HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 3CITY OF ins
LPL LSINOR E
` DREAM EXTREME-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: BOB BRADY,
CITY MANAGER
DATE: MAY 3, 2011
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304: A REQUEST TO
SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 3.17 ACRE SITE INTO THREE (3)
PARCELS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
(RSF) DISTRICT OF THE TUSCANY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
APPLICANT/ DOUGLAS PINNOW, 7 VIA DEL LAGO, LAKE ELSINORE,
OWNER: CA 92532
Project Request
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 3.17 acres of land into three (3) individual parcels
pursuant to the requirements of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, Section 16 "Subdivisions"
of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and Section 66424 of the California
Subdivision Map Act (CSMA).
Project Location
The 3.17 acre project site is located at 7 Via Del Lago. Access to the project site is
available from Via Del Lago.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 1 of 84
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304
May 3, 2011
Page 2 of 5
Environmental Setting
The site is bounded on all sides by existing residential land uses.
Project
Existing Single
R -SF (Residential Single
Tuscany Hills Specific
Site
Family Residence
Family)
Plan
North
Existing Single
R -SF (Residential Single
Tuscany Hills Specific
Family Residence
Family)
Plan
South
Vacant
R -1 (Single Family
Low Medium Density
Residential
Residential
East
Existing Single
R -SF (Residential Single
Tuscany Hills Specific
Family Residence
Family)
Plan
West
Vacant
R -SF (Residential Single
Tuscany Hills Specific
Family)
Plan
Protect Description
The proposed parcel map will subdivide the
residentially zoned land into three (3) sep
residence and detached garage and two lot
aforementioned 3.17 -acres of single family
irate parcels (one with an existing owner
suitable for future development of single -
family residences). Grading for the two unoccupied pads and associated driveway
entrance was completed in 2009 under city permit. The two pads are currently used for
sport courts, but they were designed to have dual purposes as either sport courts or future
building pads for single - family residences. Parcel No. 1 will be 1.00 acres (43,560 square
feet), Parcel No. 2 will be 1.00 acres (43,560 square feet), Parcel No. 3 will be 1.17 acres
(50,965 square feet).
Background
On March 1, 2011, the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission expressed concerns relating to the following items: 1) technical corrections to
the map (i.e. property description, numbers on the scale bar, more definitive property
lines); 2) the shared driveway of Parcels 2 and 3, and 3) lot compatibility with neighboring
lots. The Commission encouraged the applicant to consider an alternative subdivision of
the property into two (2) parcels instead of three (3). The Planning Commission elected to
continue the project to May 3, 2011 to allow the applicant and staff sufficient time to
address the identified concerns.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 2 of 84
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304
May 3, 2011
Page 3 of 5
Analysis
In an effort to address the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicant has provided a
revised Tentative Parcel Map addressing the correction items to the map, as well as letters
dated April 14, 2011 responding to the other Planning Commission items of concern. The
April 14 correspondence includes historical correspondence between the applicant and the
City's Community Development Department. The following is in response to the previously
identified Planning Commission concerns.
• Parcel Map Corrections The applicant has revised the Tentative Parcel Map (ref.
Exhibit). In addition, the applicant has provided a letter identifying the changes (ref.
Attachment 1).
• Shared Driveway and Access In Attachment 1, the applicant states and provides
and Exhibit to illustrate that shared driveways are relatively common in Tuscany
Hills and that four (4) of the twenty one (21) homes in Tuscany Hills Estates have
shared driveways. Further, the applicant's Engineer, at the March 1, 2011 Planning
Commission meeting indicated that the applicant/property owner (Mr. Doug Pinnow)
would be responsible for perpetual maintenance and upkeep of the common
driveway.
• Lot Compatibility The applicant maintains that the project is consistent with the
Tuscany Hills Specific Plan R -SF Zone minimum 5000 square foot lot and average
5500 square foot lot requirements. Further, the applicant believes that the creation
of larger lots (larger than what the Specific Plan requires), will be beneficial to
property values in the immediate area (Attachment 3).
The applicant has elected to stay with the proposal of a 3 Lot Parcel Map. The applicant
has provided a letter (Attachment 2) explaining his position and reasoning for a 3 Lot
Parcel Map in lieu of a 2 lot division.
The proposed creation of three (3) individual parcels complies with the applicable
development standards (i.e. lot size, lot frontage) of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (R -SF
District). The proposed Parcel Map also satisfies the requirements of Chapter 16
"Subdivisions" of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the California Subdivision Map
Act (CSMA) by providing the required technical information and meeting or exceeding the
minimum standards under the applicable General Plan and Specific Plan designations.
Chapter 16.20 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code provides additional considerations in
evaluating the proposed lot sizes. Specifically, 16.20.20 "Size Requirements" states as
follows:
A. All lots shall meet the area, frontage, width, depth, and building setback requirements of
the zone within which said lots are located; provided, however, that in its consideration of
any land division, the City Council may determine that a greater than minimum lot size is
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 3 of 84
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304
May 3, 2011
Page 4 of 5
necessary:
1. For the proper protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
2. To be consistent with the general pattern established in the vicinity; or
3. To maintain the value of property in the vicinity.
B. When lots or parcels twice ormore the required area or width are shown on a division of
land the City Council may require such lots or parcels to be so established as to make
practical a further division into allowable building sites, without injury to adjoining property.
C. Lot sizes and arrangement shall be compatible with lots in the surrounding area.
To assist the Planning Commission in evaluating lot compatibility, a map depicting the lot
size of the surrounding area is included as Attachment 5. City Planning and Engineering
staffs have reviewed the project, and have no concerns regarding the proposed request.
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project has been
deemed exempt pursuant to Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions). No further
environmental clearance is necessary.
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution No. 2011 - adopting findings that the project is consistent
with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and,
Adopt a Resolution No. 2011 -_ recommending to the City Council approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 based on the Findings, Exhibits, and proposed
Conditions of Approval.
Prepared By: Kirt A. Coury, K--c-11
Project Planner
Reviewed By: Justin Carlson9G
Redevelopment Analyst
Approved By: Robert A. Brady
City Manager 6V
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 4 of 84
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304
May 3, 2011
Page 5 of 5
Attachments:
1. Revisions to TPM 36304 letter dated April 14, 2011
2. Lot Split letter dated April 14, 2011
3. Explanation of lot compatibility "extracted from LEMU
4. Background letter regarding HOA de- annexation dated April 14, 2011
5. Assessor Parcel Map depicting lot size of the surrounding area
6. Three minute comment letter by Civil Engineer
7. Vicinity Map
8. Planning Commission Resolutions
9. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval
10. Draft Acknowledgement of Conditions of Approval
11. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes dated March 1, 2011
12. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 (reduction)
13. Full Size Plan
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 5 of 84
7 Via del Lago
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
April 14, 2011
Mr. Kirt Coury, Project Planner
Planning Division
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Dear Mr. Coury:
Subsequent to the initial Planning Commission hearing on March l I have made several
changes to Tentative Parcel Map 36304, summarized in Attachment A, to reflect various
comments made by the Commissioners at the hearing. This letter is to forward ten (10) copies of
the revised full size map and one (1) copy of an 11" x 17" map. Please note that I have also
attached another copy of this map that is marked using red -lines to highlight the specific changes
that have been made.
While the revised map continues to show a split of my lot into three parcels, I'd like to assure
you that I have given serious consideration to the suggestion made at the hearing to limit the lot
split into two parcels.
Quite frankly, I was rather surprised that the 2- parcel suggestion was made, because I had been
of the opinion from the time that this project was initiated that the 3- parcel split would be in the
best interest of both me and the City.
My logic here is quite simple. Since I moved into my present home in 2003, I have always
desired to have a full (rather than partial) view of Canyon Lake from my house. I realized that
both tentative Parcels 2 and 3 would offer that feature with level pad sizes considerably larger
than the one my present home is sited on and, in fact, larger that the average lot size on my street
(Via del Lago). Further, the spacing between any new homes built on Parcels 2 and 3 and the
closest nearby home would likely be greater than is typical for other homes on my street.
Based on the Illustrative Map I prepared at the City's request, the homes on tentative Parcels 2
and 3 would be spaced 150 feet and 190 feet, respectively, from the closest neighboring home.
This compares with an average nearest spacing of 97 feet for all of the existing homes on Via del
Lago. Hence the new parcels would offer a gracious set -backs from the neighbors, which I also
deem as a desirable feature.
Someday, I had hoped to be able to build a new home for me and my wife on either tentative
Parcel 2 or 3. So, I'm not motivated like many builders whose main objective is to finish a
house and then depart with a sales profit. Rather, I'm very concerned about the impact on
property values in the vicinity and considered both of these parcels to be more desirable home
sites than Parcel 1, where my present home is located. Further, I'm of the opinion that either of
A 1 , C4 P 3
Page 6 of
these new parcels would be at least as desirable as any other existing home site on my street. So,
you can see why I was surprised that the suggestion was raised at the March I" meeting to limit
the lot split to 2 parcels in view of Section 16.20.020 of the City's Code.
After the meeting, I carefully reviewed this section of the code and concluded that the
Commissioner's concern must have been related to the provision in Section 16.20.020 A of the
Code ...that a greater than minimum lot size is [sometimes] necessary... To maintain the
value of property in the vicinity.
After living on Via del Lago for eight years, it seemed obvious to me that the 3 -way lot split
would preserve property values in the vicinity. However, this viewpoint, apparently, is not
obvious to some of the Commissioners. For those Commissioners who have not yet visited and
personally seen Parcels 2 and 3, there is a series of photographs in Attachment B, providing a
visual introduction to these tentative parcels. The photographs convey the general spaciousness
and certainly do not give the impression that thee parcels are in any way similar to home sites in
Tuscany Hills other than those in Tuscany Hills Estates.
However, to directly address the impact of the lot split on property values in the vicinity, I have
retained a Certified General Appraiser, Noble Tucker, who has MAI and SRA credentials and 27
years of experience in appraising properties in our area, including the entire Audi Murphy Ranch
project. In numerous cases, he has served as an expert witness in real estate appraisal matters.
He plans to have his work on the lot split completed by the time the continuation hearing is held
on May 3` so that he can present his summary findings to the Commissioners.
The only other issue that came up at the initial hearing which has not already been addressed is
that of using a shared driveway for both Parcel 2 and Parcel 3. Shared driveways are common in
Tuscany Hills and four (4) of the twenty -one (21) homes in Tuscany Hills Estates have shared
driveways, as shown in the map in Attachment C. Further, there is no objection to shared
driveways in the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan.
Finally, I'd like to conclude by mentioning that Section 16.20.020 B of the City's Code generally
encourages sub - dividing into smaller lot sizes where practical. This, presumably, is to maximize
the tax revenues to the City and County. While the 3 -way split is clearly in my best interest, this
code provision suggests it would be in the best interest of the City as well. I believe the
appraiser I've retained will have more to say about this at the May 3` meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas A. Pinnow
(951)674 -2590
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 7 of 84
ATTACHMENT A
Changes made to the Current Revision of
Tentative Parcel Map 36304
• Added property description.
• Added numbers to the dimension scale.
• Added dotted line showing easement between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2.
• Changed other existing easement lines to be dotted lines.
• Reduced the 10 foot easement width in Easement Note 43 to be a 6 foot
wide to be consistent with other easements.
• Increased the width of the "Future Turnout" on driveway to be equal to 26
feet.
• Changed the drawing date to March, 2011.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 8 of 84
ATTACHMENT B
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROJECT AREA
rarcei -i on ttie Lett.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 9 of 84
View down common
showing the dead -end of Via del Lago.
View taken from Parcel 3 of driveway split
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 10 of 84
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 11 of 84
Closer view of Parcel 2 with driveway split to the right of center.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 12 of 84
ATTACHMENT C
Map of the 21 lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates
� oB
38
NO .
E
rv" } p5ra1�P
m
p
c/
O
eo
u
n
>
U i+
u
y C
'
Ei
a �
e tj
I556.YWS Hep 6tt,J6S iG J5
'�'�
fl /VfflS /Of [OlM'iq C4L2 / �
y a
c
e
V
dO
hp
` I
>O
PI
r
C °
`d e
M.B. 206/7.12 irocr
No. 4/3 -4
n
354
03
This is not a survey of the la,'b Tat It comglad
for ieformalion only, not is it a pert of the repot
or polcy to which it may hs attechod.
FILiELIfY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Z" a .....o..
0 i m
e Q
.1950 8 O
A map showing all 21 lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates. The lot contemplated
for splitting is shown at the lower left and is highlighted in yellow. The four lots
highlighted in blue have shared driveways, as is contemplated for Parcels 2 and
3 after the lot split. The use of shared driveways is common in Tuscany Hills.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 13 of 84
NO .
E
rv" } p5ra1�P
m
p
2
�
O
u
Q
U i+
u
y C
'
Ei
a �
e tj
I556.YWS Hep 6tt,J6S iG J5
.1950 8 O
A map showing all 21 lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates. The lot contemplated
for splitting is shown at the lower left and is highlighted in yellow. The four lots
highlighted in blue have shared driveways, as is contemplated for Parcels 2 and
3 after the lot split. The use of shared driveways is common in Tuscany Hills.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 13 of 84
E
rv" } p5ra1�P
m
p
2
�
O
Q
U i+
y C
'
Ei
a �
e tj
I556.YWS Hep 6tt,J6S iG J5
'�'�
fl /VfflS /Of [OlM'iq C4L2 / �
y a
.1950 8 O
A map showing all 21 lots in the Tuscany Hills Estates. The lot contemplated
for splitting is shown at the lower left and is highlighted in yellow. The four lots
highlighted in blue have shared driveways, as is contemplated for Parcels 2 and
3 after the lot split. The use of shared driveways is common in Tuscany Hills.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 13 of 84
7 Via del Lago
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
April 14, 2011
Mr. Kirt Coury, Project Planner
Planning Division
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Dear Mr. Coury:
During the initial Planning Commission hearing on March I st, I stated that I had thoroughly
reviewed the planned lot split with Community Development Director, Tom Weiner, and his
staff in 2009 before initiating any grading to prepare for the lot split. This review included
submission of a conceptual map that is similar to Tentative Parcel Map 36304. During the
course of this review, many factors were considered, including lot size and density.
I further stated at the recent hearing that copies of the written correspondences between me and
the Community Development Department had been made available to you shortly before the
hearing. However, after the hearing, you advised me that there had not been sufficient time to
distribute this material to the Commissioners. Copies of these correspondences are included as
Attachments A and B to this letter to facilitate their distribution.
Before closing, I'd like to mention that the short forwarding note I sent you as part of
Attachment B indicated that:
This may be more background information than you'd be interested in reviewing. However, I've
included these additional e -mails for the sake of completeness.
In retrospect, the correspondences in Attachment B are particularly relevant to a number of
issues that were raised at the initial Planning Commission hearing. So, they are of a much
greater significance than I had originally thought.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas A. Pinnow
(951)674 -2590
A - R - AC a" I m Ntr3
Pag 14 of 84
ATTACHMENT A
The Tuscany Hills Specific Plan
with
Forwarding Letter from Tim Weiner
(dated March 5,2009)
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 15 of 84
--
March 5, 2009
Dr. Douglas Pinnow
7 Via Del Lago
Lake Elsinore CA 92532
Re: Tuscany Hills /Estates Property (7 Via Del Lago)
Dear Dr. Pinnow
Thank you for recently sharing conceptual information related to your property listed
above. We are ready to assist you with the permitting and entitlement process once you
are ready to move forward with your project.
As was discussed during our meeting, all Tuscany Hills Specific Plan guidelines must be
followed in order to subdivide and /or develop your property. In addition, all Engineering,
Fire, and Building Division requirements will also need to be adhered to. Development
standards from the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan has been included for your reference.
Thank you for giving the City of Lake Elsinore the opportunity to assist you. Please do
not hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions.
Sincerely,
Community Development Department
4�_.
Tom Weiner
Acting Community Development Director
Attachment
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 16 of 84
I 11C luuuwmg oevetopment standards shall apply in the R -SF Zone:
1. Minimum lot area The minimum lot area in the R -SF Zone shall be 5,000
square feet. The average lot area for the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan area
shall be 5,500 square feet.
2. Minimum street frontage The minimum street frontage in the R -SF Zone
shall be 50 feet, measured 35 feet from the sidewalk. Lots fronting on cul-
de -sacs and pie- shaped lots shall have a minimum street frontage of 30 feet.
3. Maximum lot covers e : The maximum lot coverage in the R -SF Zone shall
be 60 percent.
4. Minimum dwelling unit size The minimum dwelling unit size within the
R -SF Zone shall be 1,000 square feet exclusive of garage area, provided that
at least 20% of the total number of units within any phase shall exceed the
minimum square footage by 15 %.
5. Maximum building height The maximum building height in the R -SF Zone
shall be 35 feet, exclusive of chimneys and other appurtenances where the
maximum height is 37 feet.
6. Minimum setbacks The following setbacks shall apply in the R -SF Zone
(see Exhibit 19):
a. Front yard: 10 feet for main dwelling unit
b. Rear yard: 10 feet for main dweling unit;
5 feet for accessory structures
C. Side yard: 5 feet of level ground; 10 feet for corner lots
of which 5 feet shall be level ground; 5 feet
for accessory structures
d. Garage placement: Front yard setbacks for garages shall be 17 feet
with minor variations for grading and aesthetic
purposes permitted to a minimum of 10 feet
subject to the approval of the Planning
Commission.
e. Intrusions into
setbacks: Minor intrusions into setbacks will be allowed
for fireplaces, chimneys, eaves, balconies,
soundproofed pool equipment facilities and
other appurtenances as may be approved by
the Community Development Director or his
designee.
7. Parking The provisions of Chapter 17.66 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be
used to determine the required parking for development in the R -SF Zone.
41
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 17 of 84
luscAly
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURAL
SETBACKS
. ...
I ......
............ .. . . . . .
10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . I . . . . . . . . . . .
Lu
Lu
Lu
LOT B
10
. . . . . . . . . . .
.......... ......... . . . . . . . . . . .
......... ............ ............
STREET
MINIMUM SETBACK FROM STREET & REAR
PROPERTY LINE TO MAIN DWELLING UNIT
= DENOTES INTERIOR SIDE PROPERTY LINES
NOT TO SCALE
ssocieted
EXHIBIT 19
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 18 of 84
ATTACHMENT B
February 28, 2011
Attached are some additional correspondences
that I had with Tom Weiner and Cordie Miller in
April, 2009.
They re -affirm Tom's letter to me of March 5, 2009
[Attachment A] that the applicable guidelines for
the lot split are in the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan.
This may be more background information than
you'd be interested in reviewing. However, I've
included these additional e -mails for the sake of
completeness.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 19 of 84
Doug Pinnow
From:
"Doug Pinnovd' <Doug.Pinnow @ca.rr.com>
To:
"Tom Weiner' <7Weiner @Lake- Elsinore.org>
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2009 11:11 AM
Attach:
Subdivision Guidelines.doc
Subject:
SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS
92532
Mr. Tom Weiner, Acting Community Development Director
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Dear Mr. Weiner:
7 Via del Lago
Lake Elsinore, CA
April 6, 2009
We first met last month to discuss the criteria for subdividing the 3,17 acre lot in Tuscany Hills
where 1 reside. You may recall that my plan is to split this lot into three parcels, one with my
existing home and two new undeveloped lots. During our meeting, you were kind enough to
provide me with copies of the relevant section of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan guidelines that
must be followed. A copy of your forwarding letter, dated March 5d', is attached, above, for your
convenience.
Subsequent to our meeting, 1 reviewed the material you provided with my engineer and a
surveyor who I'm planning to retain to accomplish the lot split. The advice I received was that it
would be prudent to attempt to satisfy both the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan guidelines as well as
the City of Lake Elsinore's Zoning Code for R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(Chapter 17.23). While this seems to be a relatively straight forward task, there is one issue that I
would like to review with you at this time and request your feedback before I go forward with
the considerable expense of retaining the surveyor.
There is no problem in simultaneously satisfying the minimum 50 -foot street frontage specified
in the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and the 60 -foot minimum frontage called out in the Code for
R -1. There is more than adequate frontage to equal or exceed the 60 -foot frontage for all three
lots. The same can be said for all other aspects of the two documents except for one issue
covered in Section 17.23.060 Paragraphs C and D in the Code for R- 1. These two paragraphs
relate to lot areas for low density housing, as exists in the Tuscany Hills Estates where 1 live.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 20 of 84
Page 2 of 2
_. any change in a lot size which would leave the lot at a size at least seventy -five percent ( %) the
.size of the largest adjacent developed lot will he presumed appropriate, absent unusual
circumstances. Any application to change a lot to a size lower that said seventy -five (75%) standard
will he permitted only upon a showing 4fgood cause. Jt is the intent ofthis paragraph to set a
standard but also to allow flexibility.
The average size of each of the three lots that will be created after the contemplated split will exceed one acre.
As such they will be approximately 90% of the size of the existing residential lot (at 10 Via del Lago) directly
across the street from my home. But, they will be only about 55% of the size of my only adjacent neighbor's lot
(5 Via del Lago). Thus, there could be an issue relative to the 75% standard, mentioned above, in the Code for R-
I. On the other hand. I noted that there are already a number of exceptions to this standard on my street that were
previously allowed. For example, the lot area of 10 Via del Lago is 1.17 acres while the adjacent lot at 8 Via del
Lago is 2.22 acres, resulting in a 53% size ratio.
As 1 thought about this issue, it became clear to me that for the type of hillside property that extends the entire
length of my street, the total lot sizes are not nearly as significant as the size of the lots' flat pads in determining
the perceived density. On this basis, the new lots that I'm contemplating would harmonize well with all nine
existing homes on my street. The size of their flat pads (based on information provided to me by the developer,
Curtis Development, Inc.) range from 11,761 to 21,780 square feet with a average size of 16,843 square feet.
This can be compared with the pad sizes of the two new (undeveloped) lots that will be created by the split of
18,700 and 20,000 square feet. So, the new pads will actually be somewhat larger than the average size of the
existing ones.
Perhaps, I am over - thinking the situation by attempting to satisfy the Code for R -1 when you made it clear during
our meeting and in your March 5 letter that Tuscany Hills has their own Specific. Plan guidelines. In any event,
I would appreciate your help in providing clarity on whether the City will also consider the Code for R -I in
evaluating my proposed lot split and, if so, would the two new undeveloped lots each with over one acre in size
and flat pads of 18,700 and 20,000 square feet be acceptable to satisfy the intent of Section 17.23.060 of the
Code.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Douglas A. Pinnow
From:
'Tom Weiner" <tweiner @Lake- Elsinore.org>
To:
"Doug Pinnow' <Doug.Pinnow @ca.m.com>
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2009 2:44 PM
Subject:
RE: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS
Hi Doug,
It appears that conditions exist adjacent to you that fall short of the 75% requirement. This is due to the
To Hills SP not having this provision. The sizes you are proposing seem ok based on your
explanation, however, we of course would need to see a conceptual lot configuration on a map to
confirm.
Tom Weiner
Acting Director of Community Development
Cih• of Lake Elsinore
Community Development Department.
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
951.674.3124 ext. 270
951.471 .1419 (fax)
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 21 of 84
From:
"Doug Plnnow" <Doug.Pinnow @ca.rr.com>
To:
"Tom Weiner "<tweiner @Lake- EIsinore.org>
Sent:
Monday, April 06, 2009 3:10 PM
Subject:
Re: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your prompt response
I'll pull together a conceptual lot configuration and send it to you shortly
Regards,
Doug Pinnow
From: Doug Pinnow [mailto:Doug.Pinnow0ca.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5;23 PM
To: Tom Weiner
Subject; Fw: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS
Hi Tom,
Attached is the conceptual lot split configuration that you requested. The
same drawing is presented in both JPEG and Word Document format so that
you can select the one that's easiest for you to work with.
The existing lot is 3.17 acres and the proposed tot split lines are shown in
red. The new lots are numbered Lot #1 (existing residence), Lot #2
(undeveloped) and Lot #3 (undeveloped).
The flat pad areas have a green border and the driveways are highlighted in
yellow. By the way, the flat pad area for my existing residence is 12,632
square feet. You can see the the new pads will be considerably larger that
this.
If you require any further information, please let me know and 1 will pull it
together.
Regards,
Douglas Pinnow
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 22 of 84
\
\ 1
I 1 �
I I
I 1 I
I \
t
` ; I
I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I i it
1
1
1 \
\
\
_ I
/
Y
r
I 1
PAD M59
i : 214
II
[[I ) 1
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
FOR
PINNOW PROPERTY
7 Via Del Lago
Lake Elsinore
TRACT MAP NO. 17413 -4, LOT 4
APN- .6T_3sns?1
yk. 1 I
\
e6I91Nf.�[ i �"1 1
I I 1 1
1 I
1 I 1 I
I 1
I
_ A \
I
I \ AE
,
N35<NJ� 11 1 \ 1 \ t —
i __ icy
�
1 _
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 23 of 84
From: Tom Weiner
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 7:36 AM
To: Cordie Miller
Subject FW: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCMIY Hit I r
Hi Cordie,
Can you please follow upwith this. info is in the string of a mails. The property owner is doing his due
diligence before spending money on a Civil to draw upsubdivision plans. The property is in Tuscany Hills
SP. Thanks!
Tom Weiner
Ading Director of Cominuiih Dec rlolmtenl
City of Lake Ekimml
f.omnrurity Development Pepertmenl
1.304. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 9?510
951.6743124 exl. 270
9 5t.471.1419 ( €axl
From:
"Tom Weiner <tweiner @Lake- EWnom.org>
To:
" Cordie Miller' <cmillerQLake- Elsinore.org>
Sent:
Monday, April 13, 2009 12 :41 PM
Attach:
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT002.jpg; Proposed Lot Split.doc
Subject:
FW: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY I-gLLS
Hello Cordie,
Mr. Pinnow called me indicating that he has not received a response on this. Please follow up as soon as
possible. Thanks.
Tom 1•Wrincr
Arling fhrmter of Cxln ntunil} DoN clopment
Cih of Lake Elsinore
( onmlunilp DevclupmenL department
1.3115. Maui ,treel
Lake EISLI10rr, CA 925.30
931..6 exl. ? ?ft
951.471.141 U (fax)
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 24 of 84
From: "Doug Pinnow" <Doug.Pinnow @ca.rr.com>
To: 'Tom Weiner" <twemer @Lake- Elsinore.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your follow -up with Cordie Miller.
However, I remain confused. Are the Development Standards from the
Tuscany Hills Specific Plan that you gave me on March 5th the applicable
standards - or is there something else that is complicating the review of the
conceptual lot split that I sent to you last week?
I ask this question because it should only take about five minutes to review
the conceptual lot split for total conformance with the Standards from the
Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. All three of the proposed new lots have more
than the minimum street frontage and much more than the minimum area
specified in the Plan.
If you need any further information to complete the review, please let me
know at your early convenience.
Best regards,
Douglas Pinnow
From: "Doug Pinnow" <Doug.Pinnow @ca.rr.00m>
To: 'Tom Weiner" <TWeiner @Lake - Elsinore.org>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 8:17 AM
Subject: Fw: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS
Hi Tom,
Please advise approximately when I can expect a response from the City on
the acceptability of the proposed lot split
Thanks,
Doug Pinnow
(951 )674 -2598
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 25 of 84
From:
'Tom Weiner' <tweiner@Lake- Elsinore.org>
To:
"Doug Pinnow" <Doug.Pinnow @ca.rr.com>
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 2009 1:39 PM
Subject:
RE: SUBDIVISION PLAN IN TUSCANY HILLS
Hi Doug,
Cordie Miller contacted you via e-mail last week — have you contacted her yet? If not, you will receive a
phone call before end of business today.
Toni Weiner
Acting Director of Commmnih• Development
Cih of Lake Elsinore
Community Development Department
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 26 of 84
From:
"Cordie Miller' ¢miller@Lake- Elsmore.org>
To:
<Coug.Pinnow@ca.rr.com>
Cc:
'Tom Weiner" <tweiner @Lake- Elsinow org>
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 20094:22 PM
Attach:
Mr. Pinnow PROPOSED LOT SPLIT002.jpg
Subject:
Tuscany Hills/Estates Property (7 Via Del
Lago)
April 20, 2009
Dr. Douglas Pinnow
7 Na Del Lago
Lake Elsinore CA 92532
Re: Tuscany Hills /Estates Property (7 Via Del Lago)
Dear Dr. Pinnow
Thank you for the conceptual plan you provided in your email which related to your property
listed above. I have reviewed the conceptual plan and it is sufficient to continue with the
Tentative Parcel Map. We are ready to assist you with the permitting and entitlement process
once you are ready to move forward with your project.
As was discussed during your meeting with Tom Nklner, all Tuscany Hills Specific Plan
guidelines must be followed in order to subdivide and/or develop your property, In addition, all
Engineering, Fire, and Building Division requirements will also need to be adhered to. The
Development standard for Tuscany Hills Specific Plan was previously given to you for your
reference.
Thank you for giving the City of Lake Elsinore the opportunity to assist you. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions.
Sincerely,
Community Development Department
Curdle Miller
Planning Technician
CC: Tom Nkinet
Acting Community Development Director
Attachment
END
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 27 of 84
EXTRACTED FROM LAKE ELSINORE CITY CODE
16.20.020 Size requirements.
A. All lots shall meet the area, frontage, width, depth, and building setback requirements of the
zone within which said lots are located; provided, however, that in its consideration of any land
division, the City Council may determine that a greater than minimum lot size is necessary:
1. For the proper protection of the public health, safety and general welfare;
2. To be consistent with the general pattern established in the vicinity; or
3_ To maintain the value of property in the vicinity.
B. When tots or parcels twice or more the required area or width are shown on a division of land
the City Council may require such lots or parcels to be so established as to make practical a
further division into allowable building sites, without injury to adjoining property.
C. Lot sizes and arrangement shall be compatible with lots in the surrounding area. [Ord. 523
§ 3.3(B), 15731.
City Planning (Kirt Coury) has recommend that the Planning Commissioners adopt a
resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a Tentative Parcel Map
showing the sub - division of Doug & Joan Pinnow's lot in Tuscany Hills Estates into
three Parcels. Planning has determined that the sub - division is in full accordance with
the all aspects of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (the governing document).
Planning COMMisioner Rick Morsch has taken exception to this recommendation. He
insists that it does not take into consideration Section 16.20.020 of the City Code that
is reproduced above.
Commissioner Morsch's theory is that that the use of the words "consistent" and
"compatible" in clauses A.2. and C., above, mean something very specific. Namely,
that any new Parcels in the Tuscany Hills Estates must be
ATrAo4t M y 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 28 of 84
larger that 8 times the minimum lot size permitted by the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan
(5,000 square feet) and certainly larger than the 1 acre lots (43,560 square feet) that
Doug & Joan Pinnow have developed - at a considerable personal expense. — with the
prior OK from City Planning.
An argument over the interpretation of "consistent" and "compatible" could lead to an
ugly lawsuit. Fortunately, there's a better way to accomplish the objective of not
having the Pinnow sub - division set precedent for uncontrolled and undesirable
expansion in the Tuscany Hills Estates.
Dr. Pinnow's recommendation is to rely on the clause in B. in the above Code:
the City council may determine that a greater than minimum lot size is necessary to
maintain the value ofproperty in the vicinity.
Using property valuation would avoid the need to interpret vague words. Further, if it
can be shown that a sub - division would increase property values, everyone would
benefit. The neighbors would be better off, the applicant for the subdivision would be
satisfied, and, importantly, the City and County would have enhanced revenues due to
an increase in the number of properties in their tax base.
Using the criteria of allowing sub - division only when the property values increase in
the vicinity would naturally limit the growth of the Tuscany Hills Estates to an
optimum size. (Likely, similar to its present size.)
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 29 of 84
7 Via del Lago
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
April 14, 2011
Mr. Kirt Coury, Project Planner
Planning Division
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Dear Mr. Coury:
During the initial hearing on March 1 st, Commissioner Mendoza insisted several times that it
was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to consider the lot split in Tentative Parcel Map
36304 because I did not have the approval of a home owners' association that he alleged was
required to be formed by the Tuscany Hills Estates' residents after they had de- annexed from the
Tuscany Hills Landscape & Recreation Corporation (THL &RC) in 2005.
You'll recall that my reply was that Commissioner Mendoza was not correct. To support my
position, Attachment A is a complete set of the de- annexation documents. You'll see that there
is no requirement to form a new home owners' association
If there are any further questions about this matter, they may be addressed to attorney Tom
Jacobson, who plans to accompany me at the May 3` continuation hearing. Mr. Jacobson
advised the Tuscany Hills Estates homeowners during the 2005 de- annexation proceedings.
There is one other matter that I'd like to clear up for the record. During the March 1" hearing,
Commissioner Mendoza also insisted several times that I did not have approval from the
THL &RC to build a gazebo that has a view of my neighbor's back yard. Again, I told him that
was not correct. A copy of the THL &RC approval letter for the gazebo is included as
Attachment B . You'll note that this letter was dated June 8, 2004, before the de- annexation of
the Tuscany Hills Estates was finalized.
I hope that we can put these matters behind us at the continuation hearing.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas A. Pinnow
(951)674 -2590
A k TY3, M PC M 2011 Ite No. 3
Page 30 of 84
ATTACHMENT A
Final Documents
for De- Annexation of
Tuscany Hills Estates from the THL &RC
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 31 of 84
TUSCANY
dirt
HILLS
TUSCANY HILLS LANDSCAPE & RECREATION CORPORATION
75 Summerhill Drive, lake Elsinore, CA 92532 - (909) 245 -9102 • Fax (909) 245 -1843
Memorandum
To:
Estate Homeowners
From: The Tuscany Hills Board of Directors
Date: December 1, 2005
RE: De- Annexation of the Estates from the Tuscany Hills LARC
Enclosed, please find a letter confirming that the proposed amendments to de -annex the
Estates homeowners from the Tuscany Hills LARC have passed and the appropriate
documents have been recorded with the County of Riverside. As such, the 22 Estates
homeowners are no longer members of the Tuscany Hills LARC_ Please refer to the
enclosed letter from Neuland, Nordberg, Andrews and Whitney and documentation for
details.
In addition, please be aware that the utilities for the areas previously within the Estates
designated as common areas are no longer a part of the Tuscany Hills LARC. Electricity
and water to these areas has been scheduled for shut -off effective December 7, 2005.
The Board of Directors would like to thank all of the homeowners within the Estates for
their cooperation in the matter of de- annexation and wish the members of the Estates
good luck in their future endeavors.
A Renaissance in California Living
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 32 of 84
NEULAND, NORDBERG, ANDREWS & WHITNEY
A PROFMIDNIAL Law CORPO32AT10N
22502 AVLNIDA FNIPBS"•M
RANCHO SAN k IvLiRGARITA, CA 92606
TELrFt40NL^ (949) 766 -4700
Fs1CS1M11 (949) 766 -4712
Dank) A. Nnrabag. FNy. December 1, 2005
&"onlbccg@r, mIwiaw.cnm
To: All Estates Homeowners
Reference: Tuscany Hills Landscape and Recreation Corporation
Subject: Dermnexation of The Estates
Dear Estates Homeowners:
As counsel for the Tuscany Hills Landscape and Recreation Corporation (the "Master
Association "), 1 am writing to inform you that the Master Association recently obtained the
approval of sixty -seven percent (67 %) of its voting power in favor of the "Proposed Amendment
to the Association's CC &Rs." Specifically, the voting power approved all six (6) of the
proposed Amendments to the CC &Rs, which sought to exclude Owners of Lots in "The Estates"
from the juri sdiction and control of the Master Association.
Please be advised that as o:PNovember 30, 2005, you are no longer Members or Owners
of the Master Association, as those terns are defined in the Master Association's governing
documents. Attached hereto for your reference is a copy of the Third Amendment to the
Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and
Reservation of Easements for Tuscany I•$lls, which the Master Association recorded on
November 29, 2005, in the Official Records of Riverside County, California as Document No,
2005 - 0981873 (the "Third Amendmenf').
At this time, the Board of Directors would like to communicate to you some of the
Changes that result from the deannexation. First anti foremost, you are no longer Owners or
Members of the Master Association. That is, you no longer have the rights and privileges
enjoyed by the remaining Owners/Members of the Master Association, as those terms are used in
the Civil Code, Corporations Code, and the governing documents. This means you no longer
have the following rights provided to members in the Common Interest Development Open
Meeting Act (codified at Civil Code §1363.05): the right to attend meetings of the Board of
Directors, the right to request Board minutes, and the right to speak at any meeting of the Board
of Directors.
In addition to the above, you do not have the right to inspect Master Association
membership lists (Corporations Code §8330), accounting books and records (Corporations Code
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 33 of 84
The Estates Homeowners
December 1, 2005
§5333 and Civil Code §1365.2), and any other records or disclosures available to members, as
provided by the Corporations Code and Civil Code.
With respect to the rights given to Owners/Members in the governing documents, please
be advised that neither you nor your guests or tenants have rights of ingress and egress and
enjoyment in. to and over the Association Property, as provided in Article III of the Amended
and Restated Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of
Easements for Tuscany Hills. In other words, you are expressly prohibited from using or
accessing all the real and personal property and Improvements which are owned in fee simple by
the Master Association, or over which the Master Association has an casement, obligation or
permit for the common benefit, use and enjoyment of the remaining Master Association
Owners/Members. Said another way, you no longer have the membership privileges permitting
use or access to the Master Association's parks and Tot Lot playground areas, clubhouse facility
(including the Exercise Fitness Center located within), picnic areas, barbecues, children's wader,
spa, Jr. Olympic size swimming pool, and Sports Court Facility (i.e. sand volleyball, basketball
court and three lit tennis courts).
Since only Members are entitled to cast votes, pursuant to Article IV of the CC &Rs and
Article II of the Bylaws, you are no longer able to participate in any of the Master Association's
Annual and Special Elections. Moreover, you are not entitled to vote on any Ballot Measures
facing the membership of the Master Association.
Please be advised that we represent the Master Association only and not you individually.
If you have any questions or concerns, you should seek your own independent legal counsel.
Very truly yours,
cc: Board of Directors
G ?1 "map} Hills Land—,& M,InrninrKE Co 105 CC%A,n•dJmncl trnpnMeKInT r.ems 05 IN I inn. donnanfn
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 34 of 84
Neuland, Nordberg, Andrews & Whitney APLC
f
Ite�sscad>3y And .
�henRecorded,Ma3lTa: ... .
• tDOC is 2005- 09S18T3
l3fY9/2005
AM&EM & APLC Conformed Copy
Nrisiaod 1�or�eS Has not bean aampared with original
22 0 Aveold3Smpre62 yy I W'
Rapd o 5anm? G4 92666 ce 3 �y RSva�
J; llmecuar, Bounty Clark Retb rder
THMDAWMNDI BNFTO
1iB 0? NJ]PI7 &[VD RESTATPD M&sM DECf OI'
CC3TmhTANTS,CO1y moN$ AND Xs=CTIONSAND
RESE fV.AMWO EASEMFNTS 140RTt(SCA7�11 Iffi S 5
Thl Amended and 7- Minster Dec'f=d= of C Ccmdmnns and Rrstartions ad '
Rene innofEssm wta far 11uRauyF311s is 1>err�9 �'as funow.
ZW13umS 'slr.Aw n']cdaa6Resro IA= DecL•si'='3' *° , rnnrlrtim and
R mrir,lane
a>adIieservdv®. of Pasemena. ("h7astrr Decla�aa`) far TQSCf3I�y -S,
R e m�� ice or u aIIplswrdedw % a Cow 8017 , iEL the O i
Co3ffip Siffie of C nGfn +ate on Ma3r13 3990, T m mc� Na 80176. in the Official
Retards ofFigc & Cauacy, Califom a
VUEPXAS, The Mesta Dcd=6M was amended by m ph { of a Fux Am admutz t to - lbq '
AnrndedandResrztsM .5Da'Dedz=i=,nfCot=,,s, SaidFust 2aA
Reser afFasemeoa inr TnsmagEfills ( Ama rs
v3m�•
rams eg mrrzd hg TUSCANY m OG9ber 37, 2003, smd recorded ouNovember 7,
2803, Rs Tnamrmera No. 2003583341, ar The Offidnl R=rds of Rivci & Colmtg,
CnGfornia.
(4) ' vsaa& s' tbcIca=Dcrlaeuonwasamendedby nfasuoadA-- dm=-m The
Am enderi andRraGV3MastrtDtrla=M Df Cavmants, ccia DnS and ?�•� atle
Reser=&Ms of Pis° = fBr Tvs=y Ts'Qs (` Semnd e . , r"� 8aui Second
• Ammdm® rwaeaecuted. bpTi76r �A' NX TTS as�6uzh3 ,7005,andzuardedna
It, 205, as lssm?i= .No. 7005-0207958, is sL! Of{uial Re=& of p &ers4& C= ty,
. Ceiifnmat. .
(D) TEfi7AS; die I4ucaup I91ls I�ds=Fe and Rccrca�aa Carpoiation. (`Mastrr
As�oti m) esrohhshed m ov=ee The properties ag wbich such Dedv :tGiDn 72,
rcc=L.'d,J=ky a this' S' hir dAm endmer ?torheNlab=De;
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 35 of 84
Axtide7, Sact on 1.1 AddedTeaimtr of the D96=60ais lnr6y did in iu entirmyl
m&=pk=dbg� following hngaag
.Added Temmmy sh9 mean ve reel pmperry desmbed in E'00�t V bemta, all or
eny pos�ian ofwlvch mayfrom t me rD nme bcfiud subdivided b9T7erdsrmt Ora
Mmbatit B -62ct pnzm= to t1a pmoisinns of I.=& II lcreof, =rept the zeal
p,per'wij m Parcel L+ of Eshtbis WI vAf& is ]cgally d=Mlcd as TrAa No.
174134E lama TIC31stams'.
• Y:It•
Yr 1 1 1 f •1 1' YI 'Y.
•i. .IY -1 ..-
• ' J .� i J.lil • V.
•.11•t 1 Y /�• ` [11. - [ • • ' 1' •• 1� .•
• in
.•• t•Liq • All. .11w • • :. .1
1
• 11 1 . . - •°I - 1•un. All
la •u•
.M ��.. 1.. 11 •' •f •I r•
r• _ •1
l r .. r. llr. • _
•• � . �- won
1. a .1 lAm1. 41.•
1•. i
Y_ rn n•l .ri •n +. ..•Ilr J••1 .u• .n Aa u' 1. na
�. + 1 w GI
:iwr +i • •1 r/
.•il•t .n.•• • rr ! •la.n
,•u• • "• i1.1+. a -nl •.0 •. .•
r � 1 ..•l 1r' . IL -.. vll
�. \1• •1'
w r. [l•
11 :: • r 1 •l
. • ^I "•• . •1' • • Ai. �•[ 't� \\ . \.. \1 �i - •111•
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 36 of 84
is hereby a is im eptA=L7
er of the Dealaraz '
�� fuficle I, Section 1,28. ��
replaced lathe followin; language: .
m r$e 1JL�stg Assoaation,
Member shall meanP Perot holding .d ses of tl,e
pursuasttn Seto. 42 heizcf. ASembershiP Assoaanun� as descried in
Owners and of Ded =m the R uns, esp, a penons awzag
Arnr� IV h"eof and "The, e'• ..
Lots wfftdn 4.17433 4•, lmuvm 28
of theDeclar2f=isl F laireueirerPa»>i
� pCedbptLefollawr 3 �eeP
owner aballmm t h e Personorl'aaons Of ze rcor+d cmdtBuilders, ot,
leasehold ]nr� af• to a L
jmlcling a fee simple or long- wou"a . forum p =hnnMce of 7a 010 � a { ti , o � n
esc l u dingthessprreoawlx�d m g� leaseel seSofthis I&S y
other rhea Sellers ender rsecawrY tp om a leasehold. in=em
Declardeoa a `}°nom r� °d As used 1>aT s "�� s�9 also refs'm
w as Stibassoc- Piopczv- �wnrr shall not
. includerl�oseawneceofI- r�W' �'' nTiaccNa174 .13•¢,knoovnas"PheEs�s��- .
added the
(6) A3tir1e Il Section 25A.
n ^ -^• of T4 P �taxcr» is b?�hP to
Dr clan�oa � proposed
Upon T6Qnberalup approval of $v Ballot to Approve or = = 5 � be w�hod7ed.
p meRtw the Assoc Sean's lie T Board of Ds iu �
� �� � and retards �d anp all- �'� a '' . be
�rl all. dncum � �rinsiOn of The EstA'cs''ficm the
IIE � e ffectnare the legd � FS°p .
ASSOaatiDn.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 37 of 84
I
... CI13zTIFICIATE �F AM�N,UMT+.� . .
I, rbe tmdawigned, dm IiaeTay �� .
1 That I em dnlp eleOtd amtl aenog Pteriaeni /serre�p of TUSC"Y EU=
IaMSWE AND R$C PA'rn'+N C�imma 21q�[oTrt Idnttial. Bm"=
Coxporavnm; .
. • 3; ....' 1' �t; tl>`{ oregningTlvxdAma �a�tmrLeMaatecDrr ]eratioawasdul}*•adopted - ..
b rr vrlie appanpoam va E of the vovmg Power of the ma tEr A Amodglia A Pero :!Na Code amd
tCC $ovemmgdonmUsfla. ' .
Iid ASS VVE RI+Ou I Lau �sai6e my aHme'avd of Cbe Seal of mid
c�paratiomt3ris �^�lapof „,„.j� 7D65.
TC75C&I WIZ
BB=yA' oisT. S50CTATION
Bp. ./' ;•mom ---°
ert aa,Psezldcat
..
GIBS UlC.Y7itto,.Secretacy .
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 38 of 84
ATTACHMENT B
Approval Letter for the Pinnow Gazebo
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 39 of 84
TUSCANY HILLS
TUSCANY
HILLS
June 8, 2004
RECREATION CORPORATION
75 Summerhill Drive, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 • (909) 245 -9102 - Fax (909) 245 -1843
Douglas Pinnow
7 Via Del Lago
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
Re: Spa/Gazebo— Approval
Dear Mr. Pinnow:
We are pleased to inform you that your request � subm � ily oit�y 28, 2004 to install a spa and
Gazebo on your property was approved by the Arc it ecturaI Committee, subject to the following
terms and/or conditions:
1) All improvements shall{b'e'Em d accor g the approved plans submitted to the
Architectural Commi ee and shal be gove l ed all Architectural Rules and Guidelines
pertaining to the project� submitted ecial attention to the following:
2) Please Note: only items c arl marked "approved" on the actual plans are deemed approved
under conditions noted.
3) Architectural Rules and Guidelines, pg. 9, Section XI, DRAINAGE; pgs. 14 -15,
Section XXII, LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION; pgs. 13 -14, Section XX,
GAZEBOS; pgs. 21 -22, Section XXXV11, SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS.
4) There shall be no interference with the established drainage patterns over any Lot, Common
Area or Community Facilities unless an adequate alternative provision is provided and is
first approved in writing by the Architectural Control Committee. The Owner is responsible
for maintaining proper, positive drainage at all times. The Architectural Control Committee
will not be responsible for drainage plans. All drainage shall comply with all ordinances
application to the property (i.e. building codes, grading codes, etc.).
5) Drainage should be installed to prevent any drainage over walkways.
6) Landscape irrigation must be subterranean except on slopes.
ARenaissance in California Living
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 40 of 84
7 Via Del Lago - Spa/Gazebo — Approval
June 8, 2004
Page two
7) Sprinklers should be adjusted so as not to spray adjacent properties or public sidewalks.
g) Any plant or tree with invasive roots shall have root barriers.
9) All walkways shall generally consist of concrete or maso . materials.
10) All setback requirements must be met.
11) The approved color for the gaze "s'�-Ti t t
The approval for the project ind "ii ate4above is ?%� olely to the items reserved for approval
by the CC &R's in accordant with the Architectur uidelines. The approval does not extend to
the quality of work done by c o contractor, or to any structural engi
any architeneering, soils
engineering, or site grading and drainage design. You are urged to obtain the services of a state -
licensed professional for consultatio as needed. Please be advised that this approval does not
relieve you from obtaining the necessary building permits from the governmental agencies
involved, including City of Lake Elsinore.
You have one (1) year for completion of this project. If you fail to complete the project within
this time frame, this approval expires and you must submit new plans. Enclosed please find
enclosed a Notice of Completion form, which needs to be returned noting the type of work you
have done.
Ytease inctuae vaim ........ � ---
Completion This notice advises the Committee that your work is done and is then subject to final
inspection by the Committee to confirm that the approved plans were followed.
As a reminder and for future reference for any owner of the property: You are required, per the
CC &R's (the governing documents of the community you agreed to abide to when you bought your
home) to submit an application and wait for a written response. You are not to do any work without
written approval. While we appreciate you wanting to improve your home, we also ask for your
cooperation in following the rules, and we sincerely appreciate that you have done just that.
Y:\DOC\Tuscany HillsWanager Files\ArchitecturOACC Approval- Denial Ltrs - 2004\7 Via Del Lago-Spa;Gazebo-
approval.doc
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 41 of 84
7 Via Del Lago — Spa/Gazebo - Approval
June 8, 2004
Page three
The Architectural Control Committee generally meets on the 1 s and 3 rd Wednesday of each month,
and all applications must be in the office by 2:00 p.m. the Friday prior to the meeting, in order to be
on the agenda for review. Per the CC &R's, the Architectural Committee has up to thirty (30) days
in which to do their review, and work is not to continence until written approval is received.
Members may wish to submit separate applications for various projects so that if there are any
questions, one project may be able to proceed while another is denied and sent back for re- submittal
after clarifying information is provided. d
Please be aware that applications are placed on
date order in which they were received.
S
C
Bi
Administrative Assistant
enclosures
by the committee in the
the Association's application
Y:\DOC\Tuscany HilISWv alter FilesVAchitecturaMCC Approval- Denial L trs- 2004 \7 Via Del Lago- Spa;Cwbo-
approval.doc
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 42 of 84
Thank you for your patience in this
P M
r 4
i
0
W
OW
4 Q
4
w
k �
W
NN
AN
V
�D
ti
Ki
N �
CL
41
0
0
0
0
Q
v
h
m
o
m
b �
m "
v ,�
M�
N,
e
ri
6
k
t Ile a
6'101 `
ho F J W Aw
�Or f d
Y • � O Y t
C
cr W Ow P
ti= J
c6s. Z
m'
ti
a �
E�
v
N
4t
�n� O
WQ
v 1
4Q
o
m
A cg' 4� I -
2011 15N 0. 3
Page 43 of 84
e YO
cc;p
r " •` J
j\ t
V
C
cL4.Y
x6 6
®
d x'
N,
e
ri
6
k
t Ile a
6'101 `
ho F J W Aw
�Or f d
Y • � O Y t
C
cr W Ow P
ti= J
c6s. Z
m'
ti
a �
E�
v
N
4t
�n� O
WQ
v 1
4Q
o
m
A cg' 4� I -
2011 15N 0. 3
Page 43 of 84
Three Minute Comment by
Christopher Pinnow, Civil Engineer,
Addressed to the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission
During the initial Planning Commission hearing (March 1 on the proposed lot
split, a concern was expressed by two of the Commissioners that approval of
Tentative Parcel Map 36304 before you could set a precedent that might
encourage other residents to also request approval to split their lots. One
commissioner said that this might lead to 40 new homes sprouting up in the
Tuscany Hills Estates while another suggested even more — that the existing 22
lots might each be split into 10 smaller parcels resulting in over 200 more houses
in the Tuscany Hills Estates and thereby drastically changing the character of this
community.
The objective of my statement is to allay these concerns about the possibility of
uncontrolled growth in the Tuscany Hills Estates triggered by your approval of the
applicant's request to split his lot.
As a Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California, I have reviewed the map
and satellite images of the Tuscany Hills Estates as well as the setbacks and
street frontage requirements of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan that establish
geometric restrictions. My conclusion is that no one should be concerned that
such uncontrolled growth would happen. I'm confident that the original
developer, Curtis Development Corporation, which built all 21 of the homes
existing in the Tuscany Hills Estates in 2003 -2004, did so to maximize their
profits. If this corporation could have squeezed in even a few extra homes while
increasing the overall value of the community, its officers would have been
motivated to do just that.
After all, they were constrained by the same Tuscany Hills Specific Plan that
prevails today which allows for building lots with a minimum size of only 5,000
square feet.
The reality is that the lots that Curtis Development purchased were already
graded to their present sizes. To alter the sizes of these primarily hillside
properties, I presume, would have cost more in time and money than the
Development Corporation felt would be worth the effort.
The same situation prevails today, with one singular exception After Curtis
Development finished and sold all 21 homes in the Tuscany Hills Estates, the
City of Lake Elsinore decided to extend the street, Via del Lago, in front of the
applicant's property. The applicant and his neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Porter, who
live across the street, agreed to allow the City to encroach on their properties in
order to undertake a major grading project to extend Via del Lago.
TFAt�4* P, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 44 of 84
Approximately 10,000 cubit yards of dirt and rock were removed using heavy
machinery and some blasting.
The end result, after this costly effort, was that applicant and his neighbors
across the street acquired an additional 100 feet of street frontage that allowed
new access to the higher elevations in the southern portions of their lots.
Had this street extension been planned or occurred before Curtis Development
had sold the lot to the applicant, it is likely that Curtis would have initiated the lot
split that is being considered today.
The point is that the circumstances that have made this lot split viable only exist
at the very end of Via del Lago as a direct result of its extension by the City to
provide access to a 38 acre landlocked parcel that has the development potential
for many more new homes. There have been no other changes in the street
plan within the Tuscany Hills Estates and none are contemplated.
So, I think that the concern that approval of this lot split would trigger an
avalanche of additional lot splits has no basis in fact. And I would encourage you
to judge the acceptability of this split on own merits, which are considerable. It
will create two new lots with spectacular views that would likely appeal to
executives who might otherwise choose to live in somewhere else like La Cresta
in Murrieta. It would add to the quality and value of the properties in the vicinity.
And it would increase the tax basis for the City and County.
Thank you,
Christopher Pinnow
1199 Tamarack
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 45 of 84
VICINITY MAP
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 36304
7 VIA DEL LAGO
APN# 363- 350 -021
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 46 of 84
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTION OF
FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT KNOWN AS TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 36304 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE
MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Lake Elsinore by Mr.
Doug Pinnow, for the subdivision of 3.17 acres of land into three (3) single family
residential lots( "the Project "), which is located 7 Via Del Lago at APN 363- 350 -021 (the
"Site "); and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all projects which are
proposed on land within an MSHCP criteria cell and which require discretionary
approval by the legislative body undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process
( "LEAP ") and a Joint Project Review ( "JPR ") between the City and the Regional
Conservation Authority ( "RCA ") prior to public review of the project applications; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects within or
outside of a criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide
Requirements "; and
WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and
approval by the Planning Commission and /or City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Project is within an MSHCP criteria cell of the Elsinore Area
Plan, and therefore, the Project was processed through a LEAP and JPR as well as
reviewed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements "; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that the City adopt consistency
findings prior to approving any discretionary project entitlements for development of
property that is subject to the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility
of making recommendations to the City Council regarding the consistency of
discretionary project entitlements with the MSHCP; and
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the Project's
consistency with the MSHCP prior to recommending that the City Council adopt
Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP.
SECTION 2. That in accordance with the MSHCP, the Planning Commission
makes the following MSHCP Consistency Findings:
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 47 of 84
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -
PAGE 2 OF 5
1. The Project is a project under the City's MSHCP Implementing Resolution,
and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approving the Project.
The Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell. As such, the Project has been
processed through the LEAP and JPR, as well as reviewed for consistency with the
MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements," including Section 6.1.2 Riparian /Riverine Areas
and Vernal Pool Guidelines.
2. The Project is subject to the City's Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process
(LEAP) and the County's Joint Project Review processes.
As stated above, the Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell and therefore the
Project was processed through the LEAP and JPR.
3. The Project is consistent with the Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal
Pools Guidelines.
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of riparian /riverine areas and vernal
pool habitat types based upon their value in the conservation of a number of MSHCP
covered species. According to the MSHCP Compliance Document prepared by Sear/
Biological Services (SBS) dated August 20, 2010, the project site does not support
riparian or riverine resources, since the site consists of an existing single family
residence or previously graded pads. The site is largely comprised of disturbed land.
Given the disturbed state of the site, the soils, which consist of Cieneba rocky sandy
loam, and habitat on site do not support suitable habitat for vernal pools or fairy shrimp.
4. The Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Guidelines.
The Project is not located in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area as mapped
in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.
5. The Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures.
The Project is located within an Additional Survey Area for Burrowing Owl. SBS
conducted a Step 1: Habitat Assessment on July 28, 2010. Suitable Burrowing Owl
habitat was determined to be present. Due to the presence of suitable Burrowing Owl
habitat, SBS conducted a Step If — Part A: Focused Burrow Survey on August 5, 2010.
According to SBS's Part 11 Survey, the site does not support any potential owl burrows.
Since SBS did not observe suitable owl burrows during the burrow survey, focused
breeding season surveys were not warranted.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 48 of 84
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011
PAGE 3 OF 5
6. The Project is consistent with the UrbanNVildlands Interface Guidelines.
Conservation Areas are to be located near the project site. To preserve the integrity of
the areas dedicated as MSHCP Conservation Areas, the guidelines contained in
Section 6.1.4 related to controlling adverse effects for development adjacent to the
MSHCP Conservations Area shall be implemented. In addition, and where applicable,
the project shall: 1) Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff
from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area, 2) Land uses proposed in
proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts
such as manure, which are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species or
habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such
chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area, 3) Night
lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area, 4) Proposed noise
generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate
setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area
resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines, and 5) Consider the
invasive, non - native plant species in table 6 -2 of the MSHCP in landscape plans to
avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the
MSHCP Conservation Area.
7. The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
See the response above.
8. The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
Fuels management focuses on hazard reduction for humans and their property. The
proposed project includes a recently graded 300 foot long driveway with a hammer-
head turn - around in compliance with the Riverside County Fire Department
requirements for fire suppression equipment and personnel to access higher elevations
and remote areas that were previously inaccessible. This should substantially reduce
the hazard of a fire to all nearby residences in the Tuscany Hills Development.
9. The Project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee.
As a condition of approval, the Project will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee at the time of issuance of building permits.
10. The Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
For the foregoing reasons, the Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 49 of 84
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -
PAGE 4 OF 5
SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, and the above findings,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore adopt findings that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May 2011, by the
following vote:
John Gonzales, Chairman
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Robert A. Brady,
City Manager
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 50 of 84
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -_
PAGE 5 OF 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Robert A. Brady, City Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. 2011- _ as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 3 rd day of May 2011, and that the
same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
►10]X0
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Robert A. Brady
City Manager
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 51 of 84
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL
OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304 LOCATED AT 7 VIA
DEL LAGO (APN: 363- 350 -021)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Lake Elsinore by Mr.
Doug Pinnow, for the subdivision of 3.17 acres of land into three (3) single family
residential lots( "the Project'), which is located 7 Via Del Lago at APN 363- 350 -021 (the
"Site "); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been
delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for
Tentative Parcel Maps; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2011 and May 3, 2011 at a duly noticed public hearing,
the Planning Commission considered evidence presented by the Community
Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Prior to making a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning
Commission has reviewed and analyzed Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 pursuant to
the appropriate Planning and Zoning Laws, the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (R -SF
District) and Chapter 16 (Subdivisions) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ( "LEMC ").
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA ") and the
Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et
seq.: "CEQA Guidelines ") pursuant to Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) categorical
exemption. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the Tentative Parcel Map
allows for the subdivision of 3.17 acres of land into three (3) individual parcels for
property located at 7 Via Del Lago at APN 363- 350 -021.
SECTION 3. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings
for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304:
1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plan.
The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land
uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Tuscany Hills Specific
Plan (Government Code Section 66473.5).
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 52 of 84
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -
PAGE 2 OF 3
Tuscany Hills Specific Plan designates the Subdivision site as Residential Single
Family (R -SF). Consistent with that designation, the Subdivision can
accommodate the proposed density of three detached single- family residences. .
The Subdivision is consistent with the designated land use, development and
design standards, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the
General Plan, Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, and Subdivision Map Act. and will not
conflict with established public easements.
2. The lot sizes and arrangement are compatible with lots in the surrounding area
(LEMC Section 16.20.020).
The Subdivision maintains the character of the large lots in the surrounding area
known as Tuscany Hills Estates by placing the smaller lots at the furthest most
end of Tuscany Hills Estates and maintaining the largest lots to the north and
east of the proposed subdivision.
3. The effects this project is likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the
public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and
environmental resources have been considered and balanced.
The Subdivision is consistent with the land use plan, development and design
standards and programs, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the
General Plan and Tuscany Hills Specific Plan. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304
is consistent with the R- SF designation and applicable development and design
standards.
4. Subject to the attached conditions of approval, the proposed project is not
anticipated to result in any serious public health problems or significant
environmental impact.
The project has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and
agencies and will not therefore result in any significant environmental impacts.
The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
SECTION 4. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the
attached conditions of approval, the Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative
Parcel Map No. 36304.
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 53 of 84
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
PAGE 3 OF 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, this 3` day of May, 2011.
John Gonzales, Chairman
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Robert A. Brady,
City Manager
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Bob Brady, City Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify
that Resolution No. 2011 -_ as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake
Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 3` day of May 2011, and that the same was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Robert A. Brady
City Manager
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 54 of 84
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304
PLANNING DIVISION
1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold
harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action,
or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees or Agents to attach, set
aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or
legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304.
2. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 will expire two (2) years from date of approval unless
within that period of time an appropriate instrument has been filed and recorded with the
County Recorder, or an extension of time is granted by the City of Lake Elsinore City
Council in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the LEMC.
3. The Tentative Parcel Map shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
(LEMC), Title 16 unless modified by approved Conditions of Approval.
4. Prior to final recordation of the Parcel Map, the improvements specified herein and
approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be installed, or
agreements for said improvements, shall be submitted to the City for approval by the
City Engineer, and all other stated conditions shall be complied with. All uncompleted
improvements must be bonded for as part of the agreements.
5. All lots shall comply with minimum standards contained in the Tuscany Hills Specific
Plan and the LEMC.
6. A precise survey with closures for boundaries and all lots shall be provided per the
LEMC.
7. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter of verification (will -
serve letter) from appropriate utility providers to the City Engineer, for all required utility
services. Each lot shall have separate and exclusive utility services, including, but not
limited to, sewer, water, electrical, gas, and communications so that they are
piggybacking on sewer or any other utilities.
8. The applicant shall pay applicable fees and obtain proper clearance from the Lake
Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) prior to issuance of building permits.
9. The applicant shall pay all applicable fees including park fees.
10. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing electric utility company.
11. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing gas utility company.
12. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the providing telephone utility company.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 55 of 84
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PAGE 2 OF 3
TPM 36304
13. If applicable, the applicant shall incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality
of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation area.
14. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals
or generate bioproducts such as manure, which are potentially toxic or may adversely
affect wildlife species or habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure
that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP
Conservation Area.
15. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area.
16. Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall
incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP
Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines.
17. Consider the invasive, non - native plant species in table 6 -2 of the MSHCP in landscape
plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are
adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area.
18.All future structural development associated with this map requires separate Minor
Design Review approval.
19. Prior to final map approval, the applicant and the property owner shall sign and
complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions" form and shall return the executed
original to the Planning Division for inclusion in the case records.
20. The applicant shall place a weatherproof 3' x 3' sign at the entrance to the project site
identifying the approved days and hours of construction activity (i.e., 7:00 A.M. — 5:00
P.M., Monday through Friday with no construction activity to occur on Saturdays,
Sundays or legal holidays) and a statement that complaints regarding the operation can
be lodged with the City of Lake Elsinore Code Enforcement Division (951) 674 -3124.
The sign shall be installed prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
21. Record Reciprocal Access Easements between parcels numbers 1, 2 and 3 allowing
use of the common drive and hammer -head.
22. Record "Fire Lane" easement over the hammer -head such that the area is kept free for
use by the Fire Department.
23. Record a 10 -foot utility easement along the common property line of Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2.
24. Drainage shall be controlled and conveyed to the public right -of -way such that all debris
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 56 of 84
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PAGE 3OF3
TPM 36304
is kept on site and silt and material transported by erosion is not carried into the public
right -of -way from the site.
25.The applicant shall file a grading /drainage plan to eliminate all cross lot drainage to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
26. Proposed changes to the access requiring construction in the public right -of -way shall
follow the encroachment permit process in place at the City.
27. Site work extending beyond the property boundary shall require permission from the
affected property owner prior to commencement of work.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
28. Developer shall comply with all City Ordinances regarding construction debris removal
and recycling as per Section 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
29.The applicant shall comply with all Riverside County Fire Departments requirements
and standards. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by the Riverside
County Fire Department.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 57 of 84
CITY OF
LADE C LSIBOR E
� DREAM EXTREMEn
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
"DRAFT" CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL
Subject: Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 to subdivide 3.17 acres of land
into three (3) individual parcels for single family residential
purposes pursuant to the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and
applicable Chapters of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC).
I hereby state that I have read and acknowledge the Draft Conditions of Approval
and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all final Conditions that will be
approved by the Planning Commission /City Council. I also understand that all
Conditions shall be met prior to issuance of permits or prior to the first Certificate
of Occupancy, or as otherwise indicated in the Conditions.
All final conditions shall be met prior to issuance of permits or prior to the first
Certificate of Occupancy, or otherwise indicated in the Conditions, subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director of the City of Lake Elsinore
Date: Property Owner's Signature:
Print Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Applicant's Signature:
Print Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
AT THE TIME OF PRINTING THE AGENDA, STAFF HAS NOT
RECEIVED THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 58 of 84
CITY OF
LADE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Vi _._
MARCH 1, 2011
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304: A REQUEST TO
SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 3.17 ACRE SITE INTO THREE (3)
PARCELS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
(RSF) DISTRICT OF THE TUSCANY HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
APPLICANT/ DOUGLAS PINNOW, 7 VIA DEL LAGO, LAKE ELSINORE,
OWNER: CA 92532
Project Request
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 3.17 acres of land into three (3) individual parcels
pursuant to the requirements of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, Section 16 "Subdivisions"
of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and Section 66424 of the California
Subdivision Map Act (CSMA).
Project Location
The 3.17 acre project site is located at 7 Via Del Lago. Access to the project site is
available from Via Del Lago.
LSIIYORE
DREAM EXTREME.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 59 of 84
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304
March 1, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Environmental Setting
The site is bounded on all sides by existing residential land uses.
�" '�;`��E�CtS1T�1�G�
�rLA "N ®��
GENERAL P,L'AN
;ZQNING
Al �11 C s..l
Project
Existing Single
R -SF (Residential Single
Tuscany Hills Specific
Site
Family Residence
Family)
Plan
North
Existing Single
R -SF (Residential Single
Tuscany Hills Specific
Family Residence
Family)
Plan
South
Vacant
R -1 (Single Family
Low Medium Density
Residential
Residential
East
Existing Single
R -SF (Residential Single
Tuscany Hills Specific
Family Residence
Family)
Plan
West
Vacant
R -SF (Residential Single
Tuscany Hills Specific
Family)
Plan
Project Description
The proposed parcel map will subdivide the aforementioned 3.17 -acres of single family
residentially zoned land into three (3) separate parcels (one with an existing owner
residence and detached garage and two lots suitable for future development of single -
family residences). Grading for the two unoccupied pads and associated driveway
entrance was completed in 2009 under city permit. The two pads are currently used for
sport courts, but they were designed to have dual purposes as either sport courts or future
building pads for single - family residences. Parcel No. 1 will be 1.00 acres (43,560 square
feet), Parcel No. 2 will be 1.00 acres (43,560 square feet), Parcel No. 3 will be 3.17 acres
(50,965 square feet),
Analysis
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the identified property for the creation of three (3)
individual parcels, in that the proposed subdivision and development standards (i.e. lot
size, lot frontage) comply with the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan (R -SF District), Section 16
"Subdivisions" of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, and Section 66424 of the California
Subdivision Map Act (CSMA). City Planning and Engineering staffs have reviewed the
project, and have no concerns regarding the proposed request.
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project has been
deemed exempt pursuant to Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions). No further
environmental clearance is necessary.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 60 of 84
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304
March 1, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Recommendation
• Adopt a Resolution No. 2011 - adopting findings that the project is consistent
with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and,
Adopt a Resolution No. 2011 -_ recommending to the City Council approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 based on the Findings, Exhibits, and proposed
Conditions of Approval.
Prepared By: Kirt A. Coury,
Project Planner
Reviewed By: Matthew C. Harris,
Senior Planner
Approved By: Robert A. Brady,
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Planning Commission Resolutions
3. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval
4. Draft Acknowledgement of Conditions of Approval
5. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304 (reduction)
6. Full Size Plan
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 61 of 84
Page 1 of 22
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
MARCH 1, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Gonzales called the regular meeting of the
Commission held on Tuesday, March 1, 2011, to of
Cultural Center, located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Els.
PRESENT: Chairman Gonzales, Vice
Jordan, Commissioner Moi
ABSENT: None
Also present: City Manager Brady, City
Staff members present inch
Coury, Public Works Director
The
rman
Absent: None
Mendoza
Jordan
Morsch
O'Neal
Jordan.
e Elsinore Planning
%t,, 6:00 p.m. in the
, CA 92530.
Commissioner
Planning Consultant
Herrington.
PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES
None.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 62 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 2 of 22
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S)
None.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM(S)
(1)
Recommendation:
a. Adopt a resolution adopting findir
with the Multiple Species Habitat
b. Adopt a resolution recomme ing to
Tentative Parcel Map No 3 ' as
and proposed Conditions of Apprt
is consistent
and,
City Council } =ar al of
in the Findlna:Ehibits.
City Manager Brady provided ate= r ervlew of thep�ro)ect and requested that
Planning Consultant Coury review i 'Rh the Commissl' ' and answer q uestions.
Planning Consultant Coury provide project. He indicated
that regarding parcel h states 3,17i'acres, is a typo and should state
1.17 acres and ap gize eCA,& the mista�Ce. He noted that two (2) letters and
three (3) a -mai . � re diiii4buted to Up Commission prior to the meeting
issues
Specificgl`�i
identlf as
Single Til
are large 'ZCo
there is no #h
are no other
Commissioner
says "Estate H
)poems regarc g the project and stated to the
staffs�rese{1, there was nothing they found in the
rat would "call out any different. The categories are
�In� Family and there is only one (1) Residential
t staid within the Specific Plan. Although the lots
remainder of the Tuscany Hills area, he indicated that
Specific Plan which identifies "Estate Lots" and there
,tandards for that.
within
l` indicated that the confusion comes in the title because it
but isn't specified in the Specific Plan.
Planning Consultant Coury indicated that Commissioner O'Neal was correct and
noted that he did not have the chance to review the letter that was provided to
the Commission but stated again that the Specific Plan does not recognize
"Estate Lots ", it is Residential Single Family through out and the minimum lot size
for Residential Single Family, according to the Specific Plan, is five thousand
(5,000) square feet, but should have an average of fifty -five hundred (5,500)
square feet.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 63 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 3 of 22
He addressed the comments regarding improper noticing; the improper
Burrowing Owl Study, and the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) issue.
Commissioner O'Neal asked if the Home Owners Association (HOA) in Tuscany
Hills does not apply.
Planning Consultant Coury indicated that Commissioner O'Neal's statement was
correct and in May of 2007 approximately twenty two (22) of the "Estate Size"
lots de- annexed from the HOA.
Commissioner O'Neal asked if there was construction
Chairman Gonzales stated that there was
Commissioner O'Neal asked that if
would CEQA apply.
Within
at the time.
two (2) years,
Planning Consultant Coury indicated that CEQA wo0ld" "not apply if it'was part of
a larger subdivision in the past two (2) years an.,,,,,noted that there was not a
subdivision, and stated that the I had already , n split well over ten (10)
ears ago.
Y as
Commissioner O'Neal confirmed with l,, r Co ry �(2) years does not apply
in this particular case.o
Planning Consulljg Coury irJ =tcated that�his was correct.
Gommissioner O Neal Indicated t� exception of CEQA there is a twenty
percent oon slopes and I lope is twenty percent (20 %) or greater,
CEQA applya asked � , Coury to confirm that he looked into this.
Plammn�Gonsultant Cury indicated that he did look into this with the City
Engineer `a( the aver 111 slope is 14.85 %.
Commissioner s O'Neal 4 sfated that when rounding it off, it is basically fifty (50)
percent and five �1 "percent less than what would allow falling into CEQA
guidelines.
Planning Consultant Coury indicated that this was correct.
Vice Chairman Mendoza asked who the original owner was.
Planning Consultant Coury indicated that he would check with the applicant.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 64 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 4 of 22
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Ms. Donna Holts indicated that she and her husband Raymond Holts are the
property owners at 5 Via Del Lago which is adjacent to the property in question.
She distributed a statement to the Commission and wanted to touch on the
concerns that they had about the project. The first being erosion problems; there
currently is some debris being washed down from the front of said property and
across their property when it rains. There is also some erosion on the hillside
behind their backyard; due to grading that has already been done for the "Sports
Courts" which are now being submitted to the City as e
indicated that they are concerned that there is alreads
visible; this will be exacerbated if construction is continued,;oi
The second concern has to do with the prof
a small community. There are only twenl
originally marketed by the builder, they w,��,
view lots, with lots of open space. MAR
allowed on the said property, this would set
in that community to also subdivide which c
community. She noted that this W s not the
to the original homeowners that b 41
Ms. Holts indicated that they feel thA his
entire neighborhood, ect #cally their lots,
parcel #2, new resld iis`vWatild be looking
indicated that they ave pricy issues
been done on the hili5naturAFillside has k
that com
J to be " W omes that if the sion is
se for otherAomeowners
for a higher density in that
tent or the selling incentive
��yee the property values in the
ad ttjwrf, regarding the building for
ctly their backyard and so she
also stated that since grading has
cut away.
Ms. Holt �i `�° ,that r� an:!M ''fh��nvironmental Study, they don't believe
due dllt t;n was l "d In co leting a fair and adequate study. This is because
the t y was done of e the �a S there cut, which virtually destroyed any habitat
that wasja�l�eady there F
Ms. Holts last concern vas regarding input from the entire community. She
stated that the tld t f due diligence was done to notify all of the homeowners
in Tuscany Hills.
Vice Chairman Mendoza asked Ms. Holts if she was an original homeowner.
Ms. Holts stated yes.
Mr. Ray Holts, 5 Via Del Lago, indicated that he didn't think that the original
grading was done to incorporate a couple of sports courts and believes that it got
"snuck" in. He also stated that he understands that the applicant has quite a bit
of property in the back and has already graded it. He also doesn't
home sites. She
6 erosion that is
those two (2) pads.
Hills Estates is
0 when it was
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 65 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 5 of 22
understand the CEQA guidelines relating to subdivisions and asked for an
explanation of this.
Planning Consultant Coury explained the CEQA guidelines relative to
subdivisions.
Mr. Holts wanted to know if something more could be done to change the
Tuscany Hills Specific Plan.
Commissioner O'Neal requested that Mr. Coury or the
Holts question regarding the Tuscany Hills Specific Pla
Mr. Holts indicated that he received the Notice of
and had no time to research this and this was why
City Attorney Leibold explained what a
"Estate Lots" in this case.
address Mr.
ng a few days ago
#ioninci this.
is and
to
Chairman Gonzales stated that the grading is &A fing an erosion problem. He
also indicated that he went by tli property and aA -0ed when the driveway was
graded.
Mr. Holts indicated that it was graded 200,7k-
City Attorney Leib ol8 milted that before any permits are issued,
precise grading ftas fo be done to recertify the stability and compaction of said
property. She also tat d theven if the property is divided, it doesn't mean that
a building permit is IssdEthaertain qualifications have to be met.
Mr. H s asked 'f "i hdt r that the driveway was cut in behind 7 Via Del
Public W&ks�Director S "'Qmalo indicated that according to the City's records, the
grading permit i7✓as apphd for in May 2007 and approved in April 2009.
Mr. Holts asked if'i Wfs permitted and graded in 2009.
Public Works Director Seumalo indicated yes.
Chairman Gonzales asked if Mr. Holts is currently getting a lot of erosion on his
property.
Mr. Holts stated that he has placed sandbags at the back of his property and
above his patio and pool.
Mr. Doug Pinnow, 7 Via Del Lago, property owner for the lot that is being
considered, noted that he has lived at that location since 2003. He indicated that
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 66 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 6 of 22
after he moved into the home, there was an occasion where the City extended
the road on Via Del Lago, along his property line. This extension gave new
frontage and had that frontage existed when the builder (Curtis Development)
built the homes, he probably would have taken advantage of the facilities and put
a few extra homes there.
He also indicated that the homes he selected are on acre size lots or will be if
there is any building there in the future, and stated that he could probably put
more than a dozen homes there and still have been in compliance but he is
sensitive to trying to have a good appearing neighborhoodd chose the split of
two (2) rather than twelve (12). He said that his neigh Mr Holts has always
been concerned about his privacy and stated that satyears ago when they
were still part of the Tuscany Hills Association, he jyanteMoo, place a gazebo on
the pad. Mr. Holts opposed the location of the gazebo on the6asis of his privacy
issue, and the Tuscany Hills HOA decided aggffigtt him He 's a`ted that he took
pictures from the pad location that wouJbe nearest his ya" show the
Commission what it looked like. 0 ;.
may; ,:,,,
Vice Chairman Mendoza asked Mr. Pinnow wha ,year he applied for the gazebo
to be placed there.
Mr. Pinnow stated that he believed tlaafifiwae:tn 2004.
Vice Chairman Mendoza asked if the As-si iatlon1 granted him permission to do
this. `
IN
Mr. Pinnow stated tfl��he Association grari #e "d him permission but indicated that
it was a concern bec u se fi+lK, j that the gazebo location had a line of
sight. ��~
Pinnow if he was part of the Association at
Mr. PinnowTgdlcated y s and stated that the de- annexation occurred late in
2005.Ns„ J,,
Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Pinnow if the gazebo was built and does it exist
now.
Mr. Pinnow indicated that the gazebo was built and where the gazebo was
located. He noted that there is more than adequate space to protect Mr. Holt's
privacy and was found to be the case with the HOA years ago.
Vice Chairman Mendoza noted that Mr. Pinnow applied in 2004 for the gazebo
and the HOA approved his gazebo. In 2005 he de- annexed from the HOA and
clarified that this information should be on record and can be checked. He asked
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 67 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 7 of 22
Mr. Pinnow if he de- annexed from the HOA with the intent of having his own
HOA because he couldn't do everything he wanted to do with his property. He
indicated that the twenty -two (22) lots were unique from the rest of Tuscany Hills
and they de- annexed to form an HOA.
Mr. Pinnow indicated that this was incorrect.
Vice Chairman Mendoza asked Mr. Pinnow if they were going to start their own
HOA once they de- annexed.
Mr. Pinnow indicated yes but it hadn't yet formed.
Vice Chairman Mendoza stated that he was on
Pinnow requested permission to build the gaze,
have the gazebo because it didn't meet the�C
He also stated that the RV storage, the V P
dissention with the twenty -two (22) homed vr.
they were going to de -annex from the HOA j
HOA with their own CC &Rs.
"AC ,,, ommittee when Mr.
He sand, that he couldn't
ft 1iscany Hills HOA.
and the boatark caused
as a result th said that
� (fftent of ha i their own
Mr. Pinnow indicated that this was
Vice Chairman Mendoza stated tha'
indicated that twenty-, vuo� )homes
item so that more irforma to can be
Tuscany Hills.
rect in his statement and
suggested postponing this
na the de- annexation from
Mr. Pinnow indicated, h ,ode anf6xed because they couldn't find a
commonlit�, n thel,eeds, fhe Architectural Committee, and the original
HOA 0 noted de "a vexation process was quite elaborate.
vice CBaW an Mendoz ndicated that this was when proxy voting was allowed
in the Assoeq ion but is longer allowed.
Chairman Gon nad that the HOA is not the issue but the issue is whether
to allow Mr. Pihno':,o`separate or not to separate.
Vice Chairman Mendoza stated that Mr. Pinnow shouldn't be permitted to
subdivide his homes because they are supposed to have their own HOA and
CC &Rs.
City Attorney Leibold indicated that this is not a City requirement.
Vice Chairman Mendoza indicated that this was their request upon de- annexing
from the HOA.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 68 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 8 of 22
Chairman Gonzales noted again that the HOA is not the issue regarding this
item.
Mr. Pinnow indicated that Vice Chairman Mendoza was incorrect about the
CC &R requirements.
Vice Chairman Mendoza indicated that Mr. Pinnow was required to establish
CC &Rs for those twenty -two (22) residents, and since there are none, he is able
to do what he wants to the property.
Mr. Pinnow stated that this wasn't correct; the requi
were that the twenty -two (22) home owners in tI
forming an Association. Subsequently, they did lo(
but because of the "bad taste" that was left fro , ,Y
was never a majority willing to form one, an fez
ADHOC Committee member was current) n the
this.
Commissioner O'Neal indicated that he was uni
Pinnow stated earlier, that the pi' us HOA d'.
the gazebo but once the residents of the
Vice Chairman Mendoza agreed
:tit's that were considered
states" should look into
o forr>,. ing an Association
avid 10 ssociation, there
t Mr. off -, who was an
fence ari uld confirm
impression from what Mr.
e him permission to build
a , jlt the gazebo.
statement.
Mr. Pinnow indicat find this was incon ct and stated that the HOA did give him
approval to build ai eb&4)nd said tha hedidn't understand the original HOA
and what it had to tb „ h his,,request to sd&Oide.
Vice Chatta (kpdoza`indcated ' frathis wasn't correct and stated that Mr.
Pin no also brou�l� tort% ACC Committee a fence that they disapproved
be of the establia'hed C 'A
Chairman zales suggested continuing this item.
q �
p_
COMMISSIONS COMMENTS
A
r
Commissioner Jordan indicated that the Tentative Parcel Map should have a
legal description and wanted to know why there wasn't one.
Planning Consultant Coury indicated that this was an oversight.
Public Works Director Seumalo indicated that Commissioner Jordan should have
a formal legal description on the map.
Commissioner Jordan stated that the legal description needs to be added. She
also requested clarification of the easement notes relating to Via Del Lago.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 69 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 9 of 22
Public Works Director Seumalo apologized that this wasn't explained more
clearly and noted the location of the utility boundaries.
Commissioner Jordan asked Mr. Seumalo if that was supposed to be depicted on
the map.
Public Works Director indicated yes.
Commissioner Jordan requested that staff add that to the map. She also
requested clarification regarding Condition No. 4 which states "Prior to final
recordation of the Tentative Parcel Map ".
City Attorney Leibold indicated that the Tent,
once it is finalled and the finaling process for a
will be recorded
Commissioner Jordan asked if it is a
will be recorded.
or. a Tentative
City Attorney Leibold indicated that it is a
Commissioner Jordan requested
Parcel Map.
City Attorney Leibold indicated to strike the
that
Commissioner JorP` h� question -'about thegrading permit, and asked if
there was a Bur g Owl »$urvey required prior to the grading permit being
pulled.
Public work
sr Seun7alo indicbtetl'that he would research this.
Cora ioner Jordan sated thia &k he was uncomfortable with the survey of the
Burrowr Owl becaus toth ohe surveys were done within one (1) week and
none were6cliscovered. he also asked where the driveway location was for
Parcel 3 becks she was having trouble distinguishing it.
Planning Consult"4 V Coury indicated that it is the common fifty -foot (50')
easement and noted that it was at the end of the hammer head.
Commissioner Jordan asked if Parcel 3 was at the end of the "hammer head ".
Public Works Director Seumalo specified the location of the access driveway, the
reciprocal access driveway, and the "hammer head" on the map.
Commissioner Jordan asked if sixteen feet (16') of the driveway would be paved.
She noted that it shows that a future turnout is suppose to be twenty -six feet (26')
and when she scaled it out, it is not twenty -six feet (26') feet.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 70 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 10 of 22
Public Works Director Seumalo indicated that this is something that can be
corrected on the site plan and indicated that he wasn't sure why it was shown on
the subdivision.
Commissioner Morsch stated that he also lives in Tuscany Hills, approximately
forty -nine hundred feet (4,900) from the Mr. Pinnow's property. He stated that
when he purchased his lot in Tuscany Hills, he was under the impression that the
residents had a school, a park, a recreational center, and twelve hundred (1,200)
homes which included "Estate Size" properties. He said that he wasn't active
politically but heard some complaints about fences, and tact that the "Estate
Size Properties" or the "Estate Added Territories" wer"omewhat different from
the regular R -1 lots in the rest of the community.]
He also indicated that Via Del Lago has the hig,
lots and they are roughly one and a half (1 1 /
three (3) acres plus and it was not part of #lie c
the added territory and included in the ongir�l
the residents that consented to the de -an
were "Estate Properties" and should be consic
also referred to Title 16.20.020 wh ,f states that
be compatible with lots in the surr(:V rea.
Also, Commissioner Morsch
states that they are,< .
surrounding prop(r�s�a
t
f
with
comp ' • ility with the
an a is ; ' t needed
way for the „tjjity runs
concentration of the smaller
Mr. F ftp, Ws property is
.d grading ti , ' was part of
Further, ated that
so -with the beb f that these
and treated differently. He
gas and arrangements shall
-Intiondil that )n ttrO City of Lake Elsinore's code, it
to loo t��subdivlr `ns in the context of the
:onsider tis particular project in the context of the
.t map shos twenty -four (24) very specific added
th larger lots`fihan all of the other lots combined.
tae specific Plan states, the people in the
ever one there was going to be compatible
at the issue he has is the size of the lots and
looperties. He asked Mr. Pinnow why there is
„Parcel 1 in benefit of Parcel 2, and why right -of-
'arcel 2.
Mr. Pinnow digWtsed .the location of the easements relating to Parcel 1 and 2.
He also indicatedh t before starting the project, he had considerable dialogue
with Tom Weiner, the City's previous Director, who told him that the only
requirements that they had to meet were the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, and
discussed the issue of density.
Mr. Pinnow indicated that the main issue was that the builder did not put any
fencing up and the HOA wanted the homeowners to put the fencing up at their
own expense and initially, the HOA paid the builders to put the other fences up
for the homeowners.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 71 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 11 of 22
Commissioner Morsch indicated that he recalled that the issues at the time were
that they had frontages of approximately two- hundred feet (200') to four - hundred
feet (400') and wanted white laminate fencing that looked rural. Conflict arose
once they made that request and as a result, two- thirds (2 /3rds) of the
Association agreed to release the added territory. He also indicated that since
Mr. Coury is correcting the map, he suggested changing the easement line to a
dash line to indicate the easement lines. He noted that the graphic scale is
lacking some numbers because the bar scale doesn't have numbers on it to
graphically show what the scale is and assuming the subdivision goes through,
asked if the access road is going to continue to be a gravej,eTp d or paved road.
He referred to Condition No. 7 which states: Prior
the applicant shall submit a letter of verification (wil
utility providers to the City Engineer, for
requested to add "Each lot shall have sep
including but not limited to sewer, water, el t�trical,
that they are not piggybacking on sewer." oth
issue of grading, he indicated that he kno r
drainage is one of the biggest problems that hi
add a condition, Condition No. 24' tp state the foil
a grading /drainage plan to elimin cross lot
the City Engineer. ���,�
Commissioner
responsible for
(3) lots.
that if thj@ projec
road sine there
Mr. Pinnow
area will ref=:
4�1ce of building permit,
✓e C I;tpr) from appropriate
red '011 y services, and
excluslwe •utility services,
and comrrticat ions ", so
lities. Also, fi g�rdIng the
?1perience that cross lot
have so he would like to
3: The applicant shall file
Viejo the satisfaction of
approved, who would be
I't be CC &Rs on the three
about the bill and noted that this
nnow that if he moves, who would maintain
the
Mr. Pinnow
if he moved, if it split, he would maintain it.
Chris Pinnow gave3,hjd name and address and indicated that he is the engineer
designing this plan` and stated that the original Water Quality Management Plan
required that the owner maintain all storm water which includes the driveway and
the run off from the driveway. He noted that the road will remain a gravel road
and will be maintained by Douglas Pinnow.
Commissioner Jordan asked if sixteen (16) feet of the road will be paved.
Chris Pinnow said eventually it will be paved.
Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Coury to explain what a dirt sports court is.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 72 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 12 of 22
Planning Consultant Coury indicated that it is identified as a tennis court, and a
croquet court.
Commissioner O'Neal asked Mr. Coury if he followed up with Riverside County
regarding the hillside requirements.
Planning Consultant Coury indicated that he didn't get a chance to contact
Riverside County regarding the City's hillside requirements but he reviewed the
requirements and stated that there was not a hillside overlay placed on this
Specific Plan in this area.
t,
Commissioner O'Neal asked if the City of Canyon
hillside requirements.
Planning Consultant Coury indicated that
Commissioner O'Neal asked if the City
courtesy notification.
Planning Consultant Coury i
the three hundred (300) foot
Commissioner O'Neal indicated that h
is not within the three �t (300)
would notify the Ca o residen
Planning C
require this.
the City
was notified about the
;
�tlfie Wthe project.
could be chided as a
Lake was outside of
s that"the City of Canyon Lake
ilus "NUFwanted to know if the City
it does affect them.
City of Lake Elsinore does not
Com i Eioner O'NWW! dic;i that when he and Mr. Coury discussed hillside,
their ed about fi ee>'t (I 5)q TCent as opposed to twenty (20) percent and
asked i , ,'s was correct
Planning Coh ttant Coury indicated that this was correct.
Commissioner O`(eaf stated that he has mixed feelings about this but
Commissioner Morsch clarified some issues for him and he agrees with him
about setting precedence. He said he would consider two (2) lots but not
consider three (3) lots and recommended continuing this item because there are
various issues and concerns with a number of people that need to be addressed.
Commissioner Mendoza indicated that he agreed with Commissioner Morsch
regarding the concept for "Estate Lots" because he knows they originally sold as
"Estate Lots" and subdividing these lots was not the intent of the "Estate Homes ".
He stated that the reason that he is aware of this is because he was there before
the homes were there and when the residents wanted to de -annex and does
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 73 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 13 of 22
understand why they wanted to. He encouraged Mr. Holts to start his own HOA
to get the other homeowners on board so that this doesn't go any further.
Chairman Gonzales indicated that he agreed with Mr. Morsch regarding the
"Estate" properties and said that he is against shared driveways. He asked if the
homeowner has to maintain the street afterwards and if the property is sold, will
this be part of the agreement of the sale.
Commissioner Morsch made a motion that the Commission postpone this item
and recommended to the owner that he bring back to tithe Commission an
application with a two (2) parcel map lot split with a,pfeliminary grading plan
showing the elimination of cross lot drainage. He als wanted to include in that
ik
motion a copy of the de- annexation documentatlonsd th i ulations regarding
the cle what the Estate Homes Vey' equlred ��do once they de
annex from the HOA.
-
,.
City Attorney Leibold clarified with thoF+r
continue this item, it has to be continued to
date, and if it is continued to an unspecified c
L that if the Moose to
Main, or to a unspecified
it needs to be re- noticed.
Commissioner Morsch asked Mr. R
the materials.
Mr. Pinnow indicated t has no
two (2) parcel sub s r ON d inv
property. He note � o the ' .. mmis
stands currently for ree (? parce
long it% uJ l take him to amend
of providing alternative plans for a
,ommission to take a look at the
he believes that it is suitable as it
�..�
C ommiss per sch a Mr. 'PMN6 if he understood that he risks denial
from th ommiss°il�de fiction 16.20.020.
Mr Plnn'o t C mission will probably never face this particular
situation ih scany Hilig again and they don't have to worry about forty
(40) new ho being built there because in the eight (8) years that he has been
there, no one as;ftought about doing anything like this. He stated that he
was the exception"' e the City extended Via Del Lago (in front of his house)
to give new frontage to allow the subdivision to take place.
He invited the Commission to review the records of the correspondence that he
had with the City before he began the project regarding the dual use driveway,
and conceptual plans, and noted that both were given the green light. He
indicated that a considerable amount of expenses were put in at this point and
although he does take seriously that he may face denial, he hopes that the
Commission takes seriously that he has done everything properly with the City
and if the Commission continues this, it would give them more time to review the
material.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 74 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 14 of 22
Commissioner Morsch indicated that if Mr. Pinnow was still under the original
CC &Rs and HOA, he would not be allowed to re- subdivide his property at all
without Board and City Approval and asked if he was aware of this.
Mr. Pinnow indicated yes.
Commissioner Morsch indicated to Mr. Pinnow that the Commission has given
him some latitude in considering an application that would include a subdivision
into two (2) lots but since he wants to subdivide into three (3) lots, he is running
into compatibility issues with the City of Lake Elsinore's Myal Code.
Motion was made by Commissioner O'Neal,
Mendoza, and unanimously carried to contin
36304, a request to subdivide an existing
parcels within the Residential Single Fa
Hills Specific Plan, to May 3` 2011.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2) Residenti:
0
City Manager 8'
project with the
have.
by Vice Chairman
re Parcel Map No.
into three (3)
isf the Tuscany
AIRMAN MENDOZA,
MISSIONER MORSCH,
Residential Design Review No. 2011 -01
and proposed Conditions of Approval.
that Kirt Coury, Project Planner would review the
and answer any questions the Commission may
Planning Consultant Coury provided an overview of the project and indicted that
the applicant was present.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Ms. Sondra Harris, Vice President of Planning with Richmond American Homes,
indicated that she was very excited to be back before the Commission again with
another product from Richmond American Homes in the City of Lake Elsinore.
CHAIRMAN GON
COMMISSIONER
O'NEAL
the
`�[QZ
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 75 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 15 of 22
She stated that she didn't have anything to add to Mr. Coury's presentation but
referred to Condition No. 24, which Mr. Coury spoke about in his presentation,
and requested from the Commission, approval of the California Coastal
landscape design which they are proposing on the models only and noted that
the parkway will be planted with turf and street trees and will be maintained by
the HOA.
Planning Consultant Coury indicated the California Coastal landscape design will
be an option for home buyers but the typical front yard plans that Richmond
American submitted have some turf and ground cover. •;,;
Commissioner Jordan asked Ms. Harris why
are proposing for the production because she
turf which gives a better street seen.
something that they
Took with the mix of
Ms. Harris indicated that they have discus thi;
teams and the buyers are not so willing eK
stated that with the implementation of AB18 I N
made the turf smaller in various communities o
and got significant pushback frdm the commun
sales so they are not currently prop�s'rag,�his type
Commissioner O'Neal asked Ms. Hal if
this as an option.
Ms. Harris
h their saldWpb m
in their front`Qjards. She
requires reduced turf, they
of the City of Lake Elsinore
which caused difficulty in
be able to request
�f O'Neal suggested that Richmond
option.
indicated % 't• they taave tried optional landscape designs in the past
ive not beensuccessful.
Chairman Go les Indited that in his yard there is no turf, it is a wide variety
of landscaping
Commissioner O'Neal encouraged them to rethink this issue and referred to the
"Living Smart" product by Pardee Homes.
Commissioner Jordan indicated that this would benefit homeowners because
they would be able to save money on their water bills.
Ms. Harris indicated that she would take the Commissioner's comments back to
her team to review these options.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 76 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 16 of 22
Vice Chairman Mendoza asked Ms. Harris if her concern is uniformity with the
other homes.
Ms. Harris indicated that if a homeowner decides to do Xeriscape later, McMillan
Development would ask the HOA to support this.
Vice Chairman Mendoza thought it would be great to have Xeriscape in the
CC &Rs if the homeowners request this.
Chairman Gonzales asked if the homes in this developme 'are required to have
flood insurance because they are being built in a flood pla'i'n:
Public Works Director Seumalo addressed Cha question
regarding the flood plain. r,,, >„ "',,
Ms. Harris also referred this question to Jul o Craig of McMillan
Mr. Justin Craig of McMillan Development int�iiself and addressed the
CC &R's and flood plain issues. `�� „
Vice Chairman Mendoza suggeste4W the landsca "ui elines be as clear as
possible which are included in the C ' A A l� ° � i �i
City Attorney Leibold ' ted that AV 011C &Rs`�j"`tivbrning all of the Summerly
project have alrea a corded arf the City is the third party beneficiary
within enforceme91 ghts. h
am
ifs in the recorded CC &Rs that require
covered by turf.
didn't think that there is.
Commissioner Morsch Indicated that if there is built -in latitude in the CC &Rs then
there is no "spI 'fic marjdate in the CC &Rs requiring turf and it is up to the
Architectural Revw Committee.
re
COMMISSIONER'3COMMENTS
Vice Chairman Mendoza indicated that all of his questions were answered
previously and welcomed the applicant to the City.
Commissioner O'Neal thanked Ms. Harris for stopping by his office to discuss this
project as well as others in the City.
Commissioner Jordan indicated she noticed that on several lots, the plotting isn't
staggered and she is concerned about the street scene and noted the similarity
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 77 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 17 of 22
of architecture between Plan's S180 and S192 and noted that the City wants to
raise the bar but she doesn't think that this is raising the bar.
Commissioner Jordan discussed how she envisioned the street plan in her mind
regarding Plans S180 and S192 and noted that they don't have a lot of variation,
specifically, not having the lots staggered. She also indicated that on many of
the lots they are doing minimal front setback although she understands that the
lots are small and asked if the rear yard setback with the patio is five (5') feet.
Planning Consultant Coury indicated yes.
Commissioner Jordan indicated that she noticed on
applicant is using a stone veneer, and wanted to k
brick or a different kind of a veneer to make those Ic
the roof lines on the bungalow elevations j& all
suggested that there be some architecturaIP "nhanc
She recommended doing some kind of diff ston
Commissioner Morsch stated that Condition
to be clarified and also wanted cl; 'rjffcation of
Public Works Director Seumalo indiLotE
and also clarified Condition No. 49 foil
Commissioner Morsch Inds �" ed that th
and stated that �r�e the n section
get out of the development t ' e lake.
Public W
flood
intoth It
Commiss
minimum
basin
Morsch
4on to b
Public Works D
elevation.
and K elevations, the
,bey are not using a
re.;C t, She stated that
KactCy� the same and
its on th�� el vatio
either the a the K.
poorly worded and needs
No. 49.
26 would be revised
just one (1) part of the development
uilt, asked how the water is going to
indicated that at the one hundred (100) year
drain to and filter through the golf course, and
that the very lowest elevation is right at the
the flood plain for FEMA which is 1,267.
indicated that 1,267 is a local required finish floor
Commissioner Morsch indicated that the water level could conceivably be 1,263
with a wave surge at 1,267 is where they are currently at and asked how the
water would get conveyed from this development, in addition to the other
developments to the lake since they are already close to the floodplain.
Public Works Director Seumalo indicated that it would be stored in the golf
course area until the water dissipates and noted that at the one hundred (100)
year flood condition, other areas at risk will be the downtown areas.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 78 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 18 of 22
Commissioner Morsch indicated that this project is the most easterly developed
project of the phases and that most likely, everything is going to converge to
Village Parkway. He stated that the elevations of these finished floors are at the
lowest they can be to be out of the FEMA floodplain and the next development is
going to have to similarly be above 1,267. He indicated that there will be flooding
at Village Parkway and from there into the storm drain, the golf course and then
to the lake.
Public Works Director Seumalo indicated that there is a one hundred and eight
inch (108 ") pipe in Village Parkway so the storm drain syst s are intended to go
subterranean and at the one hundred (100) year flood.afion, there may be
some surface flows on the streets but it will all go to the golf course which
is the planned storage and treatment area.
Commissioner Morsch stated that he believe haj
be done really well, such as creative archi ural ell
He noted that the only problem he has , s prc
small homes and he would be happier if a poagt„
twenty -two hundred (2,200) square feet and ha "c
foot spread between the smaller phomes and the
give the customer more of a vanetY #o��pose from.
like to see this in the next phase.,
enscapeIg" scaping could
ments with np Work, etc.
t Is mat tner "re a lot of
ese homes Were around
least a four hundred (400)
ger homes and this would
J b,Jndicated that he would
Ms. Harris indicated ff�re is a h
in the City of Lake Ejsrtior �a other
Irgingle story homes, not only
Southern California.
Commissioner Jordan ,stat F that she v 3did like to see changes such as
additional architectural #o :the Snish Elevation for the S180 and the
S192, an,4 � d,to kno �, by they re not using a different kind of veneer on
the diTOOnt eIevat�e` F
y
Ms Hal gpaddressed Commissioner Jordan's suggestions.
Mr. Dave K614%f KTGY a `rchitects introduced himself and indicated that he was
e 2
also the archit - r J Laing Homes as well as the Summerly models. He let
the Commissione ow that their comments were valid and informed them that
two dimensional rp derings do not give justice and the plans give better detail
regarding the different models. He said they would work with staff to enhance
the models per Commissioner Jordan's request. He discussed the benefits of
single story homes and how they will benefit the residents of the City.
Passed and adopted the following Resolution:
"Resolution No. 2011 -06 — A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the
City of Lake Elsinore, California, recommending that the City Council of the
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 79 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 19 of 22
City of Lake Elsinore adopt findings that the project is consistent with the
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ".
MOTION was made by Vice Chairman Mendoza, seconded by
Commissioner Jordan and unanimously carried recommending that the
City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore adopt findings that the project is
consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
AYES:
Chairman Gonzales, Vice Chairman Mendoza,
Commissioner Jordan, CommissioneraMorsct
Commissioner O'Neal A
adopted the following
City of Lake Elsinore, Californi
City of Lake Elsinore approve
eliminating Conditio : o. 2
Commission rega p,
the plotting and , cades':
specifics of
irdan, seconded by Vice Chairman
mmending that the City Council of
mtial Design Review No. 2011 -0101
veil as getting direction from the
work with staff on the specifics of
Gonzales, Vice Chairman Mendoza,
Dner Jordan, Commissioner Morsch,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The Planning Commissioners thanked the applicant for their products.
(,Commission of the
e City Council of the
'ew No. 2011 -01 and
direction from the
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 80 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 20 of 22
Chairman Gonzales stated that he looks forward to Richmond American's
residential neighborhoods coming to the City. He also referred to the letter that
was drafted by Commissioner O'Neal on behalf of the Commissioners regarding
the City's Redevelopment Agency and asked the Commissioners if they had any
comments or questions regarding the letter.
City Attorney Leibold noted that since the letter that Commission O'Neal drafted
wasn't on the Agenda, it is for the purpose of information only and the
Commission cannot take any formal action regarding this.
Commissioner O'Neal thanked Ms. Leibold for her assistance'with the letter and
stated that he welcomed any changes that the�]�sion might have and
requested that they initial if they agree and he wou , orwar�l to the Governor.
City Attorney Leibold suggested that an elpefr'o its version be,' wen to Susan
Reid in the City Manager's office to put on the City's letterhead l,4o be set up
��a
for signature and initialing. She sugges that pmissioner C' Neal also
forward a copy to the local legislators who�wl e: Ati " ' on the bill. She also
{{
indicated that in the last couple of days, the le �'vecounsels office said that
the Brown budget proposal to ell ate Redevelo °o
g p p �� prpetlt was legally problematic
in light of Proposition 22 and the initicJraft of the proposed bill is now available
and can be provided to the Commis
Commissioner O'Neal Mated that if apy,nfi the " G... 15fri missioners wanted to add
anything to the letter;ould be more�an happto accommodate this.
Commissioner Jorda ank Commissioner "O'Neal for writing the letter.
�N \`' F
�\ - w
Vice Chaitrnan,,,M. oza stated that h� concurred.
STAFCOMMENTS ,
Public Wor irector Salo gave the Capital Improvement Program update.
Planning Cons grit Coury extended his thanks to the Commissioners for
contacting him by-1email and by phone regarding the parcel map project and
noted that this reaJly helped to gather and share information before the Planning
Commission meeting.
Senior Planner Harris had no comments.
Office Specialist Herrington had no comments.
City Manager Brady had no comments.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 81 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 21 of 22
CITY ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS
City Attorney Leibold had no comments.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Morsch thanked Commissioner O'Neal for taking the time to write
the letter to the Governor regarding the City's Redevelopment Agency and
indicated that he thought that it is important for the City's Planning Commission
to object to the dissolving of the Redevelopment Agencies. He also
congratulated Mr. Brady on the extension of his contract Arid stated that although
it may premature, looks forward to working with him a;�oted that he is doing a
good job and is well respected in this community
Commissioner Jordan thanked staff for all of
work they do. She indicated that she does=
a stickler about certain things and is pro#
She indicated that she would e-mail staff with
Commission meeting.
Planning Consultant Coury
respond in writing to the Coi
Commissioner O'Neal requE
City Attorney Lei indicaj
sreid @lake- elsinore. N
Commis gtIfi al ask
stationary and re e'sted th
=117 - [
S
work appreciates the
be hard on'I staff but she is
in the City's= interest.
Dons, prior t , #e Planning
>,gogd because they can
ress.
's e-mail address is:
It M " s` Reid put the letter he drafted on the City's
of the legislators get copies also.
City Mg �rf er Brady cdt� med„j:F at the letter would be completed and copies will
be fotward� #o all legisloors as well as the City Council.
b\ Ja
Vice Chairmante,ndoZa thanked staff for their hard work and also wanted to
,;,,.
thank John Herref0 City's Information Technology Technician for his help
with setting up his# mail and mentioned how patient and upbeat Mr. Herrera is.
City Manager Brady indicated that Mr. Herrera is a very good employee.
Commissioner Jordan seconded that and indicated that he helped her get back
on e-mail.
Chairman Gonzales reminded the Commissioners that their Form 700 has to be
turned into the City Clerk's office.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 82 of 84
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011
Page 22 of 22
Commissioner O'Neal stated that he did not receive the Form 700 and mentioned
that in the past it has been mailed to his home.
It was noted by Staff and the Planning Commission that the next Planning
Commission meeting to be held on March 15, 2011, would be cancelled.
Chairman Gonzales closed the meeting in memory of those in Christ Church, a
Church that was destroyed in South Island, New Zealand, where he spent time in
the past.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come be
Chairman Gonzales adjourned the meeting at 8;
The next regular meeting of the PI
Elsinore which is scheduled for Tue
Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main
Respectfully
Attest:
Robert A. Brady
City Manager
I of tl'e
1, at 6:0
re. will be
Commission,
Lake
in the
led.
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 83 of 84
�s s
3
$ s �
s
w1
o R�
o „a C "� X03
u >y
I z H
�1 a u8 CAo d
I W r3 e 'w d
O H O v a
W
J E- _
U _
Q
d
W
H
Q
w
$ N �
� Q k
w Q ®^
O
Y �
WY
Uk
� a+
a
1 /
yap
da
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 84 of 84
n a s
�5 -o a N w
Y
SQ
£
3
e g
e
]
n
= °nom 8e •
3
a
s gggg
@ YF.: 9 ee
�Sg
UA-
j p
Ngi
sib �
s
x�p
9e� �esi
O'_3g s'
r
� )3 0
b= as �r2:a
pg�i #gps �p�g3
I
bN 0 .aB gee,
v
s9 De �
g
.w. �.
P
A
.
a
I
i
s
?oa
W
y
br9
�w
ti
w
$ N �
� Q k
w Q ®^
O
Y �
WY
Uk
� a+
a
1 /
yap
da
PC May 3, 2011 Item No. 3
Page 84 of 84