Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-2006 NAHMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 1S3 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: 6:o1:ooPM Chairran O'Neal called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: John Gonzales led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: O'NEAL, GONZALES, ZANELLI, FLORES ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MENDOZA. Also present were: Community Development Director Preisendanz, Planning Manager Weiner, City Engineer Seumalo, Deputy City Attorney Santana, Project Planner Linda Miller, Project Planner Carole Donahoe, and Arsi Baron. OATH OF OFFICE Chairman O'Neal administered Oath of Office to Jimmy Flores as new Planning Commissioner. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Non-A¢endized items) None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes • Regular Planning Commission Minutes of June 20, 2006 Vice Chair Gonzales requested his comments on page six of twenty one be checked and corrected. Also, Chairman O'Neal requested changes to be made on page sixteen of twenty one and page seventeen of twenty one. Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY FLORES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. Text Amendment No. 2006-01 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code 6:07:00 PM Chairman O'Neal opened the Public Heazing. Community Development Director Preisendanz introduced Planning Manager Tom Weiner and requested the reading of the Staff Report. Planning Manager Tom Weiner discussed the changes to the proposed Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Parking Ordinance. 1) Elimination of compact parking stalls within commercial and industrial zones 2) Modifying the width of drive aisles. 3) Establishing a minimum off-street parking requirement for medical offices. Planning Manager Weiner explained that the compact parking issue was brought up by the Planning Commission in the past. Currently parking isn't optimal in many commercial and industrial developments because of the amount of compact parking spaces as well as the drive aisle widths. The Lake Elsinore Municipal Code currently allows up to twenty five percent (25%) compact pazking in commercial and industrial zones, this being the higher end of the spectrum compared to other cities surveyed. If the Text Amendment is approved it will change to zero. Staff feels that the proposed drive aisle width of 26-feet is appropriate considering that adjacent cities require widths in the range of 24-feet to 26-feet. The pazking requirement for every city that was surveyed has a specific guideline for medical use parking. Since the City of Lake Elsinore does not have this requirement in the pazking ordinance, the proposed change is for one space for every 175 square feet of gross floor area for medical uses that typically have a higher parking demand. These are the three basic changes that are being proposed. Furthermore, the Code at the moment does not specifically differentiate drive aisle widths for commercial or residential, it's a set standard for both. Agenda Item No. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 Chairman O'Neal requested any comments. There being no comments, Chairman O'Neal requested comments from the Commission. Vice Chairman Gonzales had no comments. Commissioner Flores stated that he thought this was a good idea. But requested clarification on the medical usage, is it 250 square feet for one space? Planning Manager Weiner stated that it will change to 175 squaze feet for one space Commissioner Flores also asked for a clarification on the handicap pazking spaces. Planning Manager Weiner stated that the handicap parking spaces will not change since ADA is enforced by building codes. Should there be a project that the staff feels does not have enough handicapped parking spaces, the staff will encourage the applicant to revisit the plans and adjust. Commissioner Zanelli expressed his approval on the project, since parking is an issue for the City of Lake Elsinore at the moment and he stated this will help resolve the issue. Chairman O'Neal, questioned if this also applies to residential parking? Planning Manager Weiner stated, yes it does. Currently compact parking is not allowed in residential areas and this will not be affected, but 90-degree parking will be affected. The LEMC currently requires a minimum aisle width of 24-feet for two-way vehicle drive aisles containing 90-degree parking configurations. It is staff's recommendation that two-way drive aisles within 90-degree parking configurations be increased from 24-feet to 26-feet in width. Staff believes that increasing drive aisle widths is appropriate in order to accommodate the design of larger sized vehicles prevalent on the road today, giving them space to back up through driveways. Chairman O'Neal asked about the medical parking space azea, and if they are being dropped to 175-feet? Planning Manager Weiner indicated that for the medical use only. Currently it ranges from one space per 175-square feet to one space per 300-feet for neighboring cities. Chairman O'Neal expressed that trying to park in medical facility pazking areas in Temecula is very hard so this is a good idea. 6:16:00 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the public hearing. Chairman O'Neal asked for a motion. MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY ZANELLY AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2006- Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINU'T`ES -AUGUST 1, 2006 63, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2006-O1 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARTION THEREFORE. 6:17:20 PM Chairman O'Neal requested the reading of the Staff Report. 3. Ramsgate Specific Plan No. 89-1, Fourth Revision; Tentative Tract Map No. 25475, Revision No.l; Tentative Tract Map No. 34231; Residential Design Review No. 2005-24; Addendum No. 3. to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH 88090525). Director of Community Development Preisendanz introduced Project Planner Carole Donahoe and asked her to provide an overview of the project and answer any questions that the Commission may have. Project Planner Donahoe stated the City Council originally had approved the Ramsgate Specific Plan in June 1984, and three subsequent revisions, the latest being November 1991. In 2003, the applicant revised several of the tract maps, and subsequently Centex Homes began developing four of the tracts on the west side of the specific plan. The applicant is trying to get approval on the east side of the specific plan, Tract no. 25475 and the Specific Plan Amendment that would change the commercial designation at the southwest corner of Hwy 74 and Rosetta Canyon Drive. They are also proposing a one lot condominium Tentative Tract Map 34231 as well as a residential design of 121 single family residential condominiums on that side. Project Planner Donahoe continued to state that the Residential Design Review is called Trieste and it is to be a gated single family neighborhood that clusters town homes around a central open space amenity. A swimming pool, tot lots and barbecues are available to the residents, as well as an extensive walking trial throughout the site. Construction is proposed in five phases, with the bulk of the amenities provided to residents in the first phase. Project Planner Donahoe explained that the Trieste development offers three floor plans with three and four bedroom units, all being two story, with two-car gazages, and private courtyards. The plans range in size from 1,767 square feet, 1,875 square feet to 2,147 squaze feet. They are offering four architectural styles, French Country, Cottages, Spanish and Italianate. The materials proposed are the roofing and stucco walls, with wood, and a variety of stone veneers. There are twelve color schemes, and all palettes aze a blend of muted, natural colors. They are also requesting a model complex to the west of the main entry off Rosetta Canyon. Project Planner Donahoe stated if the MBK project is approved, it will replace the 13.81 acres of neighborhood commercial designated in the Ramsgate Specific Plan for the corner of Rosetta Canyon Drive and Highway 74. The Third Revision of the SP had a total of 35.8 acres of commercial to serve 3,330 homes. However, with the reduction in dwelling units, the amount of Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 acreage devoted to commercial uses was also reduced. With the proposed Fourth Revision to the SP (which provides a total of 2,243 dwellings), the applicant proposes to remove commercial altogether from the plan. According to a marketing analysis dated June 2006 by DDS Marketing, there aze insufficient households in the azea to support a retail grocer. The applicant believes grocery chains have not shown interest in the site because the intersection of I-15 and SR 74, one mile to the west, is quickly becoming the City's retail core, with Costco, Target, Lowes and Home Depot. Project Planner Donahoe added that staff believes a neighborhood commercial center was originally intended to directly serve the single family residents of Ramsgate, as well as the multiple family apartments that are to the west and the community pazk, center and fire station to the south, which are under construction now. Efforts are being made to make Rosetta Canyon Drive pedestrian friendly, including the installation of a traffic signal at Ardenwood and Rosetta Canyon Drive, to enable residents to walk to school, work, play and services. Staff also believes that developments on the east side of the Specific Plan, the La Strada development, and the North Tuscany Hills development will be encouraged to use Greenwald and Highway 74, with a shopping center in Ramsgate that could serve their everyday needs. Project Planner Donahoe added should the Commission deny the Specific Plan Amendment Fourth Revision, the property owner still has the ability to develop the commercial site as a single family residential product because the Ramsgate Specific Plan Third Revision does allow residential uses in the commercial zone. Project Planner Donahoe continued with tentative tract map 25475 explaining that it's in the development Planning Area 6 of the Ramsgate Specific Plan. Due to the habitat value of Wasson Canyon and subsequent adoption of the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program by the City, the applicant's development plan has been significantly scaled down from 150.9 acres to 37.3 acres; with the density and the lot sizes being consistent with the Ramsagte SP development standards. Project Planner Donahoe moved on to explain Addendum No. 3 to the Final Supplemental EIR. The changes and the modifications do not change the conclusion stated in the previous EIR. The specific plan modifications do not introduce any new issues about the significant environmental effects of the proposed project, nor will they result in any new significant unavoidable project impacts beyond those previously identified. Project Planner Donahoe stated that before the Commission is the staff report findings to recommend certification of the addendum, Findings of Consistency with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Findings and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 25475 Revision No. 1; Findings for Approval of Ramsgate Specific Plan No. 89-1 Fourth Revision; Findings for Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 34231; and Findings for Approval of Residential Design Review No. 2005-24. Should the Commission deny the Ramsgate Specific Plan No. 89-1 Fourth Revision, Tentative Tract Map No. 34231, and Residential Design Review No. 2005-24, the finding for denial is also included. Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE G -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 Chairman O'Neal requested Kristine Zortman to take the podium and asked her if she read and agrees with all the conditions of approval in the staff report. Kristine Zortman from Whiterock Acquisition Company, the Shopoff Group, Irvine CA stated that she agreed with all of the conditions of approval including the changes. She went on to say that when her company acquired this project in 1989 she did not realize the significant impact of nesting gnatcatchers that exist in the habitat. After meeting with all of the wildlife agencies, the City and the County, they determined it was best to preserve as many nesting gnatcatchers as we could. Over the past two years they dedicated over 680 acres of coastal sage habitat which preserved over 60 pairs of gnatcatchers. This has reduced the project by about 1300 dwelling units and has narrowed it down to Tentative Tract Map 25475 and 34231. Taking this into consideration, with the loss of lots, TSG has concluded that based on the total build-out within a two mile radius of this project, it does not support the type of grocery retail center that would be on this site here. That's why TSG has decided to appeal to a different market on affordability and develop detached condominiums in conjunction with MBK Homes. Chairman O'Neal asked Patti Gillespie to take the podium. Patti Gillespie from MBK Homes, Irvine, CA, 92618. She thanked the staff for working quite diligently on the site map for the past few months. There being no further comments from the public, Chairman O'Neal brought the discussion back to the Commission for comments. Vice Chair Gonzales asked for clarification on a strip on the map (pointing to a yellow strip on the map). Ms. Zortman indicated that it's the emergency fire access road that is required across Wasson Canyon. It's solely for emergency vehicles. Vice Chair Gonzales asked if there were any plans for a commercial building on Greenwald. Ms. Zortman stated that the closest commercial will be in the City's new General Plan update at the intersection of Greenwald and Hwy 74, which is not part of the City as of yet. The County line ends just north of Tracts 25475 and 33725. Vice Chair Gonzales asked about schools in the neighborhood and if there were parks that were already developed. Ms. Zortman stated that the original Ramsgate Specific Plan allowed for several different school sites, but with the preservation of all the open space, the school site was eliminated. There still is the school site on the Centex portion in the Rosetta Canyon area and there is still a possibility Agenda Item No. Page or PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 that a school could be built on a 10 acre buildable area on Riverside Street also, she indicated that the parks had not been built. Vice Chair Gonzales questioned if there will be a small commercial area for the kids, like Blockbuster and others like amini-mart because you have a lot of families in that area. Even with being down over 1000 homes than had originally been planned, with the entire homes still left, amini-mall would be very nice. Ms. Zortman stated that usually it's the major anchor stores that draw on the small commercial retailers. Across from Ramsgate there are still commercial and industrial opportunities, but right now TSG decided that rather than having some retail going through opening and closing because of lack of anchor, TSG would appeal to a different affordability niche between the Centex and the Fairfield developments. Vice Chair Gonzales asked, are there any single story houses and are there any that are handicap accessible? Ms. Zortman stated that she cannot speak for Centex, but she knew that MBK the single family detached condo's are only two stories. Ms. Gillespie stated that there is one model which has a bedroom downstairs but with a standard door size. Vice Chair Gonzales expressed his disappointment in the project for not having a single family house that would be handicap accessible. Commissioner Flores asked Ms. Zortman how many homes there were. Ms. Zortman stated that there are 2243 that can be built, which is the maximum under the SPA being proposed. Commissioner Flores asked, at the moment, how many units were occupied. Ms. Zortman could not answer that question. Community Development Director Preisendanz stated the Building and Safety Department will have this information. Commissioner Flores asked if there was an analysis on ADS Marketing back in June 2006 and 2003? Ms. Zortman responded that one was done June 2006 and the other one was either 2002 or 2003. Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 Commissioner Zanelli indicated that the plans look nice and it would be good to have some reasonable, housing in the City. The right hand entrance and exit into the Rosetta Canyon is a concern because of its safety and congestion; also the security gates and the operation of the gates for fire, inquiring if there will be a manual way for fire to open the gate. Ms. Zortman agreed with the Commissioner. Chairman O'Neal asked Mark Gross, the architect, if there was a program used for the plan view that was presented because he found them to be very nice and appreciated the presentation. Mark Gross of MGA Architects commented that he had hand drawn it. There is a program that does it but he preferred to draw them by hand. Chairman O'Neal indicated that if the Planning Commission decided not to allow this then it would allow TSG to come back with single family residences. Ms. Zortman answered with yes, the Ramsgate Specific Plan does allow for the underlying uses in the Commercial areas to be single family. Vice Chair Gonzales asked in such a case, how many single family homes would TSG be looking at? Ms. Zortman explained the Specific Plan does not dictate which zone. Because the Specific Plan has mid-density, very low density, medium low density and others, it could be anyone of those. Currently, as it is proposed, MBK has 121 dwelling units which equates to 8.7 density which is in the mid-density range. 6:50:20 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the Public Hearing and requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION N0.2006-64, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH N0.88090525). MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY FLORES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-65 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) FOR THE PROJECTS KNOWN AS RAMSGATE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 89-1 FOURTH REVISION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25475 REVISION NO. 1, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34231 AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-24, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 74, AND WEST OF GREENWALD AVENUE. MOVED BY FLORES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF RAMSGATE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 89-1 FOURTH REVISION, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE EAST OF INTERESTATE 15, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 74, AND WEST OF GREENWALD AVENUE. MOVED BY GONZALES, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION N0.2006-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34231, AONE- LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, ON APPROXIMATELY 13.81+_ ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROSETTA CANYON DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 74, WITHIN THE RAMSGATE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 347-120-047. MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY GONZALES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-24, FOR "TRIESTE" BY MBK HOMES, FOR 121 SINGLE FAMILY Agenda IIem No. Page of PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 CONDOMINIUMS WITHIN TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34231. MOVED BY ZANELLI, SECONDED BY GONZALES AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION N0.2006-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25475 REVISION NO. 1, A SUBDIVISION OF 132 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND EIGHT (8) OPEN SPACE LOTS, ON APPROXIMATELY 37.3+ ACRES LOCATED WEST OF GREENWALD, EAST OF GRASSY MEADOW DRIVE, SOUTH OF SCENIC CREST DRIVE, WITHIN THE RAMSGATE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 349-240-034, -038, -072, AND -075. 6:59:00 PM Chairman O'Neal requested the reading of the Staff Report 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2005-12, General Plan Amendment No. 2006-03, Pre- zoning No. 2006-04 and Annexation No. 77 located adjacent to State Route 74, easterly of Trellis Lane and the Ramsgate (Centex) Project. Community Development Director Preisendanz introduced Project Planner Miller and requested the reading of the Staff Report. Project Planner Linda Miller indicated that two errors were found. One being on the map, the color is incorrect, (pointing to a section neaz state route 74, it should have been colored for very low density. Also, the APN on the staff report should have been 347-110-033 (starting from page 5 of 33). The City of Lake Elsinore is proposing an annexation of approximately one hundred fifty-four (154) acres from the County of Riverside's jurisdiction but within the Sphere of Influence area of the City of Lake Elsinore. The annexation has been initiated by the City of Lake Elsinore pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000-56001) and the standards, policies and directives of the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Final approval of the Annexation will be made by LAFCO and Planning Commission may decide to recommend that City Council commence with the proceedings with the Annexation subject to the boundaries of City of Lake Elsinore. Ms. Miller continued to state that the proposed annexation consists of one hundred fifty-four (154) acres that has been previously subdivided into forty-five (45) pazcels. Of the forty-five (45) pazcels, twenty-six (26) are occupied with rural type residential uses and a few commercial uses, while the remaining nineteen (19) parcels are vacant. The parcels aze owned by many individual land owners. Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1.2006 Ms. Miller stated the land area of Annexation No. 77 is known as one of two "pocket" azeas created by the approval of the City of Lake Elsinore's Annexation for North Peak. The North Peak Annexation was approved in 1992 pursuant to LAFCO Annexation No. 1991-43-1, 5. At that time LAFCO approved the annexation with the understanding that the pocket azea annexations would follow the North Peak Annexation. The first of the pocket azea annexations was brought before LAFCO for approval on October 27, 2005. This Annexation is known as LAFCO Annexation 2005-50-1 (City Annexation No. 71 -Merritt Luster). LAFCO has conditioned final approval of Annexation No. 71 (Merritt Luster) on the submittal of City of Lake Elsinore's Annexation No. 77 to LAFCO. Ms. Miller explained that LAFCO suggests that Cities hold Public Meetings prior to processing annexations to provide an opportunity for residents to comment and ask questions concerning the annexation proposal. Staff held a Public "Outreach" Meeting on May 17, 2006 for that purpose. Approximately 50 to 70 residents attended the meeting. The majority of the questions were focused on the existing neighboring Centex Home development. Other questions related to possible costs that could be assessed to the existing residents if the Annexation were approved. Staff explained at the meeting that the only increase in costs to the property owners associated to the Annexation would be a Street Lighting and Maintenance District fee of $24.90 per year per home or $29.88 per acre for vacant land. All questions were answered in a City letter sent to residents on June 19, 2006. This letter is attached as an exhibit of this report. Ms. Miller explained that a second public meeting was held on June 28, 2006, and was an informal barbecue meeting. The purpose of that meeting was to answer any remaining questions. The City of Lake Elsinore is initiating this amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map as part of the Annexation process. Annexation will allow the City to change the existing County of Riverside's General Plan Designation of Very Low Density (ldwelling unit/.5 acre) and Commercial Retail to City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan Land Use Designation of Very Low Density (1 dwelling unit/2acres) for the four (4) parcels identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN's) 374-110-071, 347-110-074, 347-110-075 and 349-400-034, Low-Medium Density (6 dwelling units/acre) on forty (40) parcels and Medium High Density (18 dwelling units/acre) and Low-Medium Density (6 dwelling units/acre) on one (1) parcel (APN 347-100-003). Ms. Miller stated that prior to the annexation of the land area, the City Council is required to adopt aPre-Zoning ordinance to delineate the zoning that will apply to the property to be annexed to the City (Government Code Section 56375 (a). Corresponding and consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment (referenced above), the City of Lake Elsinore is also initiating changes from the County of Riverside's Zoning designations of C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on APN 347-100-003 and R-A-20,000 (Residential Agriculture) on the remaining parcels to R-3 (High Density Residential District) and R-1 (Single Family Residential District) on APN 347-100-003, RR (Rural Residential District) on APN's 374-110-071, 347- 110-074, 347-110-075 and 349-400-034, and the remaining parcels to R-1 (Single Family Residential District). The proposed Pre-Zoning designations are pursuant to the regulations governing all applicable chapters of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). Agenda Item No Page of PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 Ms. Miller continued to state that the Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to the State Clearinghouse for the required thirty (30) day public and agency review period. The thirty (30) day review period ended on June 3, 2006. If there are any questions regarding the LAFCO process and/or the protest process, Deputy City Attorney Santana will respond to those questions. Also, Environmental Consultant HDR is here to answer questions. Chairman O'Neal stated there are a number of requests to speak regarding this item. Renee Duncan of 20773 Riverside Street, Lake Elsinore stated that she has a horse ranch with 58 horses, and she was wondering if she will have to move her horses. Project Planner Miller answered that this question has come up before with the residents and whatever is existing now, will be a legal non-conforming situation but if the property was sold then it will have to be brought into conformity. Renee Duncan, asked if this means she could keep the house as is. Chairman O'Neal, confirmed with Ms. Duncan that yes she can. John Johnson of 17837 Brightman, Lake Elsinore, indicated that he is representing one of the property owners Mr. Mohammed Almahmud, who owns one of the parcels on HWY 74 and desires to develop a commercial property. Mr. Johnson said that he was brought on to represent the property owner as his development consultant. He is not opposed to the Annexation, if he could work something out that there will be a zone change for commercial in the General Plan, he will be fine with that. Project Planner Miller indicated that she and Community Development Director Preisendanz have already spoken with Mr. Johnson and have informed him at the moment there is no answer for him, but will try to assist him with the commercial zoning after the annexation. Chairman O'Neal asked what the zoning is right now. Project Planner Miller indicated that it's rural residential, very low density, it's an RR. It does need more analysis to consider a change. Community Development Director Preisendanz explained that at the moment the City is going through the General Plan update and through this process we will try our best to accommodate commercial on 74 as far as land use at that time. Deputy City Attorney asked if Mr. Almahmud knows how soon he would like to develop his property. Under the Cortese-Knox act, the City cannot change the General Plan designation that is given to the property during the pre-zoning stage for a period of two years, unless the City can Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 13 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 make findings that substantial changes have occurred that would necessitate the change. So, if he plans to develop soon then we may have to go through this additional step of making the substantial findings of necessity for changing the General Plan designation. But if he is not planning on developing until sometime in the future (after two years) this extra step is unnecessary. Mr. Johnson stated that it would be sooner. Chairman O'Neal asked Daniel Uhlry to take the podium. Daniel Uhlry, 137 E. Graham Ave, # E, Lake Elsinore indicated that at one of the public hearings that was held; he brought up a couple of items that were not addressed. There aze several people who have horses, and if the zoning can be changed to allow people to have up to a certain amount of horses on a certain size lot and to preserve that area for some future habitat area, for public access for horse back and foot trails. The other thing that is a concern is the water rights, for people who have existing wells. The City currently has an agreement with the Elsinore Valley Water District that anything that is annexed into the City, that water rights are dedicated to the EVMWD. Chairman O'Neal asked Ms. Miller to answer both questions, specially the water issues Ms. Miller stated because the surrounding project is the Centex project with Rl, there was no provision possible for horse trails. The City does have a horse zone which is an RE zone. The minimum lot azea is a half acre for RE zone. We did look into the horse trails as much as we could but a horse trail is not a possibility. Also, we contacted Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) regarding this question and they said the current property owners with private wells will not need to join the Water District if the property was annexed. The only reason that a well owner would be required to join a water district is if it was found that the well was providing unsafe water and thus was determined to be a health issue. Currently, water lines have been extended down Riverside Street, Missouri Trail and Lassiter Road. If a property owner decides to join the water district, the water connection fee for a'/a" meter is $5,971.00. Chairman O'Neal indicated he has no more requests to speak on this item, however, if someone would like to speak regarding this item, please step forward. Marcy Wilson, of 28140 Missouri Trail, Perris indicated- that she did get a notice for the bazbecue but we did not know that it was an invitation to speak about the issues. She asked how the residents can go about officially opposing this. Chairman O'Neal stated that she was doing it right now. Ms. Wilson stated that the residents have not been told how to oppose this. Chairman O'Neal stated that by standing here and telling the Commission that you oppose it. Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 14 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 Ms. Wilson questioned if she has to put it in writing? Chairman O'Neal stated that everyone has the opportunity to speak in favor or against this item and the Commission is obligated to base their decision on what they hear, read, and the information the staff and the attorney give. Deputy City Attorney Santana stated the Ms. Wilson may be referring to procedures that she will need to undertake in regards to opposing the Annexation after LAFCO approves and the protest procedures that you will have to go through and how to establish a sufficient number of voters to oppose the annexation. Ms. Wilson indicated that when the City is proposing the project to LAFCO, she and the other residents would like their input made cleaz. Deputy City Attorney Santana stated that by speaking on the record today the residents are making their opposition known. If the residents choose to further protest the proceeding under Government Code Section 57000 then they can do so and should review those standards and seek counsel if they feel that it is necessary. Deputy Attorney Santana further stated that the residents can voice their opposition to the City's approval of the annexation. The next step is for all of these items to go to City Council for consideration. The City Council will then consider if this item actually goes to LAFCO. The items meaning the pre zone, the General Plan amendment, the mitigated negative declaration, and the annexation. So all of these four documents in one package will go to LAFCO. Then LAFCO will review all items and the applications. After LAFCO makes its determination then the residents have the right to protest under Government Code Section 57000, and that's when everyone together can have their formal protest filed and their votes will be counted. Ms. Wilson asked if the meeting on May 17 had nothing to do with this? Chairman O'Neal explained that this is step one of a three step process. Even if the Planning Commission votes No on this item, it can still go to the City Council for approval. The City Council will make the final determination for the City of Lake Elsinore whether or not if the City would like to annex the area. Planning Manager Weiner clarified that the letter which was sent to the property owners summarizes the process through the Planning Commission, City Council and LAFCO. The Planning Manager Tom Weiner indicated that staff would be happy to get extra copies for anyone that would like to re-review it. Chairman O'Neal, stated that if someone is not in favor of this annexation, he needs to know why they aze not. He said he will stay as long as needed to listen to everyone and give them the opportunity to speak. Agenda Item No, Page of PAGE 15 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 Ms. Wilson asked what if the residents don't want to develop on our property? Deputy City Attorney Santana explained that annexation does not require anyone to sell their property. The City is not taking anyone's property away from them. The property owners will still have all of the incidents of ownership tied to their property. It's all theirs. What is changing is that the owners aze coming within the Cities boundazies and will benefit from the services that the City provides regarding to water, roads, sewer, and police protection, etc. The residents are not being asked to sell their property. Chairman O'Neal stated that the residents are being asked to pay $24.90 as an annual fee for the landscaping, lighting and maintenance district. Ms. Wilson indicated that she was confused, because she doesn't know what's going on. She and the other residents have not received any information as far what the benefits are, for example the water rights. She indicated it sounds like the City is going to take mineral rights from the people who have wells. Chairman O'Neal stated that the City is not going to do that. The water district cannot take away anyone's well or force them to use City water. What they are saying is that the owners have the opportunity to be part of the City water. Ms. Wilson asked about the sewer? Chairman O'Neal explained that it's the same thing. If the residents use a septic tank and would like to stay on it that is fine. Otherwise, they will have to pay to be on City sewer system. Ms. Wilson asked if the residents will have to go through the development to ride their horses? Community Development Director Preisendanz questioned which development Ms. Wilson was speaking about. Ms. Wilson stated that they are surrounded by developments right now Community Development Director Preisendanz, explained there is no development proposed for this annexation area. The only area that is being looked at is by the existing Centex Development. That is the extent of any development going on right now. Ms. Wilson indicated that she is surrounded by Centex Homes and there has been no provision made for riding. Chairman O'Neal stated that he needs to move and appreciates Ms. Wilson's questions and will have to give time to anyone else who is interested in speaking. Agenda I[em No. Page of PAGE 16 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1.2006 Ms. Wilson asked if they are a registered voter, then we don't need to fill this out (holding a piece of paper) for our vote to count? Chairman O'Neal, stated he was not clear on what vote Ms. Wilson was speaking about. Wendy Reagers of 20170 Riverside Street, Perris took the podium. She asked Ms. Miller regarding the second meeting. Ms. Miller indicated that it was on June 26, 2006 by Centex and it was a barbecue. Ms. Reagers stated that is was not an information meeting. It was at three o'clock and some people have to work and no questions were answered. Ms. Miller stated that Centex had informed her that they tried to accommodate as many people as they could. There were people who did ask questions and they answered as many as they could. Ms. Reagers stated that she got the invitation the day before and did not have enough time to take the day off. Ms. Miller stated that the mailing had gone out ten days before. Ms. Reagers questioned what will happen to all the animals other then horses like chickens, ducks, geese. How is this going to affect coming into the City. Ms. Miller stated that it's the same answer as for the horses. The residences are existing non- confirming, and as long as they are there, they will be allowed to live the same way. Ms. Reagers asked if someone has 100 animals that will be okay? Ms. Miller stated that as long as the owner is an existing non-confirming owner, they don't have a limit. Ms. Reagers stated she doesn't agree with the annexation. Chairman O'Neal asked if there was anyone else who would like to take the podium. Mr. Kirk Reagers, of 20170 Riverside Street, Perris, questioned the safety issues. He stated that he has had three flat tires in the last two months. He stated he believes that it's the City road and the City maintains what they are doing there and what they are going to do there. His driveway access is supposed to be so many feet and wondered when it would be that way again. He stated he has been having problems trying to get his trailer in there. He continued to state that his trailer turned over and it was raised as an issue here in the last meetings. Now it's impossible to get the trailer back out again. He was wondering if it's a City road? Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 17 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 Ms. Miller stated that it's a County Road right now. Mr. Reagers asked if the County is responsible for his driveway and easement, not Centex or the City? Ms. Miller stated that Centex has been trying to make it as easy as possible for the existing residents while they are developing. She indicated that Centex has been trying to work with the residents. Mr. Reagers stated that they have not tried to work with residents, and stated he has pictures he can show after the meeting. He explained he is opposed to it and if he doesn't have a well at the moment and it is annexed into the City will he be able to put a well afterwazds? Planning Manager Weiner, stated that he did not believe that after the annexation the Water District would allow a well. Chairman O'Neal, reminded all there were other people who would like to speak. Jane Dale of 20300 Riverside Street, Perris took the podium. She stated that she did go to the barbecue and no one asked her any questions. She indicated that she is opposed to this, as it will put a lot of hindrance on her. Chad Helmar of 20150 Riverside Street, Perris stated that he is opposed to this for several reasons. He believes this meeting is simply a formality that basically the commission will okay this. He continued to state that the Commission is not going to listen to the people but will listen to the developers. He stated he can't fight with the City and he doesn't intend any violence but he happens to own an Internet marketing company and is going to do what he can on the Internet to get this City in Google so when people do a search they will find out the truth. He said he is not doing violence or anything illegal but he will let the Internet community know what is going on. He thanked the community, but stated that it's a shame and a formality and it's going to LAFCO. Chairman O'Neal stated that he had not made up his mind and he is here listening to what everyone is saying and he resents the implication. Chairran O'Neal asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak. Roamona Gouvian of 28150 Leyster Road, Perris, indicated he had a couple of concerns, he believed if this goes forward it's progress but all the residents just have personal issues that they need resolved before this goes forward. The utility questions have been answered, but what happens to the roads? I know they are taking care of Waston Canyon, what about Missouri Trail and Lester Road, which has a sign on it that says Lassiter Trail? He stated he didn't understand where that came from. Are they going to pave the road, put lighting and maintain it. It's unclear what the plans are. Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 18 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 Engineering Manager Seumalo stated that the dirt roads will be handled under the Public Works Department and they will be maintained as is. The City Council just approved a paving dirt road program so it will be incorporated into that and as it is now, a ten year program was narrowed down to six years. If the annexation goes forward, the roads will be maintained annually by Public Works. If there were other issues like dust, we have a program for dust control. The local roads will be put into the paved dirt street program as it is now it will be in the sixth year or beyond. There being no comments from the public, Chairman O'Neal brought the discussion back to the dais. Commissioner Zanelli stated that it seems like there are a lot of unanswered questions and he would like this item continued to a later date. This will give the residents time to gather all their questions together and forward them to the City Staff and give them enough time to answer the questions and move forward from that point. Commissioner Flores stated that he agrees with Commissioner Zanelli that the residents have a lot of unanswered questions. He continued to state that he attended the first meeting and listened to each person's statement and is surprised these questions have not been answered by staff. He believes that a continuance is in order until each and every question is answered. Until the City staff can answer these questions with accuracy then he agrees with Commissioner Zanelli that your questions must be answered first. He stated that it's a long process, and the residents have lived out there for a few years and some he has known some years, and all their questions should be answered before the annexation goes through the final process. Vice Chairman Gonzales stated that he would like a continuance as well. He also questioned Ms. Miller if someone had an addition put on their property with County Codes and comes into the City, are they bound by the City Code? Ms. Miller indicated that Building Codes are the same within the County so there will not be a change. Vice Chairman Gonzales asked if LAFCO already has this on their schedule. Community Development Director Preisendanz answered they do not, as this is a condition of approval for the Merril Luster annexation and that the application was submitted to LAFCO, so the City is abiding by that application. It still has to go through LAFCO and the Board of Supervisors. Vice Chair Gonzales, suggested that they write up all their questions and send it to Ms. Miller. Ms. Miller asked the Commissioners to review page 29 to 32 of the Staff Report, where all the answers to the questions that were asked on May 17, 2006 are presented. This letter was sent to Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 19 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 the residents with the answers so she felt the City had given them the answers to the questions they are asking today which are being repeated tonight. Deputy City Attorney Santana asked if the problem can be that the residents in the audience aze not registered property owners within the boundaries. Some people may be abutting the properties that are subject to this annexation? If that's so then those owners would not be on the mailing list. Ms. Miller indicated that Staff mailed this notice/letter to anyone within the annexation and within a 300 feet around radius. Chairman O'Neal asked how many property owners there were. Ms. Miller stated that there are 26 occupied parcels. Community Development Director Preisendanz stated the staff that tried to answer all of the questions whether they were what the residents wanted to hear or not. Also, staff has tried very hazd to contact the residents and answer all of their questions. But if there is a need for more time to clarify anything or answer new questions, staff will be happy to do so. Chairman O'Neal stated that he was not in favor of continuing this particular item. He would prefer to send it forwazd to the City Council whether it gets approved or not. He believed that the residents will have plenty of opportunity to ask their questions and have them answered during the process coming forth. This process is a very long process as it is and he did not wish to delay it any further. However, he stated that he has heard three Commissioners who stated that they wished to continue the item and would not want to do so without a date certain. Commissioner Zanelli suggested to the residents that the group decide on two or three people to be their main contact persons. To gather their questions together and have their contact persons, get in touch with the staff. Chairman O'Neal suggested that the residents may want to seek legal presentation. Commissioner Zanelli suggested this be continued to the next scheduled meeting. Community Development Director Preisendanz stated that it might not be enough time for the residents to gather their questions and for the staff to respond on a timely basis. Ms. Miller suggested that 30 days should be enough time. Deputy City Attorney Santana recommended that the property owners submit written commentary on the concerns that were presented tonight and any other additional concerns and that a date certain should be agreed upon for comments to be submitted to the City and set a date certain for the City to respond on those comments outside of the public hearings. Agenda I[em No. Page of PAGE 20 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2006 Ms. Miller stated that she believed that it's not the questions but the answers that may not be clear to the residents. Chairman O'Neal asked Ms. Miller if she was implying that the residents were not adequately - noticed and informed. Ms. Miller stated that communication may have been the issue since there still is confusion among the residents. Chairman O'Neal stated that he now agrees with the continuance but needs a date certain. Commissioner Zanelli stated that he would like to give the residents two weeks to submit their questions to the City Staff. Ms. Miller stated the City can bring this back to the Planning Commission on September 19. MOVED BY O'NEAL, SECONDED BY ZANELLI AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 BY THOSE PRESENT, TO CONTINUE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2005-12, GENERAL PLAN AMENMENT NO. 2006-03, PRE-ZONING NO. 2006-04 AND ANNEXATION NO. 77 LOCATED ADJACENT TO STATE ROUTE 74 EASTERLY OF TRELLIS LANE AND THE RAMSGATE (CENTEX) PROJECT TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Community Development Director Preisendanz gave the City Hall mailing address for the residents to mail their comments to. 7:58:40 PM Chairman O'Neal closed the public meeting. BUSINESS ITEMS None INFORMATIONAL None STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Preisendanz commented on the following Agenda Item No. Page of PAGE 21 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 • The Commission had stated they would like to be part of DRC and the staff is still considering that and trying to formulate something that will make it convenient for Commissioners to attend. • Also thanked his staff for their dedication and continued hazd work. Cit~Engineer Seumalo commented on the following • He stated the Auto Center Drive project has been delayed for several reasons, one being the Verizon line was damaged and repairs will be done soon. Also, a deadline has not been determined for the completion of Auto Center Drive's connection to Franklin. • Riverside County Flood Control has contacted staff to set up a meeting to review some options regazding the storm drain going to the cemetery for 2007. • Ortega/Grand signal plans have been signed by the City and staff is looking forward to working with CalTrans to expedite the project and anticipate the project starting construction in September and finishing in December or early January. • I-15 is moving forward, they will start working on the north bound off ramps in the coming days. • Franklin Street overlay is a contingency project. Cost estimates aze about $600,000 to a million dollars to reconstruct that road. Staff is reviewing this and will at least take the information to City Council. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Flores commented on the followine: • Questioned the barbecue gathering for the second meeting. Ms. Miller stated that it was supposed to be informal and a relaxed ambiance for the residents to ask questions to Centex. Centex has indicated that some residents had showed up and asked some questions. Centex had also indicated that approximately twenty five people showed up. • Questioned if the letters going to the residents can be certified. Ms. Miller stated that it can. The letters do come back if we have a wrong address. • He stated he noticed the excessive irrigation water from the housing development on Walnut has created a four by two foot hole in the center of the road and was concerned Agenda IIem No. Page or PAGE 22 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 1, 2006 about its safety. Although staff had applied the temporary asphalt but the next day it was gone again. • Also the road line markings off of the new construction between Lakeshore Drive and Frasier is no longer visible. Engineering Manager Seumalo stated that he will bring both issues up with his staff and ask them to look into them. Vice Chair Gonzales commented on the followine: • Questioned the big hole between Riverside Drive and Central which has been there for almost a week and half. Engineering Manager Seumalo stated that Target Development is conditioned to widen the road to provide for two receiving lanes and he will look into it. • He also thanked Ms. Miller for all her hard work. Commissioner Zanelli commented on the followine: • Also thanked the staff, Arsi, Tom and Carol. Thanked Linda Miller for all her hard work. ADJOURNMENT THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, CHAIRMAN O'NEAL ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:13:00 PM ON JULY 18, 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Kristine Herrington ATTEST: Rolfe Preisendanz, Director of Community Development Agenda I[em No. Page of