Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No.21TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REQUEST CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RON.MOLENDYK, CITY MANAGER. JULY 13, 1993 . APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX PROJECT (NO. 93 -3) AT 215 CHANEY STREET (OWNER: ROY TERREBONNE /ARCHITECT: RAY GRAGE) Mr. Niddo James Ryal, a neighboring resident /homeowner, has.filed an appeal, as allowed by the Municipal Code, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's approval of Minor Design Review for the residential duplex project proposed at 215 Chaney Street. Mr. Ryal, in his appeal, is objecting to the approval of a duplex in an existing single family residential neighborhood. The appeal ,was filed together with petitions (copies attached) from other surrounding residents objecting.to „the duplex proposal. The Planning Commission at their regular meeting of June 16, 1993, voted 4 -0 to approve the Minor Design Review for the proposed residential duplex. The Planning Commission's approval was based in part on the fact that the project met the regulations of the underlying R -2 zoning and because the applicant had made design changes in a effort to make the proposed structure more compatible in outwardly appearance with the existing surrounding single family residences (Minutes and Staff Report attached). DISCUSSION Pursuant to the adopted City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Maps, the area on the northwesterly side of Chaney Street is zoned R -2. This includes the subject duplex site and the.properties to either side of it and behind it. Mr. Ryal's appeal request indicates his property and surrounding properties are R -1. Except for the opposite side of Chaney Street, this is not technically correct, although the existing land uses are single family residences which can be equated to an R -fuse. Most of the area northwesterly of Chaney Street, also referred to as Country Club Heights, is zoned R -2.' The exceptions are along Lakeshore and Riverside Drives where there are R -3 and C -1 zoned_ properties. The City zoning of this area dates back to when this area was annexed to the City in December 1966 (Annexation No. 11). County maps in the City's annexation file show that the County had this area zoned R -2 back at least to January 1959. The area on the southeasterly side of Chaney Street, across from the subject property, has been zoned R -1 and pursuant to the City's recently adopted Historic Elsinore Plan (which stops at Chaney Street) will remain Low Medium Density Residential (up to 6 d.u.'s /acre). The City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan designates the Country Club Heights area as Specific Plan Area "J ". This specific plan has not been prepared yet. The text in the General Plan regarding Specific Plan Area "J" indicates that average expected densities would be 6 d.u.'s /acre, with higher densities along Lakeshore and Riverside Drives. The proposed duplex and the existing zoning of this area, which allows 12 d.u.'s /acre, are not necessarily consistent with the anticipated densities indicated in the General Plan for this area. AE-F,D A t , °,? Im. � PAGE / OF / ti° REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL JULY 13, 1993 PAGE 2 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX PROJECT (NO. 93 -3) AT 215 CHANEY STREET (OWNER: ROY TERREBONNE /ARCHITECT: RAY GRAGE) RECOMMENDATION The City Council can consider the following options for action regarding this appeal request: 1. Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Minor Design Review Project No. 93 -3. 2. Overturn the Planning Commission's approval of Minor Design Review Project No. 93 -3 based on the following potential findings: The project as proposed does not comply with goals and objectives of the General Plan. • The project as proposed does not adequately comply with the design directives contained -in Section 17.82.060, Scope of Design Review, of the City Zoning Code, in that it is not consistent with existing surrounding. development. PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED FOR AGENDA LISTING: Chip Leslie, City Planner AGENDA ITEM N0. II PAGE Z OF ' *' • o _ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE JUN 2 8 1993 PEA 2E PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT NO(S) 933 PROJECT APPLICANT ROY TERREBONNE PROJECT LOCATION 215 CHANEY STREET, LARE'ELSINORE, CA. 92530 DATE OF PLANNING JUNE 16, 1993 COMMISSION ACTION I, the undersigned, hereby appeal the ,above action of approval/ denial by the Lake Elsinore.Planning Commission,,for the following reasons (Please cite specific conditions;'by number, if appropriate). The R1 vested homeowners living in the area of •R2 zoning do not want high density multiple dwellings .being built in existing R1 developed neighborhoods. (Attach additional page, if necessary) June 25, 1993 S nature V Date AA 1 RI 1 Homeowner Prin�•t Name 221 Chanpy Srree Address lak F1 e -ft CA_ 92S30 -3147 City- Statjip Code 909- 674 -0701 Telephone AGENDA ITEM NO. �/- PAGE 3 OF ��° Page 2 " APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION This proposed R -2 development is surrounded by R -1 residences that currently exist. This R -2, duplex, is not consistent and is incompatiable with the surrounding lots properties as well as the ajoining neighborhoods extending for two blocks in a N -S direction.. This proposed R -2 duplex development is being proposed in a "Specific Plan" zone that has not been master planned and none of the details worked on. Based on a Specific Plan area`.this developer should be made to present a Master Plan. This was originally proposed as a low income housing which has proven troublesome in many areas of the City of Lake Elsinore. The potential for crime drug use -, drug trafficking, gang activity, vandelism and high traffic flow and delapitation of building and personal property is a concern of the R -1 vested homeowners of the whole entire area. AGENDA F; EM NO. PAGE / Of /(a PETITION The R1 vested homeowners living in the area of- R2 zoning do not want high density multiple dwellings being built in existing R1 developed neighborhoods. NAME ADDRESS PAGE OF �� 2. e, 2 r 8 Crc �r c-aKE E '4 IS 1 rl,,na n21q of ,ZaZ 6,,;; Gt 7. C rlu v 9. I0. 1 I!2. _ g �q 3 4. ;1kiit Z11 r L ! PAGE OF �� PETITION The RI vested homeowners living in the area of R2 zoning do not want high density multiple dwellings being built in existing R1 developed neighborhoods. . NAME ADDRESS PAGE 2 AGENDA : i ei:; ;'iv. PACE 4 OF Ito 3. d, 9. l S641 Loom- D . %1 i `i 3 �. 2. 3. -7 /x 4. 5. 6. �os� GJ • d of , i7. /! !. 1 18' ^ " '. Ir i 7" C PAGE 2 AGENDA : i ei:; ;'iv. PACE 4 OF Ito i I f PETITION I, I The Rl vested homeowners living in the area of R2 zoning do not-want high density multiple dwellings being built in the existing R1 developed neighborhoods. i NAME ADDRESS 9. 50 ✓ 0. �i�vtL NSQ Ll S C4 I1. 2. 3. 4. S. I i 6. 7. 1. PAGE 3 AGENDA fT= •'.•t: s^� /� PAGE OF�- MINUTES.OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE; 1993 THE MEE:`ING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:07 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Metze. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley, Bullard, Metze, Wilsey ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff. Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gangs, Assistant Planner Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell and Administrative Services Director Boone. MOVE BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE� CARRIE BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE KINUTES OF MAY 1993 AND THE MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 1993. PUBLIC COMM S There being no quest to speak,..Chgirwom "irinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Sec on. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Specific Plan 92 -3, '161 Annexation No. 62 - Good - (K.S. Chen). fiental Impact Report 92 -1 and Investment - The Western Company City Planner I Lexplain that staff recommends a continuance to for additi al time" for noticing the public in rega to this item. He ked that the Commission set a Specia eeting for the public he ing on June 30,1993, in the Els ore Valley Municipal Water D rict Board Room at 7:00 p.m MOVE BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECONDED BY COMMI OMER METZE AND, CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE BY THOSE PRESENT CONTINUE ECIFIC PAN 92 -3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 9 AND ANNEXATION NO. 62 - GOOD LAND INVESTMENT - THE WESTERN CO Y - (K.S. CHEN) TO JUNE 30, 1993 AT 7:00 P.M. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. s7 D�nierf 93 -3 .- Assistant Planner Villa gave an overview of the project and explained that this is an application for a two story duplex located approximately one forth mile north of. the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Chaney Street. He further explained the changes made from the .original plans for driveways to address traffic circulation. Mr. Villa stated that staff recommends the approval of residential. project 93 -3 based on the findings, exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions. Chairwoman Brinley invited Mr. Grage to address the project. Ray Grage, representative of applicant, explained the changes to the original plans which addressed the concerns of the neighborhood. The changes include entries both from Frederick Street and the rear of the property as well as Chaney Street. He further explained that this gives the appearance of a large single family dwelling from either side of the building. He ACE D-A ITEM :O. pAGE Q OF�.- Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1993 -Page 2 addressed the zoning and stated that understood the neighborhood concern regarding the R -2 zoning, but felt that the applicant had met all the requirements of the present zoning to accomplish a quality project. Mr. Roy Terrebonne, applicant, concurred with Mr. Grage. Chairwoman Brinley then called for those who wished to speak on the project as follows: Howard House, 214 Chaney Street, stated that Chaney has become a traffic danger and this project will only increase the traffic problems that the neighborhood is already experiencing. He asked that the Commission consider R -1 zoning for this area. Niddo Ryal, 223 Chaney Street, explained the traffic problems on Chaney and gave an outline of the events that have occurred to his home and the danger to his family and neighborhood. Denise Tompkins, 213 Chaney Street, stated her concerns in regard to potential traffic and parking "problems due to this project. She further stated her disagreement with the zoning. Chairwoman Brinley asked staff if Chaney Street was designated a "Major Thoroughfare" on the General Plan. Assistant Planner Villa stated that it was. Mr. Grage stated that Chaney is a secondary street which is two lane in each direction. He further stated that there is a possible plan to change the traffic circulation of Chaney Street and run it behind Frederick Street to address the residential traffic problem. Mr. Grage stated that a realignment will allow Chaney Street from Riverside Drive to Sumner Street tq be a residential street. Chairwoman Brinley confirmed that at this time it is a residential street, but is slated to become a two lane highway each way. This was confirmed. She then called upon the Commissioners to speak as follows: Commissioner Bullard questioned the sewer system which would be used. Staff Explained that it is septic with the lot that the drive crosses as the leach field. Mr. Bullard then questioned the position of mail delivery and what address would the units use as one is facing Frederick and the other Chaney. Staff explained that both units will be listed on Chaney Street as Unit A and Unit B, with the mail being delivered on Chaney Street. Mr. Bullard asked staff to look into the possibility of a flashing light on Chaney to aid the resolution of some of the traffic problems experienced. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the roof line. Mr. Grage explained that it was not one straight roof line, but was actually three sections. Commissioner Metze asked for clarification regarding the amount of bedrooms which the units will have. Mr. Grage responded that both units will be two bedroom units. Mr. Metze stated that the driveway on Frederick Street seemed to address the traffic concerns. PAGE 0 OF Planning Commission Minutes Jure 16, 1993 PaCe 3 Chairwoman Brinley asked if there had been any septic failures . in the area. Community Development Manager Shear stated that- there had been none reported and that-each unit in the project will have its own septic system since.there is no sewer main line' available to tie Into. He further explained that if sewer becomes available the duplex will be required to time into it and unlike other duplex units which have both units going into one tank each unit is treated "as a- separate . dwelling with its own septic system and leach field. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the color and _ Mr.. Grage explained that it is compatible with the adjacent house which is a charcoal blue. Mrs. Brinley further stated her concern regarding maintenance and upkeep for these units because as rentals in a residential it could create a problem if there were not good tenants. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he felt that maintenance concerns are addressed by a Landscaping Bond. He further stated that Condition No: 15 B requires a 15 gallon size instead 24 gallon and this should be changed to reflect this. There was general discussion in regard to the City's responsibility to the area for maintenance and that the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual homeowner to maintain their property. Staff was instructed to include this issue as one of. the topics for Planning Commission's next study session. ' MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE BY THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 93 -3 - ROY TERREBONNE. BASED ON FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WITH CONDITION NO. 15 ITEM "B" TO READ 24 INCH BOX. s o_e imwe r�et.,.,r6 rsry Cdnterl Oak GrZIVi tguiLies. A istant Planner Villa.gave an, overview of the p ject an explained that this is an application for es,ign Review of a ommercial Shopping Center (building sir .1x6turesand site' plan ign) in accordance with the:requir ents of Chapter 17.38 ( on- Residential Development; St Bards) and 17.62 (Design R iew) of the Municipal Code. d the Elsinore City Center Spec i c Plan. This project is ocated a the southeast corner of Gr a Street and Railr d Canyon Road and - has primary access the site throng Grape Street via Railroad Canyon Road. He ther explain the,proposed monumentation .. walls and recommen that th Planning Commission may allow the height to exceed. the ma mums set by code and since it would amplify the then de ign it is recommended that these walls be allowed as show Chairwoman Brinley, ii► ted t se interested to address the. project. Glen Daigle,.Pro cis Manager, Gav Development Co.', 12625 Highblow Drive, an Diego explained t. his company is the Co- developer th Oak Grove Equities an explained that the Company take exception to items 10,33, d 36. He further explained t at in Condition 10 regarding out or storage that due t0 th nature of what is to be stored, whi is tires, it is best o have the building, open to the air w hout.a roof with t e same block wall construction.. Chairwoman Brinley asked staff to clarify this item t allow for tire storage. Staff recommended it read as follows: ITEM NO. PAC-E—&—OF AV ;. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO, 93 -3 PLANNING DIVISION 1. _..Design Review approval for Residential Project No. 93 -3 will .lapse and be void unless building permits are issued within one (1) year of Planning Commission approval date. An extension of time, up to one (1) year per extension, may be" granted by the Community Development Manager 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. Revisions to the approved site plans or building elevations shall be subject to the approval of 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 his designee. 6. Applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and ,release of utilities.. 7. All structures shall meet setback requirements under the Municipal Code Section 17.24. 8. The building address shall be a minimum of six inches (691) " high and shall be easily visible from the public right -of -way. 9. The project shall connect to sewer if a sewer line is within` 200 feet of the project boundary unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Manager or designee that this is infeasible. If the project does not connect to sewer,. applicant shall submit a Soils Report which includes a sewage disposal plan referenced to the grading plan and approved by the Riverside County Health Department. 10. Applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday,, to protect adjacent occupants from unreasonable noise and glare as with construction. 11. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinance. 12. Trailers utilized during construction shall be approved by Planning Division. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay school fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. -- 14. All ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be screen so that they are not ,visible from the public streets. 15. The final landscaping /irrigation plan is to be reviewed approved by the City's.Landscape.Architect Consultant automatic and a) All planting areas shall have permanent and sprinkler system with loot watering coverage. 'A= �F f'r's 1 v) AGENDA ITEM PLO. PAGE -/V OF CO*IDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RESIRMIAL PR07RCT NO 93 -3 cont.. L) applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City's Street Tree List, a maximum of thirty, feet (30!) apart and at least twenty four (24) inch box in size. c) All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (604) high and six inch (6 ") wide concrete curb. I _ . d) Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress /egress points shall be no higher than thirty -six inches_(36 "). e) Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. f) The landscape plan shall provide for ground cover, shrubs, and trees and meet all requirements of the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines. g) All landscape improvements. shall be.bonded 1203 Faithful Performance. Bond, . and. released at completion of installation 01 landscape 'requirements ' approval/ac ce t ptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year. h) Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan. i) Final landscape plans to include planting and, irrigation details. 16. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (31) in height shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, approved by the.Planning Division._ 17. 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. 18. The rear perimeter fencing shall be six feet (61) in height and provide a visual transition (step -down) in order to assure proper visibility. 19. Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine feet six inches by nineteen feet six inches (916" x 1916 ") of interior clear space for two cars for a total interior clear space of nineteen feet by nineteen feet six inches (19' x 19'6 "). 20. An external storage unit eighty -five (85) cubic feet in size and at least three feet (3') minimum dimension is required for each unit. 21. Prior to issuance of any building permit or 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 22. All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code at the time a building permit is issued. 23. Provide in -lieu payment for future off -site improvement prior to building permit issuance (Reso 86 -35). AGENDA ITEM NO..�_.: 24. Dedicate underground water rights to the City (Municipal Code, Title 16; Chapter 16.52.030). Document can be obtained from the Engineering Department. 25. Dedicate a fourteen (14') foot wide strip of additional right - of -way along the easterly property line to the City prior to issuance of building permit. 26. Public, right -of -way dedications shall be prepared by the applicant or his agent. Deeds shall be submitted .to the Engineering Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. 27. Process and meet all parcel merger requirements prior to issuance of building permit. 28. Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.34; Resolution 85 -26). 29. Submit a "will - Serve" letter to the City Engineering Department, from the applicable water district, stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project. Submit this letter prior to applying for building permit. 30. on -site drainage.shall be conveyed to 'a public facility or accepted by adjacent property owners-by 'A letter of drainage' acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement. 31. All natural drainage traversing site shall be conveyed through site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. 32. If grading exceeds 5o cubic yards, grading plans shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer prior to any grading. Applicant shall obtain a grading permit and post.appropriate security. 33. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off -site easements for off -site grading from the adjacent property owners. .f iv - /6 -y3 foe- AGE ITEMS PA. 1 `//- PAGE OFD & CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: KEVIN SHEAR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1993 SUBJECT: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PR=CT NO. 93 -3 (DUPLEX) OWNER Mr. Roy Terrebonne Mr. Ray Grage, 8396 Fountainbleau Way 110 South Main Street Cypress, Ca 90630 Lake Elsinore, Ca. 92530 I REOUEST Design-Review approval of a two (2) story,_ two (2) unit apartment li building located in the Medium Density Residential District (R -2). in accordance with the development standards of Sections 17.24-(R- 2), 17.14 (Residential Development Standards), and 17.82,(Design . Review)`of the Municipal Code. i SIZE AND LOCATION,. The subject site is.an irregularly shaped lot approximately 7,840 square feet in area and'is located approximately 1/4 mile north of ,. the intersection of Lakeshore Avenue and Chaney Street,- more - specifically at 215 Chaney Street. (375- 345 - 027,028,020) i ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project entails the construction of a duplex apartment building as follows: Unit 1: As proposed, this 1,104 square foot unit will be- entirely within the second floor on-tog of the two (2) proposed garages. It contains a two (2) car garage which will have'' access via Channey Street (with 85 of of storage area and'" a washer /dryer area), two bedrooms,.two full bathrooms, family room, dinning room, kitchen, and a balcony. Unit 2: This unit is a 1,001 square foot unit with-a kitchen, dinning room, family room, a half bathroom, and a balcony within the first floor and two (2) bedrooms and a bathroom in the second floor. The two (2) car garage has the same characteristics•a unit #1 1 except that this garage will be accessed via.Frederick Avenue. The duplex will. - provide approximately three hundred and fifty (350 + -) square feet of usable open space for each units. AQa2 ;DA ITEM NO. I OF ��v EXISTING IM USE Project Site Vacant R -2 Specific Plan "F" North SFR R -2'' Specific Plan "F" East SFR R -1 _ CBD Plan South SFR R -2 Spec fic Plan "F" West Vacant R -2 Specific Plan "F" PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project entails the construction of a duplex apartment building as follows: Unit 1: As proposed, this 1,104 square foot unit will be- entirely within the second floor on-tog of the two (2) proposed garages. It contains a two (2) car garage which will have'' access via Channey Street (with 85 of of storage area and'" a washer /dryer area), two bedrooms,.two full bathrooms, family room, dinning room, kitchen, and a balcony. Unit 2: This unit is a 1,001 square foot unit with-a kitchen, dinning room, family room, a half bathroom, and a balcony within the first floor and two (2) bedrooms and a bathroom in the second floor. The two (2) car garage has the same characteristics•a unit #1 1 except that this garage will be accessed via.Frederick Avenue. The duplex will. - provide approximately three hundred and fifty (350 + -) square feet of usable open space for each units. AQa2 ;DA ITEM NO. I OF ��v REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JONR_16, 1993 ,PAGE TWO SUBJECT: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF (DUPLEX) NATERINA AND COLORS Body: Blue /Gray Stucco Trim: Dark Grey Roof: Charcoal Grey Concrete Slate ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 93 -3 Prior to acceptance of the proposed plans, staff and the applicant discussed design enhancement alternatives. Staff recommended the use of window surrounds and mullions. Consequently, Exhibit "A" reflects all recommended changes. The project was redesigned to allow the duplex unit to have access via Chaney Street for unit 1 and access via Frederick Street for unit 2. As redesigned with garage doors on opposite elevations, the duplex appears to be a single family dwelling. This effect renders the duplex compatible with the surrounding single family neighborhood. I As proposed (Exhibit "A"), the duplex dwelling with specified conditions. meets the development and design requirements of the. Municipal Code. In terms of aesthetics, the project exhibits a pleasing and attractive architectural style. ENVIRONMENTAL This project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review for R 93 -3 based on the Findings,- Exhibit "A ", and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS 1. The project, as approved complies with the Goals, objectives and Policies of the General Plan and the Zoning District in. which the project is located. 2. This project complies with the design directives contained in Chapter_17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 3. 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. Prepared by: Reviewed.by: Armando G. Villa, Assistant Planner I Approved for-,Planning Commission Phyllis Rogers, Assistant City Manager : \R93 -3.RPT AGENDA ITEM NO.''//— PAGE �G OF-A.