HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 2CITY OF
LADE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LSIA01ZE
DREAM EXTREME.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TOM WEINER
ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
JANUARY 20, 2009
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-22 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO. 2007 -04
MIKE DUNN, 3520 CADILLAC AVENUE, SUITE B, COSTA MESA,
CALIFORNIA 92626
OWNER: Q.T. PROPERTY, LLC; CONTACT: AL BELL, MANAGER, C/O
ROBERT ROSENSTEIN & HITZMAN, 28600 MERCEDES STREET,
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590
Project Request
The applicant is returning to Planning Commission after the project was recommended for
a Continuance at the regular scheduled meeting of October 7, 2008. The applicant is
requesting consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and an Industrial Design Review to
allow for the development of a Self Storage and Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility
(CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04).
Project review is pursuant to Part VII: Development Regulations, Chapter 7.4 (Residential
Development Regulations); Subsection 9.2.2 (Conditional Use Permit); Subsection 9.2.3,
Design Review and all other sections within the East Lake Specific Plan as they relate to
the development of this proposal.
Background
The project was heard at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on
October 7, 2008. Staff recommended denial of the project based on the inability to make
findings to support a self storage facility on a project site that is designated for Residential
use per the East Lake Specific Plan. Since the project was being recommended for denial,
there was no environmental determination made at that time, since the project was being
recommended for denial. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the
project.
w, y I 3b
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
January 20, 2009
Page 2 of 7
Since the October 7, 2008 Hearing, the applicant has obtained traffic and noise studies to
determine if the Storage Facility would create any impacts to the neighboring residential
uses. Both studies found that impacts from the Storage Facility would be "less than
significant," which would allow Staff to make a determination that the project could be
considered "In -Fill Development" pursuant to Section 15332, Class 32 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The applicant also processed a Lake Elsinore
Acquisition Process (LEAP) and Joint Power Review (JPR) through the Regional
Conservation Agency (RCA). The LEAP application was reviewed pursuant to the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( MSHCP) "Plan Wide Requirements ". The project was
found to be consistent with both the Criteria and other MSHCP requirements and no further
Plan requirements were necessary.
While the environmental and MSHCP requirements have been met, the issue of land use
compatibility remains. The site is designated Residential One that allows primarily
residential uses. The proposed use is considered to be industrial. The Planning
Commission may find that since the use will not environmentally impact the neighbors, it
may be deemed acceptable with the restrictions of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The
East Lake Specific Plan requires a CUP for this type of use in a residential zone area.
Project Location
The site is located on a 2.7 acre vacant parcel at the corner of Corydon Street and
Palomar Street (APN 370 - 120 -045).
Setting
LOCT®k "MEEXItyS
j1+11+IGL�AIA_,'
h`LAfDUNSE"
'RGEIERAL7
% � y '
01, bill +� < >77
6 , r,'Yr,e s k I s
' «a { `z{tr P z a
,5''
d' L4fivi (a��.dtin@�:.S�Y':RR'+'PM0
r
�..mallMf$klii k'A..,da..,...,.��;AE,�" rk:n�Fn
E.,.i� ti� v '.wh. 4)1�+ =.H a.,.,1n�.
�L.h n'fa�{[:',..� >,b :4.4C
Project Site
Vacant
Residential 1
Specific Plan
Northwest
Open Space —
Residential 1
Specific Plan
Public Park
Northeast
Mobile Home Park
AUA (Airport Use Area)
Specific Plan
Southwest
Single Family
Residential 1
Specific Plan
Residential
Southeast
I Vacant
County of Riverside
County of Riverside
The General Plan Designation is Specific Plan. The Land Use Designation is Residential 1
(up to 6 du /ac) as described in the East Lake Specific Plan. The site is located within the
mapped Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone (please referto the sections within this report
that lists the requirement and restrictions for properties located in this Special Study Zone).
The existing surrounding land uses adjacent to the proposed project site are 1) a single
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
January 20, 2009
Page 3 of 7
family residential project known as "Serenity" located to the west and directly across
Palomar Street; 2) a neighborhood park that is part of the Serenity development and north
of the site; 3) an existing mobile home park approximately ten feet (10') below and east of
the site; and 4) a vacant parcel across Corydon Street, south of the project site located
within the City of Wildomar. The Mobile Home Park and properties east of the project site
have land use designations of AUA (Airport Use Area) East Lake Specific Plan.
Project Description
Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit is being requested because the industrial use is not listed as a
Permitted Use within the Residential One designation within the East Lake Specific Plan.
However, approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a certain use may be considered
pursuant to Section 9.2.2 of the East Lake Specific Plan that states that there is an
allowance for other uses with a CUP, "not specifically permitted nor prohibited in the
Development Regulation."
Findings that need to be made for approval of a Conditional Use permit are as follows:
The proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the Specific Plan and the
Planning Area in which the site is located.
2. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and for
all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, buffers and other regulations
required by this Specific Plan.
3. There will be no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted and normal
use thereof.
4. Adequate conditions and safeguards are incorporated into the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit to ensure that the use continues in a manner envisioned
by these findings for the term of the use.
Industrial Design Review No. 2007 -04
The applicant proposes to construct three (3) multiple unit, storage buildings on an
approximately 2.7 acre vacant site. The details of the buildings and square footage are
reflected in the matrix below:
AGINZA t$E .'i 40._.
Cis_. 36 --
CUP No. 2007 -22 and OR No. 2007 -04
January 20, 2009
Page 4 of 7
Building
Square Footage
Use
Building A
22,183
172 storage units
Building B (includes 417 sq. ft.
office )
9,867
35 storage units & office only
(caretaker unit not allowed
Building C
1,764
11 storage units
The applicant has provided information stating that the office may be occupied for a
maximum of 2000 hours per year since the project is located within a restricted Alquist-
Priolo Fault area. This restriction is pursuant to the "Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," a reportthatwas adopted March 13, 1997 bythe
State Mining and Geology Board in Accordance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of
1990. It is used as a guideline by the City of Lake Elsinore.
The total footprint area of all buildings is 34,231 square feet or twenty -nine percent (29 %)
of the lot area. The maximum lot coverage allowed in the Residential 1 area of the ELSP is
sixty percent (60 %). The applicant is also proposing to include sixty -one (61) covered
recreational vehicle /boat parking spaces located in the "restricted" Alquist Priolo Fault area.
The setbacks required along Corydon Street are forty feet (40') from the face of curb. The
plans show approximately forty (40) feet that varies slightly due to architectural wall
projections (This setback requirement has been re- interpreted from the initial review and
found to be substantially acceptable). Palomar Street is considered to be a Collector
Street. Setbacks of forty feet (40') from face of curb are also required for Palomar Street.
There is a ten foot (10') walkway /parkway provided, however the thirty foot (30') area
required for landscaping varies from eighteen (18') feet to five (5) feet, averaging between
five (5 ") feet and ten (10 "). Interior property lines require a fifteen foot (16) setback when
the use is adjacent to open space, which would apply in this case with an adjacent park.
The applicant has provided two small planters or setback areas along this boundary.
The main entrance driveway has been relocated farther north from the corner of Palomar
Street and Corydon Street per the request of both the Engineering Division and County of
Riverside Fire Department. An emergency Fire Access Gate is provided approximately
eighty -five feet (85) north of Corydon Street, however, since this will only be used in
emergency situations, it has been deemed acceptable.
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit No. 2008 -08
Staff has provided the following analysis in response to each required Finding. Since the
applicant has completed his CEQA and MSHCP requirements and Staff has re- visited the
set -back issues, some of the following findings have been revised from the original Staff
2-
PAGE ....t;
CUP No. 2007 -22 and OR No. 2007 -04
January 20, 2009
Page 5 of 7
Report.
The proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the Specific Plan and the
Planning Area in which the site is located.
The proposed project is not in accordance with the objectives of the ELSP
because the project is an industrial project that is proposed to be developed on
land that has a land use designation of residential. The industrial land use is not in
accordance with the objectives of the Residential 1 land use because:
The Residential 1 land use designation permits only residential, park and
open space, and recreation type land uses on property with a Residential 1
land uses on property with a Residential 1 land use designation.
Industrial uses are not listed as conditionally permitted uses within the
Residential 1 land use designation of the ELSP. However, the Planning
Commission can find that since both the Noise and Traffic Studies found
that impacts are less than significant, the use may be allowed with a
Conditional Use Permit.
2. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and for
all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, buffers and other regulations
required by this Specific Plan.
The question of whether the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the proposed use is not resolved due to two issues, therefore, Staff cannot make
this finding without approval of a Variance due to the constraints of the Alquist-
Priolo Fault line and the non - compliance with the required setbacks listed in the
East Lake Specific Plan.
Required setbacks: Palomar Street is considered to be a Collector Street
which requires a ten foot (10) walkway /parkway and thirty foot (30)
landscaped area. The applicant proposes a varying building setback from
eighteen (18) feet to five (5) feet, averaging between five (5) feet and ten
(10). Interior property lines require a fifteen foot (15) setback when the use
is adjacent to open space, which would apply in this case with an adjacent
park. The applicant has provided two small planters or setback areas along
this boundary. The Planning Commission may considergranting a Variance
for these deficient setbacks based on the physical limitations of the site,
specifically the Alquist Priolo Fault that runs though the centerof the project.
3. There will be no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted and normal
use thereof.
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
January 20, 2009
Page 6 of 8
Upon review of a Traffic and Noise Study provided by the applicant, it can be
determined that there will be no adverse effect on abutting property specifically in
the areas of traffic and noise. It was also found that the number of traffic counts is
insignificant and would not impact the air quality of the general area.
4. Adequate conditions and safeguards are incorporated into the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit to ensure that the use continues in a manner envisioned
by these findings for the term of the use.
Conditions have not been provided since Staff is recommending denial.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed Conditional
Use Permit No. 2007 -22 and Industrial Design Review No. 2007 -04 located on a vacant
parcel at the corner of Corydon Street and Palomar Street is not a project given that the
project is recommended to be denied.
A preliminary environmental analysis including Traffic and Noise studies were completed.
These studies found that the project would create less than significant impacts to the
neighboring residential uses. Therefore, if the project may be considered acceptable, the
project could be determined to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332, In -Fill
Development Projects, meeting the criteria of the Class 32 characteristics.
The applicant also processed the project through a Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process
(LEAP) and JPR as well as reviewed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements'.
The project was found to be consistent with both the Criteria and other MSHCP
requirements and no further Plan requirements were necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request for the proposed
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007 -22 and Industrial Design Review No. 2007 -04 located on
a vacant parcel at the corner of Corydon Street and Palomar Street (APN 370 -120 -045).
If the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the project, Staff will bring the project
back before the Planning Commission with approval Resolutions and Conditions of
Approval. In order to comply with the requirements of the East Lake Specific Plan, the
applicant shall be required to submit a request for review and approval of a Variance for
the setbacks along Palomar Street and the interior property line. The Variance application
will be brought before the Planning Commission with the approval Resolutions and
Conditions of Approval.
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
January 20, 2009
Page 7 of 7
Prepared By: Linda Miller,
Project Planner
Approved By: Tom Weiner,
Acting Director of Community Development
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reductions
3. Minutes from the Planning Commission Hearing dated October 7, 2008
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 7, 2008
5. Full Size Plans & Color Conceptual Exhibits
a4t`„. N0.�
VICINITY MAP
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2007 -04
CUP 2007 -22
APN 370 - 120 -045
PLANNING COMMISSION
i40 Ee` DA � i C'. �c 'M� 2—
E S cll---3�!—.
It was motioned by Vice - Chairman Flores, seconded by Commissioner Mendoza to
adopt Resolution No. 2008 -76, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008 -22.
The following vote resulted:
AYES: CHAIRMAN ZANELLI
VICE - CHAIRMAN FLORES
COMMISSIONER GONZALES
COMMISSIONER MENDOZA
COMMISSIONER O'NEAL
NOES: NONE
-- ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
4. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007 -22 and Industrial Design Review No 2007 -04
Chairman Zanelli opened the Public Hearing at 6:46 p.m.
Planning Consultant Miller provided a brief overview of the project. She indicated
staff is recommending denial of the project because it was discovered that the parcel
in question was designated Residential 1 instead of Airport Use Area (AUA). She
noted the lot was constrained due to the site being located within the mapped
Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone which restricts properties located in the Special
Study Zone. She stated staff could not make findings to support approval of the self
storage on the residential land use site. She indicated she received 10 phone calls
supporting staffs decision to deny the project.
Mike Dunn, applicant, provided to the Commission a detailed overview of why the
Commission should overturn staffs decision and consider approving the project. He
indicated the storage unit is a state -of- the -art facility. He stated the facility would
enhance the area and would provide a buffer between the homes and Mobile Home
Park and take 58 motor homes and trailers off the streets and give them a place to
park in a safe and secure area. He indicated that staff was always courteous and
helpful however wished that staff would have considered the project for approval.
Eleanor Janes, resident, spoke of a house that previously occupied the location
which since has been torn down. She thought that the area was unbuildable and
could only accommodate a park.
Craig Burunton, resident, spoke in favor of the project. He indicated the project
would provide future jobs and recreational parking is needed.
Bob Robinson, resident, spoke neutrally of the project. He noted only one
ingress /egress and spoke of his concerns with safety. He suggested the traffic
engineer take a closure look at the project.
Chairman Zanelli closed the Public Hearing at 7:27 p.m.
Vice Chairman Flores asked the applicant if he was aware that the zoning was R -1.
Mike Dunn was told it was Airport Use Area (AUA).
Vice - Chairman Flores asked the applicant if he would be willing to re- locate the entry
way driveway.
Mike Dunn indicated that there is another diagram showing the entry way being
relocated due to safety concerns.
Vice - Chairman Flores asked staff if the General Plan Update has been finaled.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner indicated the General Plan Update
has not been finaled.
Vice - Chairman Flores asked if staff could help with the Mixed Use Zoning.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner indicated the project is within a
Specific Plan and already vested. He indicated the land use is in place and staff can
not modify it in the General Plan. He stated the applicant has the option of applying
for a Specific Plan Amendment, which is a more time consuming process.
Commissioner O'Neal asked at what point staff advised the applicant he could not
do the project.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner indicated the applicant submitted
his application around October 2007 and within 60 days after the submittal the land
use issue was discovered.
Commissioner O'Neal asked how many meetings were held with the applicant and
the architect.
Project Planner Miller indicated the only meeting that is noted was on December 18"'
which was held at the front counter and the right of way issue was discussed.
Commissioner O'Neal spoke of the earthquake fault that goes through the area, and
why would single family homes be allowed in that area.
Project Planner Miller indicated that the plan may have been developed in the 1980s
and stated she wasn't sure if it was identified that a fault zone was present.
Commissioner Gonzales also noted his concerns with the entrance.
Pge; 10
Project Planner Miller noted the exhibits show an emergency access where the
access was originally planned.
Commissioner O'Neal suggested having the project brought back to the Commission
instead of denying the project.
Commissioner Mendoza asked how much more money would it cost the applicant
should the project be brought back to the Commission at a later date.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner indicated if staff were to bring the
project back for approval, staff would need to complete the environmental portion
which would have some additional costs involved.
Commissioner Mendoza indicated the project is not properly zoned for the area and
concurred with staff's recommendation.
Chairman Zanelli noted the design of the project. He spoke of his concerns with the
access of the project and the required set backs which the initial application did not
provide.
It was motioned by Commissioner Mendoza, seconded by Vice - Chairman Flores to
continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2007 -22 and Industrial Design Review No.
2007 -04 off calendar.
The following vote resulted:
AYES: CHAIRMAN ZANELLI
VICE - CHAIRMAN FLORES
COMMISSIONER GONZALES
COMMISSIONER MENDOZA
COMMISSIONER O'NEAL
NOES: NONE'
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Chairman Zanelli requested a recess at 7:52 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m.
5. Residential Design Review No. 2008 -03. for "Jasmine" by Lennar Homes in Rosetta
Hills, Tract Map No. 31792.
Chairman Zanelli opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner provided the Commission with a
brief overview of the project. He stated staff is recommending approval of the
TTJC l I �jt'T
CITY OF
DREAM EXTREME-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TOM WEINER
ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2008
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-22 AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO. 2007 -04
APPLICANT: MIKE DUNN, 3520 CADILLAC AVENUE, SUITE B, COSTA MESA,
CALIFORNIA 92626
OWNER: Q.T. PROPERTY,• LLC; CONTACT: AL BELL, MANAGER, C/O
ROBERT ROSENSTEIN & HITZMAN, 28600 MERCEDES STREET,
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590
Project Request
The applicant is requesting consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and an Industrial
Design Review to allow for the development of a Self Storage and Recreational Vehicle
Storage Facility (CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04).
Project review is pursuant to Part VII: Development Regulations, Chapter 7.4 (Residential
Development Regulations); Subsection 9.2.2 (Conditional Use Permit); Subsection 9.2.3,
Design Review and all other sections within the East Lake Specific Plan as they relate to
the development of this proposal.
Project Location
The site is located on a 2.7 acre vacant parcel at the corner of Corydon Street and
Palomar Street (APN 370 - 120 -045).
PAGE ! Y 0,-, J
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
October 7, 2008
Page 2 of 8
Settinq
The General Plan Designation is Specific Plan. The Land Use Designation is Residential 1
(up to 6 du /ac) as described in the East Lake Specific Plan. The site is located within the
mapped Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone (please refer to the sections within this report
that lists the requirement and restrictions for properties located in this Special Study Zone).
The existing surrounding land uses adjacent to the proposed project site are 1) a single
family residential project known as "Serenity" located to the west and directly across
Palomar Street; 2) a neighborhood park that is part of the Serenity development and north
of the site; 3) an existing mobile home park approximately ten feet (10') below and east of
the site; and 4) a vacant parcel across Corydon Street, south of the project site located
within the City of Wildomar. The Mobile Home Park and properties east of the project site
have land use designations of AUA (Airport Use Area) East Lake Specific Plan.
Background
The applicant met with various Staff members informally prior to their official submittal in
October of 2007. During preliminary review of the project, the Land Use designation of the
project site appeared to be AUA (Airport Use Area) due to the location of the alignment of
Palomar Street. The East Lake Specific Plan does not show parcel lines and it was
assumed that Palomar Street was the boundary line separating the Residential 1 and AUA
Land Use Designations, when in fact the applicant's eastern boundary line is the line
separating the Residential 1 and AUA Land Use Designations (see Exhibit A - ELSP &
Exhibit B — APN Map attached).
In order to ensure that the applicant had correct information, Staff researched documents
and maps, including an acetate overlay map that was found identifying land uses and
Palomar Street's alignment. This overlay map clarified where the boundary line of the AUA
land use was located (see Exhibit C). The applicant questioned why his parcel and the
adjacent parcels in question (APN's 370 - 120 -071, 073, 074 and 045) were not
ACsE's`'F.!STE Z-
•,� Space
®
Park
* 0 �
®
Residential
®
County
The General Plan Designation is Specific Plan. The Land Use Designation is Residential 1
(up to 6 du /ac) as described in the East Lake Specific Plan. The site is located within the
mapped Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone (please refer to the sections within this report
that lists the requirement and restrictions for properties located in this Special Study Zone).
The existing surrounding land uses adjacent to the proposed project site are 1) a single
family residential project known as "Serenity" located to the west and directly across
Palomar Street; 2) a neighborhood park that is part of the Serenity development and north
of the site; 3) an existing mobile home park approximately ten feet (10') below and east of
the site; and 4) a vacant parcel across Corydon Street, south of the project site located
within the City of Wildomar. The Mobile Home Park and properties east of the project site
have land use designations of AUA (Airport Use Area) East Lake Specific Plan.
Background
The applicant met with various Staff members informally prior to their official submittal in
October of 2007. During preliminary review of the project, the Land Use designation of the
project site appeared to be AUA (Airport Use Area) due to the location of the alignment of
Palomar Street. The East Lake Specific Plan does not show parcel lines and it was
assumed that Palomar Street was the boundary line separating the Residential 1 and AUA
Land Use Designations, when in fact the applicant's eastern boundary line is the line
separating the Residential 1 and AUA Land Use Designations (see Exhibit A - ELSP &
Exhibit B — APN Map attached).
In order to ensure that the applicant had correct information, Staff researched documents
and maps, including an acetate overlay map that was found identifying land uses and
Palomar Street's alignment. This overlay map clarified where the boundary line of the AUA
land use was located (see Exhibit C). The applicant questioned why his parcel and the
adjacent parcels in question (APN's 370 - 120 -071, 073, 074 and 045) were not
ACsE's`'F.!STE Z-
CUP No. 2007 -22 and [DR No. 2007 -04
October 7, 2008
Page 3 of 8
automatically changed to AUA when the Palomar Street alignmentwas shifted west. It was
explained that Staff does not arbitrarily change land use designations when roads are
aligned. When it was discovered that the parcel in question was designated Residential 1
instead of AUA, Staff stated that it could not make findings to support approval of the self
storage and recreational vehicle facility storage use on the residential land use site.
It should be noted that even if the site's land use designation was AUA a CUP would still
be required pursuant to Sub - section 7.5.5.b of the East Lake Specific Plan. In other words,
Staff would have to make findings in support or denial of the CUP whether it was in
Residential 1 or AUA. Staff has listed the reasons why findings cannot be made
recommending approval of the industrial use in the residential land use designation under
the "ANALYSIS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008 -08" section of this Staff Report.
Project Description
Conditional Use Permit
As mentioned, a Conditional Use Permit process is required whether the land use remains
Residential 1 or changes to AUA. The following lists the permitted uses allowed in the
Residential 1 designation of the East Lake Specific Plan:
Permitted Uses:
• Single- family detached dwellings
• Single- family attached dwellings
Park and Open Space areas
• Recreation Center and facilities
Uses allowed with a Conditional Use Permit:
• Hospitals or medical centers
• Senior citizen housing projects
• Religious facilities
• Residential child care centers
• Day care centers
• Private Schools
• Commercial recreational facilities such as private health clubs, tennis and swim
clubs, or other similar uses.
• Residential 2, 3 and 4 land uses
Although industrial uses are not listed as an allowable use Section 9.2.2 the East Lake
Specific Plan states that there is an allowance for other uses with a CUP, "not specifically
permitted nor prohibited in the Development Regulation." Since this statement is included
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
October 7, 2008
Page 4 of 8
in the Specific Plan, the applicant requests an interpretation of this statement as it relates
to the project, thus the request for a Conditional Use Permit.
Findings that need to be made for approval of a Conditional Use permit are that:
The proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the Specific Plan and the
Planning Area in which the site is located.
2. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and for
all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, buffers and other regulations
required by this Specific Plan.
There will be no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted and normal
use thereof.
4. Adequate conditions and safeguards are incorporated into the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit to ensure that the use continues in a manner envisioned
by these findings for the term of the use.
Industrial Design Review No. 2007 -04
The applicant proposes to construct two (2) multiple unit, storage buildings on an
approximately 2.7 acre vacant site. Building A is a one (1) story 25,380 square foot
structure consisting of approximately one hundred and seventy -eight (178) storage units of
various sizes and Building B is a one (1) story 10,546 square foot building consisting of
forty -four (44) storage units for a total of two hundred twenty -two storage (222) units. The
proposal also includes an 818 square foot office. The applicant has provided information
stating that the office may be occupied for a maximum of 2000 hours per year since the
project is located within a restricted Alquist - Priolo Fault area. This restriction is pursuant to
the "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," a report that
was adopted March 13, 1997 by the State Mining and Geology Board in Accordance with
the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990. It is used as a guideline by the City of Lake
Elsinore. The total building footprint area is 36,742 or thirty -one percent (31 %) of the lot
area. The maximum lot coverage allowed in the Residential 1 area of the ELSP is sixty
percent (60 %). The applicant is also proposing to include fifty -eight (58) covered
recreational vehicle parking spaces located in the "restricted" Alquist Priolo Fault area.
Since the proposed project is an industrial type use, the AUA setback requirements were
used to determine if setbacks were being adhered to as the setbacks listed in Residential 1
relate mainly to single family homes. The building setbacks shown on the plan do not
comply with the setback requirements of the ELSP. A forty foot (40') setback (from the
curb) is required on Corydon Street. Palomar Street is considered to be a Collector Street
AGc£11l1 ` I' v, Ei? F'aO. 2—
PAC-E-:_15 GN
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
October 7, 2008
Page 5 of 8
requiring a thirty -five foot (35') setback from the right of way; interior property lines require
a fifteen foot (15') setback when the use is adjacent to open space, which would apply in
this case with an adjacent park.
The driveway location shown on the site plan has been determined to be too close to
Corydon Street. Stacking of vehicles entering the site could create an unsafe condition.
The Riverside County Fire Department also requires two points of access. The applicant is
aware of these issues, however, since Staff intended to recommend denial of the project,
the applicant chose not to resubmit a full re- submittal package, however, a single page
showing the possible relocation of the driveways was submitted. This revision is attached
as an informational item only (Exhibit D - revised Draft plan). This plan shows that the
main driveway has been relocated further away from Corydon Street on Palomar Street. A
second emergency access is shown in approximately the same location as the driveway
shown on the current plans.
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit No. 2008 -08
Staff has provided the following analysis in response to each required Finding:
The proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the Specific Plan and the
Planning Area in which the site is located.
The proposed project is not in accordance with the objectives of the ELSP
because the project is an industrial project that is proposed to be developed on
land that has a land use designation of residential. The industrial land use is not in
accordance with the objectives of the Residential 1 land use because:
The Residential 1 land use designation permits only residential, park and
open space, and recreation type land uses on property with a Residential 1
land uses on property with a Residential 1 land use designation.
There is existing neighborhood residential uses located east and west of
the project site and an associated neighborhood park located north of the
site. The proposed project site is surrounded on three sides by sensitive
receptors.
• Industrial uses are not listed as conditionally permitted uses within the
Residential 1 land use designation of the ELSP.
Gov <� -— �j- —
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
October 7, 2008
Page 6 of 8
2. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and for
all the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, buffers and other regulations
required by this Specific Plan.
The question of whether the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the proposed use is not resolved due to two issues, therefore, Staff cannot make
this finding. The two unresolved issues are: 1) the unconfirmed location of the
Alquist- Priolo Fault line and 2) the non compliance with the required setbacks
listed in the East Lake Specific Plan.
1) Fault line location: The applicant has submitted a Fault Study report that
was completed for a previous applicant, Sedco Hills Congregation of
Johovah's Witness, Inc., dated October 6, 1995. They also submitted a
response letter with an exhibit locating a restricted zone within the parcel
across Corydon Street (APN 370 - 320 -018). Staff requires that an updated
geotechnical report be submitted for review and approval verifying that the
fault line is in the location shown on the plans.
2) Required setbacks: According to Section 6.3.1.b of the ELSP, Corydon
Road is considered to be a Perimeter Edge that requires a forty foot (40)
setback from the curb (see Exhibit E). The plans show a thirty -five foot (35)
setback from the curb. According to Section 7.5.5. c building setbacks for a
Collector Street (Palomar Street) is thirty five feet (35) from the right of way.
The plan shows a setback that varies from twenty five feet (25) to five feet
(5'); interior property lines are fifteen feet (15) when a property is adjacent to
open space (Serenity Park) (see Exhibit F). The site plan shows a setback
of five feet (5) to zero feet (0), therefore, setback requirements are not being
met.
There will be no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted and normal
use thereof.
The proposed Self Storage and Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility has the
potential to adversely affect the neighboring residential properties with noise, air
and traffic impacts:
• Traffic - the neighborhood will experience an increase in traffic volumes of
large scale vehicles such as moving vans and trailers, recreational
vehicles and vehicles towing boats to be stored and then removed from
the facility at various times during the day and evening.
• Noise -increase noise impacts created by the additional traffic volumes of
AGENDA ITHA €N0. Z
P&ZE 1 -7 o,,._3�F_
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
October 7, 2008
Page 7 of 8
large scale vehicle, recreational vehicles and vehicles towing boats. Noise
may also be created with the opening and closing of the self storage units
and by the customers as they store and remove their goods.
• Air quality maybe impacted due to the additional traffic volumes of large
scale vehicles including moving vans and trucks, recreational vehicles and
vehicles towing boats.
4. Adequate conditions and safeguards are incorporated into the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit to ensure that the use continues in a manner envisioned
by these findings for the term of the use.
Conditions have not been provided since Staff is recommending denial.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed Conditional
Use Permit No. 2007 -22 and Industrial Design Review No. 2007 -04 located on a vacant
parcel at the corner of Corydon Street and Palomar Street is not a project given that the
project is recommended to be denied. There is no environmental determination at this time.
Should it be decided that the project will move forward as proposed, or with modifications,
the applicant will be required to fulfill all requirements pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
If the Planning Commission desires to support the proposed use, a preliminary
environmental analysis would be required to determine the type of CEQA documentation
that will be required. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2007 -22 and Industrial
Design Review No. 2007 -04 cannot be approved until the proper CEQA documentation is
prepared.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request for the proposed
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007 -22 and Industrial Design Review No. 2007 -04 located on
a vacant parcel at the corner of Corydon Street and Palomar Street (APN 370 -120 -045).
Prepared By: Linda Miller,
Project Planner
Approved By: Tom Weiner,
Acting Director of Community Development
AGEae;vM i E::e e1'0. 2-
PAN-1 a . -o,- 3G,
CUP No. 2007 -22 and IDR No. 2007 -04
October 7, 2008
Page 8 of 8
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reductions
3. Special Exhibits
A. East Lake Specific Plan — Land Use Plan
B. Assessors Parcel Map
C. Land Use Plan with acetate Overlay
D. Applicant's Draft Plan
E. Corydon Street Setback Requirements
F. Building Setback Requirements
4. Existing Storage Facilities
5. Full Size Plans & Color Conceptual Exhibits
AGENDA ft %i NO, Z
PA,-E, 19 OF- 3(0
VICINITY MAP
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2007 -04
CUP 2007 -22
APN 370 - 120 -045
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIVON NOMNOD
N
JTd1d
4I
1
c ree
8k .999
�&
Rill
11
Q
p
0111
.
4
III
■D0
m0m
@_9gp� ea9 e` k�k
®la, •E k C$1$C �e t.
iisssk•SaE864•
T�
�
8 b6E.d
��• � @��
tSeF�kpp@��
p8 6eg =Y'3 ;�q &1 � 5 .r
SSpE €3 $i €6 q8��' 4k$�g6€k €b€
S1$
OPINION
0
I
I
�
z
a
s
1
,
S
d
I
I
I
Em
N
JTd1d
4I
1
I I.
1 I
I
I
Ljj
I a.
i
II�
I
i
i
c�
m.
c ree
8k .999
�&
Rill
11
Q
p
0111
.
4
III
99
€C10 @$
a >/
@_9gp� ea9 e` k�k
®la, •E k C$1$C �e t.
iisssk•SaE864•
T�
�
8 b6E.d
��• � @��
tSeF�kpp@��
p8 6eg =Y'3 ;�q &1 � 5 .r
SSpE €3 $i €6 q8��' 4k$�g6€k €b€
S1$
OPINION
0
I
I
z
a
s
1
,
S
d
I
I
I
I I.
1 I
I
I
Ljj
I a.
i
II�
I
i
i
c�
m.
c ree
8k .999
�&
Rill
11
Q
p
0111
.
4
III
99
€C10 @$
a >/
@_9gp� ea9 e` k�k
®la, •E k C$1$C �e t.
iisssk•SaE864•
T�
�
8 b6E.d
��• � @��
tSeF�kpp@��
p8 6eg =Y'3 ;�q &1 � 5 .r
SSpE €3 $i €6 q8��' 4k$�g6€k €b€
S1$
OPINION
0
Ills 119.
z
a
s
AGE DA -•1
PACE o
0
g I-
a, Oil -
~1
All
0>22 01
Z
z.
T
Q
Z
m
W = `_.
P
I
1
m
r
I
I I
Zg
9
j
�
I
1
9
B
9
I
I
1
I
9
I
9
8
I
1
1
9 �
I
6
9
8 '
I
1
9
9 �
,
9
9
j
� I
9 i
g
4 1
- - -J j
rz
Im
ow
TV
Sgiz
M
All
90 E D.i'l i 6 E -i" 0.
m
A
U.
U.
0111
R C
CY
W W
0 3
AGENDA
Zs
0 112
o2S
fir
a
•
R,
■
zi
F
i
•
■
4-In In
age Sc
aQ8 ,°,c
" s
a
a
AGENDA [TE.7�3, PAG as r,,�
2
*
2
§
2
---- - - - - -- �E�
~ \ ;
§
9
2
I
} �
\� )
\\ (
\ /
�
{ �
}.�
. �
�
:
�
� .
�
�
.�
�
I
(!;§
§
|§
}h
\
&
(
-
7
§
\
/
§
�
a
e
k
!
\r ! «\
«
® \`\
!
M
, Q.w�
.| . w�
A
JUDI
mg " m
||
|■
J
� N m
c K -C
T
o E U
a U y
� � J
C p O
O N T
N �
U m U
EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN 1.4 EAST LAKE LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY
Note: For further reference, a
we
1 "= 1200'. Conceptual Land
MEN Use Plan is provided in the
® ® map pocket at.the back of
® ® ® ®� this Specific Plan
� ..
�A\
LEGEND
q n�w,v« <avi
. a'PiirnuY,wiOHi,A
RGmiE 1C
LAND USE PLAN. .
1 -10 Section I - Executive Summary'-
e
- - - =- Project Site
f.6S.IR.4W
SINORF
T.R.A. 005 -027
005 -026
370 -12
I 19 -53
53 -3
CSC
' TRACT NO. 19344 -2
UBDIVISION OF BLK. aI ELSINORE
I 1
1
�63E
a'60 m—
NEW m
-16,51
1 d7
6
- 19.51
a 7
16
20,ST
a 7
5 .
71.51
Y 0
11
77 -23
1 a
23
PG.35
I84
26
7631
3 64
9
bi-7
6 85
A-41-4
17
7 as
1
s ee
15
'n —sa
fi 86
9
51-52
OAiE
OLD WMER
NEW KWER
fi Atl
46
53-54
fi 88
51.53
55
' 47-49
PG.41
6 66 '54,55
16.41
4 A9 Mal.
56
4 69 71.36
57-56
4 69 76-35
..1G.4S
4 W 37 -44
PC.0
— — It
10.46
94 -2
PG.35.51
OATS OLT LAMER
N . XUNAER
194 6,1,70
.
- 59
2/94 59
6017
4 03 .2,57
63
3 05 14.50,
64
3/05 X4,56
65
A Ua A 13 ^- 'j.
1 PAGE
Sep 2005
_3JOW.1EN
OVON NC
r 5 -> � \�
W11M
m
\�/
r
��
411pa
�! 11,
W11M
m
A, GE N" DA ffE�Icll.,
PAGE
UQ
zo
F
got
al R
411pa
�! 11,
I. o
gill
-ee
g g
z
z
F
LM
A, GE N" DA ffE�Icll.,
PAGE
EAST LAKE snanc'PLAu 6.3 LANDswE Gu1DELINES''
C.. Perimeter Edges
The perimeter edge of East Lake is composed of Lakeshore Drive,
Mission Trail Road, and Corydon Road. The landscape treatment
and development setback of these three streets have an important
role in establishing and defining the perimeter character and image
of the entire East Lake community. Access into East Lake from the
penmeteredgesisprkwdythroughCommumtyorDistnetentries.
Asa result, tt& provides the opporfttnity to create'a strong landscape
treatment along the remaining portions of the perimeter streets to
reinforce the landscape character envisioned throughout East Lake
and to provide a friendly image to the external community. This is
planned to be achieved through the dense planting of Eucalyptus
species along with large shrubs. Please refer to Figure 27, for a .
depiction of the landscape conceptalong theperimeter edges of East
Lake. .
a.
l
•wquvn.W...r...rc�gmyrmcmr
FIGURE 27
URBAN ARTERIAL LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
d. Railroad --C4nyog1Multi - Habitat Corridor
The. Multi- habitat Corridor is an important scenic element along
Railroad Canyon road wntnbutingto the community open space
and landscape structure. It.fea tares a naturalized landscape. treat-
ment to enhance the wetlands and habitat functions of this space.
Plantmaterial such as California Pepper; Willows, Sycamores, and
other similar plants should be used in informal but dense plantings .(
to achieve this naturalistic characterfor the Multi- HabitafCorridor.
A-GE1 a iTZI 110. -
VI -14 Section W - Design GufdeBw -
PA. 33 Exhibifi E 3�
EAST Lalcta SPECIFIC PLAN - �_ 7.6 .. COMMERCIAL I?,) YELQRjvIENT _L�tsGlif ElTIONS
• Recreational Operations
Hang- gliding Landings
Glider Plane Take-Offs and Landings
Hot-Air Ballooning Take-Offs and Landings
- . Parachute Jumping Take-Offs and Landings
•
Any otheruse deemed compatiblewith the intentof this land use
categorybythe GommunityDevelopnientDirectorordesignee.
e. Site Development Sfandards
• . Minimum site area: No minimum
• Minimum lotwidth: No minimum
• Minimum building setbacks:
- From Urban Arterials: 45' from R.O.W. .
- From Major Streets: 35' from R.O.W.
From .collector Streets: 35' from R.O.W.
- Interior Property Lines Zero feet, except adjacent to Resi-
dential or Open Space use, in which case the minimum
setback sliallbe 15':
Building heiglit:,45' maximum
Off - street:, parking: Off -street parking shall be in conformance.
with Section 7.8, Parking Requirements
d. SubsequentDmlapment.Entitkni nts ' -. -' -
• A 'improvements within the Airport Use Area are subject to
approvalduringtheSubsequentDevelopmentEntitlem ent pro-
r cess as described in Section 9.2.
VII -29 Section VII - Dw Ivpment Regulations AGEt e t a t i4 o. 2
PATE 33 y -" bif F
L
O
C
N
W
d
Y
t4
J
O co
UN
� L
E
N
=
C
y
tp d
co
�O
LL N
4) a
Im
i
O
cn
N
W
AGENDA ITEM No. Z
PAGGE__31_OF 3
0000000
rnrnr`00
rnr`rn
00
N
r`
0
N
N
N
CD
0
m
0
m
0
Z
O
r
W
M
MN�d)O�
CO
'V'
67
a0
0
r`
O
r•
r`
d•
d•
r`
,�
CO
CO
CO
CO
07
N
CO
m
m
o
o
m
m
o
rnrnrnrnrnrnrn
N
•L
0
�,,ww^
>
>
a-'
N
a)
.>
v1
C
V,
W
>
L
a
Q
o
0Q�
Q
(a
L
O
L
a)
�
O
(D
=
N
W
U
M
(V)
L,)
qU)
to
r
0
OOrOCnr,v
In
MO
c-
000
l n
M
N
M
CO
�
r
a)
W
°
U)
c
`o
m
V
w-2U)
O
O
�
cm CM
a)
LL
U)
a) N
(1)cnU
O
a)
c
O
cc
m
a)
a)
0
Q
N
o
CO) j
O
-a
W
U)
N
a
c6
wC9JJ0(n�
AGENDA ITEM No. Z
PAGGE__31_OF 3
�'`'�,
i
■ t
�Ic r
2_
J
�
It
f�
y �
•
t
G
y
k u�
� '
k �
3
•
�r
�` �
�
1
1
i..�
1_
+i
•
•I
ry
7�. ..J'�;
�� °: :e �.
■ t
�Ic r
2_
J
CITY OF
DREAM EXTREMEn
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ROLFE M. PREISENDANZ,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2007 -22 AND INDUSTRIAL
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2007 -04 FOR A MINI STORAGE FACILITY
AT THE CORNER OF CORYDON STREET AND PALOMAR
STREET
APPLICANT: MIKE DUNN, 3520 CADILLAC AVENUE, SUITE B, COSTA
MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
OWNER: Q.T. PROPERTY, LLC; CONTACT: AL BELL, MANAGER, C/O
ROBERT ROSENSTEIN & HITZMAN, 28600 MERCEDES
STREET, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590
Project Request
Staff and the applicant are requesting that this item be continues to the October 7, 2008
Planning Commission Meeting to allow additional time to assemble the required
materials.
Prepared By: Linda M. Miller, AICrcffl
Project Planner
Approved By: Rolfe M. Preisendanz,.
Director of Community Developmen
AGENDA E 4 LtJ: H0.
ptl 3 b ��