developed and it gives the developer the opportunity to
freeze most of the rules and regulations governing zoning,
building and the general development of the project. When a
nrniert takes 15 to 25 veers to develop, it dives the City
PC minutes of
January 22, 1991
Page 7
although new types of fees cannot be
not locked in so that 25 years fro
paying the same amount for sewer
currently paying. There are aspects
will change and will allow for change
this is spelled out,
imposed, the rates are
m now they will not be
connections they are
of developing law that
s that are positive and
There being no further discussions Commissioner Prouty,
seconded by Commissioner Echlin recommended adoption of the
Development Agreement car � edt unanimouslyc withntheP following
City Council. Motion
roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Echlin, Kislingp Prouty and. Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further items before the commis -ion, the
meeting adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
harry ylo
Secret y .
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION.
MINUTES OF MOW
FEBRUARY 19, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7 :00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
Commissioner Kisling was excused.
The Affidavit of Posting was read:
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 22,
1990, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules informed the commission that at
the last meeting the City Council approved Ehrlich's
Industrial subdivision with the City Engineer's recommended
deletion of Condition No. 2.07.01 which he had previously
recommended being included in the approval. Copies have been
distributed to the commission with both the page from the
original conditions as well as the City Engineer's letter
asking for the deletion. This parcel map will be heard at
the City Council meeting on Monday, FEbruary 25, 1991.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87-TM-B(R) Tract 23161, revision of a previously approved 201
lot subdivision on 63.01 acres in order to allow a lot
redesign of the easterly arm of the project, located at 14th
and Palm Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development.
COD Koules informed the commission that the applicant had
submitted a letter asking for a continuance to the next
meeting. Applicant is working with the Beaumont School
District on a Lot Line Adjustment to acquire some of the
school's land to accommodate the redesign of the easterly arm
of the subdivision.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, this item was continued to the meeting of March 19,
1991. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
Prouty and Chairman Ring.
5. SP -90 -39 EIR -90 -3 and 90 -RZ -9, a proposed coning to Specific
PC Minutes of
February 19, 1991
Page 2
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty, this item was continued to the meeting of March 19,
1991. Matia.n carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
S. 90 -PM -1 (PM 26229) and 91- NO-2, a proposed subdivision of
17.68 acres into two (2) parcels (Parcel 1 is zoned C -G,
Commercial General, and Parcel 2 is zoned R -MF, Residential
Multiple- Family), located at the northwest corner of 14th
Street and Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Allied Group /Nick
Saab.
CDO Koules presented the staff report explaining that this
property was uniquely zoned (split zoned). To the east of the
drainage channel the property is zoned commercial, to the west
of the channel it is zoned Residential Multiple Family. He
noted you cannot split -zone a piece of property and expect to
use both halves; thus, the need for a parcel map in order to
split the property. Further, whenever the applicant's wish to
develop either parcel, they would have to come in for a
plot plan and at that time the City can impose necessary
improvements.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :09 p.m.
asking ror proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Ms. Vera McNealey, 211 14th Street, addressed the commission
concerned about the drainage channel and how water would be
furnished.
COD Koules explained that at this time the proposal is just to
split the parcel into two pieces. The property is already
zoned for apartments on the westerly side of the channel and
commercial on the easterly side; however, in-order for either
parcel to development, it would have to be brought before a
public hearing.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7 :13 p.m* turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of Parcel Map
90 -PM -1 (PM 26229), subject to the conditions of approval and
Negative Declaration 91 -ND -2, since there will not be a
significant impact on the environment. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
PC minutes of
February 19, 1991
Page 3
noted that the 40 acre piece of property immediately to the
west is zoned RMF; however, it is being processed as
residential single family.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :16 p.m.
asking for proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Mike Chang, 3818 Glove Street, Torrance, addressed the
commission stating he felt it was to the interest of the City
of Beaumont to approve this project.
Mr. Richard Reeley, 11105 Sunnyslope, addressed the commission
informing the commission that this project was not compatible
to the property at the north because they have bigger lots and
feels that when this property develops their lifestyles will
change. Also their street is real narrow (191).
Mr. Barry Steele, 11168 Sunnyslope, addressed the commission
stating he doesn't want to see a lot of traffic, doesn't want
4 to 5 homes to the acre.
Mr. Ernie Finley, 11211 Sunnyslope, addressed the commission
questioning law enforcement, water and Marshal Creek.
COD Koules noted that the property is within Beaumont's Sphere
of Influence.
Mr. George Cummins, 39985 Mary Lane, addressed the commission
stating that Mary Lane was 151 wide - opposed to the
annexation.
Mr. Barry Steele, again addressed the commission stating he
felt that the commission already knew what they were going to
zone the property when they came in.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7 :31 p.m. turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin recommending approval by City Council of Annexation 91-
ANX -10 Zone Change 91 -RZ -1 and Negative Declaration 91 -ND-
1, since there will not be a significant impact on the
environment. Motion carried unanimously with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
Prouty and Chairman Ring.
8. 91- ANX -29 90 -RZ -6 and 91 -ND -3, a proposed preannexation zoning
PC Minutes of
February 19, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Kirk Evans, KSE Development, addressed the commission
noting that this was part of the project that was approved
about a month ago for KSE Development for single family homes.
With this project when a plan is brought in, it will include
the access which is needed by the City of Beaumont to connect
in with 14th Street through Three Rings R -anch as well as KSE
Development. Also this application will go along with the KSE
Development Application with IAFCO as well - will be looking
at it as one.
There being no one also wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7 :36 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of Annexation 91-
ANX -2, Zone Change 90 -RZ -6 and Negative Declaration 91 -ND-
39 since there will not be a significant impact on the
environment. motion carried unanimously with the, following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
9. Consideration of Development Agreement for the Deutsch
Specific Plan (SP -89 -1) which allows for the devdlopment of a
maximum of 4,716 dwelling units on 1162 acres proposed for
annexation, located between 8th Street and Brookside Avenue,
and between Cherry Avenue and Highland Springs Road.
Applicant, Deutsch Corp.
COD Koules presented the staff report noting that staff
received a letter from a GIs. Pam Alps stating she would like
to see parks and bicycle trails in this project (see
attached letter dated 2/8/91). He (Koules -) continued
explaining that due to an administrative oversight this item
was not properly advertised at the last hearing and that
what is before the commission now is the exact same document
that was heard and unanimously approved at the last meeting
of 1/22/91. This action was necessary at the advise of legal
council.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :38 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Richard Illingworth, 37303 Cherry Valley B.lvd.,.addressed
the commission concerning the blowdown facility and the main
line valve station. He informed the commission of .the noise
that is generated by this blowdown facility on Highland
Springs. He also noted at the last meeting Mr. Taylor
4 -A 4 .... & -.4 4.6.- .. -,I ...- . J. -.L I - ...... It J L. -
PC Minutes of
February 19, 1991
Page 5
Ms. Jan Cummins, 39985 Mary Lane, addressed the commission
complaining of the dust a•nd noise.
Ms. Martha Guerta, 40281 E. 8th Street, addressed the
commission noting that if density is reduced problems would be
cut.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring closed
the public hearing at 7 :48 p.m. turning the matter back to
the commission for discussion.
CDD Koules noted that what we are hearing tonight is the
Deutsch Development Agreement not the Deutsch Specific Plan.
The above concerns should be expressed to the city council.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin recommending approval by City Council of Deutsch's
Development Agreement as amended per the meeting of January
22, 1991. motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
It was noted by the Commission that the next meeting would be
March 199 1991.
There being no further items before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 7 :50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherry aylo
PC Sec•etary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MARCH i9, 1991
Q
Meeting called to Order at 7 :00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The (Minutes for the Planning Commission (Meeting of February
19, 1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87- TIM -B(R) Tract 23181, revision of a previously approved 201
lot subdivision on 63.01 acres in order to allow a lot
redesign of the easterly arm of the project, located at 14th'
and Palm Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development.
CDD Koules addressed the commission noting there had been a
request this project be continued to May 21, 1991, in order
to allow the applicant to negotiate with the school district
for a lot line adjustment between his property and the school
district's property.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling to continue this matter to the meeting of May 21,
1991. (Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
5. SP -90 -3, EIR -90 -3 and 90 -RZ -9, a proposed zoning to Specific
Planning Area Zoning (SPA 4.1 dwelling units per acre) from
(PUD) Planned Unit Development on 155 acres proposed for 632
single family dwelling units and two acres of retail
commercial. The project is located on the south side of
Highway 60 across from-Western Knolls Road, and running
southerly for a distance of approximately 2,000 feet to a line
approximately 2,500 feet westerly of the west end of Fourth
Street and is identified as Rolling Hills Specific Plan.
Applicant, Robertson Homes.
PC Minutes of
March 19, 1991
Page 2
practice throughout the City to have 20 feet. Mr. Koules
noted there was a second issue involving cul -de -sacs and where
there is a pie shaped lot the minimum frontage is 45 feet.
Also any lots showing a side entry garage would have to follow
the existing standard setbacks.
Chairman Ring then asked for proponents /opponents from the
audience wishing to speak. 3
Mr. Dave Dodson, Planning Consultant from Newport Beach,
addressed the commission giving an overview of the project and
addressing the three issues as noted by CDD Koules.
Mr. Dodson commented they were providing a 25 foot
landscaped area adjacent to the project /freeway which will
consist -of a wall treatment along the property line with
mounds, landscaping, etc., and which will be dedicated to the
City. He (Dodson) noted they have a.plan to incorporate the
loop road system to access all the properties and to divide
it into . different residential types, one for
5,000 6,000 and 7,000 sq. ft. properties. The 5,000 sq. ft.
+ lots have been located on the perimeter - these being the more
}� affordable housing complexes. The interior is 6,000 and 7,000
sq. ft. products. Mr. Dodson also noted there is a large
ravine running through the project they would like to
retain which has been incorporated within the park that will
run adjacent to the potential school site throughout the
project and then link up with another proposed park for open
space area that runs along the existing creek on the south
side of Fourth Street. The intention is to provide a park for
the community as well as the school and also to provide a link
since it is envisioned along the creek there will be some sort
of recreational trail. He noted they tried to create a
community that is self sufficient, thus, the reason 2 acres
will be a retail commercial corner. Mr. Dodson explained
there would be a 20 ft. rear yard setback for 2 story homes;
however, they do not have the setbacks for garages on lots
with sideyard entries with CDD Koules commenting that a corner
lot would require a side street setback of 15 feet. Mr.
Dodson then commented that their biggest concern is the 45
feet requirement on the street frontage for lots on cul-
de -sacs.
Commissioner Prouty wanted to know how fire access would occur
if there are trains blocking the tracks.
Mr. Wes Alson, County of Riverside Fire Dept. addressed the
commission stating the only access now is Fourth Street. They
are proposing a second access on Highway 60, however, the
applicant has not responded to the Fire Department's letter as
yet. The train blocking the access continues to be a problem.
Mr. Alson noted that 35 dwelling units be the maximum until
the accesses are completed. He explained that if they could
be assured of the access on Highway 60, they would be able to
a L_ _i _t J_ .. ft -. ft .,A 1,o mhnoi+ a 99 minute resoonse
PC minutes of
March 199 1991
Page 3
access road is not going to be sufficient for both projects.
Also she noted this access (which is the secondary road) is
something that is being allowed until the overpass on Highway
60 can be implemented with the other projects in the area.
Mr. Joe DiCristina, Vice President with Robertson Homes,
addressed the commission noting that the problem with the 35
homes is that they have gone to Caltrans on a preliminary
basis and all they can get at this time from Caltrans is a
preliminary discussion of the access point. Caltrans will not
respond until they are supplied with a tentative map and this
is the reason they cannot guarantee to the City they will have
an appropriate access at that point. To hold them up with a
35 home limit is a hardship. Mr. DeCristina commented that he
understood the need for the access point and was willing to
work with the adjacent landowner to pay for the access and the
pavement for the road; however, if they are held up it will
kill the project.
Mr. Wes Alson, Riverside County Fire Department, stated *that
some type of guarantee was needed to hold the developer to his
obligation in putting in the secondary access.
COD Koules noted that possibly this was a more appropriate
issue to be discussed at the tract map submittal rather than
the specific plan approval. There is no intention in letting
this property develop beyond the parameters that are
satisfactory to Riverside County Fire Department.
Mr. Dave Dodson addressed the commission again noting they are
willing to agree with staff on the setbacks for 2 story with
20 feet and conditions of 15 feet on the side yard except;
however, they are still questioning the radius of the cul-
de -sacs.
COD Koules stated that staff's concern is that when you place
a house on a cul -de -sac pie shaped lot, your driveway width is
going to be two car widths so you take up 20 feet of that pie
and there is needed a flow where visitors and tradesmen would
have places to park their cars. He further noted that the
City Engineer and he would like to defer this question to the
tract map stage because certain cul -de -sacs would prompt one
type of layout and others might differ.
There being no one else wishing to speak from the audience,
Chairman Ring closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m., turning
the matter back to the commission for discussion.
.IMr. Tom Ryan, Chambers Group, addressed the commission noting
that the Scrub Oak Woodland in its present location would not
be retained. They have proposed that in the park area on
the southern part of the project, it would be possible to re-
established some of the Scrub Oak. The ravines would need
PC Meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 4
2. Find that changes or.alteration have been required in and
incorporated into the project which mitigate or lessen the
significant environmental effects thereof as identified in
the environmental impact report.
3. Recommend approval of 90 -RZ -9 prezoning 155 acres to
Specific Planning Area (SPA) 4.1 dwelling units to the
acre.
4. Recommend adoption of the attached Resolution of approval
for Specific Plan SP -90 -3 (Rolling Hills Ranch Specific
Plan SP- 90 -3), allowing a maximum of 632 residential
single family units. Also, recommend an amendment thereto
to require a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet for any
proposed two story residential structure. Furthermore,
any residential side entry garage development units on
corner lots shall provide 15 ft. side street setback on
5,0009 6,000 and /or 7,000 square foot lots either for
single and /or two story structures.
5. Recommend approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Report
Plan as attached No. 91- MMP -3.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6. 90 -RZ -7, 91 -GP -19 and 91 -ND -4, a request to change the General
Plan designation from Rural Residential (2 dwellings per acre)
to General Commercial and to change the zoning from R -A
(Residential Agricultural) to C -G (Commercial General) on
approx. 11.82 acres APN# 418- 310 -004 and 418 - 310 -005, located
at the southeast corner of First Street and Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, The Beaumont Partners /Beaumont Land Fund X.
CDD Koules informed
location at one of
Beaumont. Since the
requirement that the
parcels can be joine
plus acre parcel.
the commission that this is a unique
the gateway entrances to the City of
project site has two parcels, there is a
applicant file a parcel merger so the two
d and developed comprehensively as an 11
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :42 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. John Carvelli, addressed the commission informing the
commission that he was here to, answer questions.
PC Meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 5
2. The requested plan /zone amendment is reasonable for this
site and a logical extension of the commercial plan and
zoning designation existing immediately adjacent to the
west.
3. The proposed general plan amendment and zoning
reclassification will not have a significant impact on the
environment.
4. The 11.82 acre site would allow flexibility in introducing
a development proposal which could.serve as an enhancement
to a gateway entry into the City of Beaumont. Any
development proposal for this 6+ty 4oulck Pe subject to
Planning Commission review and approval'., .
Recommendation:
1. Recommend approval of 90 -RZ -7 zoning 11.82 acres (APN#
418 -310 -004 and 418- 310 -005 to C -G (Commercial - General)
zoning.
2. Recommend 'approval of 91 -GP -1 changing 11.82 acres (APN#
418 - 310 -004 and 418 - 310 -005 from General Plan designation
of Rural - Residential to Commercial General.
3. Approve Negative Declaration 91 -NO -4. The above actions
will not have a significant impact on the environment.
4. Recommend that the applicant file a parcel merger, merging
APN# 418 -310 -004 and APN# 418 -310 -005 within 30 days after
City Council action on the General Plan and zoning (per
applicant's attached letter).
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. 91 -PP -1 and 91 -ND -6, a proposed 22,000 sq. ft. metal
commercial building as office space and for coating
re- enforcing steel, located on the south side of "B" St.
between Viele Ave. and Elm St. Applicant, Western Coating.
CDD Koules addressed the commission noting that staff received
a revised letter from Riverside County Fire Department dated
March 18, 1991 which has been distributed 'to the commission.
He further noted he would like to make an amendment to staff's
Conditions of Approval No. 4, inserting the March 18, 1991
date.
PC Meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 6
"Applicant should comply with the Riverside County Health
Department requirements to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director."
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling approving Plot Plan 91 -PP -1 -with the amended
conditions of approval and recommending,. approval of Negative
Declaration 91 -ND -6 by City Council, since this project will
not have a significant impact on the environment. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
8. 91 -PP -2 and 91- AID -7, a proposed 441 unit mini - warehouse with
manager's residence, located on the north side of Sixth,
between Illinois and American Avenues and immediately east of
the Rusty Lantern Restaurant. Applicant, Aware Development
formerly Jasper Stone Development (87- PP -11).
COD Koules addressed the commission
recently received a letter. from
Department dated March 18, 1991, whit
No. 14 in the staff report. Also it
some changes to the march 18th
Department.
noting that staff had
Riverside County Fire
:h will change Condition
is understood there are
letter from the Fire
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :55 p.m.
asking for proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Jim McGillvray, Sanborn & Webb Engineering, addressed the
commission commenting the applicant was concerned about the
condition on the general roadway from the city engineer which
was clarified as Item 1.33.
Ms. Jolene Weiss, represents the applicant for ` Aware
Development, 6377 Riverside Avenue, Riverside, addressed the
commission stating she wanted to clarify Condition 1.33,
they would not be doing any relocation of power poles or
fire hydrants on the westerly portion of the property.
City Engineer Dotson then made a point of clarification
stating the conditions of approval require them to improve
(pointing to the map), down pass the Rusty, pass
Jimmy's to the intersection of Illinois. This improvement
requires existing curb and gutter in front of the Rusty and
Jimmy's be removed and replaced. Behind it are some power
poles and the intention is to replace the curb and
gutter only. The poles cannot be removed since there is
no right -of -way behind them. The condition does apply
PC Meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 7
know if these bonds can be applied to the new plot plan fees.
City Engineer Dotson stated he concurred and felt that the
condition should be stricken entirely.
Ms. Jolene Weiss then questioned Condition No. 6.04 (e) For
Various Fees.
City Engineer Dotson stated that he recommends this condition
remain since it is a matter that the city manager and city
council wishes to deal with; however, this condition can be
appealed.
Mr. Charles Ware, owner of the project, 6377 Riverside Avenue,
Riverside, addressed the commission commenting he did not
understand the last comment.
City Engineer Dotson again noted that you have the right to
appeal anything approved or disapproved by this commission.
COD Koules commented that it should be pointed out that at the
present time, the City is in the process of establishing
mitigation fees and that any forthcoming fee system would be
applied in a fair and equitable manner.
Mr. Charles Ware then asked that in his situation could he pay
the fees when the building permit is pulled instead of just
leaving them undetermined. Mr. Ware also commented about the
parking spaces. He wanted to know if he could be given credit
for parking in front and in aisleways along side of the
buildings. He mentioned they were only using 40 percent of
the property and did not want to take and eliminate the
building behind the manager's quarters for parking whenever
they have 3 1/2 acres to park. Mr. Ware went on commenting
that he also needed financial help in putting the off -site
improvements in.
COD Koules corrected Mr. Ware's statement regarding "40
percent usage of the site" indicating that the site is
proposed to be built to the maximum without any room left for
any additional building and that Mr. Ware's statement is
totally misleading.
Chairman Ring then closed the public hearing at 8 :13 p.m.
turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.
Ms. Karen Cudney, Fire Department, Riverside County, addressed
the commission noting items to be read into the record. Item
No. 4 Minimum Width is 24 feet in lieu of 38, also Item No. 15
is to be deleted in reference to Gate Entrances.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty to approve Plot Plan 91 -PP -2, subject to the amended
rnnHit.inna of nnnrnval and also recommend aooroval of Neqative
PC Meeting of
March 19,1991
Page 8
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
9. 89- TM -8(R) and 91 -NO -8, a proposed project consisting of 73
lots of single family homes, located on the southeast corner
of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Applicant, Thomas Shelton.
CDD Koules addressed the commission informing them that the
applicant and City Engineer needed to get together and work
out mutual acceptable approaches in preparing a tract map,
therefore,. it is requested that this item be continued to. the
meeting of May 21, 1991 so the applicant can work with the
City Engineer.
Mr. Tom Shelton, 11522 Seacrest Drive. Garden Grove, addressed
the commission questioning the turn - around and access from the
Fire Department's requirements. He strongly recommended that
the channel be maintained along its present line.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin to continue this project to the meeting of May 219
1991. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
10. 91- ANX -39 91 -RZ -2 and 91 -NO -5, a proposed pre - annexation
zoning from Riverside County R -1 (One Family Dwellings) to RSF
(Residential Single Family) on 5.15 acres, APN# 406 -181-
001, located on the south side of Brookside' Ave.. starting at
120 ft. west of Maureen Drive, and then westerly for approx.
415 ft. to Orchard Height Ave. Applicant, Allied, Group,
Inc. /Nick Saab.
CDD Koules presented the staff
for an annexation, noting that
backing onto the Deutsch
further explained that -this
development proposal.
report explaining the process
this property would be piggy -
Property annexation and
was not a tract map nor a
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
asking for proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
PC Meeting of
March 19, 1991
Page 9
Mr. Dick Reeley, 1105 Sunnyslope Ave., Cherry Valley,
addressed the commission commenting that it Wasn't true that
the City of Beaumont does not take in property that doesn't
want to come into Beaumont - gave an example of American
Avenue. Also he said he understood that the County would no
longer keep you if you were an island.
Mr. Jack Shresspury, 11036 Maureen Dr., Cherry Valley,
addressed the commission in reference petitions that had to
be gotten in order to kill annexations.
Ms. Lora King, 11027 Maureen Dr., Cherry Valley, addressed the
commission commenting that the land had already been divided
into lots with COD Koules stating the City had no evidence
that this property has been subdivided, he noted that the
record shows this to be one lot of 6.15 acres.
Mr. Darrell Barbarick, 40675 Norman Rd.,' Cherry Valley,
addressed the commission stating that at the time he purchased
his property you had to have an acre in order to build -
would like to see this maintained. Also, it is his
understanding that Cherry Valley is in the process of
incorporating and some of the property in question has been
proposed to the County for incorporation to Cherry Valley.
Ms. Andy Sheridan, 11066 Maureen Dr., Cherry Valley, addressed
the commission concerned as to who would help in the event of
an emergency, also questioned the flooding of Brookside.
Ms. Michelle Cushing, 40585 Lincoln Dr., Cherry Valley, again
addressed the commission with the question to Mr. Saab as to
why he wanted to annex this property to the City of Beaumont -
wants to keep a rural area.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public, hearing at 8 :48 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, recommending approval by City Council of Annexation
91- ANX -3, Zone Change 91 -RZ -2 and Negative Declaration 91-
ND -5, since there will not be a significant impact on the
environment. Motion carried unanimously with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further items for hearing, the meeting
adjourned at 8:441 p.m.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES Of
MAY 21, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Michael Burch was sworn in as a commissioner by mayor Connors.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of March 19,
1991 were approved with the following corrections to Page 2
and 5 as follows:
"three sq. ft." be deleted form page 2, third paragraph, line
seventeen.
"City" be deleted and "site" inserted on page 5, number 49
fourth line.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: At the City Council's meeting of May 13,
1991, Rolling Hills Specific Plan was approved by a vote of 3-
2 at its second reading; however, a council member has ask for
reconsideration of the second reading and the item will again
be placed on the June 10, 1991 City Council agenda.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89- TM -8(R) and 91 -ND -89 a proposed project consisting of 73
lots of single family homes, located on the southeast corner
of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Applicant, Thomas Shelton.
This item was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of
June 18, 1991.
5. 87- TM -8(R) Tract 23161, revision of a previously approved 201
lot subdivision on 63.01 acres in order to allow a lot
redesign of the easterly arm of the project, located at 14th
and Palm Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development.
This item was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of
June 18, 1991.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
6. 90 -TM -1 (Tract 25272), 91 -MND -1 and 91- MMP -4, for a proposed
subdivision of 37.65 acres, consisting of 159 single family
PC minutes of
May 21, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Charles Schultz, Reid & Hellier, 3880 Lemon Street,
Riverside, addressed the commission commenting he was
representing Mr. Charles Ware and that they are in agreement
with all the proposed conditions of approval but they would
however, like to have a couple of clarifications on the
conditions.
Mr. Bill Gable, Gable, Cook & Beckland, 547 N. Main St.,
Riverside, addressed the commission stating they would lose
about 5 lots in this tract if held to the 45' frontage. Also
that up until the council meeting last month, they had a
concensus among themselves that this tract would be alright
with the 40' frontage. However, in laying out the final map
they would attempt to make the 40' lots wider but doesn't feel
that every lot can be 451.
Chairman Ring noted that some lots were less than 40' wide
with COD Koules commenting that awhile back he and the
developer were talking about 40' wide lots, but then Rolling
Hills project came up and prior to the final revision, he
indicated by memo form to Jim Dotson he would like to see 45'
wide lots.
City Engineer Dotson addressed the commission explaining the
cul -de -sac lots and the .curb face, right of way and setbacks.
Mr. Charles Schultz noted that the intent of the design is to
ensure that there is enough room for the 16' driveway and the
parking of one vehicle. He also noted that the map and the
application indicate there are 159 lots however there are
154 lots with two remainder parcels which could result in a
total of 156 lots.
Mr. Charles Schultz went on commenting about the purpose of
the two remaining lots (at the and of'the Flood Control
Channel), that they were attempting to get their adjoining
neighbor to the north to agree to do a Lot Line Adjustment.
This way you would have a straight lot with the design
remainder adjacent to lot 114 and 113 which would become a
square lot with the remainder piece of this triangle becoming
an additional lot. He wanted clarification when and if these
would ever become legal lots and would they be acceptable in
two years as legal lots based on their design.
Commissioner Prouty questioned what the City's point of view
was concerning the two lots with COD Koules noting he did not
see how one could give ony warranty as to whether they will be
considered legal a couple of years from now.
Mr. Charles Schultz explained their intent was to square off
these two lots as the adjoining property owner comes in and
does a Lot Line Adjustment and they in turn exchange
}hroo nno hiinArnri }hc of on =nro nn nno onA aniita ro nff tho
PC minutes of
May 21, 1991
Page 3
Mr. Schultz went on to question Condition No. 8 and Condition
1.06. He wanted it clarified that on Condition No. 8
(agreement with Cherry Valley Parks for fee) that this
language does not call for an additional park fee by the City.
Also does not need language pertaining to the twenty -four
month approval. On Condition No. 1.06 for bond improvement,
he noted that some of the conditions of approval on Tract
23646 are also contained on this tract map and doesn't feel
the bond should be dup]4cative - doesn't want to double bond.
City Engineer Dotson explained that Condition No. 1.06 states
that on Tract 23646 the words "SHALL NOT" be offered to and
shall not be accepted by the City as sufficient security to
guarantee completion of required improvements within Tract No.
25272 was very clear. This protects the City from the
applicant subdividing the parcel.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring closed
the public hearing at 7 :40 p.m., turning the matter back to
the commission for discussion.
Commissioner Echlin asked about the status on Tract 23646 with
City Engineer Dotson commenting that the plans are near
completion; however, there is a critical document known as the
Marshall Creek Improvement Agreement which is the agreement
that binds six properties to mutually fund and construct this
Cougar Crossing and the Marshall Creek Improvement. It is a
complicated document and it too is nearing completion.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling recommending approval by City Council of 90 -TM -1
(Tract 25272), Mitigating Negative Declaration 91- MND -1, since
there will not be a significant impact on the environment,
Mitigating Monitor Plan 91- MMP -4, subject to the Conditions of
Approval, with the amendment that the fourteen (14) lots that
is presently designed to be 40' or less at the right of way,
be increased to a minimum of 42' at the right of way /property
line. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. 91 -PUP -1 and 91 -ND -9, a proposed 1,560 sq. ft. temporary
classroom building addition to an existing church complex
located at 1252 Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Calvary Baptist
Church.
CDD Koules presented the staff report noting that the
applicant is proposing a recreational building to the rear
PC meeting of
May 21, 1991
Page 4
COD Koules noted that in the conditions of approval there is a
time limit since the Public Use Permit is a special rivilege
and this project will be subject for review five r5) y eas
from date of approval.
Commissioner Prouty questioned the standards and asked if this
modular is held to the standards -of the UBC as far as its
electrical grounding, etc. with COD Koules commenting that the
building inspector would have to inspect and make sure that it
complies with the UBC. Commissioner Prouty commented that the
UBC does not require specific type of grounding of these types
of units which has been hazardous.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of Public Use
Permit 91 -PUP -1 and Negative Declaration 91 -ND -9, since there
will not be a impact on the environment, subject to the
conditions of approval with an amendment to Condition No. 8 to
read as follows:
Before occupancy of the temporary classrooms the applicant
shall meet with a representative from the Building and
Safety Department to meet all required regulations and
standards and to pass the 25 OHMS Meg test.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
8. 91 -PM -1 (PM 27045) for a proposed subdivision of 176 acres,
consisting of five (5) parcels (each greater than 20 acres).
Project is bounded on the south and west by Bth Street and
Interstate 10, on the north by Florence Street and Marshall
Creek and on the east by Elm Avenue. This' project has
previously received tentative tract map approval (89 -TM-
3) (Tract 24039) for 500 single family lots, complying with
prior approval of Specific Plan 88 -02 and EIR 88 -2. The
applicant now seeks to phase the project by proposing a five -
lot overlay on the prior approval of 89 -TM -3. Applicant, LNC
Properties LTD, No. 27/Premier Homes.
COO Koules presented the staff report noting the prior
approvals and stating that the applicant is now requesting to
overlay a parcel map on top of the tentative tract map
approval in order to phase the project and possibly have the
option of offering a portion of it to merchants. This does
not undermine or negate the conditions of approval on the
tract map or the EIR or the specific plan.
PC meeting of
May 21, 1991
Page 5
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m., turning the matter
back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Counpil of Parcel Map 91-
Pm -1 (PM 27045), subject to the conditions of approval.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Next meeting tentatively scheduled for June 18, 1991.
There being no further items before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherry- ylo
PC Se ary
attachments
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTTES OF
JUNE At 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling,, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting wa's read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of May 21,
1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules noted that at the June 10, 1991
Council meeting, Councilmember McLaughlin withdrew his motion
to reconsider Rolling Hills Specific Plan; therefore, the
plans stand approved per recommendation.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 89- TM -B(R) and 91 -NO -B, a proposed project consisting of 73
lots of single family homes, located on the southeast corner
of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Applicant, Thomas Shelton.
This item was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of
July 16, 1991, pursuant to applicant's request.
S. 87- TM -80) Tract 23161, revision of a previously approved 201
lot subdivision on 63.01 acres in order to allow a lot
redesign of the easterly arm of the project, located at 14th
and Palm Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development.
This item was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of
July 16, 1991, pursuant to applicant's request.
PUBLIC HEARING:
6. 90 -TM -1 (Tract 25272), 91- MND-wland 91- MAP -4, for a proposed
subdivision of 37.65 acres, consisting of 159 single family
lots, located on the northside of Cougar Way, approximately
2,000 ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, Charles Ware. (This item was heard at the Planning
Commission Meeting of may 21, 1991 but is being rescheduled
due to applicant's error in public notification).
CDD Koules presented the staff report noting that this item
was heard at the May 21, 1991 meeting, but to an error in the
public notification, the information provided to staff did
not show the 300' radius out far enough to cover the whole
PC minutes of
June 18, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Bill Gable, Civil Engineer with Gable, Cook &'Beckland,
representing the applicant, addressed the commission stating
he is in agreement with the staff report; however, he wanted
to make one thing a matter of record and that is the
"designated remainder lots" which was discussed at the meeting
of May 21, 1991. He would like to have the two designated
remainder lots be eligible for two building permits - feels
these two lots meets the minimum sizes and dimensions of legal
lots; they are being called designated remainders because they
are unable at this time to do a Got Line Adjustment with the
owners to the north because of some legal problems they have.
Sir. Gable feels they should have the option between now and
the time the final map is prepared to have these numbered lots
included in the map without coming back to the commission.
City Engineer Dotson explained that the reason for two
designated lots being considered as one designated lot is
to prevent any building. It is hoped that when this
development does come in that it will be straightened out and
the lots will then be consistent. If building permits are
allowed you will preclude any adjustment and will be
projecting the problem on into the next subdivision; thus
his recommendation is to leave it as a single designated
remainder which in effect says if you want to go ahead and
build one house on it fine.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
There was lengthy discussion by the commission with
Commissioner Prouty asking if there was someway that a park
could be mandated for this area.
CDD Koules noted that staff has shown that in larger projects
they have been sensitive to the open space and park
requirements; however, due to the cost of improving the
channel it might be an unreasonable burden on this applicant.
Mr. Bill Gable, again addressed the commission commenting they
had discussed parks with staff and it was part of the
environmental review package which is part of the report and
as Mr. Koules' stated because of the flood control channel,
it was suggested that they meet with the County Noble Creek
District and make an agreement with them to mitigate the park
issue. The developer is making a cash donation of $40,000.
to go into a fund the District has -for their Regional Park
issue on this project - this is how they have addressed the
park issue.
CDD Koules then noted that staff has a standard condition that
is in all reports whereby applicant meets with the City of
Beaumont and the Parks & Recreation District to determine fees.
PC Minutes of
June 189 1991
Page 3
is a potential of something like 800 residential units and
another 140 apartment - would a 5 acre park be sufficient for
900 family units?
Commissioner Prouty stated that the Park would serve all the
surrounding areas. The commission then decided that more than
one community park would be needed ranging in size from 2 to 5
acres.
Mr. Greg Barker, 1099 Pennsylvania Avenue, Beaumont, addressed
the commission commenting that what the commission is asking
is unjust and a financial burden on this development. He felt
that instead of another park, the money should go to help the
Parks & Recreation District finish some of their plans for
more park area which has been in the works for sometime.
Commissioner Prouty then commented that the financial burden
would be spread to all areas that would be bensfitted from the
parks.
Mr. Charles Ware, owner of the project, addressed the
commission stating he has been 3 years trying to get before
the planning commission to get this map approved and doesn't
feel it is fair at this time to ask him to wait for the City
to do an analysis to see -if they want to take some of his
property for parks. Noted there is a high school across the
street.
CDD Koules stated there is a real value in small parks since
people with families use these parks and if this can be done
in a fair and equitable manner it would be beneficial. He
noted that direction is needed from the commission and city
council and staff will negotiate parks as best they can.
Mr. Dotson explained the financial arrangements whereby the
residents who will be benefitting will pay for the facilities.
He noted however, that the real problem will come from the
development that has already occurred before this Park master
Plan was designed.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, the commission voted to defer this project for 60 days
to August 20, 1991, until the small parks issue is studied as
to where locations should be within this project (if any) as
well as future projects in the area. Motion failed for lack
.of a majority with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin and Prouty.
NOES: Commissioner Burch and Chairman Ring.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kisling.
This matter was again discussed at length by the commission
.i +1,
r;+.%, Fa rnni noon nn+ ann ata *inn 4-hav noori i natrm-+i nna
PC Meeting of
June 189 1991
Page 4
Chairman Ring stated he personally felt that this developer
should not lose acreage for a park after he has already gone
through the process - also what would the delay serve? Also
he would like to pass on to City Council the suggestion they
make lot sizes in the future no less than 45 feet widths on
cul -de -sac lots.
In response to Commissioner Burch's comment, Mr. Ware stated
he did not understand theif n nagreement ith saying
theyes
Parks
further, he had alrea d y signed a
District.
In response to Chairman Ring's comment, City Engineer Dotson
commented that it would allow time to report back on the
feasibility or the possibility of getting a site somewhere
in the neighborhood that would satisfy concerns. He also
noted they may come back with five 2 acre parks sprinkled all
around in the area - move the parks a little closer to the
areas of population rather than concentrate on a single 10
acre parcel.
Mr. Greg Barker, again addressed the commission stating that
these questions should have come up a long time ago for this
project. Comes a time when developer's cannot afford to keep
waiting and keep being put off 60 or 90 days or whatever the
time period is that you are asking.
Mr. Charles Ware, again addressed the commission wanting to
know how he could help the planning commission or city council
if his project is postponed and a site is recommended
somewhere else.
Commissioner Prouty noted that the only benefit he sees is if
the study came up that this project happens to be part of the
project.
Ms. Jolene Weiss, Aware Development, addressed the commission
commenting that they have to do significant improvements in
this project one of which is Cougar Crossing which is going to
be about $250,000 and the channel has to be put in which is
about a $1,000,000 - the amount of money that has to be
invested in this project is enormous. Doesn't feel it is fair
that Mr. Ware suffer for any planning that may or may.not have
happened. Ms. Weiss also noted that should the planning
commission defer this project, she would like for them to be
very specific on what they are asking the city planning and
the city engineer to review, what boundaries are they going to
look at for these parks.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin, the commission voted to recommend deferring this
project for 60 days until August 20, 19911 in order to allow
PC meeting of
June 189 1991
Page 5
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further items on the agenda, the meeting
adjourned at 8:15 p,-m.
Respectfully submitted,
fhadrry a to
Y Se retary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
AUGUST 209 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of June 18,
1991, were approved
the date d submitted.
for the The
heading secretary theaMlinutestto
record a change o
read "Beaumont Planning Commission Minutes of June 18, 1991•
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules informed the commission th as
City Engineer Jim Dotson and Associate Planner Doug
would be making most of the presentations since he had been on
vacation.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4. Parks /Open Space Area Study for the general area from 14th
Street to Brookside Avenue and from Beaumont Avenue to Cherry
Avenue. Applicant, City of Beaumont.
COD Koules informed the commission that at the meeting of June
18, 1991, staff was directed to prepare a park concept for the
northerly portion of the city. The planning department, city
engineer and have called ithisoF"Thetallorthr together
City Park Concept
done so
Plan".
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7 :05 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
City Engineer Dotson then read verbatim to the audience the
"Report to Planning Commission Regarding Providing of Parks
with New
Residential city Cougar Wa
Avenue", dated g 1, aswellasdisplaying
exhibits on this issue.
Mr. John Hart, Attorney with Reid & Hellyer, 3880 Lemon
Street, Riverside, addressed the commission stating they had
no comment to the concepts presented in the report but wanted
to address the applicant's participation on Tract 25272 in
funding some of these mini parks. They would have an
+h; c mart i rri nnf i nn fnr the laoal reason that it
Minutes of PC meeting
August 20, 1991
Page 2
Commissioner Echlin then asked (pursuant to Dotson's report),
if the City may be able to acquire the Edison easement for
free and wanted to know how this could be checked on. CE
Dotson noted that Mr. Shelton's tentative map has to include
the 100' wide strip in one of the conditions of approval ( in
the packets) and is labeled Lot 69 and Mr. Shelton is required
to deed this to the City in fee title.
There was discussion as to the location of the parks and
Edison's easement as a park with COD Koules noting that the
easement was meant as a riding trail and the concept was to
use the easement, the drainage channel, open space on large
projects to connect the whole horseback riding trail around
the city. CE Dotson noted that riding trails could fit very
nicely since there would have to be access roads.
CE Dotson went on explaining that the City Council
should get involved now and for the commission to request them
to ratify their action and then city council can bring in
consultants and create whatever park plan they feel is the
most desirable. He also explained that Deutsch Specific Plan
utilized the 400' easement for all sorts of parks.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7:35 P.M.
On motion by Commissioner Burch, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty requesting an expansion of the current report by City
Council, presented by the City Engineer on the parks /open
space issue and that they consider all alternatives in greater
detail. motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. 87- TIM -B(R) (Tract 23161), a revision of a previously approved
201 lot subdivision on 63.01 acres in order to allow a lot
redesign of the easterly arm of the project, located at 14th
and Palm Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development.
COD Koules informed the commission that the way the City
Engineer's Report reads is that you are looking to affirm the
North City Park Concept, consequently, items that will be
affected should be continued.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Burch to continue Items 5, 6, and 7, due to the parks /open
- f - - - M -1' -- - - -.-2 -J ..- _ -:-- -1 .. ...3 41.. 4.6- C.-.1 1 . -...,. --
Minutes of PC meeting
August 209 1991
Page 3
7. 90 -TM -1 (Tract 25272)9 91 -MNO -1 and 91- MMP -4, for a proposed
subdivision of 37.65 acres, consisting of 159 single family
lots, located on the northside of Cougar Way, approximately
2,000 ft. east of its intersection With Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, Charles Ware.
Continued when Item 5 was called.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8. 89- -PP -29 Am. #1, and 89 -ND -79 a request for a one year
extension for a proposed 32,827 sq. ft. mini - warehousing Allegheny
facility on 1.55 00acfeet north of on
Sixth Street. Avenue about Street. of Applicant,
Vincent Danise.
Associate Planner noting eConditione No.a 19 had report outlining
been added
the project and 9
COD Koules noted that it had been the practice in the past to
not go beyond the second extension and pursuant to
Commissioner's Prouty question, he further noted that the
commission could indicate to the applicant of their desire not
to have this extended another time.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Kisling, approving the second extension for Plot Plan
Bg -pp -2, Am. #1 and Negative Declaration 89 -ND -7 and notice
being given to isheropect. Motion would be the last with
extension for project.
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
9. 89 -TM -6 (Tr. 23646) and 89 -NO -99 a request for a one year
extension for a proposed 50 lot subdivision, located at the
north side of Cougar Way about 1800 ft. applicant,of Aware
interesection with Beaumont Avenue.
Development.
Associate Planner Eazekas presented the staff report noting
that Mr. Ware's letter was asking for an extension of 24
months; however, only one year extension are allowable.
Chairman Ring opened e public e •
for prop onents % o PP one ts from the audience wishing to speak
Mr. John Hart, Attorney with Reid & Hellyer, 3880 Lemon
Street, Riverside, addressedr the �FommissionA�statin ,g hey do
Minutes of PC Meeting
August 20, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Hart continued to speak regarding Tract 25272 commenting
they were not prepared to waive nor extend this project.
Commissioner Prouty y recordedheand commission will gohatoCity already Council
motion which as
for further review.
Mr. Hart stated the Government Code prohibits the commission
from attaching additional conditions on approvals for the
conditions that have already been recommended by staff.
Commissioner Prouty commented that this project was never
officially approved - was null and void due to the
notification.
Mr. Hart noted the applicant is in agreement with all the
conditions recommended by staff including participation with
the local parks group for contributions to local parks,
however, they object to the addition of new park requirements
that have been imposed subsequent to this application's
filing since at the time it was deemed complete. Government
Code Section 66474.2 states: "The local agency (commission or
city council) shall apply only to those ordinances, policies
and standards in effect at the date the local agency has
determined that the application is compatible or complete
pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code ".
INr. Hart went on commenting that the statute prohibits the
creation of additional conditions and it is inappropriate to
add new conditions since it is a new issue proposed or
attempted to be proposed upon this applicant after the
application was deemed complete. The applicant has reached an
agreement with the Beaumont Parks District to exchange
mitigation fees in lieu of parks space.
COD Koules commented that he felt we were co- mingling this
Item 9 with the other previous item that was continued and
felt that Commissioner Prouty was right in stating action had
already been taken on Item 7.
Chairman Ring then closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
asking staff for comments.
On motion by Commissioner Echlin, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending approval by City Council of a one (1) year
extension of Tentative Map 89 -TM -6 and Negative Declaration
89 -ND -9. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ARRTATN! NnnR_
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 149 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of August 209
1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules noted to the commission that
the Minute Order, dated August 26, 1991 by City Council,
pertaining to the Open Space Study Area was included in their
packets.
CON'T PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 90 -TM -1 (Tract 25272), 91 -MND -1 and 91- MMP -4, for a proposed
subdivision of 37.65 acres, consisting of 159 single family
lots, located on the northside of Cougar Way, approx. 29000
ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue. Applicant,
Charles Ware.
CDO Koules informed the commission that this item had been:
continued several times, it does propose 159 single family
homes and all are of minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. with an
average lot size of 69600 sq. ft. The proposal does most the
zoning for the area, the general plan and the applicant has
worked extensively with the City Engineer to set up a street
network as well as the improvement of the drainage channel.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.
asking for proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Bill Gable, Civil Engineer. representing Aware
Development, addressed the commission stating they had read
the conditions of approval and takes no issue with the
conditions.
Commissioner Burch ask if the map showing the 42 ft. frontages
for the cul -de -sacs had been redrawn with Mr. Gable stating
"yes, they have been changed and are to scale ".
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7 :07 p.m. turning the matter back
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 17, 1991
Page 2
Tract Map 90 -TM -1 (Tr. 25272), Mitigating Negative Declaration
91 -MND -1 and Mitigating Monitor Program 91- MMP -4, subject to
the conditions of approval. Motion carried with the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kisling.
5. 89- TA -8(R) and 91 -ND -89 a proposed project consisting of 73
lots of single family homes, located on
,
the southeast
Shelton.
of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. APP
COD Koules noted that this item had been continued and that
minimum lot size is 60000 sq. ft. Also the City Engineer has
incorporated several conditions similar to those on properties
in this general area.
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Thomas Shelton, 11622 Seacrest Or., Garden Grove,
addressed the commission stating he had a problem with
Conditions No. 3.03 and 4.01. Stated he was
willing to drill a well but would like credit for the cost of
the well. He commented that if these two issues can't be
resolved then he would like for his project to be continued.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Ring then
closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. turning the matter back
to the commission for discussion.
City Engineer Dotson responded to Mr. Shelton's comments
stating he would advise Mr. Shelton to withdraw his statement
asking for a continuance since he can request an appeal from
city council for these two conditions at the time of that
public hearing. He noted that this commission is in no
position to know all the ramifications that surround the
water WDSs Tract Mr. which says that the conditions
from drainage will
be underground.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Burch recommending approval by City Council of Tentative
Tract Map 89- TM -8(R) and Negative Declaration 91 -ND -8, subject
to the conditions of approval. Motion carried unanimously
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 17, 1991
Page 3
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Those speaking in opposition were:
Mr. Paul Coppage, 10011 Jonathan St., Beaumont, addressed the
commission commenting he was a baseball coach at Beaumont High
School and stated that at this point they have the only
regulation size grass infield and baseball field in the City
of Beaumont and that he is here tonight to protect something
that is used by the youth in the community. He noted that the
contractor informed him that the field could be relocated
because they wanted to put a street through 60 eet right tthieldfi which
the school would be giving up
The school district did have a proposal whereby they would
try to relocate the field and the contractor was in some sort
of an agreement with this. The last thing he (Coppage) heard
concerning this relocation was that it cost too much money so
the project was dropped.
Mr. Bob Jones, 305 Tenth Place, Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating he was the principal at Beaumont High
School and commented that the developer came to the school
district with a lan to put in six or seven additional lots.
They (the school had no problem with that so long as their
primary responsibility to provide for the education and well
being of their students were met. Apparently the contingency
plan developed by the district was not adequate or cost too
much money or simply did not meet whatever prerogative that
WDS had so they (WDS) decided to circumvent that and come
directly to the commission in an attempt to annex school
property to get these additional lots. The simple fact of the
matter is that relocating a high school baseball field is not
a matter of simply moving the bases, chalking new basa-
paths and then starting up again. It is a very extensive
process. It is generally acknowledged throughout the De
Anza League of which Beaumont High School has been an active
participate for many years, that it is the single best, the
premier baseball field in that league. They are attempting to
protect the property rights and the current good conditions
they now enjoy.
Mr. Corky Cloudy, 1114 Radka Avenue, Beaumont, addressed the
commission stating he was the high school varsity basketball
coach and the assistant baseball coach and commented that the
school is growing and if you take land away from the
field it would be a shame - it's the best field in the DeAnza
League. Feels there are some things that can be worked out
but they have to work within the concept "that if they're
giving something they have to get something in return. Have
to look at the options.
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 179 1991
Page 4
Mr. Robert Guillen, 126 W. 5th St., Beaumont, Assistant
Superintendent of Business, addressed the commission stating
they had been working with WDS in the past on this matter. A
letter was sent on May 21, 1991 to Mr. James L • Dotson but
they had no response. In this letter, however, they stated
the initial cost of restructuring the baseball facility.
Their staff believes that the direct alignment of Cedar View
Drive does provide a benefit to WDS by allowing additional
lots to be developed and by releasing the potential homeowners
from obligation of an annual assessment to pay for storm drain
improvements - so there is a cost savings to WDS. He stated
they have not received a response from this letter from
anyone. Mr. Guillen ask that this not be approved and that it
be continued for further discussions.
City Engineer Dotson was then asked to comment on this project
and read the first page of his conditions for the audience.
He noted that this tract was originally approved by city
council in its entirety on May 23, 1988 and because the
developer opted to complete the subdivision in phases, special
conditions for Phase I were prepared pursuant to the
Provisions of the Map Act. Prior to the council approving the
original map in 1988 and continuing until now he has had
severe concerns about developing the most easterly portion of
this tract which resembles and will be called "Panhandle ".
In early 1988 the developer was encouraged and did attempt to
give the panhandle property to the adjacent Beaumont High
School - which offer was rejected. There are three maps which
depicts different roadway alignments and he (Dotson) proceeded
to place them on the wall explaining each calling them Version
1 through 3. The city council insisted that Version 1 was to
be adopted because it was desired to have a connection between
Palm Avenue and Cherry Avenue (Dogleg Version). Both Version
1 and 2 presented problems and the only reason that a
tentative map for Phase 2 of Mr. Simonian's tract is before
the commission is because he (Dotson) ask for it. Mr.
Simonian did not ask and was content to do whatever the city
said. Mr. Dotson went on to say he was here now because he
believes Version 3 which takes off a sliver of ground from the
baseball field is the most preferable to the city. Version 3
however, presents some difficulties which the commission must
consider, but it will in its completion alleviate the flooding
of 14th Street since as it has been pointed out Mr. Simonian
would have to put in a storm drain which would pick up the
water coming from the high school. Mr. Dotson noted that
three of the school people here tonight said that the school
had prepared some sort of a plan for the high school baseball
field to be remodeled - the high school made no such plan,
instead Mr. Simonian paid for and hired Roger Deutschman a.
Landscape Architect to make such a plan and, the high school
baseball field to be rotated according to this plan for
$112,000. Mr. Dotson went on to say that two of the school
__1 - L+_ __ LL_ _..J2_,_- __IJ iL_t LL. - 1R - - -L L -- - - - - -- 1
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 17, 1991
Page 5
Chairman property then asked Si oniane in school
the district
placed With take
the proper y
Dotson stating he did not know.
Mr. Sieonian commented from the audience that he had a letter
from the school district, which Mr. Dotson read: "The purpose
of this letter is to inform you that upon review by the
District, the District does not desire that you dedicate any
property in your tentative tract 23161 to the Beaumont Unified
School District, Sincerely, John Thornsley ".
Mr. Robert Guillen, addressed the commission again commenting
that the Office of Local Assistance (OLA) has to approve where
sites relating to schools can be located. They cannot locate
too many sites near power lines. To take this land the OLA
has to give their permission which would require studies to
see if it is a healthful environment.
Mr. Dotson commented that he would be very willing to sit down
again with the school and with Mr. Simonian; however, he is a
little reluctant to do so when the school says give and they
(the school) don't give.
Mr. Matt Russo, again addressed the commission commenting that
it may be that the school district people do not have an
engineer working for them with Mr. Dotson stating "they have
several ". Mr. Russo didn't think the school district had
really taken a look at the whole issue and suggested that this
be given a little more time which would be best for
everybody to look at again.
Attorney Ryskamp stated the testimony of
clear in his mind as to whether or not
actually asked OLA to review the site
Mr. Robert Guillen, again approached th
they had looked at other elementary sites
has said no to those sites.
Mr. Guillen was not
the school district
or respond to it.
s commission stating
farther down and OLA
Attorney Ryskamp noted to Mr. Guillents statement that the
district decided that OLA would say no to this request so no
request was made.
City Engineer Dotson then asked Mr. Guillen what would be
their preference if the land was given to them - would you
want it? Mr. Guillen commented they would have to research
this at this point.
Mr. Bob Jones, wanted to know what requirements would be
placed upon the district if this land was accepted with Mr.
Dotson stating the city is not in the business of dictating to
anybody that owns land that they have to do something with it.
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 17, 1991
Page 6
Mr. Dotson commented that the former council with the
exception of one council member, insisted that this road be
carried through.
On motion by Commissioner Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Echlin to continue this project to the meeting ofNovember Mr.
1991, in order to give the school district, Mr. o
Simonson time to unanimously matter at
following rollecallevots:
Motion carried unan Y
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Kisling, Burch, Prouty and
Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
7. 91- PUP -2, 91 -V -i, and 91- ND -10, a request for a front yard
setback variance from 25 feet to 10 feet for a proposed front
narthex consisting of 480 sq. ft, as an addition to an
existing church located at and
1234 Palm Avenue* Permit
church comple
Ave ue. Applic nt, San
,
Gorgonio Catholic Church.
COD the
staff seeking explaining the narthex
and the va riance which
Chairman Ring then opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
asking for proponents/ opponents from the audience wishing to
speak.
Mr. Ray Strobe, 666 West Gilman, Banning, addressed the he is the project architect and they had
commission with stating a d concurs with the conditions of approval.
worked with
Mr. Manuel Baldi, Member of the Parish, addressed the
commission commenting he had worked with staff and concurs.
Ms. Zola Narem, 12th and Palm, Beaumont, addressed the
commission speaking whereo this building audience
would wanting some
clarification and if was
going to be three stories high.
Mr. Manuel Baldi clarified her concerns.
There being no one else wishing
the public hearing at 8:04 p.m.
commission for discussion.
to speak, Chairman Ring closed
turning the matter back to the
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner
Burch to approve Public Use Permit 91- PUP-29 Variance 91-
con and of a approval. claMotion carriedlunanimously with the
condition
Minutes of PC Meeting
.September 17, 1991
Page 7
These two items were discussed at length by the commission
with Commissioner Burch commenting there is a need to have
larger lot sizes since lot sizes seem to be getting smaller
rather than larger which will eventually create problems. He
commented that he wanted to start the process of increasing
the lot size of single family dwellings as Well as reviewing
residential high density zoning and general plan designations.
Attorney Ryskamp wanted to know if all residential single
family units built in the city are to be nothing smaller than
7,000 sq. ft. with Commissioner Burch stating "that's what I
prefer".
The specific plan zoning was then discussed with Mr. Ryskamp
pointing out that you are dealing with about 4 different areas
and types of zoning in a specific plan. He further noted that
our Title 17 does not have any requirements on specific plan's
- they are created for each individual specific plan and a
specific plan has to have a density declared.
COO Koules explained that when a specific plan comes through
for processing then the zoning ordinance Title 17 is put on
hold. It is possible that even if you adopt the 7,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size for the zoning ordinance there could be the
latitude of allowing a smaller lot size in the specific
plan. He further commented that he felt it would not be wise
to take the latitude away from the specific plan.
Attorney Ryskamp brought to the commission's attention that
with this increased lot size you would eliminate a lot of the
flexibility that currently exists in the trade off such as
park developments, etc. He (Ryskamp) noted that he felt the
question should be asked if a subdivision with 5200 sq. ft.
lots with affordable housing is more desirable then using this
same land for multiple density housing.
Mr. Matt Russo, speaking from the audience, commented that he
did not think 6,000 sq. ft. lots were. unreasonable for
single family zoning. The key is to find those developers who
want larger lots but yet leave the bottom -end open since
anything below 6,000 sq. ft. needs to be approved by the
commission and city council.
COD Koules in response to Commissioner's Burch's concern over
the high density residential zoning outlined the various
densities on the zoning map and commented that he would look
at the areas zoned high density residential which are vacant
and then come back with a report evaluating those vacant areas
of high density and come up with a proposal. He would also
look at lot size's and come up with a tentative revision of the
zoning ordinance to indicate the options available to the
planning commission.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF (SPECIAL MEETING)
OCTOBER Be 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Prouty and Chairman
Ring. Commissioner Kisling was excused.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of September
17, 1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: C00 Koules informed the commission that at
the City Council Meeting of September 23, 1991s they (Council)
discussed the recommended 45' minimum lot width requirement
for cul -de -sac and knuckle residential lots; however, the City
Council favors a 55' minimum lot width. Mr. Koules stated
that at this time his recommendation would be that action be
deferred until some design input from the City Engineer and
others interested in the practicality of a 55' minimum width
requirement be received. He (Koules) also noted that he felt
55' minimum width would create lots. that would be 139000,
14,000, and 159000 sq. ft. and this would discourage the
developer to layout land use with cul- de- sacs.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
4. Minimum lot size requirement of 7,000 square feet in the
Residential Single Family (RSF) zone.
C00 Koules explained to the commission that the way the Zoning
Ordinance, Title 17 is now written under the Residential RSF
zone it does allow the imposition of a'7,000 or 8,000 sq. ft.
lot minimum if that is the desire of the Planning Commission
and City Council. He commented he had checked this
interpretation with the City Attorney, George Ryskamp' and he
concurs that you do have the latitude to do this. He
cited the Three Rings project when it came before the
Planning Commission and although it was a specific plan with
its own zoning in the specific plan text, the .action of the
Planning Commission was to impose the same standards as the
RSF zone but with the 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lots. He noted
he is trying to offer the greatest latitude to both the
Planning Commission and City Council since there might be.
times to go with the 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Also there might be
certain instances when you want to trade -off for a small
park or other use or even a change of zoning from high zone to
Minutes of PC Meeting
October 8, 1991
Page 2
5. Existing Residential High. Density (RHD) zoned areas and High
Density Residential General Plan designation areas within the
City.
CDD Koules presented to the commission a land use map of the
high density (RHD) zoned area that he prepared through a
field -check of the area. He outlined the areas that Were
built -out and those that were vacant land. He (Koules) also
pointed out to the commission that there should be no pre-
judgment of any vacant pieces of land that might be before
them in the future for consideration.
After lengthy discussion, CDD Koules noted that the general
plan is currently being updated by consultants retained by the
city and that the state mandates that zoning be brought into
compliance with the general plan. He further noted that any
such actions would have to be advertised for public hearings
and the commission should indicate their concerns so that at
the time of the general plan update all the land within the
city that is designated residential high density be reviewed
at that time.
On motion by Commissioner Burch, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty recommending that at the time of the general plan
review, the residential high density areas that exists in the
city be reviewed and any changes be taken at that time.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Echlin, Burch, Prouty and Chairman
Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kisling.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Ring announced that the next meeting would be
November 19, 1991.
There being no further items 'for discussion, the meeting
adjourned at 7 :37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cherr ay
PC Se retaf
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 19, 1991
Meeting called to Order at 7 :00 p.m.
Roll Call: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
Commissioners Echlin and Burch were absent.
The Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Special meeting of the Planning
Commission of October 8, 1991, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: COD Koules distributed the Project Status
sheet to the commission identifying approved, pipeline and
pending projects as of November 1991. He (Koules) reminded
the commission that next Monday, November 25, 1991, the City
Council would be swearing in the new Council members and
electing a mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
4. 87- TM -8(R) (Tract 23151), a revision of a previously approved
lot subdivision on 63.01 acres in order to allow a lot
redesign of the easterly arm of the project, located at 14th
and Palm Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development.
CDD Koules informed the commission this was a project approved
back in 1987 with over 200 lots, 75 of which have been built
out. After several continuances and negotiations with the
school district, the applicant (see attached letter) requested
withdrawal of his application.
On motion by Commission Kisling, seconded by Commissioner
Prouty to accept the letter of withdrawal from WDS
Development, Tentative Map 87- TM -B(R). Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Echlin and Burch.
ABSTAIN: None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
5. 89- CUP -2, Amend. B. and 89- ND -14, one year extension of time
for a proposal to construct a 4,100 sq. ft. manufacturing
building addition to an existing 21,000 sq. ft.
-.- - - t-_ _t.. -_ -- /. — :-- ----I ..v -o-A i- nnno +rPon +i e%n r%f a
Minutes of PC meeting
November 19, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Steve Morgan, representative from Precision Stamping, spoke
from the audience stating they do want to be able to proceed with
their project; however, at this point and time the business
climate is not worthy of stretching themselves and thus the reason
for requesting a one year extension.
There being no one else to speak, Chairman Ring then closed the
public hearing at 7 :07 p.m., turning the matter back to the
commission.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner Kisling
approving a one (1) year extension for Conditional Use Permit 89-
CUP-2. motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Echlin and Burch.
ABSTAIN: None.
On motion by Commissioner Prouty, seconded by Commissioner Kisling
to cancel the Planning Commission meeting for December 1991 and
that the next meeting be held January 21, 1992.
AYES: Commissioners Kisling, Prouty and Chairman Ring.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Echlin and Burch.
ABSTAIN: None.
At the direction of the Planning Commission, COD Koules will
prepare a staff report for the Planning Commission Meeting of
January 21, 1992 which will consider that Landscape requirements
be done before actual project developments on specific projects.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting adjourned
at 7:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
fherrayl Se reta