Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-2006 NAHMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, TUNE 20, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: 6:03:30 PM Chairman O'Neal called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: City Attorney Alisha Santana led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: O'NEAL, GONZALES, AND FLORES ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Preisendanz, Planning Manager Weiner, City Engineer Seumalo, Deputy City Attorney Santana, Senior Planner Matt Harris, Project Planner, Linda Miller, Associate Planner Justin Cazlson, Project Planner Carol Donahoe, and Office Specialist Porche'. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Non-Agendized items) Chairman O'Neal: Mrs. Donna Franson has requested to speak. 6:04:31 PM Mrs. Franson who is the President of Lake Elsinore Citizens Committee, invited everyone to attend the third quarter meeting of the Lake Elsinore Citizens Committee on Thursday July 13u at 7 PM in the Tuscany Hills Recreation Center at 75 Summerhill Drive. She noted that County Supervisor Bob Buster will be the guest speaker and the Citizens Committee keeps Citizens awaze of the growth taking place in Lake Elsinore and gives them the opportunity to take part in that positive growth. She continued to state that most subjects between the developer and the City Staff can be worked out by the Planning Commissioners before they make their recommendation to the Council. The Community gives its members a place to voice their concerns without going before the Council at the twelfth hour. Opinions can be voiced through the newsletter and meetings. She thanked the Commission and City Council for their participation in the Committee. She mentioned that the Committee has been in existence for two and half years and has over six hundred and fifty members since the last count. The newsletter goes out to sixty eight hundred registered voters in the City of Lake Elsinore and the Committee is a non profit, non political organization. For further information please ca11674-1989 or 674-2159. PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Chairman O'Neal thanked Mrs. Franson for her time. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes • Regular Planning Commission Minutes of June 6, 2006 MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY FLORES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3-0 TO APPROVE ITEM NO. 1, JUNE 6, 2006 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. Chairman O'Neal requested to pull Items No. 2, and 3. 2. Minor Design Review for a single-family residence located at 743 Lake Street APN: 373-182-026. 6:07:28 PM Chairman O'Neal requested the reading of the Staff Report. Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz introduced Associate Planner Carlson and asked him to provide an overview of the project and answer any questions that the Commission may have. Associate Planner Carlson explained the project as a Minor Design Review for a single family residence located at 743 Lake Street. The applicant is constructing a 1,581 square foot conventionally built single family residence with an attached 455 square foot two car garage and a 36 square-foot front porch. The total building footprint including residence, garage and front porch will occupy approximate 1,159 square feet and will have a net lot coverage of 37%. The applicant has chosen to construct the proposed single-family residence using elements similar to Mediterranean style architecture and is compliant with the development standazds of the City of Lake Elsinore. On April 20a', the Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed plan and provided several substantial architectural design, comments including; building and proposed roofing material. Staff has determined that the proposed project meets all of the design development standards of the LEMC and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the proposed Minor Design review based on the findings made in attached exhibit and conditions of approval. This concludes staff's report and the applicant is present tonight should you have any questions. Chairman O'Neal brought the discussion back to the dais. Commissioner Flores had no comments. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Vice Chairman Gonzales had no comments. Chairman O'Neal questioned if this was a reverse and repeat with 747 and 743 Lake Street. The applicant Steve Szemenyei concurred. Chairman O'Neal expressed that this will be the last time that he will approve a reverse and repeat, especially when this project barely meets the minimum requirements for this design. Chairman O'Neal requested any comments. There being no comments, Chairman O'Neal requested a Motion. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY GONZALES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3-0 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-55, APPROVING A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE STREET; AP PROXIMATELY 325 FEET EAST OF HIGH STREET AT 743 LAKE STREET, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 373-182-026. 3. Minor Desi¢n Review for a sin¢le-family residence located at 747 Lake Street (APN: 373-182-0251. Chairman O'Neal noted that since this project is the same as item number two the resolution can be read without a presentation. MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY FLORES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3-0 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-56, APPROVING A MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE STREET; AP PROXIMATELY 325 FEET EAST OF HIGHT STREET AT 747 LAKE STREET, ACCESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 373-182-025. 4. Minor design review of two (21 single family residences located at 316 & 318 Townsend Street (APN 374-105-0241. Chairman O'Neal stated there are a couple of requests to speak on this item. PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz introduced Project Planner Linda Miller and asked her to provide an overview of the project and answer any questions that the Commission may have. Project Planner Miller stated that these are two manufactured homes on two adjacent 9,000 squaze foot lots. The lot on 316 Townsend will include a 1,512 square foot unit with an attached covered porch and a two caz 400 square foot gazage. A porte cochere will connect the gazage to the residential unit. The total building footprint is approximately 23% of the lot area meeting maximum allowable building azea of 50%. The unit at 318 Townsend is at 2,060 square feet with an attached two car garage and attached porch for a total building footprint of 29% also meeting the maximum allowable building area. Both units include features of the craftsman style of architecture, including elephantine columns, masonry wainscot, wide window frames and paned glass windows, covered porch entries, multiple roof planes, horizontal siding at gabled ends, decorative wood braces and exposed rafter tails. The front setback area will include automatic irrigation and landscaping and both lots will include 20% of landscaping. She added that the project was exempt from CEQA and is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the Minor Design Review for the two single family residences and the approval is based on the fmdings of the attached conditions and exhibits. Staff just received a letter opposing the project today and a copy of it has been supplied to each of you. Ms. Miller continued with reading the letter into the record from Mr. Louis Jackson Ratliff Jr. and Georgia Lee Ratliff which expressed a disapproval of the project. She also indicated that if the Planning Commission has questions regarding Manufactured homes being allowed in the City of Lake Elsinore, City Attorney Santana will be able to answer your question. The applicant is also present for any questions. Chairman O'Neal requested the applicant Mr. Solomon Mishkanian to take the podium. Mr. Mishkanian, 39 Giotto, Aliso Viejo stated that he has read all the conditions of approval and agrees with them. Chairman O'Neal requested Denise Tompkins to take the podium. Ms. Denise Tompkins stated that she lives at 320 Chaney Street and has been there for 22 years. She indicated that Townsend is on a hill and has blind spots and the stop sign is run about ten to twenty times a day and the right side of the road can be seen but not the left. She was wondering where these driveways were going to be. Chairman O'Neal asked Engineering Manager Ken Seumalo to answer Ms. Tompkins question. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Mr. Seumalo stated that site distance is one of the provisions that Engineering looks at and it will be looked at when the grading is done to make sure that there is sufficient site distance for entering into the Public Right of Way. Chairman O'Neal asked Georgia Ratliff to take the podium. Ms. Ratliff stated that she lives at 26660 Ridgemoore Road, Sun City, 92586. She indicated that her and her husband wish to build a home right next to these manufactured homes and she believes this is a Historical District of the City and manufactured homes cannot be built in the Historical District and that they are concerned about devaluation of their property. Chairman O'Neal asked City Attorney Santana to address these concerns. City Attorney Santana stated that the California State Government Code, under section 65852.3 of the State legislature has spoken on the issue of manufactured homes within the State of California, which says that Cities shall allow the installation of manufactures homes that are certified under the National Manufacturing Housing Construction and Safety Standard Act of 1974. That Cities shall only subject the manufactured homes and the lot on which it is placed to the same development standards that it subjects all its other stick type development; normal development that you would be otherwise using with your particular home that you are proposing. In conclusion she stated that as long as the manufactured home(s) complies with City setbacks, design features, side and rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, and all other sorts of developments standards that the City has, the City cannot refuse to process a manufactured home simply on the basis of it being a manufactured home rather then a stick built unit. Chairman O'Neal asked Rolfe Preisendanz to address the Historic issue. Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz expressed that since the City is required by law to allow manufactured homes it requested the builder to be consistent with certain styles of architecture. The Director continued to explain about craftsman style homes and how most of these homes have the craftsman style in order to be consistent with the Historic guidelines, specially in this case. Chairman O'Neal thanked everyone for speaking and brought the discussion back to the dais. Commissioner Flores asked Ms. Ratliff if the only reason why she opposed these homes were based on the value of her property and if the property was adjacent to these homes Ms. Ratliff responded by saying yes it was the main reason and also the Historic District and added that her property was adjacent to these. Commissioner Flores asked Mr. Solomon Mishkaninan, if these manufactured homes were going be placed on a permanent foundation. And what type of material were going to be used outside of these homes. PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 2Q, 2006 Mr. Solomon Mishkaninan responded yes, they were going to be on permanent foundations and that he was going to use stucco material for the outside. Commissioner Flores added that he has seen these and they are really nice, they almost look like they were built from the outside. Mr. Solomon Mishkaninan agreed. Commissioner Flores stated he had no more comments. Vice Chairman Gonzales questioned the garage area which seems higher up, and was wondering how high up it was to the top of Townsend. He was also wondering if the garage was near the top of that hill. Mr. Solomon Mishkaninan explained that the garage had a maximum slope of 15% with a curve, and also it was not right on the road, and that he was going to widen the Street so the residents will have a place to pull out. MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY FLORES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3-0 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-57, APPROVING A MINOR ', DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO (2) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED AT 316 & 318 TOWNSEND STREET, APN (374-105-024). PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6:28:24 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing. 5. Residential desien review No. 2005-20 for "Rosetta Heights", located southeast of Highway 74, east of Interstate 15, and east of the intersection of Conard Avenue and Third Street. Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz stated that this is a request for Residential Design Review No. 2005-20 for Rosetta Heights and requested Project Planner Carol Donohoe to go over the project with the Commission and answer any questions that they may have. Planner Donohoe stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council approved Tentative Tract 31792. At this time she explained the project as follows: Lennar Homes would like to construct their product on the particular map, including three detention basins, meandering trails and a tot lot/picnic area. Two neighborhoods are PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 proposed by Lennaz, the Magnolia homes are proposed for the north and east portion of the tract, and the Primrose homes are proposed for the south and west portions. Construction will begin simultaneously in both neighborhoods, but construction vehicles can take advantage of the three points of access to the tract. Diana Lane and Pascali Lane come through the Centex projects from Rosetta Canyon Drive. Third Street comes from State Highway 74 through the Conard Street community. The Magnolia products range in size from 2,904 square feet, 3,049 square feet, and 3,399 square feet, all in two stories. The three plans offer 3-car garages; and four, three and five bedrooms respectively. The Primrose products range in size from 3,504 square feet, 3,676 square feet, and 3,873 square feet, all in two stories. The three plans all offer five bedrooms, and gazages have capacity for either three or four cars, some in tandem spaces. Lennaz will also have a model home complex with three Magnolia and three Primrose models proposed to be constructed on Bankhall Street, off of Diana Lane. They will flank a parking lot and sales trailer that provides sufficient parking spaces, landscaping and handicap accessibility. Staff has determined that this Design Review is consistent with and implements the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 31792. In accordance with Section 15162 and 15004, staff determined no further environmental documentation was necessary. She added that there is an additional Condition of Approval that the City Attorney's Office has recommended be included. This is condition number two which is normally included and will be added in this case since it was omitted by error. Furthermore, the Commission has a draft notice of determination for this project and it will be filed tomorrow should the project be approved today. Chairman O'Neal asked the applicant to take the podium. Project Manager for this project is Ellen Michiel, at 40980 County Center Drive, # 110, Temecula, CA 92591. She said that she agrees with number two of the Conditions of Approval which has been added, but would like clarification on a couple of others. First being number twenty one, which requires block walls with tubulaz steel view fencing on slopes. Issues have arose with this, one being the proposal of block walls along the Southern California Edison easement, with very large structures in that easement, a 20 foot wide paved access road that allows Edison access to those structures, and that view fencing adjacent to that easement will not be appropriate. Secondly, on the eastern side of the Lennaz site there is a school currently under construction and they have indicated that their preference is a block wall on the top of that slope. We ask that in these two cases the fencing be modified to exempt these lots from condition number twenty one. PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz stated this is the first time this request has been mentioned and asked Project Planner Donahoe to express her thoughts. Project Planner Donahoe expressed that it being the first time this was presented to change the condition; staff has not had the chance to go over them, but did see an issue with it. Referencing the map, Ms. Michiel went over the lot locations where she was describing the change in the block wall with the easement for Edison and the school area. Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz questioned if there will be block walls on both sides of the easement, and who will maintain the walls. Ms. Michiel stated that there will be block wall on both sides and the homeowner association will maintain the walls and it will be landscaped. Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz asked how many linear feet is in there. Also near the school, what kind of fencing will the other lots have. Ms. Michiel stated she did not have the information for the linear feet, and was not aware what Centex has in that location. The school may not have contacted Centex. Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz informed the Commission of his concerns about this issue. Ms. Michiel stated the second issue is condition number seventy eight and Lennar would like it to be written as such that it conform to the original conditions of approval. Although she did not have a copy, she did state the original condition of approval required the installation of a signal on the corner of Central and Conard Street prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on the 20~' home site of this community. She had also spoken with Ken and Carol and Lennar would be satisfied if this condition would be changed to the original with whatever language was used. Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz stated that normally the staff would require time to review the block wall and it appears in the traffic signal case, our Engineering Manager Ken Seumalo is approving this request. Engineering Manager Mr. Seumalo indicated that the standard procedure is to follow the traffic study recommendation and he is comfortable with it. Project Planner, Ms. Donahoe stated that she was not comfortable with the block wall request and would like time to review it and see if it's feasible. Ms. Michiel noted that if this was a case of continuance then they would like to go ahead and be processed on the same basis but would like to submit and have separately reviewed the fence and wall plan with the Director approval. PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 2Q 2006 Project Planner Ms. Donahoe expressed if Lennaz would like to work with the staff, there were no issues with her and Director Preisendanz agreed. Ms. Michiel also agreed and will conform with whatever Director Preisendanz determines is the best solution. Director of Community Development Mr. Preisendanz assured the Commission that the staff will protect the views and the block walls and that fencing is done correctly. There is a condition that states all fencing and block walls need to go through staff review. Chairman O'Neal thanked everyone for speaking and brought the discussion back to the dais. Vice Chairman Gonzales questioned Ms. Michiel regarding Third Street and where it was going to be connected. Ms. Michiel stated Third Street connects to Conazd which in turn connects to Central and Lennaz will be installing Third Street to Conazd, fully improved street curb gutters, sidewalk and street lights, and further widening Conard to its full dedicated width with sidewalks. Vice Chairman Gonzales inquired about handicap accessibility for all the homes. Ms. Michiel responded by stating all the homes have a bedroom on the first floor and a bath and wider doors, etc. Commissioner Flores requested confirmation on Lennar's agreement to work with staff regarding the condition of approval on the block wall. Ms. Michiel expressed her connection with Carole and the teamwork relationship which has lasted for the last four years and she plans on working with Carol to get everything done correctly. Lennaz has been working with the School District and the County with no issues. Chairman O'Neal asked Ms. Michiel to explain what deed restrictions there are? Ms. Michiel explained that deed restrictions aze something that rides with the property and is recorded as a condition or restriction of approval and limits what can or cannot be done on the site. Apart of the CC & R's indicate that Lennaz will record over the property and it has to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Planning Department prior to that. Chairman O'Neal requested further knowledge on deed restrictions on this property with respect to percentage of resale. Ms. Michiel stated there is a quarter of one percent resale that is donated to the Lennar foundation which supports supportable housing and shelter housing all over the Country. Being very active in the Inland Empire, and a major supporter of a number of charitable programs. Ms Michiel advised of not being certain at the moment if the program is being implemented with this Community. PAGE to -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Chairman O'Neal confirmed that every person reselling a home will always pay the quarter percent to Lennaz. Ms. Michiel expressed that it is paid to the foundation. This foundation is explained to all of our buyers at time of purchase and is something that Lennar is very proud o£ It's also a tax write off and wished more housing development companies did the same. Community Development Director Preisendanz stated with the correction on the conditions of approval the resolution is as is. MOVED BY GONZALES AND SECONDED BY FLORES, PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3-0 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 2006-58, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-20 FOR "ROSETTA HEIGHTS" BY LENNAR HOMES, FOR 190 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN TRACT 31792, APN 347-330-019, -045, -046, -050 THROUGH -053 AND 347- 360-003, -004 AND -005. 6:52:30 PM There being no further business, Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Heazing. 6. Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-23 & Commercial Design Review No. 2005-10 for a "7-ELEVEN" Convenience Store and Gasoline Disnensing establishment with onsite Beer and Wine sales. Located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenues(s). 6:56:00 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Preisendanz: This is a Conditional Use Permit to establish a "gasoline dispensing establishment" with beer and wine sales and a Commercial Design Review fora 7- ELEVEN" convenience store and gasoline pumps. This item was continued from the June 6`h Planning Commission Meeting and is now being heard tonight. Senior Planner Harris: This is a 2,960 square foot convenience "7-ELEVEN" store, and a gasoline station consisting of three islands, six pumps, and a canopy. In addition the applicant is proposing beer and wine sales in the convenience store. The site is located on the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue(s) within the Oak Grove ("Target") Crossing Shopping Center, Zone (C-2 General Commercial). With regazd to project siting, the applicant proposes the gas pumps and the canopy at the corner of the property adjacent to the street intersection, and the store to be located approximately seventy feet back to the west and in between is a parking area and a drive aisle. They aze also proposing twenty-eight on PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 2Q 2006 site parking spaces. The intersection of Central Ave and Collier, as the Commission is aware, is quickly becoming one of the City's main Commercial intersections. There is a variety of shopping centers that are either planned or currently under construction in that general area. This intersection has become a highly visible area with a very high traffic count for the City. Therefore, staff believes a high quality esthetically pleasing site design is warranted for this project given that high visibility. Also staff earlier on in the process informed the applicant that we cannot support a standard gas station design which will consist of gas pumps and hoses and a large pavement field and a large canopy right there in the corner of the site which will become the dominant site feature. Furthermore, staff believes the layout, as proposed, does not comply with the Community Design element of the General Plan which requires varied building orientation, articulated shapes and forms of building to create visual interest. Staff subsequently requested that the convenience store be relocated closer to the Collier Avenue frontage and the canopies be subsequently relocated to the interior of the site. The applicant indicated that they could not relocate the gas pumps to the site interior for three main reasons: 1) Reduced patron visibility 2) Public Safety 3) Site Constraint With regard to visibility, the applicants were concerned that if you internalize the gas pumps, the patrons won't see them from the streets and their patronage will drop. In taking a look at the site, Staff believes that there is adequate space on the property to move the pumps and still maintain "line of sight" at the street intersection. In addition, the Shopping Center's proposed sign program allows for two free standing monument signs on each street frontage on both Collier and Central that has the gas pump site and makes it very clear that there is a gasoline station located on the property. With regards to public safety, both the applicants and the City Police Chief, were requesting that the front door of the convenience store be visible from the intersection of Central and Collier to reduce the potential for robbery, and to expedite the response from the Police in such a case, and not have the back of the building to the Street. Again, staff upon evaluating the site, feels strongly that there is adequate room on the site to achieve that visibility and still internalize the gas pumps. With regards to site constraints, there are currently CC & R's associated with this Shopping Center that create a building envelope on the property that limits the siting of the building and improvements. However once again, staff still maintains there is adequate room to move the improvements as staff envisions and is requesting at this time. There are various site design suggestions provided by staff that the applicant was unable or unwilling to undertake to modify the store floor plan and the gas station as requested, therefore staff cannot support the site design as proposed. Given the constraints on the site and general plan requirements that are clear for a high quality development on this high visibility site, it does raise the question whether a single use would be more appropriate here, a restaurant or single type of retail use that can more easily fit on this site. PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 With regard to building architecture, the applicants are proposing what they call a timeless contemporary architectural style which will be in keeping with the remainder of the buildings within the Shopping Center. The plan is a rectangular floor plan with a raised main entry element and parapet walls with columns that are placed for articulation purposes. Staff initially identified a variety of inconsistencies through the proposed building architecture and the general plan commercial design guidelines and Municipal Code. This relates to a lack of significant building articulation. Also, there is a lack of roof line variation; with minimum materials on the building other than stucco and staff also felt that there is not enough landscaping around the building in accordance with the Zoning Code. Since that time, the applicant has made a variety of revisions to address Staff concerns and have come a long way with the architecture and all. However, today Staff still has some outstanding issues with the building architecture. First of all, Staff still feels building elevations lack significant articulation and need to have deeper columns to achieve strong shadowing. Secondly, the applicant has made no modification regarding the lack of roof line variation, which Staff has requested. Thirdly, the applicant has provided a decorative trellis on a variety of locations on the site as shown on the elevations. However, looking at the latest landscape plan, Staff feels that the trellis should be vegetated and they are not at the moment. In addition, there are sixteen surplus parking spaces on this project site and Staff from the beginning has asked the applicant to take a hard look at converting six of those spaces to landscape planters to achieve more landscaping within the parking lot, which to date that has not been accomplished. Lastly the Municipal Code requires that the building sit on an island of landscaping except where building entrances are. While the applicant has added significant landscaping, there are still some issues with the latest plans. They have added a landscape planter out on the front elevation but instead of putting it adjacent to the building footprint they have placed it on the front of the sidewalk and hence it blocks the motorists when you park right up front the building and you have to walk through the planter to get to the side walk, this does not work well. Also Staff is concerned that the internal site, landscape planters are only two feet wide or less which does not leave a lot of room for planting. Therefore staff cannot support building architecture and landscaping as proposed. Lastly with regards to convenience Beer and Wine sales within the store, the applicants are requesting that a Type 20 "off site" beer and wine license be issued by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). In addition, our Municipal Code requires that the Commission issue a Conditional Use Permit to allow the concurent selling of both motor fuel and alcohol on site. Now in evaluating these permits the Commission may consider the concentration of on site liquor establishments that currently exist within the census tract in which this site is located as well as looking into the crime rate within that census tract. Upon consultation with ABC, they indicated that there are ten active Type 20 or Type 21 one business liquor license currently issued within the census tract. In addition, Staff did some research and has found five other alcohol sales related establishments existing outside the census tract within a half mile of this site, so there are plenty of other places which are currently selling beer and wine within close proximity. ABC has indicated a maximum of three licenses are allowed within a census tract and beyond that it is deemed over PAGE 13 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 concentrated. Staff indicated that there is currently ten such establishment in this tract, which is way beyond the limit. With regard to the crime rate the Police Chief has indicated that the tract is indeed located within in area that has been designated as a high crime rate area. Moreover, the Chief has indicated to staff that he is not in support of the sale of alcohol beverages on this property in association with this convenience store. Based on the over concentration and high crime rate Staff cannot support the proposed use permit for beer and wine sales on site. In conclusion, staff is recommending that the Commission deny the proposed use permit for the gasoline sales establishment, for the (on site) beer and wine sales. In addition that Commission recommend denial of the Commercial Design Review application to establish a convenience store and gas station. Chairman O'Neal: Thank you. I have a number of requests to speak on this item. Applicant Glen Daigle: Oak Grove Equities, 28991 Old Town Front Street, Suite 207, Temecula, CA. Basically I'm going to allow the "7-ELEVEN" representative to address details of our project. On behalf of Oak Grove Equities I'd like to state we made an early decision regarding this project by looking at the "7-ELEVEN" in Murrieta, and satisfied ourselves with the quality of this project and appropriateness for a Shopping Center on a State Highway at the Freeway and appropriate use per City Ordinances. Peter Whittingham: At 2400 E. Katelia Ave, # 350, Anaheim CA 92806. The firm I'm representing for is working for "7-ELEVEN", the owner of this property has been in negotiation with "7-ELEVEN" for some time now and in this process has been very forward with staff as Mr. Harris notes. We have representatives from "7-ELEVEN" and ABC Consulting, to answer any questions you might have. Unlike the presentation that was shown to you, prior to June 6, 2006, we did submit to staff a revised site plan that we believed/hoped to address their concerns with regards to the orientation to the pump canopies at the corner with the pumps being further down Collier and the building closer to the intersection, with additional landscaping buffering on both Streets. The orientation of the building and getting to this point was the necessity of a lot line adjustment due to the constrictions of the pad and requirements for the greater center as a whole. Referencing Power Point Exhibit, this is a better illustration of the building now backing towards Central Avenue, facing out towards the canopy's fuel pump island. Glen referenced the site in Murrieta, and here is a picture of it and it is very similar to what will be put at this location with the architecture tying in with the Center. This is the landscape plan as proposed twenty five percent of the project area is landscaped. Far beyond the 10% that is required. With a number of mature trees on both sides. PAGE 14 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 A picture of the floor plan for the store, again the prototype of a "7-ELEVEN" store is something that has been carefully crafted for both efficiency and safety. With the cashier to be able to see the entire store and the fuel line. These are the elevations as described, very tastefully done and at the same time being tied in the architecture which will be found throughout the Center; and the same for the pump canopy. We believe what sets "7-ELEVEN" apart from other beer and wine alcohol providers is that it's a true convenience store. The beer and wine is less then 5% of total products offered, whereas a liquor store primarily product. "7-ELEVEN" meets all ADA requirements with no hazd liquor. Of the ten ABC licenses within the Census Tract, more than half have had their licenses suspended by the ABC for disciplinary reasons, mostly for sales to minors. The "7- ELEVEN" "Coming of Age" training program, (with corporate policy) requires employees to ID anyone under 30 trying to buy beer or wine. The only beer and wine retailer in this specific area in the tract is this site. Five of them are at or near the corner of Lake Shore and Riverside and three are of Main Street and Graham. One is near a middle school and the last one is AM/PM which is much closer to a residential neighborhood. These are some of the other ABC licensees within the tract. He continued to note where each one was located within the census tract. "7-ELEVEN" continues to set itself apart from the other retailers by offering to voluntary accept twenty three conditions. Being with advertising, signage, display and eta No video machines or games within the store. Chairman O'Neal: You showed all the liquor stores around the area, isn't there a "7- ELEVEN" on Main Street in this district? Peter Winngham: Yes, but it's not in the census tract. Chairman O'Neal: Is it a block away from the tract? Michael Brewer: 41715 Enterprise Circle # 208, Temecula, California. I'm here on behalf of "7-ELEVEN". I'm their ABC Consultant, and would like to clazify that staff on their report uses the term onsite and off site sales interchangeably and we would like to make sure that it's understood that we are proposing an off site for off package retail sale of beer and wine and it seems to be erroneously recorded in the reports. We are not asking for on site consumption at the store. Chairman O'Neal: Understood. Mark Haines, is this a copy of the letter you sent me? Is that correct? Mark Haines: Yes. 9771 Claremont Masson Blvd, San Diego CA, I'm the Real Estate Manager for this area. Our team has met with staff and unfortunately what we agreed on and PAGE 15 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 what we tried to do did not show up on the presentation tonight. We made substantial changes to the site plan, to the architecture treatments; we turned the building; we made twenty five percent landscape verses what was required (ten percent). We are the only gas station on the West side of the free way. You know how impacted the other side of the freeway is to get in and out of the Arco off of Dexter. We think we will serve the Community well by being at the end of the Target Center. Our design with the building turned and pumps set in a right direction, so we should approve and not deny, as we have addressed most if not all of staffls questions. Chairman O'Neal: With no further requests to speak, I'll like to bring it up to the dais and start with Commissioner Flores. Commissioner Flores: Listening to your report Mr. Harris, sounds like you have found everything that is wrong and that the applicant has failed to comply. Mr. Peter, why didn't you include the picture of "7-ELEVEN" in the census. Mark Haines: Again, we showed just a few of the sites that were actually in the census tract that "7-ELEVEN" is not in the census tract. Mike can better speak to better to this explanation. A logical grouping of a specific geographic area, the census tract which may or may not accurately represent all the licensees within an area. Commissioner Flores: It's just that, you took a picture of one of your stores outside of our area but failed to take the one that is within our own. The other thing is that, was this map provided to staff, was this something we have or something that was just brought up. Mr. Preisendanz: I just clarified that with my staff, we received the site plan via e-mail which is included in the report. We did not receive landscape plans Planning Manager Weiner: This particular graphic on the screen was received approximately ten days ago. We are still not in support of this design and it still doesn't achieve getting the building to the corner. The other issue with the modified elevations and landscaping, I never received it. Commissioner Flores: So you have not yet reviewed this? Planning Manager Weiner: That's correct. Director of Community Development Preisendanz: We received this (referencing to 11x17 plans delivered to meeting) as a packet. Planning Manager Weiner: The site plan shown here was received via a-mail. Commissioner Flores: I have no more questions. Chairman O'Neal: Thank you PAGE 16 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Vice Chairman Gonzales: First of all there is another gas station on the west side of the free way. There is an Arco Station by the outlet stores. There are four min-marts and gas stations in probably a mile of this area and three of them are within less than a half mile. I don't think we need another one. I agree with Police Chief for the safety of that area. The Tazget Store and some other restaurants instead. That's it. Chairman O'Neal: Mr. Haines, you used some phrases here that I really don't understand. Please explain. "Inaccurate pictures of prior discussions and the true nature of this project". What does that mean? Is this a meta discussion? Mr. Haines: No it's not a meda discussion. We came to staff, to get direction on how we can get approval and we felt that their minds were made up before we got there and nothing we could do at the meeting was going to change. Chairman O'Neal: So when you state by inaccurate picture you mean, they had made up their minds. Is that what you mean? Mr. Haines: That's the impression we got. If we had more time, before this meeting, our architects would have gotten the complete package which shows the additional landscaping and the change in the architectural design. Chairman O'Neal: When you chose to correct spelling and mail that to me, I have a problem with that. Are you an English Professor? Mr. Haines: No. Chairman O'Neal: You have done this in a number of places and it's condescending beyond belief. I had someone else read this and they commented on why you were so "whiney". The problem is you address your particular concerns but not staff's. In addition to that, prior to you coming in today, not one place do you talk about the concern of the Chief of Police of Lake Elsinore, saying we did not want another beer and wine sales place in that area. You know it was there and did not address it. I received this letter on June 15, 2006, which was yesterday, talking about Conditional Use Permit 2005-23 and Commercial Design review but you never even addressed the Conditional Use Permit in this letter. I have not heard anything to refute what staff has recommended, which is a denial. That is the way I will vote. I recognize Mr. Daigle that there is a significant investment in this and that it's not easy to do this and not easy to say, but it's what I need to do. We need to talk about procedures Mr. Preisendanz, because a yes vote is a no vote and a no vote is a yes vote. Because the City is recommending a denial. Also I would like to inform you Mr. Daigle that you have the right to appeal this decision if in fact it is not what you want to heaz. Mr. Daigle: Need a clarification from staff about why they think the solution which is turned, which puts the canopy away from the corner, makes it not the most dominating visual thing, is not accomplishing what they aze trying to do. All I have heard from Rolfe and Tom us that it's not enough. PAGE 17 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Chairman O'Neal: Well it seems to me, what I've heard was is that the book that you go by and the design that you present is design number 23 of the "7-ELEVEN" play book and you are not interested in changing some of the things staff asked you to change with specificity of left and right, you must know what I'm talking about. Mr. Daigle: Not really, because we completely turned the site plan 90 degrees which is almost exactly what they asked us to do. The only thing we did not do is put the back of the building to the corner. But the purpose of what they aze trying to do is get the pump canopy away from the corner. I have heazd that loud and clear from Mr. Weiner. So we put the pumps as far away as we could from either street as we can. We have done everything we could and we are just trying to understand why that's not enough. Chairman O'Neal: I'll try one more time with Matt Harris, maybe you can explain it better then me. Senior Planner Harris: The whole purpose of the General Plan Guide lines is to get an interesting corner feature going with buildings. What staff wants is to bring the building closer to the Collier Avenue and do a architectural feature there, whereas you wouldn't focus on the pumps islands and the field of asphalt. We are trying to get interest into that corner since it's a high visibility corner. There is still a pazking lot at the corner. Director of Community Development Preisendanz: We received the site plan via e-mail but did not have the chance to review the rest of what you have either, in relation to the Design Review. This is a last minute thing for us to look at. We aze trying to achieve architecture forward onto the Street frontage. We have raised the bar by the request of the Council. Albeit we are still looking at an alcohol issue and the Police Chief letter that is hard to overcome and hard to support against what the Police Chief is telling us. Mr. Daigle: So if I can paraphrase Matt's point, it's the lack of something interesting at the corner other than the parking lot. Or is it that the building has to be in the corner? Director of Community Development Preisendanz: We can look at different things. But all staff believes with the General Plan code as Matt has stated. We have opportunities here where we can work with the design so it does not look like just another gas station. The main issue is still alcohol. Mr. Daigle: I did get clarification Chairman O'Neal and the only thing I will say is the only reason I put in the picture of the Murrieta Store was because that was the one I had looked at. Director of Community Development Preisendanz: I wanted to mention that Glen has worked very hard on other projects and we have a good history with Glen and Oak Grove Equities and appreciate our relationship. We, staff, look at this objectively in design and hate to repeat it but need to honor what our Chief of Police is recommending. I understand these voluntary conditions, which I'm not sure when we received. This is the first time I've seen those. I would suspect the Police Chief needs to look at that in connection to this project. PAGE 18 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Chairman O'Neal: I would like to direct a letter from Mr. Daigle to Matt Harris, on March 20, 2006, "and request that we do not have another design review but write your staff report with a deny recommendation and schedule us so that we can present our position to the Planning Commission". Mr. Daigle: I'll be brief as at the time. We could not think of another way. I own both sides of the property line and was trying to think outside the box and work on a solution. Without the freedom from the landlord and 7-Elelven, was not possible and we frankly had not thought of it ourselves. That's why our position on March 20, 2006 was what it was. Chairman O'Neal: Any other comments: Commissioner Flores: No. Vice Chairman Gonzales: I saw the plans for Target and they had different set up at the beginning. Chairman O'Neal. We will start with the Conditional Use Permit. Again I want to state, a yes vote is a no vote and a no vote is yes vote. Director of Community Development Preisendanz: Can our City Attorney explain how the vote works. Deputy City Attorney: After Rolfe reads the resolution, we will need a motion approving staff recommendation to recommend or to deny Conditional Use Permit No 2005-23. Chairman O'Neal's referral with a yes and a no vote is because the resolution is worded in such a way as to denial, when you vote on a motion, ayes vote mean that you are concurring with staffls recommendation to deny. A no vote means that you are not concurring with the staffls recommendation to deny. Director of Community Development Preisendanz: First Resolution is number 2006-59. This is a resolution of the Planning Comrission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-23 for the establishment and operation of a gas station facility and the concurrent sale of motor vehicle fuel with alcohol beverages located at Parcel number 377-12-007. It will be appropriate to waive further reading of the resolution as considered. Chairman O'Neal requested motion to deny. MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY FLORES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 3-0, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-59, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-23 A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A GAS STATION FACILITY WITH THE CONCURRENT SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL WITH ALCOHOL BEVERAGES LOCATED AT PAGE 19 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 APN (377-12-007), AND DENIAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2006-60, FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-10 FORA 7-ELEVEN CONVENIENCE STORE AND AN ASSOCIATED GAS STATION WITHIN THE OAK GROVE CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT APN (377-12-007). 7:40:00 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Heazing and requested the reading of the Resolution. INFORMATIONAL 7:40:38 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Informational Heazing and requested the reading of the Staff Report. 1. New Commissioners Community Development Director Preisendanz congratulated the two new Commissioners who have been appointed. Jimmy Flores has been appointed to a four year term and has been serving for a few months; also Phil Mendoza and Axel Zanelli. 2. Design Review Committee Community Development Director Preisendanz informed Commissioners about the Design Review Committee (DRC) which brings together Planning, Engineering, Fire, and Community Services, at the beginning of a project and makes it go faster and smoother. Senior Planner Matt Harris has instituted an elaborate process which also gets the applicant involved with all departments and sets forth a "team work" fagade. Chairman O'Neal inquired if Mr. Preisendanz was interested in having a Commissioner be a part of the Committee and stated that after the Commission and all its new members are on board this can be discussed in more detail. The Commission will be more then happy to be a part of this. STAFF COMMENTS 7:4:16 PM Chairman O'Neal asked for Staff Comments. PAGE 20 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Planning Manager Tom Weiner took the opportunity to congratulate the newly appointed Commissioners and thank the existing Commissioners for their hard work and thanked the Commission for all of their feedback. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Flores stated he did not have anything in his package on why 7-Eleven was being denied. He wished he had staff comments for the denial for the 7-Eleven and other future denial projects before the Planning Commission meeting so he could be more knowledgeable about the staffs point of view and reasoning before the start of a meeting. He stated it would be nice to have what Matt was reading in his package so he can look at it and review during the time he is questioning the applicant. It will make things easier instead of having to recall all information that was presented as you know there was a lot presented. Chairman O'Neal acknowledged Commissioner Flores points and added that his experience in this process is to receive information from the City and try to understand the reasons of denial. He encouraged Commissioner Flores to contact the staff for questions and concerns, but would be concerned about getting more information than what is being supplied at the moment. Commissioner Flores concluded that he will contact the planner presenting the project with questions in the future. Community Development Director Preisendanz added that the staff is trying and will be trying harder to make the findings clear in the staff report especially in such reports. Chairman O'Neal wanted to reiterate about reverse and repeats, to please change the footprints, recognizing the four feet in between lot lines and houses is acceptable but that's minimum and it should be five, and should not be done less then five although it's acceptable. With a few projections it could have been done easily. Ken Seumalo updated the Commission on the water line rupture on Rail Road Canyon Road. Repair to the water line has been completed, but the road repair is yet to be scheduled. Also, signal construction on Lakeshore Drive is finished and scheduled to be turned on tomorrow. Finally, the Spring Street drainage repair project will start in a couple of weeks. Chairman O'Neal stated that some place in the San Francisco area, the Sierra Club has won against a development that had 3900 homes and threatened to sue them unless they agreed to not put something on the deed that required everybody to pay. Furthermore, Lennar admitted on the record they charge a quarter percent every time they sell a home. They are allowed to do that, but it's not right, and the California Association of Realtors is trying to deal with this. PAGE 21 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 ADJOURNMENT THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN O'NEAL ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 7:58:51 PM ON JUNE 20, 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Arsi Baron Office Specialist III AT ST: olfe Preisendanz, Director of Community Development