HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 1DMINUTES
HELD ON THE
OF
LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
3RD DAY OF
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M.
MARCH 1993
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT :. COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Wilsey, Bullard, and
Brinley
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were City Planner Christen, Associate Planner De
Gange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell.
,u- = 0 ']
Commissioner Gilenson referred to the vote for the Minutes of
December 16, 1992, stating the vote should be 3 -0 with
Commissioners Neff and Wilsey abstaining, as Commissioner Neff was
absent from that meeting.
Moved by Commissioner Gilenson, Second by Commissioner Wilsey and
carried by a vote of 5 to 0 to approve Minutes of February 17,
1993, with the above correction.,
PIIBLIC COMMENTS
There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the
PUBLIC COMMENT Section.
PIIBLIC HEARINGS
1. Zone Code Amendment 92, -3 - City of Lake Elsinore (Continued
from February 17, 1993) - Associate Planner De Gange explained
this is a request to amend Section 17.11 of the Municipal
Code, establishing the_ Historic Downtown Elsinore and
associated Design Standards. The area is generally bounded to
the north by Collier Avenue and Interstate 15, to the south by
Lakeshore Drive, the west by Chaney Street, and the east by
Grove Avenue, Conklin Avenue and Rupard Street.
Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m., and
asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported
no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing
to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing
to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 7:16 p.m.
Commissioner Bullard inquired about the status of General Plan
Amendment 92 -3, which was before the Planning Commission on
December 2, 1992. Associate Planner DeGange detailed the
hearing schedule for both the General Plan Amendment and the
Zone Code Amendment.
Commissioner Bullard commented on the Historic Elsinore
Architectural Design Standards, as follows:
• Page 51,, second bullet, this needs to be modified to
address the new program which requires refuse to be
placed out front.
• Page 57, remove all reference to High Density (it was
staff's recommendation to eliminate the High Density and
change to Medium High Density).
AGENDA ITEM NO. J�
PAGE I OF IL
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 2
Commissioner Wilsey commented on the proposed Ordinance, as
follows:
• Section 17.11.060.E, the fact that this section gives the
Design Review Committee (DRC) authority to regulate uses.
Requested that staff prepare a summary on the discussion
and include it in the City Council Report.
• Section 17.11.030.A, the authority of the DRC to regulate
the uses within the district.
The sentence "no new or changed use shall be permitted
without specific prior approval as to both type and
location by the DRC" be deleted from these Sections.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the proposed Ordinance, as
follows:
•
Section 17.11.030.A, delete in total.
• Section 17.11.060.E, delete the words "conduct a new or
changed use or construct"
Commissioner Neff stated he would concur with those comments- -
if you look to the land use regulations it is the zoning that
controls it. He then commented on:
• Section 17.11.060.E, concurs with Commissioner Gilenson,
the deletion of this language would restore the intent of
the DRC. However, would modify it to bring reference to
the Zoning Code as controlling uses.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the Historic Elsinore
Architectural Design Standards, as follows:
• Page 18, third paragraph, parking requirements for infill
projects. Would like staff to enumerate under what
conditions they are talking about, or is it totally
discretionary?
Associate Planner De Gange responded that in both cases it
would be for infill development where parking is not
available -- renovating or converting a structure where on -site
parking is not available but there is existing on- street
parking, or a public parking facility within close proximity.
Discussion ensued on parking requirements for infill projects,
and parking to be within close proximity. It was suggested
that this sections be clarified.
• Page 26, Building Height, last paragraph, exceptions to
these restrictions may be granted by DRC. Would like
staff to enumerate, again it is totally discretionary.
Associate Planner De Gangs responded that it could be
interpreted that way, but does not believe that is the intent.
Commissioner Gilenson stated there should be some guidelines
as to what extraordinary design or extenuating circumstances
are, which would narrow down the circumstances.
Chairwoman Brinley asked that staff make note of that and
address it to the City Council, so the City Attorney can
correct the verbiage in the intent. She then commented on the
make -up and authority of the DRC.
AGENDA ITEtv7 NO.
PAGE 2 OF Z
J
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 3
ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 9L -3 CONTINUED
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON
AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO .CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -7 AND APPROVAL
OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT- 92- 3,BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED.IN
THE STAFF REPORT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Section 17.11.030.A, delete in total.
Section 17.11.06.0.E, delete the words "conduct
a new or changed use or construct"
Page 18, third paragraph, provide clarifi-
cation for infill parking requirements.
Page 26, Building. Height, ?last paragraph,,
provide guidelines.
Page 57, and 58, remove section pertaining to High
Density.
Staff to prepare summary of discussion and
include in City Council Report.
2. General Plan Amendment 92 -5 and Zone Change 92 -4 - Halloran &
Associates - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to
amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify the
text to allow mining and reclamation uses within Specific Plan
Area "D" (North Alberhill Ranch) , and a change of Zone to
incorporate the Resource Conservation ( "RC") overlay District.
The project is located north of the intersection of Interstate
15 and Lake Street.
Assistant Planner Villa then informed the. Commission of a
letter received from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
expressing their concern over the environmental documentation
prepared for the site. He then explained the reason for
separate environmental documentation.
Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m., and
asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported.
no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing
to speak in favor.
Mr. Jon Friedman, Long - Beach Equities, stated he is the
property owner and Mr. Halloran and his staff are, also
present. He then stated that they are in agreement with the
Staff Report.
Mr. Friedman stated that they were unaware of the letter from
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. But agrees with
staff, if their concerns. are with the ,project, the. mining
itself, would like an opportunity to meet with .them and
address their concerns prior to the mining permit coming
before this board. Also, we have asked staff to set -up a.
workshop prior to the April 7th hearing.
Mr. Friedman then gave a brief 'background on the existing
mining operation at Lake Street.
Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in
favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed.
Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak
on the matter. Receiving no. response, the public hearing.was
closed at 7:46 p.m.
AGENDA ITEP:i NO.�1J1S�
PAGE 3 OF J Z
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 4
I
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-5 AND ZONE CHANGE 92-4 CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson stated that he spoke with Mr. Friedman
on this project and voiced his concerns. Basically, no
problem with the policy action to be taken, concern is with
the mining operation. He then commented on the environmental
documentation he expects to see. '
Commissioner Neff stated he spoke with Mr. Friedman about the
project and has no particular problems. He commented on the
timing of the letter received from Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District, and encouraged timely correspondence in the
future. Does not believe their concerns are directly affected
by the action tonight.
Commissioner Bullard stated that he concurs with Commissioners
Gilenson and Neff. At this time, this is policy action only.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND
CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO- CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -2 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -5 AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -4 BASED ON THE FINDINGS
LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 93-
1, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION 93 -1
A 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
92 -5 TO MODIFY THE TEXT WITHIN THE GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT ALLOWING MINING AND
RECLAMATION USES WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA "D"
(NORTH ALBERHILL RANCH)
3. Specific Plan 92 -1, Tentative Tract Map 27223 - Friendly Group
VII (K.S. Chen) - Associate Planner De Gange presented the
Cape of Good Hope Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 27223;
the proposed project is a 40 acre gated single - family resi-
dential development subdivided into 67 custom lots, located at
the eastern terminus of Mountain Street northeast of the
intersection of Robb Road and Lakeshore Drive.
Chairwoman Brinley referred to the written communication (fax)
dated March 3, 1993, from Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles &
Giannone, law firm representing the Lake Elsinore Unified
School District, requesting the project be conditioned to
require the applicant and the District to enter into a
mitigation agreement prior to approval of the project by City
Council.
Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Fred Crowe, The Keith Companies, representing the
applicant, stated their firm prepared the Specific Plan
document and the tentative map. He stated the guidelines and
recommendations contained within the document will establish
this as a showcase type of development, and that concerns have
been adequately addressed and mitigated. He then stated that
they are in agreement with the Staff Report and will answer
any questions that may arise.
Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in.
favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed.
AGENDA f i EM WJ. 'a.
PAGE 4 OF 12-
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 5
�s��_�:: -= - — – -
The following people spoke in opposition, expressing concern
on notification, the entrance proposed for Cherry Blossom and
associated traffic.safety issues, grading of the hillside, and
the absence of .a park:
Joann Siminoff, 3572 Cherry Blossom Lane, also
presented petition against gated entrance on
Cherry Blossom Lane;
Leroy Tucker, 3532 Cherry Blossom;
Marty Graff, 3580 Cherry Blossom;
Linda Bryan,.3588 Cherry Blossom;, -
Richard Grossman, 3465 Cherry Blossom;
George Thompson, 3635 Cherry Blossom;
Sam Helt, 3392 Spruce Street
Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in
opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone
wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the
public hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Crowe asked to respond to some of the concerns•raised.
The main gate was planned for Mountain and the gate at Cherry
Blossom was intended for a card gate only, and used only by
the.residents. We do have a need for traffic circulation, so
potentially it,might be worked out where that 'gate would only
be used for emergency vehicles. There may be other ways to
minimize or eliminate excess traffic.on. those streets. -
Commissioner Bullard suggested the items be continued, due to
the opposition raised and the conflict in the paperwork,
pertaining to applicant's contact with the residents.
Believes there could be an ,option, for egress over to Terra
Cotta instead of Cherry.Blossom.
Chairwoman Brinley detailed the notification process, and
commented on the.issues of a gated community and the dislike
of a gated community within .a .community. Agrees with a
continuance at.this time, and asked for the consensus of the
Commission' on whether this should be. continued to April 7,
allowing staff, the developer and .a couple of representatives
from the neighborhood to work together to resolve the issues.
Commissioner Gilenson stated that a continuance to April 7, is
an insufficient period of time, in that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration is not adequate, and would not, support a gated
community under any circumstance.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would like this opened for
discussion, because direction needs to be given. to staff, the
applicant and the community. Build up it reservoir of
questions that can be addressed, establish a committee and
schedule meetings. ,
Commissioner Gilenson'commented as follows:
• Feels the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate.
• Agrees with the School.District's letter.
• insufficient street circulation, against a gated
community = -if Commission and .Council wants a gated
community it should have its own ingress /egress.
AG=NDA IT'–M NO. I '
pAC!7 S OP I ?�
1-
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 6
SPECIFIC PLAN 92-li TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 CONTINUED
Commissioner Neff commented on:
• Grading concept, whether blasting would occur there if
run into rock, at a certain depth. There needs to be .
some mitigation and discussion.
• Not in opposition to a gated community, but it seems odd
to have a secondary access which terminates in an
existing residential neighborhood.
• Economics of project, given the steep hillsides.
Concerned about erosion control and landscaping because
of its visibility.
• Mr. Crowe's suggestion to lock off that one gate, except
for emergency services, and investigation of an
alternative access to Terra Cotta.
• Whether the open space in the project could be dedicated
to the City and unsure if this could be used for park
facilities.
• Responsibilities of the HOA and the City as it relates to
landscaping and maintenance, and the condition that some
of those landscaped areas be conveyed to the City.
• Applicant's willingness to meet with representatives from
the neighborhood and work out some of the issues.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on:
• Deviations from minimums in grading, Specific Plan lists
grading 1.5:1 and our minimums are 2:1. Not interested
in anything that deviates from our minimum.
• Cherry Blossom area, those streets were never designed to
be through streets - -they meander through that tract and
are not meant to be a thoroughfare street. Not
interested in seeing a secondary ingress /egress into that
project through that area. Asked staff to provide the
distance from the applicant's property line to Terra
Cotta.
Mr. De Gange responded 'that this distance is app=oxi-
mately 600 feet.
• Notification.
• Letter indicating communication with neighboring
residents.
• Questions on the environmental documentation prepared and
the need to meet and review closely.
• Inquired why a Specific Plan was submitted, why not a
Tentative Tract Map with a Hillside Overlay? The design,
landscape, building criteria and trade -off amenities for
a Specific Plan is missing from this document.
Commissioner Bullard commented on the need for additional
communication with the other citizens involved and the affects
upon this area, and moved to continue Specific Plan 92 -1 and
Tentative Tract Map 27223.
Motion died for lack of a second.
AGENDA LTEM NO.-1
PAGE OF Z
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 7
Commissioner Gilenson stated a few of the Commissioners have
expressed a desire to discuss this with the residents,
applicant and staff. The problem is that the public hearing
has been opened and closed and we cannot meet outside a public
hearing. The only way would be through a published or a
continued opened meeting, or if the developer wishes to
withdraw the project and resubmit.
Discussion ensued on alternative actions available to the
Commission.
Chairwoman Brinley suggested that a committee be formed and
the area residents select representatives to serve on this
committee and work with staff and the applicant to resolve the
issues. She then commented, as follows:
• Concerns are the same as raised by the other
Commissioners.
• The park issue needs to be addressed.
• Dislike of a gated community within a community, as it
causes problems.
• Ingress /egress situation has to be addressed.
• Erosion control needs to be addressed.
Discussion ensued on whether to continue; ask the applicant to
withdraw and resubmit; the procedure for resubmittal, and deny
without prejudice.
Mr. Crowe stated they have been working on this for years and
would like to relay these concerns to the owner. He then
requested that a staff member be assigned as project manager,
enabling the neighbors and myself to contact an individual to
set -up regular or neighborhood meetings.
Chairwoman Brinley responded that Mr. De Gangs would be the
contact person, as he is the Planner handling this proposal.
City Planner Christen suggested a contact person from the
neighborhood be appointed, and the City would then set -up the
meetings.
Chairwoman Brinley asked that Joann Siminoff be the contact
person for the neighborhood area, along with the selection of
two other representatives. She informed Ms. Siminoff that it
would be their responsibility to keep the residents abreast of
conversations and meetings with staff and the developer.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the past problems where the
Commission was cut out because the public hearing had been
opened and it went back to staff, as the liaison, the
homeowners and developers and eventually the project, was
scrapped.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT IF THE PROJECT IS BROUGHT BACK
THAT THE FEES BE WAIVED.
Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion, stating that the Tee
Pee Ranch was a different story, as the property had been sold
a number of times between the meetings and negotiations.
AGENDA ITEM NO. ,
PAGE 7 OF �Z
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 8
SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 CONTINUED
Commissioner Bullard asked for clarification on the motion.
Chairwoman Brinley stated the motion is to deny without malice
and the applicant has to resubmit.
Discussion ensued on the motion, deny without prejudice, which
enables the applicant to resubmit and the City's operation
under the Cost Recovery Program.
Commissioner Neff inquired whether this reserves the right for
another public hearing in the future.
Commissioner Gilenson responded that it reserves the right for
discussions individually or collectively with both the
residents and developer.
Commissioner Neff asked if it was not another alternative to
re -open the public hearing and then continue the public
hearing.
Commissioner Gilenson responded in the affirmative; however,
we cannot talk with the residents or developer.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
There being no further discussion Chairwoman Brinley called
for the question.
MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
At this time, 8:45 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed.
At this time, 9:02 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened.
4. Single - Family Residence - 32925 Kevin Place - John And Helen
Risk - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor
Design Review of a one - story, single - family dwelling at 32925
Kevin Place.
Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no
response, she asked for discussion at the table.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on this being in a Specific Plan
Area. Inquired whether the Specific Plan called for a masonry
reenforced wall; if not, why the deviation from the standard?
Requested that condition number 9 be amended to reflect the
standard verbiage.
Assistant Planner Villa explained the Specific Plan was
approved in early 1980, and regulations for fencing was not
included.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition 9, and suggested
the words "reenforced masonry wall" be deleted and the words
"wood fence" be inserted.
Discussion ensued on condition 9, with the recommendation that
the words "and /or wood fence" be inserted.
There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called
for a motion.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND
AGENDA ITEM NO. I `'q'
PAGE g OFIZ
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 9
PRO 0 3073 M
5_ .. • Z141:4
CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE
AT 32925 KEVIN PLACE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No. 9:' A six -foot (6') high reenforced masonry
wall and /or wood fence shall be
constructed along the side and rear
property lines and shall conform to
Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls),
subject to the approval of the Community
Development Manager or designee prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
5. Industrial Project 92 -1 - Norman Industries Assistant
Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of
a 36,000 square foot office /warehouse building, located at
32371 Corydon Road.
Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Mark Brody, representing Norman Industries, stated that.
they support staff's report. He then requested the following
amendments:
Staff Report, Page 3, under ANALYSIS third paragraph last
sentence change the word "finished" to "functional ".
Condition 1, that Minor Design Review be granted for 2
years, given the flooding conditions.
Condition 27, the language "or conveyed to the Lake
Elsinore Floodplain" be added.
Condition 34, preface condition by adding "if
applicable ", because the grading is less than five acres
and this permit does not apply.
Condition 29, questioned the 5% impact. From our
understanding, our impact on that intersection .is far
less than the 5 %. Requested relief from the full
assessment.
Mr. Brody then stated that he would answer any questions.
Commissioner Gilenson referred to the letter submitted by Mr.
Brody and asked'if he was dropping number 20.a., 28 and 32.'
Mr. Brody stated that conditions 28 and 32, are no longer a
concern, will drop. Would like to add condition 20.a.,
regarding landscaping.
Commissioner Wilsey asked if they intend to inhabit this
building when completed, get a Certificate of occupancy - -use
the building, but not able to do the landscaping.
Mr. Brody responded in the affirmative, stating there is a 6 -7
foot difference and it does seem odd that we could be in the
building and not complete the landscaping. He gave reference
to the contours and stated they are prepared to post a bond.
He then proposed that condition 20.a. read as follows:
Condition 20.a. Given that the proposed landscaping is
AGENDA ITEM. NO.
PAGE 9 OF 17-
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 10
within the Lake Elsinore Floodplain and given current
flood conditions scheduling for landscaping for the
project would be as follows: half of the landscaping
would be _planted by time of occupancy. Completion of
the landscaping would occur within one year from the date
the Lake Elsinore Outflow Channel is finished. A bond
could be posted with the City.
Chairwoman Brinley suggested the word "finished" be changed to
"functional ".
Commissioner Neff suggested the word "could" be changed to
"shall ".
Discussion ensued on the proposed landscape condition,
preference is for landscaping and not the posting of a bond;
property being in the floodplain and the results of flooding
upon landscaping.
Commissioner Bullard, referred to the posted rendering, and
stated the portion that runs along the Quonset huts and the
chainlink fence between the park must be landscaped. Even if
the Outflow Channel is functional there could still be flood
water at that location. Suggested language "landscaping shall
be completed within one year after flood waters have receded
elevation of planting ".
Commissioner Gilenson commented on:
• Page 2 of the Staff Report, Potential Flooding concerns,
asked if these were referenced to a particular condition.
• Page 3 of the Staff Report, under Analysis third and
fourth paragraph of the Staff Report, asked if these were
referenced to a particular condition.
Assistant Planner Villa responded in the negative, and stated
that a condition can be added. City Planner Christen stated
the plans illustrate the building pad elevation and finished
floor elevation.
• Suggested a condition be added, that the construction of
the building will not be initiated until the Outflow
Channel is functional.
• Asked Mr. O'Donnell to address condition 29 and
applicant's letter with regard to same.
Mr. O'Donnell addressed the following conditions:
Condition 27, no problem with the modification as
requested.
Condition 29, this development will generate an
additional 200 trips, which is about 4%. This does not
consider the impacts on other signals which will be
affected and is estimated at 1 %, for a total of 5 %.
Condition 34, no problem with modification if under five
acres. Federal law requires permit if five acres or
more.
Chairwoman Brinley commented on condition number 1, stating
she would like to see it remain as written.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE /a OF �Z.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page it
INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 92 -1 CONTINUED
Discussion ensued on the number of extensions that could be
granted.
There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called
for a motion.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY
AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -1 AND APPROVAL OF
INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 92 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition 20.a.: Given that the proposed landscaping is
within the Lake Elsinore Floodplain and
given current flood conditions scheduling
for landscaping for the project shall be
as follows: The portion that runs along
the Quonset huts and the chainlink fence
between the park shall be planted by time
of occupancy. Completion of the
landscaping will occur within one year
from the date the Lake Elsinore Outflow
Channel is functional and /or flood waters
have, receded elevation of planting. A
Landscaping Bond shall be posted with the
City.
Condition 27: On -site drainage shall be conveyed to a
public facility or accepted by the
adjacent property owner by a letter of
drainage acceptance or conveyed to a
drainage easement,' or conveyed. to the
Lake Elsinore Floodplain.
Condition 34: If applicable, the owner shall provide
the city with proof of his having filed a
Notice of Intent with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board for a National
Pollutants Discharge Elimination Permit
(NPDEP) with a storm .water pollution
prevention plan. (SWPPP) prior to a
grading permit.
Condition 36: The building footprint lies above the
1,265 msl (mean sea level), but below the
1,267 msl (Exhibit "B "). According to
Ordinance No. 858, building structures
are permitted on areas higher than 1,265
msl. To alleviate and /or mitigate
potential flooding, the building pad
elevation will be required to be 1,266.5
msl and the finish floor will be required
to be 1,267 msl.
The parking area lies below the 1,265
msl. According to Ordinance No. 858,
Section 15.68.052, no buildings or
improvements, and artificial changes in
the topography are permitted below the
1,265 msl. Engineering and Planning has
agreed to allow the parking area to be
made of three (311) of decomposed granite
compacted at 95 %.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE It OF
Planning Commission Minutes
March 3, 1993
Page 12
INFORMATIONAL
PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Neff
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Chairwoman Brinley
Thanked staff for all their work and the people who took an
interest and attended the meeting.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 9:47 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey
second by Commissioner Neff.
Approved 5 -0
Approved,
Pam Brinley,
Chairwoman
Respectfully Submitted,
Linda Grindstaff
Secretary
AGENDA ITEM NNO.
PAGEI�OF �Y-