HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No.22CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND.CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RON MOLENDYK, CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1993
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION OF APPROVAL
NO. 24 FOR R 89 -17 AMENDMENT NO. 2 (LEWIS HOMES)
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROBB ROAD AND MOUNTAIN
STREET
This matter was continued again from the October 26, 1993, City
Council meeting to allow for a tour of. the project site by members
of the Council, City Staff and representatives of Lewis Homes.
This tour was held on November 3rd and was attended by Mayor Gary
Washburn, Councilman Jim Winkler, City Planner Chip Leslie and
representatives of Lewis Homes.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to discussions held in the field on the tour and to
Section 17.14.130.D.5 of the Municipal Code which allows City
Council to approve alternative fencing materials, the following
possible fencing alternatives may be considered for the Lewis Homes
project site:
• That six foot (61) high masonry walls or decorative block
walls shall be constructed along all side and rear property
lines with the following possible exceptions;
That wood fences as proposed by the applicant may be allowed
on all interior side property lines and on the rear property
lines of Lots 4 and 5 of Tract 19750 -3 only. Masonry or block
walls shall be used on all exterior side property lines
adjacent to a public right -of -way or that form the tract or
project boundary;
That the rear property line fence for Lots 21, 22 and 23 of
Tract 19750 -1 (the model area) may be a combination block wall
(bottom portion) and wrought iron fence (top portion);
• That the above exceptions are only applicable to the model
site and Phase I, all other subsequent phases shall be subject
to separate review and approval.
It is recommended that City Council- consider the above noted
fencing alternatives and other alternatives that may be presented
at the meeting for the subject project. The City Council should
then either uphold Planning Commission's design review, approval as
conditioned or allow modifications to the fencing conditions.
PREPARED BY: .Chip Leslie, City Planner
REVIEWED BY:
Shear, unity Development Manager
APPROVED BY:
Phy s Roe sistant City Manager
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA LISTING•_
Ron Mo endyk, City Manager
ACEN A ITEM 110.
PAng-4. CF
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RON MOLENDYK, CITY MANAGER
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1993
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION OF APPROVAL
NO. 24 FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -17 AMENDMENT NO.
2 (LEWIS HOMES), THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROBB ROAD
AND MOUNTAIN STREET
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of the use of wood fencing (as
an alternative material to concrete block) in some parts of their
subject project. This matter was continued from the September 28,
1993, City Council meeting. The continuance has allowed additional
time to analyze the proposed use of fencing on the subject Lewis
Homes site and the previous use of. wood fencing in other
developments within the City.
The Planning Commission approved on August 18, 1993, Design Review
of four (4) new models for the applicant's 89 lot single - family
residential subdivision located adjacent to Robb Road. The
Commission placed a condition on their approval (Condition No. 24)
that solid block walls are to be used on all side and.rear property
lines. The Planning Commission made this condition pursuant to
recently amended Section 17.14.130.D.1 of the City's Zoning Code.
The applicant is appealing this condition of approval.
The applicant has proposed to use solid block walls on all side and
rear property lines that form the tract perimeter. They also
propose to use solid block walls on the fencing that faces the
front yards and provides the connection between the side property
line fencing and the sides of the homes. However, the applicant
proposes to only use an unpainted wood fence on all ,interior side
and rear property lines. The proposed wood fence would be of
substantial construction including overlapping 1" x 8" vertical
slats and continuous top and bottom 2 x 4 and 2 x 6 cap and rails.
The overlap in the vertical slats would compensate for possible
future shrinkage in the wood and avoid gaps in the fencing. A
detail of the proposed wood fencing was included on sheet 2, upper
left hand corner, of the Wall and Fence Plans for the tract (No.
19750) that were included in the Council package passed out for the
September 28th meeting.
Ground elevations through the subject tract do change moderately.
The average difference in elevation between pads within the tract
is three (3) feet and even greater with areas outside of the tract.
Therefore, the wood fencing proposed on most of the interior side
and rear property lines will more than likely be at least partially
visible above the tops of the surrounding block walls. Staff has
observed other existing developments within the City where interior
side and rear yard fencing is partially visible from public right -
of -ways and surrounding properties because of elevation differences
(see example photographs contained in current Council package).
Staff feels. that the least visible fencing in the subject tract
would be along the interior side property lines. The exception to
this is where an interior side property line is also a phase line
in which case it may be highly visible until such time as the next
phase is constructed. The proposed wall along the rear of Lots 7
through 12 of Tract 19750 -3 is also lower down on the slope from
the pads for these lots, therefore the side property line fences
would be visible as they climb up the slope to pad level. Staff
has found in some of the existing developments within the City that
when a wood fence is painted it tends in some cases to blend bette
AGENDA ITEM {: _ .
PAGE OJIL_
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 26, 1993
PAGE 2
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION OF APPROVAL
NO. 24 FOR RESIDENTIAL,PROJECT 89 -17 AMENDMENT NO.
2 (LEWIS HOMES)
with surrounding block walls and the homes themselves (see example
photographs of existing development contained in current Council
package). Painted wood fences also appear not to show discolor-
ation due to weathering and irrigation overspray as much as a
natural wood fence.
The interior rear property lines in this tract are much more
elevated than the side property lines and therefore rear fences are
much more likely to be visible from surrounding public right -of-
ways and surrounding properties. In addition, most rear property
lines in this tract are either tract perimeters or phasing lines.
Staff would not recommend allowing use of wood fencing as proposed
on rear property lines in this tract with the possible exception of
Lots 4 and 5 of Tract 19750 -3 which are not as greatly elevated.
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council determines that in the case of the subject
tract that use of wood fencing as proposed would be acceptable as
an alternative material to solid block in some areas, staff would
recommend the following limitations:
Wood fencing will be allowed only on certain interior
side property lines on the subject tract with the
exception of side property lines that are also phase
lines in which case a solid block wall shall be used
unless the adjacent phase is built concurrently. Wood
fencing on side property lines on Lots 7 through 12 of
Tract 19750 -3 can only be used when the property line is
on level with the pad, solid block wall must be used on
those portions of the side property line along the rear
slope of these lots.. Wood fencing will also be allowed
on the rear property lines of only Lots 4 and 5 of Tract
19750 -3. The wood fencing as allowed shall be
constructed pursuant to the detail contained on the
approved Wall and Fencing Plans and shall be painted to
blend with either the surrounding block walls or the
coloring of the homes. Six -foot (61) high solid block
walls shall be constructed on all other side and rear
yard property lines. Fencing proposed in future phases
of this project will be subject to separate review and
approval by the Community Development Manager or their
designee pursuant to the guidelines as set forth above.
Staff would also recommend that if the above limitations on use of
wood fencing are acceptable that the City Council consider setting
policy for staff to use the same limitations in similar cases on
other development. The other alternative is to continue to
consider use of alternative fencing materials by appeal on a case
by case basis.
PREPARED BY: Chip Leslie, City Planner
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA LISTING:
IPI%
AGENDA ITEM 110- 4
PAGE 2 OF
�r
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RON MOLENDYK, CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO.
24 FOR R 89 -17 AMENDMENT NO. 2 (LEWIS HOMES OF
CALIFORNIA) THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROBB ROAD AND MOUNTAIN
STREET
On August 18, 1993, the Planning Commission approved Design Review
of Residential Project No. 89 -17, Amendment No. 2 for approved
Tract Map No. 19750. The design review approved four (4) model
homes to be constructed 'on approximately 89 lots. (staff report,
conditions of approval, and minutes attached)
Section 17.14.130. D.1 (Fencing) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
(LEMC) states that in new subdivisions or developments of four (4)
or more units a solid block wall a minimum of six (6') feet in
height shall be provided along side and rear lot lines of less than
twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in area to provide privacy and
screening. Consequently, Condition of Approval No. 24 for the
above design review project required that the tract comply with the
referenced fencing requirements. A graphic representation of the
above referenced Code section and Condition of Approval No. 24 is
illustrated in Exhibit "B ".
DISCUSSION
In the past and prior to the amendment of Section 17.14.130.D.5 of
the LEMC (Ordinance 962), the Planning Commission was able to waive
fencing requirements or approve alternative materials such as wood.
The Planning Commission allowed wood fencing in lieu of decorative
block walls in areas . not directly adjacent to the public right -of-
way as illustrated in Exhibit "A ".
The recent LEMC amendment restricted the Planning Commission from
allowing fencing options illustrated in Exhibit "A ". Consequently,
according to the amended Section 17.14.130.D.5, only the City
Council can approve alternative materials or waive fencing
requirements.
Due to their concern regarding the higher construction cost for
building block walls, the applicant is requesting that the City
Council grant certain waivers to allow wood fencing in areas that
may not be visible from public right -of -way as illustrated and
proposed in Exhibit "C ". Unfortunately, due to the terrain and
topographical conditions, the subject subdivision has been graded
in such a way that it exposes some interior lots therefore
potentially exposing rear and side lot line fencing to the public
right -of -way. The graded pad elevations substantially differ to
the point where even after a house is built, it would not screen
the future fence.
Due to the topographical conditions of the subject tract in which
interior side and rear lot lines may be visible from the public
right -of -way therefore potentially exposing fencing, staff
recommends pursuant to the intent of the recent Code amendment that
the City Council uphold Planning Commission Condition of Approval
No. 24.
AGENDA 1TEiv )40.
PAC= � OFJJP�
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO.
24 FOR R 89 -17 AMENDMENT NO. 2 (LEWIS HOMES OF
CALIFORNIA)
PREPARED BY: Armando G. Villa, Assistant Planner
REVIEWED BY: I
APPROVED BY:'
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA LISTING:
C:C.R89- 17.APP
AGENDA ITEIU ?N. O
PAGE-
-
1.,, Design Review approval for Residential Project 89 -17 Amendment
2 and Model homes will lapse and be void unless a building
permit is issued within one (1) year of the approval date. An
extension of time, up to one (1) year may be granted by the
Community Development Manager or designee prior to the
expiration of, the initial Design Review approval upon
application by the developer one (1) month prior to
expiration.
2. All Conditions of Approval shall be fully implemented within
the project design in all phases and /or adhered to strictly.
3. These Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced upon Page One
of Building Plans prior to their acceptance by the Division of
Building and Safety.
4. All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the
approved plot plan and elevations for Phase One. Subsequent
site plotting on the remaining Phases shall be subject to the
approval of the Community Development Manager or designee.
Revisions to approved site plan or building elevations shall
be subject to approval from the Community Development Manager
or designee.
5. Materials and colors depicted on the materials board shall be
used unless modified by the Community Development Manager or
designee.
6. All windows larger than one foot (11) by one foot (11) on all
side and rear elevations (visible from public right -of -way)
with the exceptions of those windows already utilizing
treatments such as ledges or mullions shall incorporate stucco
surrounds.
7. Applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of
utilities.
8. All structures shall meet setback requirements identified in
the Municipal Code Section 17.23.080.B. Dwelling units
proposed for Lot 23 of Tract 19750 -1 and Let; B- e=z��3; 50
3 (as shown on Exhibit "E") shall maintain a fifteen (151)
foot side setback.
9. A revised plotting plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Building Departments by the applicant prior to Building
Division issuance of permits which reflects all Conditions of
Approval. These revised plans shall become the approved plot
plan only upon the review and approval by the Community
Development Manager or designee, prior to issuance of building
permit.
10. The building addresses shall be a minimum of four inches (411)
high and shall be easily visible from the public right -of -way.
Developer shall obtain street addresses for all project lots
prior to issuance of building permits. The addresses (in
numerals at least four inches (4" high) shall be displayed
near the entrance and be visible from the front of the unit.
11. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City's
Grading Ordinance. Construction generated dust and erosion
shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions_ of
Municipal Code, Chapter 15.72 and using accepted techniques.
Interim erosion control measures shall be provided thirty (30)
days after the site's rough grading, as approved by the City
Engineer.
ACf--NDA ITEM NV
PAGE
�. {',
12. .Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances
including the Noise Ordinance. Construction activity shall be
limited the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday .thru Saturday to
protect the adjacent neighbors from unreasonable noise.
13. Meet all State handicap requirements for the model home
complex.
14. All signage shall be by City Permit.
15. Trailers utilized during construction shall be approved by
Planning Division.
16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
pay park -in -lieu fees in effect at the time of building permit
issuance on.a lot by lot basis.
17. Applicant shall pay school fees to, the Lake Elsinore Unified
School District.
18. The project -shall connect to.sewer and meet all requirements
of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD).
Applicant shall submit water and sewer plans to the EVMWD and
shall incorporate all district conditions and standards.
19. The design and construction of the - project shall meet all
County Fire Department standards `for fire protection.
20. All mechanical and electrical equipment on the building shall
be ground mounted. All outdoor ground or wall mounted utility .
equipment shall, be consolidated, • in a central location and
architecturally screened along with substantial landscaping,
subject to the approval of the Community Development Director,
prior to issuance of building permit.
21. All front yards and side yards. on, corner lots .shall be
properly landscaped with. -: automatic. (manual or electric)
irrigation system to provide 100$ plant. and grass coverage
using a combination of drip and conventional irrigation
methods. The final landscaping /irrigation plan is to be
reviewed and approved by the City' s.. Landscape Architect
Consultant and the Community Development Manager or designee.
A Landscape Plan Check Fee will be charged prior to final
landscape approval based on the Consultant's fee plus forty
percent (40 %).
a) Applicant shall plant .street trees, selected from the
City's Street Tree List, a maximum of thirty -feet (301)
apart and at least twenty- four -inch (2411) box in size.
b) Planting within fifteen -feet- (151) of - ingress /egress
points shall be no higher than thirty- six - inches (36 ").
c) The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover,'
shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's
adopted Landscape Guidelines. Special attention to the
use of-Xeriscape or drought resistant plantings with
combination drip irrigation system to be used to prevent
excessive watering.
d) All landscape improvements on the model home complex
shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and
released at completion of installation of landscape
requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for
material and labor for on (1) year.
e) All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within
affected portion of any phase at the time a Certificate
of Occupancy is requested for any building.
AGE110A 17EM.NO. a L'• -'' ,
ir-.. \ 8 -X8 la3
PAGE T OF -
f) one of the proposed lots of the model complex shall be
` Xeriscaped and signage provided identifying Xeriscape
landscaping.
g) Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved
site plan.
h) Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation
details.
22. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') tin height
shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control
vegetation installed, approved by the Planning Division.
23. All slopes on -site or off -site created by grading operations
to support development of this tract .shall be planted with
erosion control vegetation as approved by the Planning
Department and the city's Landscape Architect.
24. A six foot (61) high masonry wall or decorative block wall
shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines
and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls) and
Section 17.14.130 of the Municipal Code.
25. Fences located in any front yard shall not exceed thirty -six
inches (36 ") in height with the exception that , wrought-iron
fences may be five feet (51) in height. Chain link fences
shall be prohibited.
26. Garages shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine-
feet-six-inches by nineteen - feet - six - inches (916" x 191611) of
interior clear space for two cars for a total interior clear
space of nineteen -feet by nineteen - feet - six - inches (1916" X
19'6")•
27. Tubular steel fence that surrounds models shall be subject to
the approval of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of
building permit, and shall be removed prior to residential
occupancy of the model home.
28. Applicant shall stripe a Class II bicycle lane to Cal Trans
specification along Robb Road.
29. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall
return the executed original to the Community Development
Department for inclusion in the case records.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
30. The applicant to provide -schedule .for circulation, parking,
and public works improvements to be installed with model
complex prior to building permits subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
31. The three (3) existing models are to be completed, cleaned -up,
and landscaped at the time the new models are opened.
AGUE'A ITE.Ki ,�c. 2 -
FXHtsir "A"
/rtoPIP.RTY
W sov FMc.E. IAIFIEa NOT
AP_,Acir t ID f UEU[. Kt ®N%
o r-- WAY.
NousE
W WO FWLE
M1A191r 1.0'r
ROAR YARD
s
SDLID BLOCK-
•
WALL.-
• WNC-KE �15161.�
A0V ADSA�
7D Nbu& RIGHT
'OF -WAY.
f?tDrtRTY
eoL wN6
PRIVr,W AY
"A" -5TKe6 -r
TYPI GA L LOT PAT- , f L
AGENDA ITEM NO. jr-4 toft
PAGE 'q OF,
EXHIBIT "B"
rROf'ERTY ifde
ALON& 5105 /1417
REST i'fzoP f,fn1E5. KfsAR a(AfLl7
m
I+ousE :9..
fRorwZTY
oo� � L1N6
PR,Vr-W aY
6fDEYt1ALK; :
1 %A" sTKE -6-r
TYP l CAL, Lo r VaorAl L
AGENDA ITEM NO
\ PAGE* OFAL
Planning Commission Minutes
August 18, 1993
Page 5 `
Condition 30. The proposed Freeway Identification S gaoVill
be restricted to DiNty(69} a 0
square
feet. Applicant to s evised sign plans.
Condition 32. Pr to y Council consideration, the
app be required to submit revised
of elevatio cting the deletion of
�• one (1) of the cupola, nation of
signage, reduction of pitch
eupela.
BUSINESS ITEMS
3. Residential Project 98 -17 Amendment #2 - Lewis Homes
Assistant Planner villa explained', that the request is for
Design Review of four (4) model homes which will be built on
Lots 19 through 23 of Tract 19750 -1, and plotting for Phase 1.
The tract is located at the southeast corner of the inter-
section of Robb Road and Mountain. The model home complex
will be located on Ivy Court.
Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Ms..Mimi Rayl, representing Lewis Homes, questioned condition
8, 20 and 24 as follows:
• Condition 8, the lot numbers need to be corrected. Lot
5 has a 63 foot wide frontage and believes this falls
under the exception under Section 17.23.080.b. Lot 23,
is a part of the model complex and while the lot area is
substandard for the City's current standards the width is
65 feet, and would like to request permission to waive
the 15 foot side yard set back.
Chairwoman Brinley asked if this would not require a variance,
correct? Assistant Planner Villa responded in the
affirmative.
• Condition 20, ground mounting and screening of equipment.
Community Development Manager Shear stated condition number 20
is a standard condition to prevent roof mounted equipment.
• Condition 24, the masonry or decorative block wall. We
came in with wall and fence plans that proposed the use
of block wall along all areas visible from the public
right -of -way as well as the returns to the homes, and
wood fence details for side and rear yards that are not
visible from public right -of -way. Explained that the
wood fence detail they use is stronger and more stable
that the average wood fence detail. Requested con-
sideration of this as an alternative.
Commissioner Neff asked if this would be painted. Ms. Rayl
responded in the negative.
Commissioner Metze asked how we are guaranteed that this would
happen.
Community Development Shear stated basically City Council has
made the change to the regulations stipulating block walls,
and gave a brief history on why this was changed. He then
stated the applicant has the option to appeal that portion to
Council.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE OFJk
Planning Commission Minutes
August 18, 1993
'Page 6
ti
+ Commissioner Metze commented on the block wall proposed for
Robb Road and Lake Street and inquired whether this was to be
installed in phases. Asked about the entry into the
models /homes and the disposition of existing three models.
Ms. Rayl stated the first phase of production is on the far
east side of the project and we would phase our improvements
over. The new model complex would be across from the existing
model complex and the existing homes would be cleaned up and
offered for sale. There would be an entry to the models from
Mountain, and the production would start on the east and we
would build the roads as we built the different phases.
Commissioner Metze stated that he is concerned with the block
wall, which was started and then stopped, inquired whether
this can be completed as part Phase I.
Ms. Rayl stated that they had not gotten that far into the
phasing - -when the different walls will be installed, but we
have to submit to the City Engineer a schedule for the various
improvements.
Commissioner Neff stated that he thought this was for design
review only.
Chairwoman Brinley asked if this could be noted in the record .
as a concern by Commissioner Metze. Community Development
Manager Shear responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Neff commented on condition number 8 and the
applicant needing to submit a variance application for
consideration of smaller side yard width. He commented on the
costs to construction a block wall and build a fence,
condition 24. He then inquired about the time frame for the
models and production.
Ms. Rayl responded that the building plans are far enough
along to be submitted for first plan check, if they haven't
been already. Right now, we are refining our costs.
Commissioner Bullard asked if the existing model,.homes will be
improved and landscaped at the same time as the new models.
Ms. Rayl responded in the affirmative.
Chairwoman Brinley suggested this be added as condition number
31, the existing models will be cleaned up and landscaped at
the same time as the new models.
Commissioner Bullard commented on the block wall going down
Robb Road, the fencing in the area and the different phasing.
This should be noted as a concern, and'we would like to see
the block wall completed on the Robb Road side.
Chairwoman Brinley suggested this be entered in the record as
a concern of Commissioner Bullard, Metze and Brinley to be
addressed.
Commissioner Neff recommended the applicant discuss with City
Council consideration of a trade -off. Perhaps, volunteering
to construct the block wall beyond Robb Road, all along there
where your existing graded lots are, hs an alternative to
constructing interior side and year block walls. .
Chairwoman Brinley stated that she agrees with the other
Commissioners on condition number 24.
AGENDA ITEM NO
PAGE 12
Planning Commission Minutes
August 18, 1993
.—Page 7
b
Community Development Manager Shear informed the Commission
that the plans have been submitted for -plan check and they are
being plan checked at this time.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
89 -17 AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 AND THE PLAITING FOR PHASE 1 BASED ON
EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "G ", FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITION OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AMENDMENT
TO CONDITION 8 TO REQUIRE A VARIANCE AND THE ADDITION OF
CONDITION NUMBER 31.
Assistant Planner Villa asked for clarification on condition
S.
Discussion ensued on condition 8, and this condition being
corrected as discussed earlier, deleting "Lot 5 of Tract
19750 -3 ".
COMMISSIONER BULLARD AMENDED HIS MOTION TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT 89 -17 AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 AND THE PLATTING FOR PHASE 1
BASED ON EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "G ", FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITION OF APPROVAL LISTED' IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH
AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 8 AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NUMBER
31, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE, AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS
VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT.
Condition No. 8: All structures shall meet setback
requirements identified in the Municipal
Code Section 17.23.080.B. Dwelling units
proposed for Lot 23 of Tract 19750 -1 *"
Let 6 of Traefe 19a50 3 (as shown on
Exhibit "E") shall maintain a fifteen
(151) foot side setback.
Condition No. 31: The three (3) existing models are to be
completed, cleaned -up, and landscaped at
the time the new models are opened.
Amendment #1 to the Central Business Park Sign Program - =�
Brookstone Development - Arlie Blood (Steve Harr im7
Assistant Planner DeGange explained that the amendmelrt will
rmit buildings within the complex, who have more t1fan three
to Ants, to have a freestanding directory sign. ,The site is
located at the southeast intersection of Centr4Yand Collier.
Chairwoma Brinley asked if there was anyo representing the
applicant 614 if there were any concernjw.
Mr. Arlie Blood ve a brief history'on the center and high-
lighted the past p blems with swage.
Mr. Steve Harriman stat they they are in agreement with the
conditions, and will answ =any questions.
Commissioner Metze asked if thip is something that would be
constantly changing,;i'�Associate nner DeGange responded in
the affirmative.
Commissioner,Bullard commented on Exhibi "C" and "D" and the
location of�iigns.
Chairwo:6an Brinley suggested no other signage be p itted- -no
sandwich signs, no cardboard signs, etc, and this ded as
condition number 5.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY
CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE AMENDMENT/
AGENDA ITEM NO. i
RAGE _ p
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: KEVIN SHEAR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
FOR: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 181 1993
SUBJECT: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF MODEL HODS FOR R 89 -17 AMEND. 2
TRACT NO. 19750- 1, -2, -3 (LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA)
Mrs. Mimi E. Rayl
Lewis Homes of California
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, California 91785 -0670
Design Review of four (4) model homes for R 89 -17 Amend. 2 on Tract
19750 (model home complex will exhibit four (4) models and will be
built on lots 19 thru 23 of Tract 19750 -1): Approval for plotting
on Phase One. (Exhibits "E", "F" and "G•')
SIZE AND LOCATION
The tract is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Robb Road and Mountain Street. The Model Home Complex will be
located on Ivy Court. Phase One will start at the northwest and
southwest intersection of Date Street and Spruce Street.
1WP
Residential Project 89 -17, Elsinore Terrace, was approved by the
Planning Commission on December 6, 1989. The project approved 30
units in Tract 19750. On September 5, 1990, the Planning
Commission approved Amendment I to the residential project by
allowing a recreation facility within the approved residential
project. The recreation facility was approved for Lot 16 of Tract
19750 -1 and was to include a cabana, spa, swimming pool, and
sizable deck area. These two approvals are now expired.
The applicant is proposing four single- family detached model
types /floor plans. Listed below is a description of each model
type: (Exhibits "A" thru •'D ")
Plan 307: (Exhibit "A") a two -story 1,947 square foot, 4
bedroom, 3 bathroom, structure with a 2 car garage;
AGENDA ITEM NO.
t:
PAGE JF
EXISTING LAND USE
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
Project Site
Vacant /Four (4)
Existing Models
R -1
LMD
North
Vacant
R -SFR
Alberhill Ranch SP
East
Vacant
R -1
Cape Of Good Hope
SP
South
SFR
R -1
I LMD
West
Vacant
MIX USE
I SP Mixed Use
Residential Project 89 -17, Elsinore Terrace, was approved by the
Planning Commission on December 6, 1989. The project approved 30
units in Tract 19750. On September 5, 1990, the Planning
Commission approved Amendment I to the residential project by
allowing a recreation facility within the approved residential
project. The recreation facility was approved for Lot 16 of Tract
19750 -1 and was to include a cabana, spa, swimming pool, and
sizable deck area. These two approvals are now expired.
The applicant is proposing four single- family detached model
types /floor plans. Listed below is a description of each model
type: (Exhibits "A" thru •'D ")
Plan 307: (Exhibit "A") a two -story 1,947 square foot, 4
bedroom, 3 bathroom, structure with a 2 car garage;
AGENDA ITEM NO.
t:
PAGE JF
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1993
PAGE TWO
SUBJECT: TRACT NO DESIGN Wv0 IEWaF3MD (LEWIS HOMESOor CALIFORNIA)
2
"B") a two -story 2,240 square foot, 4
Plan 341: (Exhibit
bedroom,. 3 bathroom, l bonus room structure with a
3 car garage;
Plan 370: (Exhibit "C") a two -story 21802 square foot, 5 in
master
bedroom, 1 bathroom structureawith a the car garage ;bedroom, 3
Plan 371: (Exhibit "D") a two -story 2,445 square foot, 4
bedroom, 3 bathroom, 1 family room structure with a
3 car garage;
The applicant is proposing to start construction on the Model Home
Complex and Phase One which includes twelve (12) lots (Exhi its"E11
and G"). The following is a statistical summary for
307
1,947
2
2
17$
341
2,240
3
3
25$
370
2,802
3
4
33$
371
2,445
3
3
25$
12
100%
TOTAL
Model Home Complex
The proposed Model Home Complex is to be constructed on four (4)
lots along ivy Court. The four (4) model types are to be locate
on Lots 20', 21, 22, 23. Lot 19 will contain six (6) parking spaces.
(Exhibit 'IG ")
MATERIALS AND COLORS
In an attempt to provide variation in the models /floor plans the
applicant has proposed the following: (Exhibits "A", "B ", "C", and
"D")
• 3 architectural front elevation variations for each
model /floor plan;
• 3 roofing tile types (flat, barrel /S- shaped, and spanish
mission Style);
•. 9 different colors of roofing tile, siding /stucco /trim
color schemes; and
• 3 different front elevation embellishments (wood siding,
brick and stone veneer)."
SPECIAL PROJECT CONCERNS
Dwelling units proposed for Lot 23 of Tract 19750 -1 and Lot 5 of
Tract 19750 -3 do not maintain a fifteen (151) foot side setback in
accordance with Section 17.23.080.B of the Municipal Code, R -1
Single Family Residential District. (Exhibit "E"). These lots will
be conditioned to comply with the setback requirements. (Condition
# 8)
AGENDA ITEM NO. _2 X
PAGE OF_L(JL_
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1993
PAGE THREE
- SIIRJFCT: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF MODEL HOMES FOR R 89 -17 AMEND. 2
TRACT NO. 19750- 1, -2, -3 (LEWIS.HOMES OF CALIFORNIA)
Section 17.14.130.D.1 states that new subdivisions or developments
minimum of4six (6'm) feet1insheight along side and rear ar lotklines l of
lots less that twelve thousand (12,000) square feet to provide
privacy and screening. The applicant is proposing wood fencing on
the side and rear property lines (where not visible from public
right -of -way). Staff will condition the project to comply with
this Code requirement. (Condition # 24)
ANALYSIS
As proposed, and conditioned the models and plotting will meet all
the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance, more
specifically Section 17.82.010. As -far as design, the overall
development maintains integrity and will occur in a manner which
will enhance the character and quality of surrounding properties.
The architectural treatment including the materials, colors, and
design will visually contribute to the area and environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL
A Negative Declaration adopted in January 24, 1984 evaluated and
mitigated the impacts associated with the creation of the subject
tract map and developments of housing, therefore, no further,
environmental clearance is needed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design
Review of four (4) models, R 89 -17 Amendment 2 for Tract 17950, and
the plotting for Phase one based upon the following Findings,
Exhibits "A" thru "G ", and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
FINDINGS
1. Subject to the attached conditions, the proposed project is
not anticipated to result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts.
2. The project, as approved complies with the Goals, Objectives
and Policies of the General Plan.
3. This project complies with the design directives contained in
Chapter 17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070,
including guarantees and evidence of compliance with
conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the
subject project to ensure development of the property in
accordance with the Objectives of Chapter 17.82 and the Canyon
Creek Specific Plan, as approved.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Armando G. Villa, Assistant Planner
Approved for Planning Commission: /-,
Phyllis Rogers,
Assistant City Manager
: \R89- 172I.RPT
AGENDA ITEM f`O.
PAGEifk 0 F_"_