HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #9 Attachment7 Via del Lago
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
November 3, 2011
Mr. Robert A Brady
City Manager
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Dear Mr. Brady:
This afternoon I received an email from Kirt Coury (Project Planner) forwarding a draft of a
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL under your name prepared by Kirt. This REPORT concerns the
minor sub - division I. have requested in Tentative Parcel Map 36304. While I appreciate having
the opportunity to review this report before the City Council hearing scheduled for next Tuesday,
November 8"', my attorney, Tom Jacobson, and I found incorrect and inaccurate statements in
this REPORT that are highly prejudicial to my application. I request corrections be made before
the REPORT is distributed to the City Council members. The specific corrections are
summarized in the attachment to this letter
I found out on Tuesday, November 1st , all of my email correspondences sent to Kirt over the
past month were "lost" in the City's communications electronics and were not delivered to Mr.
Coury. This has seriously disadvantaged my application. While I delivered the missing emails
to Mr. Coury the following day (Wednesday, November 2nd ), the delays in receiving these
correspondences precluded their orderly and full assimilation. Rather, there was a rush to
finalize the REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL before Kirt left on vacation. As a consequence,
relevant material has been left out weakening my application. This material is also summarized
in the attachment to this letter.
I would appreciate your ascertaining why these e-mails were lost during this crucial period. My
previous emails have consistently been delivered as addressed. I should add that Kirt briefly
checked into this matter before he left and advised me that my emails were directed to a device
in City Hall known as the "barracuda ". Because of the importance of the transmitted materials
and relevance on the approval of my application, it is important the City determine who
programmed the barracudas to do this and their motives.
I look forward to receiving it revised draft of the REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL in a timely
fashion that can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness. If this can not be accomplished by
the time of the scheduled hearing on Tuesday, November 8t', I request that the hearing be
rescheduled on the earliest practical date thereafter.
r Sincerely yours,
cc W Molreline�`a0`'�,
K Coury Douglas A. Pinnow
(951)674 -2590
ATTACHMENT
Incorrect, Inaccurate, and Misleading Statements
The following is a summary of the incorrect, inaccurate or misleading
statements in the draft REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL:
1. (Page 3 under Planning Commission Findin s The draft REPORT
states:
Ultimately the Planning Commission voted unanimously to not support
the proposal... .
In fact, the vote was not unanimous. Rather it was 3 to 1 with
Commissioner O'Neil voting in support.
2. (Page 3 under Recommendation) The draft report states:
It is recommended [presumably, by you since this is your REPORT] that
the City Council deny the proposed Parcel Map No. 36304.....
When I read this, I immediately called Kirt at his home and asked him
what had possessed him to draft this into the REPORT, since that was not
our mutual understanding. lie explained that it was not his intent to
imply that the City Staff or you are saying that the parcel map should be
denied. Rather, that it was his intent to say that it was the Planning
Commissions' recommendation to deny the proposed parcel map. Kirt
went on to say that the only recommendation by Staff and you on the
parcel map are found in Exhibit 4 (Planning Commission Staff Report
with Attachments dated May 3, 2011) of the REPORT TO CITY
COUNCIL. And that recommendation was to approve rather than deny
the parcel map.
Quite frankly, that buried recommendation is likely to go unnoticed by
the members of City Council unless they are told that by you in the
Recommendation,
To be accurate, I would suggest that the Recommendation be revised to
read as follows:
Based on Staffs' advice, 1 recommended that the Planning Commission
approve the proposed Parcel Map No. 36304 prior to their initial
hearing on March 1, 2011. And 1 again recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed Parcel Map No. 36304 prior to their
continuation hearing on May 3, 2011. However, the Planning
Commission has recommended that the City Council deny the proposed
Parcel Map No. 36304 based on their presumption that pursuant to
Section 16.20.020 ....... The applicant has challenged this presumption
with evidence to the contrary which is presented in Exhibit 7 and
discussed under Lot CompadhiUM above.
3. (Page 3 under Lot Com atibilit ) The last sentence in this section gives
an incorrect reference to Exhibit 6. It should be to Exhibit 7
(Neighborhood Petition with Map). Further, it
seems disingenuous to say only that this Exhibit "identifies support and
opposition to this project". To be fair, it should be stated that this
Exhibit "identifies support and opposition to this project with
over a 4 to 1 ratio of neighbors in Tuscany Hills Estates being in support
of this project."
4. (Page 3 under Shared Driveway? and Access) There seems to be no
relevance to the last sentence in this section and it is, at best, misleading
and tends to make the applicant sound naive.
Here is what's stated in the draft REPORT:
Further, the applicant's Engineer, at the March 1, 2011 Planning
Commission meeting indicated that the applicant /property owner (Mr.
Doug Pinnow) would be responsible for perpetual maintenance and
upkeep of the common driveway.
The only thing that was actually stated or implied at the meeting was that
Doug Pinnow would maintain the driveway so long as he owned it.
S. (Page 3 under Planninm Commission Findings) I could not find any
support for the following statement in the official recorded hearing of the
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission also expressed reservations about the findings
in the appraisal report submitted by the applicant.
A rogue statement like this tends to unfairly discredit the applicant and the
real estate appraiser who prepared the appraisal report. Yet, it offers no
substance concerning the nature of the "reservations ". Lacking such
information, it is impossible for the applicant to address the basis for the
"reservations ". Significantly, none of the opposition refuted the
presentation by the appraiser though the opposition were the ones raising
this issue.
I recommend this sentence either be removed or elaborated upon to a level
that the applicant could at least attempt a meaningful rebuttal.
6. (Page 3 under Planning Commission Findings The following
statement is too strong and therefore misleading:
Following the deliberations, the Planning Commission found that the
proposed lot sizes and arrangements were incompatible with lots in the
Tuscany Hills Estates area and inconsistent with the general pattern
established in the vicinity.
My objection is to the word "found" in the above sentence. According to
Webster's Dictionary, a "finding" is the result of some judicial
examination or inquiry or the results of an investigation. In the present
case, there was no examination, inquiry or investigation. Rather, the
Planning Commission simply "reached a consensus" which others, like
the applicant or members of the City Council, may choose not to agree
with.
To lend support to this interpretation, I would like to point out that under
the heading of Lot Compatibility the draft REPORT presently states:
The Planning Commission did not believe that the proposal (as a three
lot subdivision) was consistent and compatible...
So, one immediately recognizes that the lack of consistency and
gompatibilty is actually a "belief' not a "finding" of the Planning
Commission.
1 would encourage the use of plain understandable words here like
"reached a consensus" or "decided" rather than some pseudo - legalize like
"found ".
It should also pointed out that the Code section 16.20.020 that discusses
"consistency" and "compatibility" clearly states that it is up City Council
(not the Planning Commission) to make the determination on these
matters. Of course, the Planning Commission has the prerogative of
passing on their recommendation on these matters to the City Council.
But, I believe that it is inappropriate for then to suggest that such
recommendations are "findings" rather than "opinions ".
Oversights and Omissions
In addition to the above comments, I also wanted to call to your attention
what I think are several very serious omissions in this REPORT TO CITY
COUNCIL that are highly relevant.
1. The day before the Planning Commission hearing took place on
March 1, 2011, I was alerted by Kirt Coury that there was
considerable concern about the 3 -way subdivision shown in Tentative
Parcel Map No. 36304, So, I gathered all of the written
correspondences that were exchanged between me and the City's
Planning Staff in 2009, before any grading was initiated on my
property. This material was hand delivered to Kirt Coury on the same
day that I received his alert and, I believe, is highly relevant to the
present application because is expresses the City's support of the 3-
way split.
Specifically, this material establishes that I was very careful and
thorough in receiving a full review and written agreement from the
Planning Staff that my 3 -way lot split would be OK and that there
were no hidden code sections that I may have overlooked. The
exchanged written material includes a preliminary parcel map which
is almost identical the present Tentative Parcel Map 36304.
While I recognize that the written feedback I received from Planning
was not binding on the part of the City, I do consider this material to
be very relevant to my application and should be made available to the
members of the City Council. To be fair and balanced, I believe that
this group of correspondences should, at least, be included as an
attachment to the REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL and covered in the
body of the REPORT under a heading such as Staff Guidance Prior
to Making ,Application. That's because it establishes that it was my
intent from the very beginning to do everything properly that related
to my sub - division project.
A copy of this material and the forwarding note from me to Kirt
Coury follows at the end of this letter.
2. The entire 70 page appraisal report that I commissioned to address the
concern about neighbors' property values should be made available to
all of the member of the City Council so that they can reach their own
decision as to whether they agree with the reservations expressed by
the Planning Commissioners (see Planning Commission Finding.
I thought that I had reached an agreement with K.irt that a hard copy of
the appraisal report would be left with the City Clerk for viewing and
that the summary letter I had sent to Kirk on May 1, 2011 would be
included in the REPORT TO THE CITY, perhaps as an attachment,
with a note stating that "The complete report is available for viewing
with the City Clerk."
I request that this oversight be corrected.
3. The REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL does not include any discussion
of the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan that I submitted in
conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 36304. The facts are that
you recommended approval of the Multi Species Habitat Conservation
Plan to the Planning Commission at their March I" and May 3rd
hearings, Further, the Planning Commission approved this plan by a 3
to I vote at their May P hearing and recommended that it be adopted
by the City Council. It is important that these facts be included in
your REPORT.
The way that the REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL is presently
drafted, action on the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan is only
advanced to the City Council if its members disagree with the
Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the lot split.
Further, there is no indication of the reality that the Planning
Commission has, indeed, recommended its approval.
I request that the Conservation Plan be discussed in your REPORT
and the Recommendation on it be made independent of the
Recommendation on the Tentative Parcel Map.
7 Via del Lago
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
November 7, 2011
Mr. Robert A Brady
City Manager
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Dear Mr. Brady:
Thank you for your prompt response to my letter to you dated November 3`a
I'd like to add that I appreciate all the efforts that you and your staff have put forth to assist me
with my application for a lot split. I especially appreciated your making time to meet with me,
even on a very short notice.
I also wanted to add special thanks for the good work that Kirt Coury has done. He's a pleasure
to work with.
Before closing this letter, I'd like to clarify that I had no intention of making any acquisition that
there has been an underlying effort by staff to prejudice my application. I'm sorry if you got the
wrong impression and hope that you'll re -read my letter.
I think that you'll see that I was, indeed, upset about some errors in your Report to the City
Council and the disappearance all of my emails that were sent to the City over the past month.
However, I made no acquisitions. Rather, I asked you to correct the errors and to advise me of
what happened to my emails.
I'm satisfied with your response and look forward to seeing you tomorrow evening at the
hearing.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas A. Pinnow
(951)674 -2590
cc Mayor Tisdale & City Council
Barbara Leibold, City Attorney
Kirt Coury, Project Planner
Warrant Morelion, Planning Manager
Tom Jacobson
From:
Rick Morsch
Sent:
Monday, November 07, 2011 9:59 PM
To:
Kirt Coury
Cc:
Warren Morelion
Subject:
RE: Tent. Parcel Map 36304
Hello Kurt,
In regards to the above referenced Tentative Parcel Map 36304 on Tuesday night's agenda
item #9, I would like to emphasize my concern with the proposed "common driveway" which
the applicant claims is prevalent throughout the Tuscany Hills community. The fact of the
matter is that of the 13 driveways the client claims as being "common ", all but one are,
in fact, "side -by- side" driveways. The side -by -side driveways have the common property
line splitting the concrete driveway such that each underlying fee owner possesses half
the driveway. No easements or maintenance agreements are necessary since each owner has
the minimum 10 feet of driveway access to their homes.
The "common driveway" serving APN's 363 - 350 -011 and 363 - 350 -012 may very well be the only
one serving single family residential properties in all of Lake Elsinore. I could not find
another one on Google Earth, but there may be more. The point is, "common driveways" are
not prevalent in Tuscany Hills and should be avoided due to the potential problems of
maintenance, blocking access, emergency services access etc. These points may bear
mentioning in your presentation tomorrow night.
Unfortunately, with the proposed 3 lots, a common driveway is unavoidable for the proposed
two undeveloped lots.
Much has been made as to the inconsistency with the proposed lot sizes so I will not
comment on that issue here. My concerns are of record.
Thanks for your time,
Rick Morsch
1
PM 36304 Revised Condition
Revised 21. Record ReG'prOG ii Access Easements betweeon Pparcels aani-ber-s4;
2 for the benefit of Parceland 3 allowing use of the common drive and hammer -head
and requiring the property owner of Parcel 2kapptieant to be responsible for
perpetual maintenance and upkeep of the common driveway. Record six foot_ Utility
Easement on Parcel 1 for the benefit of Parcel 2. The form of the ReoipfGoal Access
Easement Agreements shall be approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer
prior to recordation.
Revised 21. Record Access Easement on Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel 3
allowing use of the common drive and hammer -head and requiring the property
owner of Parcel 2 to be responsible for perpetual maintenance and upkeep of the
common driveway. Record six foot Utility Easement on Parcel 1 for the benefit of
Parcel 2. The form of the Easement Agreements shall be approved by the City
Attorney and City Engineer prior to recordation.
CITY OF A
LADE LSIROU
DREAM EXTREME
November 7, 2011
Mr. Douglas Pinnow
7 Via del Lago
Lake Elsinore, CA 92532
Re: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 36304
Dear Mr. Pinnow:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to the issues raised in your
November 3, 2011 letter delivered to me on Friday, November 4. As we
discussed on Friday, your request that the Staff Report on the above -
BRIAN TISDALE referenced application be revised prior to distribution to the City Council
MAYOR was not possible insofar as the City Council Agenda packages were
completed and distributed to the City Council on Thursday as is
customary. A copy of your letter and this reply will, however, be
ROBERT E. MAGEE distributed to the City Council today. You may also address the City
MAYOR PRO TEM Council during the public hearing to express your concerns.
Before I respond specifically to the individual issues in your letter, I want to
DARYL HICKMAN respond generally to your accusation that there is an underlying effort to
COUNCILMEMBER prejudice your application. This is absolutely false. At your request, our
City Attorney, planning staff and I have all met with you and your attorney
on several occasions over the past several months to review your
MELISSA A. MELENDEZ application, applicable provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the
COUNCILMEMBER Tuscany Hills Specific Plan and other concerns. City staff makes every
effort to prepare accurate and comprehensive staff reports and to address
the questions and concerns of both applicants and our appointed and
PETER G. WEBER elected officials. Consideration by the City Council was postponed at your
COUNCILMLMBER request to the November 8, 2011 City Council meeting.
You have provided a great deal of correspondence and related information
ROBERT A. BRADY that was presented to the Planning Commission prior to or during the
CITY MANAGER Commission's public hearing on this matter. All of that correspondence
and information has been included in the City Council agenda materials
together with the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and the
951.674.3124 minutes of the Planning Commission's public hearing. As to your
130 S. MAIN STREET subsequent emails to Kirt Coury, our IT staff confirmed that because the
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
W W W. LAKE- E LS I NORE.ORG
Mr. Douglas A. Pinnow
November 7, 2011
Page 2 of 4
" @ca.rr.com" domain was listed on the Barracuda IP Reputation
database, our Barracuda Spam & Virus Firewall quarantined all email(s)
with this domain name, including your emails from account
"doug.pinnow @ca.rr.com ". It is my understanding that your email provider
has taken necessary corrective actions to remove the spam associated
with the domain name. Consequently, your emails will no longer be
blocked.
I have reviewed with staff the emails and related attachments that you
sent (or re -sent) to Kirt Coury on November 1. 1 have confirmed that all
but two of the attachments were duplicates of prior correspondence that
were included in the November 8 City Council Agenda package. Copies
of these two attachments (a one page MapQuest aerial photograph and a
one page introduction to the Neighborhood Petition) and all of your
November email correspondence will be provided to the City Council as
attachments to this letter.
The following comments correspond to the issues identified in the
attachment to your-letter:
1. Planning-Commission Vote. The Staff Report to the City Council
incorrectly states that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend disapproval of the Parcel Map. As you correctly point out, the
minutes of the Planning Commission included in the City Council materials
clarify that the motion recommending disapproval was 3 -1 with
Commissioner O'Neal casting the dissenting vote.
2. Planning Commission Recommendation. The role of the Planning
Commission is to make recommendations to the City Council on land use
and subdivision entitlements. Consequently, as is customary, it is the
Planning Commission's recommendation that is presented first in the
recommendation section of the City Council Staff Report. I believe this is
clear and that the City Council will understand this as presented.
In addition, the Staff Report presents the City Council with an alternative
recommendation in the event it disagrees with the Planning Commission.
Finally, I do not share your skepticism about materials "buried" in the
agenda report and am confident that the City Council will review all of the
materials provided, including the May 3 and March 1 staff reports to the
Planning Commission which were distributed to the City Council
concurrently with the original distribution to the Planning Commission and
again in the City Council's November 8 agenda package.
Mr. Douglas A. Pinnow
November 7, 2011
Page 3 of 4
3. Neighborhood Petition. As you correctly state, the reference to the
Neighborhood Petition should be "Exhibit 7 ". The mistaken reference to
"Exhibit 6" was an inadvertent clerical error.
4. Shared Driveway and Access. Access rights and maintenance
obligations related to the proposed common driveway must be properly
documented and recorded against the burdened and the benefitted
properties. The rights and obligations will run with the land and are not
personal to you as the current owner. I believe the Staff Report reflects
your statement of intention to own and occupy the property for the
foreseeable future and was not intended to be misleading. I will work with
the City Attorney and Public Works to refine the language in Condition of
Approval #21 to clarify that the access rights are not reciprocal, but rather
that Parcel 3 has access rights over Parcel 2 and that the owner of Parcel
2 must maintain the common driveway in perpetuity for the benefit of
Parcel 3. In addition, an easement agreement must be recorded against
Parcel 1 to document the 6 foot easement along the common property line
for underground utilities. The form of both easement agreements must be
approved by the City Attorney.
5. - Appraisal Report. The Planning Commission asked several
questions about the appraisal report that you commissioned and
submitted. Your response is reflected on pages 6 and 7 of the Planning
Commission minutes as follows: "Mr. Doug Pinnow stated that he is the
property owner that is requesting the lot split and indicated that he heard a
number of comments slanted towards a legitimate appraisal. He noted
that possibly of [sic] an appraisal being done by a neutral party would
have been more appropriate but there was no mechanism to pay for it."
6. Planning Commission Findings. The Staff Report summarizes the basis
for the Planning Commission's recommendation. The City Council may
choose to agree with it or not. For that reason, staff has presented the
City Council with the Planning Commission recommendation and an
alternative recommendation. The Planning Commission is an advisory
body and its recommendation is not binding on the City Council. As you
state, the decision is one to be made by the City Council. We do not
disagree with your interpretation of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code in
this regard. Your disapproval of the verbiage is noted in your letter which
will be provided to the City Council.
In addition to the above listed concerns, you outline three additional
"oversights and omissions ".
First, you suggest that the Staff Report should have provided additional
background about your prior communications with staff about the
Mr. Douglas A. Pinnow
November 7, 2011
Page 4 of 4
proposed lot split. All of the prior correspondence is included in the City
Council's Agenda package. If you believe this is insufficient, you may
highlight these prior discussions in your comments to the City Council.
Second, you have expressed concern about the availability of the
appraisal report to the City Council. Both your letter of May 1, 2011 and
the entire 70 page appraisal report were included in the City Council's
agenda package.
Third, you raise the question about MSHCP consistency. I acknowledge
that the Planning Commission approved the Resolution recommending a
finding of consistency of the proposed parcel map with the MSHCP and
then recommended denial of the project. Because denial does not require
a consistency finding, the recommendation to the City Council is to
approve the Resolution finding consistency with the MSHCP only if it
disagrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the
project.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, or if I can be of
further assistance, please contact me at (951) 674 -3124 ext 204.
Sincerely,
�Roqbert A. ABr
City Manager
Attachments:
1) MapQuest aerial photograph
2) Introduction to the Neighborhood Petition
3) November 1 emails
cc: Mayor Tisdale and City Council
Barbara Leibold, City Attorney
Kirt Coury, Project Planner
Warren Morelion, Planning Manager
4
Two shared d
a ter•
fi e
SHARED DRIVEWAYS IN TUSCANY HILLS
Hills Estates
3
r r.
1)
Barbara Leibold
From:
Kart Coury [kcoury @Lake - Elsinore.org]
Sent:
Monday, November 07, 2011 1211 PM
To:
Bob Brady
Cc:
Warren Morelion; Barbara Leibold
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: TPM 36304
SHARED DRIVEAYS IN TUSCANY HILLS.doc; Coury Letter of May 1.doc; FILE2011 -083-
REPORT.pdf
Bob (Warren and Barbara),
I am forwarding a series of emails that I received from Mr. Pinnow last Wednesday. He
indicated that he had sent me these emails through the month of October, however, I was not
receiving them. Apparently the City's Spam system (Baracuda) was keeping the emails as non -
deliverable. I can confirm that 2 of the 3 attachments are included in the City Council
Staff Report. I am not completely certain about the first attached exhibit titled "Shared
Driveways in Tuscany ". I know we have some graphics in the report relating to this subject,
but I am not absolute that this is one of them. I will check on it tomorrow. I will forward
the other emails he sent to me (I believe there are a total of 8). Several of them are
repeat emails. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Talk to you soon.
Kirt
Frog: Douglas Pinnow [doug.pinnow@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:05 PM
To: Kirt Coury
Subject: Fw: TPM 36304
RESENDING (Please see the portion of this email that's highlighed in blue - near the end.)
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
From: Douglas Pinnow<mailto:dou inno ca.rr.com>
To: Kirt Coury< mailto :kcourylOLake- Elsinore.or >
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: TPM 36304
Hi Kirt,
Thanks for meeting with me earlier today. When I returned home, I found the page I had
prepared that shows aerial views of all 13 shared driveways in Tuscany Hills. It's the first
attachment, above.
I'd like to add just a few more words about tandem driveways, just in case Commissioner
Morsch decides to challenge my view of them at the November hearing.
It is my position that in most cases tandem driveways must be considered to be shared
driveways - not just two independent driveways that happen to be side -by side, as
Commissioner Morsch represented at the Planning Commission hearing in May. That's because if
a fence were run down the middle of any of the tandem driveways in the Watermark Development,
each half would only be 9 1/2 feet wide. That's too narrow to pass a fire - truck.
Riverside County Fire Department prefers a minimum driveway width for residential properties
of 16 feet - with 12 feet being the generally accepted lower limit for fire -truck access.
The homes in Tuscany Hills Estates typically have 12 -foot wide driveways. Further, Lake
Elsinore City Code Section 17.148.089 C. requires that:
3
From: Douglas Pinnow (doug.pinnow@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:$s PM
To: Kirt Coury
Subject: Fw: TPM 36304
RESENDING (Please see the portion of this email that's highlighed in blue - near
the end.)
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
From: Douglas Pinnow<niailto:doug , pinnoLo@ca.rr.com>
To: Kirt Coury<ma11.to:kc0dyry La k- F.ls nore.arP>
Sent: Wednesday, October 0s, 2011 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: TPM 36304
Hi Kirt,
Thanks for meeting with me earlier today. When I returned home, I found the page
I had prepared that shows aerial views of all 13 shared driveways in Tuscany
Hills. It's the first attachment, above.
I'd like to add just a few more words about tandem driveways, just in case
Commissioner Mlorsch decides to challenge my view of them at the November hearing.
It is my position that in most cases tandem driveways must be considered to be
shared driveways — not just two independent driveways that happen to be side -by
side, as Commissioner Morsch represented at the Planning commission hearing in
May. That's because if a fence were run down the middle of any of the tandem
driveways in the Watermark Development, each half would only be 9 112 feet wide.
That's too narrow to pass a fire - truck.
Riverside County Fire Department prefers a minimum driveway width for residential
properties of 16 feet - with 12 feet being the generally accepted lower limit for
fire -truck access. The hones in Tuscany Hills Estates typically have 12 -foot
wide driveways. Further, Lake Elsinore City Code Section 17.148.0BO C. requires
that:
No one -way drive aisle width shall be less than 12 feet.
Unfortunately, the definitions that accompany Section 17 do not define a "drive
aisle ". However, it may be reasonably assumed that it is similar to a
"driveway ". (It's really strange that our City Code doesn't have more to say
about driveways.)
So, the bottom line is that all of the tandem driveways in the Watermark
Development must be considered to be shared driveways because locating a fence
along the mid -line would violate the above section of the City Code and would not
be acceptable to the Fire Department.
Before closing, I'd like to change the subject and remind you that on May 1st,
shortly prior to the continuation hearing of TPM 36304 before the Planning
Commission, that I sent you and the other Planning Commissioners a letter (copy
From: Douglas Pinnow [doug.pinnow@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 61, 2011 3:52 PM
To: Kirt Coury
Subject: Re: E -mail Test
Hi Kirt,
Your test email came through just fine.
Since your e- address is identical to the one I've been using, I'm going to try to
resend the two previous emails that got lost.
I'm going to send them two different ways - with and without the attachments (in
case your service provider may be having trouble with the size of the
attachments).
Best regards,
Doug
- - - -- original Message - - - --
From: Kirt Coury< emailto :kcoury@Lake- Elsinore.ora>
To: 'Doug Pinnow' <mailto ^D_ou_g . Piano a . rr _ cOq>
Sent: Tuesday, Noveaber 01, 2011 2:56 PM
Subject: E -mail Test
Mr. Pinnow,
This is a test email. Hopefully this comes through to you.
Kirt
From: Douglas Pinnow [doug.pinnow@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Kirt Coury
Subject: Fw: FORWARDING PETITION IN SUPPORT OF MY LOT SPLIT
RESENDING TO SAME E- ADDRESS WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
From: Douglas Pinnow<maillo :doug.ninno*ca rr.com>
To: Kirt Coury <mailto�kcoury @Lake- Elsinore.orgy
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 10:55 PM
Subject: FORWARDING PETITION IN SUPPORT OF MY LOT SPLIT
Hi Kirt,
Attached to this e-mail is a final copy of the petition, relating to my lot
split, that I would like you to distribute to the City council members before the
hearing on November 8th.
I had planned to make this material available to you quite some time ago rather
than waiting until the last minute. 'However, one of my neighbors (at 189 Via de
la Valle) sold his home after he signed the petition in May. It took me until
this past weekend to make contact with the new owner. so, you'll see that there
are now two different signatures for this particular address.
Please note that the second page of the attachment has a color coded map that
will not make any sense if it is reproduced in black and white.
Since I noted that it is the City's usual practice is to reproduce such items in
black and white, I would be happy to bring you 10 color copies of the entire
petition on Tuesday along with the le copies of the Tentative Parcel Map that you
requested.
Please let me know if you would like me to prepare and bring these color copies
to you.
Best regards,
Doug Pinnow,
(951)674 -2598
attached above) forwarding a 60 page report on the financial impact of my lot
split on the other homes in the Tuscany Hills Estates (also attached).
You'll recall that there was not sufficient time to include this letter and
report in the materials you prepared for the Planning Commission hearing on May
3rd.
I would appreciate your making both this forwarding letter and report available
to the members of the City Council before the November hearing.
Thanks again for your help.
Best regards,
Doug Pinnow
(951)674 -2598
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
From: Kirt Coury <ma.tIto:kcour Lake- Elsinore.or >
To: 'Doug Pinnow'<maflto :Deu i nno4ca.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 19:37 AM
Subject: TPM 36304
Good Morning Mr. Pinnow,
I wanted to follow up with you regarding the identified Parcel Map. As you may
be aware, a new council member (Mr. Peter Webber) has been appointed, and we now
have 5 city council members again. I know you wanted to postpone your parcel map
project until a 5th member was appointed. We are targeting your project for the
November 8th City Council bearing if that works with your schedule of course.
Please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Kirt
From: Douglas Pinnow [doug.pinnow@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 8:28 PM
To: Kirt Coury
Subject: Fw: STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH 70 -PAGE APPRAISAL REPORT
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
From: Douglas Pinnow <mailto:dou - irrroa ca.rr,.comu
To: Kirt Coury< mai .lto:kcaurygLake- Elsinore.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:40 PM
Subject: STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH 70 -PAGE APPRAISAL REPORT
Hi Kirt,
This is to confirm the strategy that we discussed earlier today for dealing with
the large appraisal report.
I think that it would be sufficient to include a copy of the single page letter
that I sent to on May 1st (attached above) in your report to the City Council -
along with a short statement that a hard copy of the entire report is available
with the City Clerk for review.
I like this approach because the by letter includes the important conclusion
reached by the appraiser in his report - and it saves trees.
Best regards,
Doug Pinnow
(951)674 -2598
d
N
N
ca
3
d
•L
0
m
L
Cl)
Z
..........
------------
N
V
m
' 6
LL
o
co
Jc -0 o
o
cu m , Cl)
Cl)�'o
cu >
-C 'L.
-0 •
c
Cc
CN
0
ca
CL
c
0
0 0
ca
CY) 2
c CU
Jc
a
Q
a
a)
0 \
0 Cl)
a) 0
o co �
,cn
a) cL
cn 0 0
o
CU 0
..w-
I
0 .� N O O Cl)
cl) >
a 0 a) 0
) i m Cl) > •-
'- a� 0 m
N
'F CL L- O 0- N
.>
L O M
—
N_
5 0 Cl)
M U C
LM O O N > CL CL X
3 U � m (U
Cl) O L... C .
(1) O N 4-j ca O O N
m c O c> N
L
. u > D. M 000 ' L. V Cl)
N O Cl) N
0 >- •�o -C 00
-f-j 0170
0 CD
._
am uj
4-a O O U E
.Y +.D � O 0
J can -0 Q ccn Q -� U
O 0 0
(U
c�
N
iE
m
aL
.CD
3
as
�L
�I
L
O
L
0
i
0
LJ
C
V
N
H
ui
■-
L
m
U) cu
4 ^r
0 cn
cy*—
m
•
3
w 0
E
E
m 0
.I-- u
6-1
■
a) -o-P
cn
cn
C
Cc
<
0
■S
cn
cn
L. a)
0 ,>
L
a)
r � m
cn =
.S2 cn
a)
E C
o
C•1
0
w
ca
QD
a) w
M a
E ■ -
■ 0 0
+0
a) cn
c: ■
0
c:
ow
■
C:
. -i
0
v4
a c
=-6=
��c
-LC:
cm■
■-
R3
0
Z
X
�]
cu
■.�
0
0
cn
<�
C•1
0
w
ca
QD
a) w
M a
E ■ -
■ 0 0
+0
a) cn
c: ■
0
c:
ow
■
C:
. -i
0
v4
a c
=-6=
��c
3
as
�L
0
d
L
s
0
Fm I
We
0
3
a�
.0
c
E
Fm
•L
�
0.
-0
o
W
V
LZ
o
E
L
0
A-j
0
r
W
#+
.C:
ow.-lo,
Awe
m
4a
ld�
3:
mom
d
m
m
cn
E
A-0
U)
x
LU
H
An
-1111111M
*NJ
(DI
LLJ
CD
LO
cla
LA
Al.
IL LAW
A
AT,
34
•10
MMMMA,
40
a
CO
M JZZ:
4-d
CIO
0
o-
cz
m
t
cla
LA
Al.
IL LAW
A
AT,
34
•10
MMMMA,
40
a
W9
■ rr�
F
S oom%
0
(DI
CO
AMP
0 08
r rrri
r�
r rr�
L
r��M,�_- r • � rte. � !• ,..,�'+�
f F /
AO
low �� jo
r X.
R• f , 4
IL
i
MACC, CT
r
r r�
V
N
3
H
r r�rs
1
N
Amp
L�
y..
C
�I
J
rr�
r�
08
co
t
V.I
0
Ali
U)
m
CL
c
V)
t�
r�
c I
co
0
L.
Q.
CL
m
cn
U
H
C
N
E
N
N
�
cn
tB
cu
W
I-
(Di
0^
AMA
T �
i
Nww000
Nam/
C
N
E
N
N
�
cn
tB
cu
W
I-
(Di
AMA
T �
i
Nww000
Nam/
C
N
E
N
N
�
cn
tB
cu
W
I-
N
O
L
il§
)
C/)
m
W
L
0
Cr /
T—
II
O
LC:
cn
O
yr
�L
0
•� W
U
c
cu
ti
Qi
L�
U
�r
i
4 /
0
L_
• �
�'
Q
C:
E
. w
W
/ v
� r
/
�r
i
4 /
0
L_
• �
�'
� J a•y£
a� W a o
Q
�r
i
4 /
0
L
.p
mc a - 0 --j
0
w
— 0
0 �'i +U L
Cl) C: CL
CF) :3 C
L' 0 < 4-0
�ftft cn
+Oi cn
CL
cr 75
0 LU 0.
0
R
CL)
M
�
�
L
r�
0
M
00.
�c:
L
a
0
0
-0
W
C:
CO
L
0
I
�
•�
.C:
R
CD
M
�
�
L
r�
0
L
C
�c:
L
a
0
-0
W
C:
CO
�u
R
C)
CD
M
�
�
L
O
Q
a
0
C)
PETITION RESULTS FOR PINNOW LOT SPLIT
(Signed Petition follows)
«F , , TUSCANY HILLS ESTATES
~•,° , �, °.� Total Lots:
�: 24 Numbered Lots + Lot E space)
�, (opens ace
'4 Presently:
22 homes + one empty building lot (#23) = 23 Total
* Petition Results:
21 owners contacted (2 unavailable)
)
V 17 signed applicant's petition favoring his lot split (81 %)
M 4 did not sign petition (19 %)
W
D
b
OF
STATE
r
L) yJ
,,� �, ^ r ,�:• iV" „BUT 0 F �•A
-COUNTRY,
.^'h • ♦ ��ti i � , ` � ` r1 its � — � �;' i i .'
J4.1 x
,Y
} .
COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE TWO NEW BUILDING
PARCELS THAT DOUG & JOAN PINNOW HAVE
DEVELOPER ON THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
7 VIA DEL LAGO IN THE TUSCANY HILLS ESTATES
Vile, the following, reside in the Tuscany Hills Estates and encourage
the City of Lake Elsinore's City Council to approve the 3 -way lot split
that has been requested by our neighbors, Doug Pinnow and his wife,
Joan, in their Tentative Parcel Map 36304. We believe that these
new Parcels would be ,consistent and compatible with the general
,pattern and arrangement of other lots that presently exist in the
Tuscany bills Estates.
� �v (strut acidr+� s)
fs�rta[urv)
2. Q1; 1 r 7C /o (/i,o .
(��
? Z,6ys r � ) � (street edd►�ss) —..—
(signature)
3. Vr
(street address
.
vm
fian'me� name) �-�
• (street address) V
5. ct , 1
rrted me)
(str�aet aaktress)
f )
s. LkgR'K Lee j a1 Via .0 e-. J- A V4rr
(printed na"11 (street address)'
7. a ZA wr e- e- Ili( Vii ,fie L 4 VAlle-
(Pdr*d name) ( street address)
signattn�e)
wK-- /�yw
10
'I Ur o4 , 1..CL Z,-VP-z °t..
(street address)
�1 %IA.SMo # W IPIC,
eO Vl* A 4.4,4 VP I- I:E
(street address)
(street address)
12. V/A Pt- l 9 AII-
) (street address}
t
(� u)
MWAwfiffi"o ' 0 " '/ /! I �' W,','WfqMJV 9, A
14. �-
f:+err Rams)
(�+l4na�"rrrg)
17
18.
(stn�er adal'nessj
[stfwt acrdiess)
(signa*f )
(sheer addressy
141. _ V i
(street addross)
19. Lat . I
Ddb
f Bred name)
ls(reet addn�asj ..
)
20. S 0
(Pd 1
(street acrdress)
21. • M-
fstrsst a i i
f }
�L
22. A, ,
A -iz 2G
(pr"""" name)
(signature)
23.
(signature) """"
(signalum)
Z/ P44- -44 uAz-4,�f-
(street address)
7 �1 r �
(street address)
24. e
(Ofrnred name)
treat s Tess)
(s nature) �
26.._.0 c e-,( r'i i7 .-4 UI�LC.L
(show
27 f,
(printed naov)
(street address)
(slgnatum)
28.
(►�rrted name)
(svwture)
29.
(printed name)
(srg"alum)
( street address)
(stmt address)