Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-2002 NAH MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 Wednesday February 6, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:01 PM by Vice Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: POLK,MATTHIES, BARNES,AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY Also present were Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, Planning Associate Miller,City Engineer O'Donnell,Community Development Technician Hennings and Community Development Clerk Porche'. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Polk noted that in the Study Session Minutes, page 2 of 4, second paragraph, second line,there is a spelling error. He requested to have the word "Induded"be changed to "include": Commissioner Polk also indicated that on the same page, 3rd paragraph the acronym "RHNA" needed to be clarified. Community Development Director Brady indicated that "RHNA" stands for "Regional Housing Needs Assessment". There were no further comments. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1a. Minutes of Public Workshop/Meeting- December 19, 2001 1b. Minutes of Planning Commission Regular Meeting-December 19, 2001 PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing Vice Chairman Barnes opened the at 7:05 PM. PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Industrial Project No. 2001-04 Mini Storage facility expansion for Lake Elsinore Self Storage located at 29151 Riverside Drive APN 377-050-22 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for a Design Review of an expansion of an existing self-storage unit, and requested Community Development Technician Hennings to review it with the Planning Commission. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that this is Design Review of Lake Elsinore Self-Storage located at 29151 Riverside Dr.,which is located off of Collier Avenue, located at the corner of Riverside Drive and El Toro Road. She indicated that the existing facility is approximately 62,891 square feet and sits on a approximately 3.32 acres. She commented that the expansion would include a total of 5 buildings on 1-acre site. She stated that there would be a total of 138 units totaling 24,479 of additional storage facility. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that the rear walls of the building, M, I and J will be utilized as exterior walls along El Toro Road and the drainage channel. She stated that similar colors and material would be used as on the existing facility. She commented that this would include along the exterior walls, a concrete block wall, with a 2- row band of split face block. She stated that along El Toro Road there would be decorative pilasters every 20 feet. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that this plan is in compliance with development standards of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). She indicated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2002-01 recommending that the City Council approve Design Review for Industrial Project No. 2001-04 subject to the Findings, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the Applicants Engineer is here to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Barnes requested Community Development Clerk Porche' if there were any requests from the public to speak. Community Development Clerk Porche' indicated that there were no requests submitted. Vice Chairman Barnes requested the applicant to approach the table and introduce himself. Applicant Doug Goodman with Goodman and Associates indicated that he is the Engineer of the project, and he is representing the owner. Applicant Goodman stated that he is available to answer any questions that the Commission, Staff or the Public may have. He stated that the owner is very happy to expand the project. He stated that this would be the third expansion. Applicant .Goodman indicated that there is one Condition that he has previously discussed with City Engineer O'Donnell. Applicant Goodman stated that Condition No. 26 discusses the improvements of the drainage channel. Applicant Goodman requested to have the opportunity to discuss the magnitude of those improvements or just how it might be handled subjected to the approval of the City Engineer O'Donnell. He suggested to add a phrase su1*t to the appnmd of the EngLVW' Applicant Goodman had no further statements. Vice Chairman Barnes requested any comments from City Engineer O'Donell. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 2002 City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that he did discuss Condition No. 26 with the Applicant and indicated that changing the wording to "s i4bct to the appnxd of the City Engm� "would be acceptable without any objections. Vice Chairman Barnes asked the Commissioners if they had any comments. Commissioner Nash commented that this would be a natural course for the applicant to expand his property. He had no further comments. Commissioner Matthies concurred with Commissioner Nash. She also indicated that she concurred with the changing of wording on Condition No. 26. Commissioner Polk requested clarification on the building walls of the project. He wanted to know if that would be a problem with the respect of the security of the property inside the storage units. Applicant Goodman indicated that the backside of the wall is a benefit versus a lower than standard wall.He noted that this is a 9-foot wall, and generally security is not a problem. Commissioner Polk understood and also had a question regarding Condition No. 9. He wanted to know if it is always necessary to have fees paid to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it is a requirement for all Industrial, Commercial and Residential properties to pay fees to the School District at the rates adopted by the School District. Commission Polk had no further questions. Vice Chairman Barnes stated that the project is well maintained, attractive and well utilized. Vice Chairman Barnes had no further questions and recommended the reading of the resolution. Community Development Director Brady stated that on the Condition No. 26 to add the wording "The drainage channel side slope along the property line shall be required to be improved to protect the site from erosion, "w4ixt to the apprmul of the City Engineer': Community Development Director Brady also wanted to correct a typo in the Condition No. 26,which is rading. He stated that the correct word should be grading There being no further comments, Vice Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 PM. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT 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 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 2001-04 FOR THE CONSTRUCTIN OF FIVE BUILDINGS TOTALING 24,479 SQUARE PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 2002 FEET TO BE AN EXPANSION OF THE LAKE ELSINORE SELF STORAGE LOCATED AT 29151 RIVERSIDE DRIVE (APN 377-050-022) General Plan Amendment No. 2000-03 for "Revised-Draft" update to the Housing Element of the General Plan eriod 2000-2005 Vice Chairman Barnes opened a the Pubic Hearing at 7:15 PM Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is the "Revised-Draft" of the Housing Element of the General Plan. He indicated that the Planning Commission previously had a study session and workshop on the revised update of the Citys General Plan. He indicated that this is a requirement by law to update the General Plan on a regular basis. He requested that Planning Manager Villa review the General Plan with the Planning Commission. Planning Manager Villa indicated that he would like to give an overview of what the Housing Elements entails, and then have the consultants go over it as well. He stated that upon conclusion of the overview,it would be brought back to the table for any questions that the Commission might have. Planning Manager Villa stated that this Housing Element update is State mandated. He indicated that the State requires the City to update the Element every five years. He stated that we have looked at all our policies and objectives of our last update, and included all of our updated census information and came up with a comprehensive plan. Planning Manager Villa requested that consultants John Douglas and Collin Drukker of the Planning Center to take over the presentation. Consultant John Douglas stated that he is a consultant to the City, and was joined with his Colleague Collin Drukker. Consultant Douglas commented that the Housing Element is a required part of the Cites General Plan. He stated that the Housing Element is the only Element that must go though the State review process. He indicated that the Housing Element is the City's plan of how to address the needs of the preservation and improvement of the existing housing stock as well as a plan for new housing to address a new range of income needs in the community. Consultant Douglas indicated that there is a term to be referred as Certification. He stated that this is the process that the State reviews and approves local housing elements. He stated that the goal is to adopt a Housing Element that meets the State requirements and gets certification. He stated that this is important, because it maintains the City's eligibility for grant funding and also maintains a legal General Plan. Consultant Douglas stated that the Draft Element was prepared and submitted to the State. He stated that the workshop that was held in December reviewed the comments by the State and the responses to those comments. He stated that since then,we have worked to revise the language. He indicated that the revisions that we have made have addressed all of the State's concerns, and that if the adoption goes thought this evening that the State would issue certification. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Consultant Drukker approached the table and presented a Power Point Presentation of what is contained in the Housing Element and discussed those specific issues that the State raised. He stated that the State has a goal to maintain descent housing and suitable housing for every California family. The Housing Element addresses this by providing long term planning to address the Citys housing needs. He indicated that the Housing Element is one part of the plan. He stated that there are six other elements to be included: Circulation Elements, Open Space Conservation, Noise, Air Quality, Public Safety and Land Use. Consultant Drukker stated that there are five components to the development of a Housing Element Update. He stated that the first one is the Housing Needs Assessment which addresses the existing needs and the future growth needs of the City. He stated that it also discusses the constraints and resources, the non-governmental and governmental constraints. He stated that it also reviews the previous Housing Element. It looks at it goals to see how well it was implemented. He stated that it also looks at the current elements, and looks at the five-year action plan that implements these goals. He stated that the Housing Element process begins with an evaluation of the previous element, and then moves on to an assessment of the existing of projected growth needs. He stated that it looks at the constraints of the growth of the City,it refines the goals of the previous element and then it produces a five-year action plan. The significance of having a certified housing element is for the legality. If you have a certified Housing Element,it will insure that you have a legally adequate general plan, and will ensure that the City will be eligible for certain grant programs. Consultant Drukker stated that the growth of the City from 1990 to 2020 would increase approximately 65,000. Riverside County is receiving a great deal more growth due to the lower housing prices. Consultant Drukker commented on the RHNA allocation, in comparison to the other jurisdictions in the county, Lake Elsinore has a small regional allocation; Lake Elsinore is 4% of Riverside County 93,000. He indicated that when you look at the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, allocation being broken down by income category. He stated that when you consider the income categories, and housing affordability, you could see that the maximum housing rent is approximately $600.00 from very low to $1,000.00 low income. He indicated that when you look at the low-income allocation, you have to consider when there is a stigma attached to low income housing. When you look at the salary ranges of the essential people in our society you can see that a firefighter can afford sometimes only a low-income house. So it is important to provide low housing for them. He indicated that existing home prices, in the recent survey conducted in 2000 the Lake Elsinore housing prices is relative to the County, slightly lower and more affordable than Orange County. He stated that when you look at the occupations of the people that are employed in Lake Elsinore, you could see that we are dominated by the services, manufacturing and retail trade industries. In 1990 and 2000 the major employers were the Unified School District and the Outlet Center, Wal-Mart, and other service industry. You can see that the trends are continuing in 2000. With the existing need the housing element considers special needs, populations, those overpaying for housing and overcrowded conditions. Special needs are elderly, disabled, large families, the homeless, farm workers, and female head of households. He indicated that looking at constraints, the Housing Element considers land uses, second unit requirements, and development fees. None of these were considered to be a constraint to the development of affordable housing in the PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6,2002 City. He indicated that in a brief review of a previous housing element, its goals were to provide 15,000 units for its RI NA allocation. He stated that what it achieved was over and above that goal, but it fell short in the very low-income category. He stated that when you look at the planning period allocation,you could see that there is 3,700 units approximately 57% of moderate to above moderate. He stated that the new construction goals would match that. Consultant Drukker then went over the City's responses to the comments made by the State department of the Housing and Community Development. He indicated that they are broken down into three main categories. He stated that the rehabilitation section considers what proportion of the City housing units are in need of rehabilitation. He stated that the State wanted to see how many units were in the City, at the time we prepared the initial draft element. We looked at the Riverside County consolidated plan and from their comprised data that aloud us to estimate 10% or 12,090 in the City that were in need of rehabilitation or replacement. He stated that in the development fees, the State is looking at this because they are concerned about what potential barriers are produced for affordable housing with the City development fees or actions. Consultant Drukker stated that the City responded by providing information on approximate fees of single family or multifamily housing. The City provided 3 tables of hypothetical situations and the State was satisfied with that response. He indicated that the special needs for the elderly it was more of a data issue,we did not break down the number of elderly households by 10 years, so we subsequently found that there were 952 elderly homeowner house holds and 239 renter households. Consultant Drukker stated that in the housing program,in general the State wanted more commitments from the City, specifically in the land use elements/development code. He stated that the City's land inventory showed that we have sufficient medium or high-density vacant land suitable for residential construction. He stated that the State wanted to know how the City was going to insure that this land was going to be used to its maximum use potential. He stated that the City suggested several strategies. He stated one of which is density bonus ordinance. He indicated that the other is land and development agreement that required developers to produce concurrently a certain percentage of affordable housing in each phase of their development. He stated that what this does is it forces developers to produce affordable housing in conjunction with the style and the development pattern of the entire phase of the project. Consultant Drukker commented or the Density Bonus Ordinance the State requested information how the City was going to encourage its use. He stated that the City's response was that the City was going to provide incentives such as land right downs, fee waivers or reduced development standards if the developer was going to take advantage of the density bonus ordinance. He indicated with the low income tax credit funds, the State wanted to know how the City was going to help the developer and help produce sites, that can take advantage of these funds. He stated that the City agreed to identify sites that experienced profit and non-profit developers could to take advantage of these funds and produce affordable housing. He stated that the 20% set aside, funding the State wanted to know specific unencumbered balance of the 20% set aside funds that -would be useable for new construction. The City identified $500,000.00 dollars, $100,000.00 for each planning period for 2000-2005 to be used for construction. This is consistent with the Adopted Redevelopment Agency Plan. PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Consultant Drukker stated that in the area of emergency shelters and transitional housing, the State wanted to make sure that the City's Zoning Code allowed for transitional housing and emergency shelter. He stated that the City decided to update its Zoning Code to allow these uses with a Conditional Use Permit in both the R-2 and R-3 zones medium and high- density zones. He stated that in the equal housing opportunity, the previous draft of the element,that the City was going to produce an equal housing opportunity booklet, but it did not specify a date, so the State wanted a specific time line. He stated that the City agreed to produce this booklet by the end of 2002 and distribute in the public facilities. Consultant Drukker indicated that in the public participation the State wanted to emphasize that the City should encourage adequate ability for the public to provide input on the public housing element. He stated that the City held the Study Session in late December and we are now holding this hearing and a City Council meeting will be held, and the State is satisfied with that. Consultant Drukker concluded his presentation. Planning Manager Villa stated that, based on the presentation, and implementation plan that would cover the next five years planning period from 2000-2005, he stated that this year we need to develop a density bonus ordinance and amend the zoning codes to allow transitional housing in R-2 and R-3 zones with a Condition Use Permit. He stated that we need to work on language for future specific plans and development agreements to entice developers to take advantage of the affordable housing mix in with their plans. He indicated that he felt that the Policies, goals, and objective included in the Updated Element and contained in the previous element could be achieved and were reasonable for the upcoming planning period. Planning Manager Villa stated that based on the comments that we received from the State, they were pleased to see that the City is making an effort to comply with the States requirements. He stated that Staff prepared an environmental document, in the form of a Negative Declaration for the housing element and it was sent to the State Clearing House. Planning Manager Villa recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Number 2002-02 recommending to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment No 2000-03 for the adoption of the Draft Update to the Housing Element based on the following Findings, in addition,it is further recommended that Resolution No. 2002-03, which would be a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update based on the findings of the Staff Report. Vice Chairman Barnes indicated that there were no further questions, and brought it back to the table for discussion. Commissioner Matthies had no comments Commissioner Nash requested clarification on the County un-incorporated areas as to whether they are going to be required by the State to adopt similar plans. PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Community Development Director Brady indicated that the un-incorporated areas would be required as well. He stated that all City's/Counties within the State are required to abide by the State Law Housing Element. He stated that the County is currently going through a process now where they are updating their General Plan. Commissioner Nash stated that builders and developers are avoiding City's, because the fees and structures are less restrictive and lenient, and not entirely abiding by what should be mandate to them. He continued to say that he doesn't know the enforcement to that as far as the un-incorporated areas. He felt that that this would be a challenge with this document for Staff to comply as far as fees. He stated that the City does have infill areas that would be ideal for these types of projects. He continued to say that he felt that Staff was doing a great job complying with this task, and looks forward to see it happen. Commssioner Nash had no further comments. Commissioner Polk commented on what Staff felt on R-2, R-3 Zoning for emergency shelters, even under Conditional Use Permit? He continued to ask, did churches fall under that category and is there some way to offer this incentive to existing churches to provide that type of housing or emergency shelters? He continued, wouldn't that protect the standards of the other developments by not having emergency shelters within those developments or purposely applied to them? . Planning Manager Villa indicated that the City approached this requirement of the State to include those uses in the high-density areas with a CUP. We felt that the definition of transitional housing or shelters was a similar use as a congregate facility, and those were included in churches in the Residential areas. He continued to say that there was specific language in the zoning code that would allow either by right or by Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He continued to say that Staff felt that through the CUP process we would have better control of where these are located. Commissioner Polk understood, however wanted further clarification on whether it is possible to direct those incentives to the churches, such as in basement facilities. Commissioner Polk stated that we were working last year on a major apartment project that was suppose to go up on Grape Street, which has not begun yet. He continued to say that there was some discussion about the developer would pay fees in lieu of putting up affordable apartment in there in order to protect the standards. He commented as to if that process still apply in lieu of our being in the face of this plan? Community Development Director Brady stated that the project on Grape Street, is a redevelopment area. We are trying to meet inclusionary housing developments under the redevelopment law. Community Development Director Brady continue to say that we looked at a way to include those as part of the project, designate affordable units or provide them with the opportunity in coming up with a way fee structure to provide those units elsewhere within the redevelopment area. Commissioner Polk stated that he recalled that. PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Community Development Director Brady continued to say that the same could be applied with other projects within the redevelopment plan itself, and so that would still be available. Commissioner Polk indicated that we did not necessarily want to place a stigma on these particular areas. He continued to say that yet, doesn't that fee structure allow that to happen. Lets say everybody in an R-2 or R-3 zone paid the fees in lieu, then that essentially gets us down to building a village of affordable housing. He stated that he wanted to protect the property values of these areas. Commissioner Polk requested clarification as to what is the Williamson Act? Planning Manager Villa stated that the Williamson Act does not apply to Lake Elsinore, as there is no more agricultural land, however it is essentially a State Law that places certain mandates on City's to preserve the agricultural land. Commissioner Polk stated that this is a marvelous plan, and appears to be very well thought out, and congratulated the consultants for doing a great job. Vice Chairman Barnes concurred with Polk statements, and did have a question for the Staff, which was on one hand we have the County of Riverside mandating the confiscation of developable privately ounai property or habitat or species habitat. He continued to say that not knowing what that is yet, how much it's going to be, and how it is going to vnpeut our citizens/tax payers privately held land, by adopting this, are we going to be in any conflict with what ever happens with that mandated confiscation. Community Development Director Brady stated that the amount of land that the City could be subjected to providing for habitat conservation and the goals that's been set for providing affordable housing as indicated in the RHNA numbers at the low and moderate level, that's a good question. He continued to say that he has his own opinions, comments and concerns as how the numbers are applied to the various jurisdictions through the state. He continue to say that these types of issues, that there is no way to address this issue. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City of Lake Elsinore already provides affordable housing for Orange County. He stated that numbers that have been brought to us are goals, and as such we are required to try to remove the constraints and try to allow this to happen by removing the possible constraints. Vice Chairman Barnes had no further questions and closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 PM MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-02 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 2000-03 TO UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MD; TES - FEBRUARY 6, 2002 MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN NO. AMENDMENT NO. 2000-03 BUSINESS ITEMS Minor Design review of Miscellaneous Project No. 2001-08 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for a Minor Design Review, and requested Associate Planner Miller to review the request with the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a first co-location at a facility operated by Nextel, which is also known as the "monopine site". She stated that the Planning Commission on April 5, 2000 originally approved the site. She indicated that the project includes enclosure of 14 x 15 feet that will house the equipment. She stated that there will be a 6-foot wood fence, with pilaster that would match the current fencing will secure the enclosure. She stated that there would be three panels attached to the existing monopine at the 63-foot level. She stated that the panels will hold 4 antennas for a total of 12 additional antennas. Associate Planner Miller stated that Staff requested additional branches to conceal the new panels, but was told by an expert Engineer that built the existing tower that the maximum number of branches were built on the tower and that no additional branches could be supported by it. She stated that the applicant submitted a photo simulation showing how the monopine would look with the additional panels and antennas. She stated that after review of the photo simulation, Staff concluded that the panels would be substantially hidden from view. She stated that Staff is recommending to adopt the resolution and approve Miscellaneous Project 2001-08, located at 16401 Lakeshore Drive based on the Findings, Conditions and Exhibits of approval. She stated that the applicant is here to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Barnes asked the Commissioners if they had any comments. Commissioner Matthies requested clarification that there would not be any additional branches,just antennas? Associate Planner Miller indicated that was correct. Commissioner Matthies requested clarification as if it would still look like the photo simulation without the additional branches. PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MR TF=S -- FEBRUARY 6,2002 Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is what the applicant is guaranteeing. Commissioner Matthies had no further questions. Vice Chairman concurred with Commissioner Matthies question. He requested clarification as if that figure was based on structural weight loads? Associate Planner Miller stated that it was based on an Engineers decision that built the original monopine. Vice Chairman had no further comments. Commissioner Nash stated as to whether or not we are going to see more of these "piggyback" type applications. Associated Planner Miller indicated that hopefully. She indicated that the last monopine that was built in the City was up at the watertower, and it is very well concealed with branches. Commissioner Nash requested as if there were enough room for additional antennas in the watertank. Associate Planner Miller stated that they are providing space for one more. Commissioner Nash asked if that would be sufficient? Associate Planner Miller stated that just one more is what the applicant stated. Commissioner Nash stated that if there were to be any others, that they must have an additional site. Associated Planner Miller indicated that was correct. Commissioner Nash had no further questions. Commissioner Polk requested clarification as to whether or not Nextel design it structurally, to accommodate the extra panels? Associate Planner Miller indicated that was correct,that they designed for two. Commissioner Polk asked if Sprint rents part of the pole from Nextel. Associate Planner Miller indicated that was probably true, however the applicant could answer that one. Applicant Shelly Kilbourn approached the table. She indicated that Sprint does in fact pay a certain type of rent to Nextel and also to the underlined landlord. PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -- FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Commissioner Polk requested clarification on page 3 of 15 of the Staff report. He indicated that the word "at" appears to be missing. He indicated that he liked the design of the monopine, and is impressed on how good it is. He stated other than that he had no further comments. Vice Chairman Barnes requested the reading of the resolution. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-04 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF MISCELLANEOUS. PROJECT NO. 2001-08 WHICH ENTAILS REVIEW OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CO-LOCATING AT AN EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATINS FACILITY LOCATED AT 16401 LAKESHORE DRIVE. INFORMATIONAL none STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady: • He indicated that he would not be present during the next Planning Commission Meeting,however Planning Manager Villa will be available to answer any questions that the Commission may have. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She wanted to commend Staff for all the hard work. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He wanted to express to Staff on how well of a job they have done in the Housing Element Plan. • He also wanted to wish Chairman Wilsey the very best, and that he is sorry to here of his illness. PAGE 13 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -- FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He too wanted to express his well wishes to Chairman Wilsey, and his family. • He also wanted to thank all Staff and City personnel for their concern to his family, and was greatly appreciated. Vice Chairman Barnes commented on the followinz: • He wished the best for Chairman Wilsey. • He commented on the Ultramar Gas Station still has not been completed, even though it's been approved for re-design and upgrades. He wanted to know what is the status of the project? Planning Manager Villa indicated that this has been an ongoing battle with the applicant,where they had the approval. He stated that the only issue that is remaining is the release for the liquor license, which they state they badly need. He indicated that they still are submitting plans for expansion, and that they purchased the parcel next to them, and they intend to create more open areas. Vice Chairman Barnes indicated that there has been lengthy discussion as to giving them the liquor license that they have requested. He indicated that they have never finished their landscaping or what the original plans showed. Community Development Director Brady indicated that we would continue to light a fire under them to make any improvements. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:05 PM. 4HNRNES,VICE Respectfully Submitted Dana C.Porche' Community Development Clerk PAGE 14 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6,2002 ATTEST: obert A. Brady,Secretaryto Planning Conunission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Vice- Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES,MATTHIES, POLK,AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY Also present were Planning Manager Villa,City Engineer O'Donnell,Associate Planner Miller,Community Development Technician Hennings, Community Development Clerk/ Typist Porche' and Deputy Attorney Miles PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Chairman Barnes stated that on the Minutes of February 06, 2002,page 9 of 14, 5th paragraph,the word "owned"should be between privately and property. He stated that in the same paragraph, next sentence, the sentence should include "aid howl it will impact our citizens and taxpayers" MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE ADDED MODIFICATIONS AND AS PRESENTED. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting-February 06, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS None BUSINESS ITEMS PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — FEBRUARY 20, 2002 2. Minor Design Review of a Single Family Residence located at 408 West Heald Avenue. Planning Manager Villa stated that this is a Minor Design Review. He asked Community Development Technician Hennings to review the project with the Commission. Community Development Technician Hennings requested approval for the Minor Design Review of a Single Family Residence that is a 1,616 square foot manufactured home and a 400 square foot garage. She indicated that the project is located at 408 West Heald Avenue, between Poe and Langstaff Street,in area 6 of the Historic District. She stated that Staff and the applicant discussed ways to bring this home in compliance with the Historic Elsinore Design Standards. She indicated that the applicant has agreed to provide wood shutters that will be visible to the public right of way, and to construct a covered porch at the entranceway. She stated that the applicant has also agreed to paint the entire home using colors that are standard in the Overlay District. She indicated that the applicant would be re-roofing the home and porch with a three-dimensional shingle. Community Development Technician Hennings furthermore stated that the project does meet all the necessary requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the Lake Elsinore Historic Design Standards. She is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2002- 05 to approve the Minor Design Review based on the Findings,Conditions, and Exhibits for the construction of this project. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that the applicant was present to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Barnes requested that discussion to be brought back to the table for any comments from the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Matthies stated that she was glad to see the use of additional treatments for the windows. She stated that as long as the applicant agreed on the conditions, then she was Pleased with the project. Commissioner Polk had a question regarding whether this home was a 1985 manufactured or mobile home. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that it is a manufactured home. Commissioner Polk inquired to the history of the home. Applicant Alex Adamek of 27961 Radford Drive, Sun City, stated that he purchased the home approximately two years ago from a mobile home park in Sun City. He stated that he purchased the lot and decided to move the manufacture home to this site. Commissioner Polk stated that he reviewed the plans of the project, and felt that it was very nice. Commissioner Polk asked the Staff about Condition No. 16 on page 5 of 13. He inquired more information regarding the Galvanized Steel posts. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the City has designed fence standards that uses a tubular support that is wrapped around wood, which makes the fence last longer. Commissioner Polk stated that he liked the project, and had no further questions. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 2002 Con nission Nash asked the applicant if this project would be hooked up to sewer? The applicant responded to saying "yes". Commissioner Nash asked how wide was the bedroom. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that the bedroom is 8 feet by 26 feet. Commissioner Nash stated that he felt that the City would be seeing more of these homes being used on the infill lots such as this. Commissioner Nash stated that he would like to see that the front of the home dressed with plants, so that the home fits in well with the neighborhood. Commissioner Nash had no further comments. Vice Chairman Barnes stated that one of his concerns was that the home was hooked up to sewer. Planning Manager Villa stated that if the home was less than 200 feet away from the sewer connection, that the district requires the applicant to be hooked up to sewer. Furthermore,Villa indicated that these types of homes would have to be set on a permanent foundation, just like a house would, and the home would also be required to have a garage, that would ultimately look like a house. There were no further comments by the Commission. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY A 4-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 408 WEST HEALD AVENUE, 3. Design Review for Residential Project No. 2001-13, Tract 29304 for Mitchell Development Inc. Planning Manager Villa requested Associate Planner Miller to review the project with the Planning Commission. Associate Miller indicated that this project is a Residential project consisting of 54 lots located on a vacant parcel off of Ortega Highway. She indicated that this project is also known as Tract No. 29304. She stated that the project consists of Precise Grading Plan for Phase One, a Phasing Plan, Model Home Complex, Floor Plans, Elevations, Fencing Plan, and Color Boards. She indicated that the 54 lots would be developed into three plans. She stated that plan one is a one-story with 1,794 square feet, plan two is a two-story with 2, 048 square feet and plan three is a two-story with 2,340 square feet. She indicated that the elevations are a mix of Spanish Mediterranean and Traditional Mediterranean that will fit well with the existing homes. She stated that two issues came up while reviewing the project. One, she stated is the block wall that will be built along Ortega Highway. She stated that Staff has been working with the applicant on the height of that wall. Furthermore, she indicated that Cal-Trans has jurisdiction, and they would be the ones who require the height. She stated that the wall was originally going to be 12 feet high, but has been negotiated down to 10 feet. She stated that the other issue was the potential graffiti on the wall along Grandview Avenue. She stated that it was suggested to the applicant that they provide a landscape buffer between the wall and the sidewalk. She stated that the homeowner would be responsible for maintaining this area. Associate Planner Miller PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — FEBRUARY 20, 2002 indicated that the walls would be required to be coated with a anti-graffiti material. Staff noticed that this Condition would need to be put into the Conditions of Approval. She stated that Staff would like to add that sentence to Condition 17, and would read allwads are to be required to be coated with Anti-Graffiti paint She stated that Staff also found that the small reductions that were attached to the Staff report were mislabeled. She stated that with these changes Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2002-06 and approve Residential Project No. 2001-13, based on the Findings, Exhibits and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant is present to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Barnes stated that there were two requests to speak regarding this project. Carole Franks, 15611 Lake Terrace Drive, Lake Elsinore addressed the Commissioners and Developer regarding the traffic issues. She indicated that Lake Terrace was one of the first streets that would be greatly effected by the traffic. She indicated that even now, she has noticed traffic has considerably increased with the ongoing of construction. She stated that with 54 new homes going in around that location that there would be hundreds of cars traveling daily in that location. She requested that a signal be put in at the intersection of Macy and Grand Avenue. She stated that in addition to a signal at Macy and Grand, she would like to request large yield signs that would say "yield, children playing" or "slow, children playing". She also suggested speed bumps in that area. Vice Chairman Barnes introduced the next speaker. Harold Holland, 15610 Lake Terrance Drive, Lake Elsinore addressed the Commissioners and Developer also wanted to comment on the traffic issue. He stated that he has already appealed to the State, and stated that the State has sent Cal-Trans to conduct a traffic study, which concluded that a signal was not warranted in that area. He stated that less than one block down the State put in a left turn lane signal. He wanted to know they could not get one in his area. He stated that there are many accidents there and is worried for his safety, as well as for others. Vice Chairman Barnes agreed with the two speakers, and stated that as more development comes to play in that area that the State will eventually have to do something about the traffic issues. He stated at this point, State does not feel that anything is warranted in that area,however City and Staff continue to work with the State on that issue. Vice Chairman Barnes requested that the applicant approach.the table. Applicant Brian Tucker, Mitchell Development Inc., 31190 Pleasant Valley Road, Menifee, CA. He stated that he felt that Staff has done a good job with this project. He stated that the developers wanted something that would fit in with the area, or a little more upscale than what is existing. Vice Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commissioners. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 2002 Commissioner Nash stated that he noticed that Staff had set aside lots 24 and 25 for flood control. He asked if that is something that would be monitored? City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that there would be a temporary storm drain easement over those lots. As soon as the development to the south has been completed, then it would not be necessary for the detention basin, and those lots could be developed. Commissioner Nash stated that he liked the lay out of the homes, and that the developer did a good job with the design. He concurred with the traffic issue. He stated that the City tries to do what ever is possible to resolve the issue. He had no further comments. Commissioner Polk also concurs with the traffic issue. He stated that he is very concerned with the children playing in that area. He indicated that he too has been dealing with traffic issues in his area, and indicated that over the Super-Bowl weekend, someone was fatally injured due to high speeds of on coming vehicles. He stated that he would support speed bumps or signs in order to reduce the speed of on coming vehicles. Commissioner Polk requested status of the left turn lane at Macy. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that Cal-Trans has been approached and they responded that at this time that a traffic signal was not warranted at Macy and Grand, and that a left turn pocket as not warranted as well. City Engineer O'Donnell suggested that Staff writes another letter to Cal-Trans,however he felt that it might be pre-mature at that is time. Commissioner Polk expressed that he felt that it would be a good idea. Commissioner Polk had no further questions. Commissioner Nash suggested that having a petition circulated addressing this issue might be a good idea. Commissioner Matthies concurred with the other Commissioners on the traffic issue. She asked the City Engineer O'Donnell if speed bumps or yielding signals would be allowed in the City? City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that Staff would not endorse speed bumps. He suggested having Police Department monitor the area closely. He stated that in order to have signs placed in the area, the signs would need to be in compliance with the Uniform Sign Code. Commissioner Matthies indicated that by having traffic signs that indicating to reduce speed placed in the area, that it might help the situation. She stated that as traffic does increase in the area, that maybe a left turn pocket could be placed in that area. Commissioner Matthies requested clarification regarding the block wall along the Highway. She asked if there would be any landscaping between the wall and the sidewalk. Associate Planner Miller indicated that there would not be any landscaping in that area. She stated that this is Cal-Trans jurisdiction, and they have decided not to landscape. Commissioner Matthies stated that this would be like having a large Billboard to attract PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MR-4 TES — FEBRUARY 20, 2002 potential graffiti. She asked if that wall would have anti-graffiti paint? Associate Planner Miller indicated that anti-graffiti would be painted on all walls and it would be part of the City's anti-graffiti program to continue to repaint if necessary. Commissioner Matthies requested clarification on the Condition No. 23, which discusses window treatments. She asked if all lots along the public right-of-way would have additional window treatments? Associate Planner Miller indicated yes. Commissioner Matthies asked if this would include the back lots as well and the lots that you could see coming down the Ortega Highway? Associate Planner Miller indicated that the homes against the hill would be so below the slope that you would not be able to see those houses. Applicant Tucker stated that he agreed with Commissioner Matthies and that the lots that she was discussing would be visible if coming down from the Ortega Highway. He indicated that when those houses are being built, the developer will re-assess the window dressing on those lots, and will add additional window treatments, if necessary. Commissioner Nash agreed with Commissioner Matthies, and wanted to clarify that what we don't want is a "row-house" look. Applicant Tucker concurred. Vice Chairman Barnes indicated that at this stage, the Commission is approving the project and some of the architectural features. He indicated that as homeowners move into these new homes, and more development occurs that Cal-Trans will soon realize that there is a traffic issue in that area. He stated that it would be the City's responsibility for the maintaining the wall on Ortega, and on Grandview. Associated Planner Miller agreed. Vice Chairman Barnes asked if only the rear facing lots on Grandview would have gates to allow homeowners to gain access for maintenance. Associate Miller agreed. Vice Chairman Barnes asked if that would include just landscaping maintenance or graffiti as well. Planning Manager Villa stated that the strip of land that is in discussion was so small that it would not be feasible to have a maintenance District for that area. He stated that we have developed a solution that would include a wrought iron or tubular fencing that would blend in with the wall. He stated that this would allow the property owner to gain access to the small-landscaped area for maintenance. He stated that those lots would still be under the graffiti program. Vice Chairman Barnes wanted to be sure that Code Enforcement would continue to monitor that area. Vice Chairman Barnes suggested that we look at the situation again in one year's time and see if landscaping that area were financially feasible versus having to constantly repaint. Commissioner Polk suggested having oleander bushes along that wall, or something that would grow high enough to distract potential graffiti. Planning Manager Villa stated that we could make another attempt to get in touch with Cal Trans representative to see if they would be willing to re-assess that area. PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 2002 Vice Chairman Barnes pointed out that the housing tract just below this development has a wall similar this one on Grandview and is landscaped, and there is curb and gutter there. He suggested that Staff find out who maintains that area. Applicant Tucker stated that landscaping on lots 1 through 4 are the Model Home Complex and will be fully landscaped and maintained by the developer. Vice Chairman Barnes indicated that there were no further comments from the Commission and requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY A 4-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. R 2001-13, WHICH ENTAILS DESIGN USES AND DEVELOPMENT OF 54 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT ORTEGA HIGHWAY AND LAGUNA AVENUE-TRACT MAP NO. 29304 INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS NONE PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He concurred with Commissioner Matthies on the importance of keeping our City as clean as possible, especially at the location near the entrance to the Ortega Highway and Grand. • He reminded the Commission and Staff about the EDC meeting/luncheon tomorrow at the Diamond as well as the EVMWD meeting. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She inquired about the Reflections tract as to whether or not they are going to finish their curbs and gutters and possibly selling homes at another location. Associated Planner Miller indicated that she would need to research this information and get back to her as she felt that this project had been completed. • She wanted to wish Al Wilsey and his family the best, and to keep him in our hearts and prayers. i PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 2002 Vice Chairman Barnes conunented on the following: • He indicated that he would not be present during the first Planning Commission meeting in April, and therefore will need to have someone appointed to take charge of the meeting in his absence. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He wanted to address his concerns on the traffic issues, especially on Lincoln Avenue, where recently someone was killed due to the speeding of cars. He stated that he has noticed a decrease in motocross bikers in that area and is pleased. He wanted to thank the Police Department for monitoring this area. • He suggested that when the City has a new project, that Staff closing look at more ingenious ways to controlling the traffic issues especially motocross bikes. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:50 PM. J BARNES,VICE CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted Dana C.Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: v°J obert A. Brady, Secretary o the Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 06, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Vice- Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. Vice Chairman Barnes requested a moment of silence for Chairman Wilsey. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES,MATTHIES, POLK,AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY Also present were, Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Senior Planner Morita, Community Development Technician Hennings, and Deputy Attorney Miles PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Polk indicated that on the Minutes, page 4 of 8, paragraph 6, the word signal should be changed to pocket He stated on the next sentence over, need to add the word "if" where it states he wanted to know if they could not get one in his area. He also indicated that on page 6 of 8, second to the last paragraph, the word distract should be changed to dis"rag MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE ADDED MODIFICATIONS AND AS PRESENTED. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting- February 20, 2002 PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 06, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 2. Commercial Project No. 2001-03, Design Review of Proposed Commercial/Restaurant Building, Including Starbucks Coffee Shop and Four Other Suites Within Elsinore City Center {Walmart) Shopping Center and Specific Plan Area. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a request for a Design Review for a 6,500 square foot Commercial Building within in Walmart "Elsinore City Center" Shopping Center and requested Senior Planner Morita to review the project with the Commission. Senior Planner Morita stated that this proposed project is a 6,500 square foot Commercial/Restaurant building within the City Center, Walmart Shopping Center. He stated that this is the last undeveloped area within the Shopping Center area, and is located along Grape Street, across from Denny's Restaurant. Senior Planner Morita indicated that the proposed building would be comprised of five suites ranging in sizes from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. He stated that Starbucks Coffee Shop would occupy the largest suite. He stated that the coffee shop would have outdoor seating, tables, and a drive-through window. He also stated that the applicant would provide 36 lighted parking spaces, including two handicapped spaces, trash enclosures, and adequate landscaping. Senior Planner Morita indicated that the proposed project design would be consistent with other buildings at the shopping center to include colors, architectural materials and styles. He stated that the project should not create any major traffic hazards. He stated that Staff supports this project and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution, which recommends that the City Council approve Commercial Project No. 2001-03, Design Review of a Commercial/Restaurant Building within the City Center Shopping Center and Specific Plan Area based upon the Findings, and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairman Barnes requested that the applicant approach the table. Applicant Glen Daigle, 28991 Front Street, Temecula, CA stated that he is the Architect for the project, and is representing Oak Grove Communities. He stated that he agreed with the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Nash asked how were the negotiations with Walmart regarding parking? Applicant Daigle indicated that this was not an issue, and was part of the CCR's. Commissioner Nash asked if there would be restrooms in the Starbucks Restaurant? Applicant Daigle stated "yes". Commissioner Nash stated that the project looked great, and had no further questions. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 06, 2002 Commissioner Matthies requested if the rear of the building faced the freeway? Applicant Daigle stated "yes". Commissioner Matthies asked if there could be any architectural enhancements added? Senior Planner Morita stated that the design was originally submitted to the City was different than it is now. Commissioner Matthies stated that she was interested in the view from Grape Street. Applicant Daigle stated that some of the features have been added, such as a tower and arches. Senior Planner Morita stated that Denny's Restaurant was used as a template. Community Development Director Brady stated that the variations in the height would give some depth to this wall as well. Commissioner Matthies asked about the landscaping? Applicant Daigle stated that there would be landscaping 15 feet between Grape Street and the boundary. Vice Chairman Barnes indicated that you would not be able to see the building from the street due to the retaining wall, however you will be able to see the building from the freeway. Commissioner Matthies stated that she likes the looks of the project, especially the drive- through. Commissioner Polk asked if only Starbucks will use the drive-through lane or will others restaurants are allowed to use this as well? Applicant Daigle stated yes, Starbucks would be the only restaurant to use the drive-through. Commissioner Polk asked about Condition No. 7 on page 9 of 15, were it discusses the operators of the City Center Shopping Center. Senior Planner Morita indicated that this is an error and it should say Walmart Shopping Center. Commissioner Polk also asked about Condition No. 24,where it discusses kid's rides. Senior Planner Morita stated that this could be deleted. PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 06, 2002 Commission Polk stated that this is an outstanding project that is well needed in the City. Vice Chairman Barnes suggested that Starbucks have a signature logo on the freeway side, in addition to the parking lot side. Commissioner Matthies concurred with that suggestion. Vice Chairman Barnes stated that it is a great project, and had no further comment, and closed the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. Vice Chairman Barnes requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY A 4-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-07, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVE COMMERCIAL PROJECT NO. 2001-03, DESIGN REVIEW OF A COMMERCIAL/RESTAURANT BUILDING WITHIN THE ELSINORE CITY CENTER SHOPPING CENTER AND SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Communit,Development Director Brady • He wanted to express his condolences to the Wilsey family, on behalf of the City Staff, and the Community Development Department. He stated that Al was a great asset to the community and to the Planning Commission. • He also wanted to advise the Commission that the City Council held a Study Session on Tuesday,March 05, 2002 on the goals of the City. • He wanted to advise the Commission that the Redevelopment Agency is going to hold a meeting at the City Hall on Thursday,March 7, 2002, in conference rooms A&B at2:00 PM and is open to the public. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —MARCH 06,2002 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He concurred with Community Development Director Brady on condolences with the Wilsey Family,for the loss of Al. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She stated that the Headstart Program building that was dedicated this passed week is now open, and is located near the Elsinore Elementary School. • She stated that she had the pleasure to tour the Middle School located on Graham Street, which is schedule to open this coming fall. • She also wanted to express her condolences with the Wilsey Family, and how much he will be missed at the Planning Commission meetings. She also indicated that he was a wonderful teacher for her, and that she learned so much from him. He will be greatly missed. Vice Chairman Barnes commented on the followin%: • He stated that he too will miss Al very much, and how much he had learned from Al. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He concurred with the other Commissioners on how much Al will be missed. and expressed his condolences with the Wilsey Family. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:22 PM. '01N BARNES,VICE CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 06, 2002 Dana C.Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: obert A. rady,Secretary t e Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2002 The Regular Planning Comrission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Vice- Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES,MATTHIES, POLK,AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were Community Development Director Brady,City Engineer O'Donnell, Associate Planner Miller,Community Development Technician Hennings, Community Development Clerk Porche' and Deputy City Attorney Miles. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Community Development Director Brady declared the Planning Commission Chairman position open and asked for nominations. Commissioner Polk nominated Commissioner Barnes. Commissioner Matthies seconded this nomination. There being no other nominations,Community Development Director Brady closed the nominations for Chairman. Community Development Director Brady declared the Planning Commission Vice- Chairman position open and asked for nominations. Commissioner Nash nominated Commissioner Matthies. Commissioner Polk seconded this nomination. There being no other nominations, Community Development Director Brady closed the nominations for Vice Chairman. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER BARNES AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER MATTHIES AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN. PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR None MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting-March 06, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-07 for a Temporary Interim Use a Fruit and Vegetable Stand,located at 805 Collier Avenue {a portion of APN 377-120-0011 Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a request for a CUP and requested Associate Planner Miller to review the project with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that the Planning Commission had previously approved a similar temporary interim Conditional Use Permit for this property on August 16, 1995. She stated that the applicants had temporarily occupied this site for about three years, selling only strawberries. She stated that the current applicant has been there for about three years, selling strawberries and has expanded their business to include growing and selling a variety of vegetables. She indicated that the applicant intends to construct a 364 square foot vegetable and fruit stand divided into a selling area and storage area. She stated that the applicant intends on painting the stand a barn red,with white trim. She stated that the roof his covered with a dark brown asphalt shingle. Associate Planner Miller stated that the Engineering division requested the parking configuration and the applicant has complied with that. She stated that the interim use is proposed until permanent use is developed at the site. A time limit has been placed on the Conditional Use Permit per Condition No.3. She stated that there is an error in the Staff Report. She indicated that the report states that the time limit is contained in Condition No. 1, however it should read Condition No. 3. She stated that the temporary interim use may be a benefit to the community and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission approve and adopt a resolution for Conditional Use permit No 2001-07 for the interim Fruit and Vegetable Stand located at 805 Collier. She stated that the applicant is present for any comments or questions. Chairman Barnes requested any continents from the public. There being no comments, Chairman Barnes brought the discussion back to the table. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — MARCH 20, 2002 Vice Chairman Matthies stated that she likes to see the land being put to use, and felt it was a good project. Commissioner Nash concurs with Commissioner Matthies. He stated that he would like to see a Condition added that would provide a public restroom facility for the workers and the public. Vice Chairman Matthies asked if it could be a portable unit? Commissioner Nash indicated yes, something that would be serviced on a regular basis. Commissioner Polk asked the applicant if all the vegetable that are to sold there, are grown there on the property,or would some of them be brought in from other areas? Applicant Juan Buenrostro of 22958 Mapes Road, Perris approached the table. He indicated that fruits and vegetables that are to be sold would be grown on the premises as well as from their other farm in Perris. He also stated that there is a public restroom currently on the premises, however it is not serviced, as recommended by Commissioner Nash. Commissioner Nash indicated that it would be in the best interest for the public to have a restroom provided that is maintained on a regular basis, for sanitation reasons. Commissioner Polk asked if paving the parking lot is necessary. Associate Planner Miller indicated that paving the parking lot is not a requirement. Commissioner Polk suggested extending the time to vacate from 30 days to 60 or 90 days, since the applicant will be making improvements. Chairman Barnes concurred with Commissioner Nash recommendation of the portable public restrooms. He asked if there would be some type of regulations? Community Development Director Brady stated that he wasn't aware of any at this time. He suggested that a Condition of approval be added to include the portable public restroom that would be accessible for handicap as well. Associate Planner Miller indicated that a Condition of Approve would be added. Community Development Director suggested modifying Condition No. 3 as Commissioner Polk suggested changing the 30 days to be extended 90 days. Commissioner Nash concurred with that recommendation. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the City Engineer has brought up an issue that has not yet been resolved, regarding Caltrans access approval. PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — MARCH 20, 2002 Vice Chairman Matthies asked Associate Planner Miller if there was one conducted previously at this site. Associate Planner Miller indicated that she did not believe so. Commissioner Nash indicated that he believed that this procedure was not warranted, since this is a temporary site and not permanent. Commissioner Polk concurred. Commissioner Matthies stated that she did not feel that there is enough traffic at this site in order to get Caltrans involved. Community Development Director Brady stated that he understands the Commissions concerns, and that this is being brought to the Commission as a CUP, and that if this is something that the Commission would like to add to the Conditions,then it could be done. Commissioner Nash stated that he would prefer not to add the condition. Commissioner Polk concurred. Deputy Attorney Miles stated that with a five-year term and the additional Condition he recommended getting the applicants approval for the record. Applicant Buenrostro stated that he understood and agreed to all the Conditions and the adjustments made to Condition No. 3. Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 7:18 PM. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY A 4-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-08, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-07 FOR A TEMPORARY INTERIM USE,A FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND LOCATED AT 805 COLLIER AVENUE -A PORTION OF APN 377-120-001 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-09 - Drive-through water kiosk for The Water Store located at 1112 West Graham Avenue (APN 374-2221-005) Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a CUP and requested Community Development Technician Hennings to review it with the Commission. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that this is a CUP for a water kiosk for the Water Store located at 1112 West Graham Avenue. She stated that this is a PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 2002 freestanding structure of 96 square feet that will house two window type water-vending units as well as the associated equipment. She stated that this structure would be accessible from both sides of the building,with the vehicles entering from Graham Avenue and exiting on to Lakeshore Drive. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the circulation plan and determined that there would be adequate stacking for this type of facility. She stated that the applicant would be painting the existing and proposed structure using colors that are allowed in the Historic Elsinore Overlay District, and that the applicant will be providing additional landscaping through out the site. She stated that this is a request for a accessory structure to an existing building and an established business. She indicated that the proposed project is in compliance with all aspects of the development standards of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Community Development Hennings indicated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of CUP No. 2001-09. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the applicant is here for any questions that the Commission may have. Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 PM, and requested if there was anyone who wished to comment regarding this project. Maxine Pancost at 1118 Lakeshore Drive stated that she is worried about the traffic in the area of the project. She stated that she is not against the project, just concerned with the traffic, especially with the school near-by. Chairman Barnes brought the discussion back to the table for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Polk stated that he is concerned with the lighting in the area. He stated that he only knows of one light in the window of the project. He also stated that there seemed to be a group of young locals that like to hang out in the area of the project and indicted that this may discourage potential customers. Maxine Pancost concurred with Commissioner Polk's comments. Vice Chairman Matthies suggested security lights or motion detection lights in the area. Commissioner Polk stated that he felt that it is a good business, and agreed that there could be a traffic issue. He stated that if the area had better lighting, it might help the situation. He also recommended to Staff that this could be an engineering or safety issue that could be looked into. Commissioner Nash stated that with additional lighting, it might help the situation. He stated that he did not know how we could modify what was already there. He stated that he felt it was a good idea. Applicant Mary Venerable at 29400 Yd Street, Lake Elsinore stated that she is the owner of the property. She stated that there is a light over the current vending machine and there will PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 2002 be additional lights added to where the additional machines will be installed. She stated that she has advised the group of young locals who hang out in the area that construction will begin soon, and therefore can no longer hang out in this area. Commissioner Nash recommended that a sign be posted in the area regarding loitering in the area. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with Commissioner Nash's recommendations. She indicated that this could help with the traffic situation as well. She stated that other than that, she felt that this is a good project. Chairman Barnes stated that any problems with loitering really has no bearing on what the Commission is approving. He stated that this project might actually deter loitering in this area. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Engineering Division is working with the situation. He stated that the speed limit in the area is 25 MPH. He indicated that the crosswalk is to the East of this project. He also indicated that the Sheriffs Department has been enforcing the speed limit in the area. Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 7:33 MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY A 4-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-09 FOR A DRIVE- THROUGH WATER KIOSK FOR THE WATER STORE LOCATED AT 1112 WEST GRAHAM AVENUE. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Adoption of G.I.S. format of Zoning Map as the official Zoning Map for the City of Lake Elsinore. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this a Zoning Map developed by the City Staff and that Community Development Technician Hennings will review it with the Commission. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that Staff is very pleased to have this Zoning Map. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a business item to formally recognize the map. He stated that the City intends on using this map for zoning information. He stated that the map will be sold over the counter at the City Hall. PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 2002 Chairman Barnes requested any comments from the Commissioners. Vice Chairman Matthies stated that the map looked great. Commissioner Nash concurred with Vice Chairman Matthies. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Engineering Division is currently working on a more detailed booklet level format that may eventually be on the City's website. Chairman Barnes asked for the reading of the resolution. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY A 4-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A G.I.S. FORMAT OF THE ZONING MAP AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. INFORMATIONAL NONE STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady • He wanted to congratulate Chairman Barnes and Vice Chairman Matthies. • He indicated that he would not be present at the next Planning Commission of April 6`'' PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Nash commented on the following, • He stated that there would be the Golf tournament at Menifee Lakes Golf resort on May 10th. • He expressed his congratulations to Chairman Barnes, and Vice Chairman Matthies. PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 2002 Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She stated the Chamber is hosting the Golf tournament on May 10`h, and lunch will follow. • She inquired the status of the water tower project on Graham Avenue. Associate Planner Miller indicated that she has spoken with the City's Staff personnel who handles the permits, and it appears that there could be some issues with the structure. Community Development Director Brady indicated that Foamworks will be constructing the tower. • She also stated that Hugh Walker a local Historian died, and that memorial services will be held this coming Saturday, March 23'. She asked whom she needed to contact in order to find a building for the memorial. Community Development Director Brady suggested contacting the Community Services Department at the City Hall. • She also wanted to thank the City for their donation of two $25.00 checks to recycle base science fair projects held by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District Science Fair. Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He wished to thank everyone, however wished that it were under different circumstances. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He wanted to thank the City's Community Service Department for putting up the handrail in the Community Cultural Center. • He also wanted to congratulate Chairman Barnes and Vice Chairman Matthies. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:49 PM. //'OHN BARNES,CHAIRMAN PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -MARCH 20, 2002 Respectfully Submitted Dana C.Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: Robert A. Brady,Secretary the Planning Commission a MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY,APRIL 17, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES,MATTHIES, POLK,AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were Community Development Director Brady,Community Development Technician Hennings, and Deputy City Attorney Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Polk indicated that on the March 20, 2002 Minutes, page 2 of 9 item #2, second paragraph,ninth line the word vith needs to be deleted. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE ADDED MODIFICATIONS AND AS PRESENTED. 1. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting—March 20, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-01 Request, for outdoor seating and the sale of alcoholic beverages at The Outhouse, Inc. located at 32310 Riverside Drive (APN 379-100-016) PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MRWTES - April 17,2002 Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a request for a CUP and requested Community Development Technician Hennings to review the project with the Commission. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that this is a request for a CUP for the sale of alcoholic beverages & outdoor seating at the Outhouse Campground. She stated that it would be in conjunction with the existing campground, store and barbecue area. She stated that the applicant would sell steaks that can be cooked on the outside barbecue. She indicated that they will also sell prepared side dishes and prepackaged sandwiches. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that there would be seating in the saloon up to 42 people and seating on the outside deck up to 30 people. She indicated that the applicant has applied for a Class 40 liquor license. She stated that this allows that sale of beer for on site consumption or packaged for offsite consumption. She stated that the applicant has indicated that this will be a family orientated environment. She stated that it is anticipated that the majority of the patrons would be camper's staying at the campground. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that Staff has recommended that the hours of operation be limited to 8AM to midnight. She stated that this is pertaining to Condition No. 11. She stated that the request complies with all development requirements of the LEMC. She is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2002-11 to approve the CUP 2002-01 based on the Findings, Conditions, and Exhibits for the construction of this project. Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:10 PM and requested any comments from the public. There being no comments, Chairman Barnes requested that the applicant approach the table for questions. Applicant John Outhuijse introduced himself, his wife, daughter and son. He indicated that they have purchased The Outhouse in July. He stated that The Outhouse used to be called Kays Campground. He stated that his daughter Melissa manages the campground along with all of their other properties in the area. He indicated that he would like to see the lake area cleaned up, but does not want to see it changed. He stated that he does not want the look of Temecula or Orange County. He stated that the Planning Commission has done a good job of keeping Lake Elsinore rural looking. He stated that his family has been working very hard to clean up the area and that he has noticed other families are also starting to clean up their area as well. He mentioned that some of the families in the area are low-income residents. He stated that he has let these families use their water for their lawns and the area is starting to shape up. He stated that they are trying to have the area family oriented. Applicant John Outhuijse indicated that he wishes to sell beer at The Outhouse. Applicant John Outhuijse feels that for safety purposes he would much rather have the campers and residents purchase the beverages at The Outhouse verses having to leave the area. He also stated that in addition to beer, they will be selling packaged steak and soda in cans only, no glass. He stated that he agreed that the hours of operation could be from 8:00 AM until 12:00 AM,however he would prefer that the hours be extended to 2:00 AM, on Fridays and Saturday's only. He stated that he is willing to work with the Planning Commission on what ever is recommended. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - April 17, 2002 Chairman Barnes requested any comments from the public. Their being no comments from the public, discussion was brought back to the table. Commissioner Nash indicated that the applicant has done a nice job and a definite improvement. He stated that he agrees to the hours of operation, and to the selling of beer on the premises. He stated that ABC might have some concerns, however should there become issues, that the Commission has the right to review it and possible revision to the CUP. He stated that the Commission hopes that the business is successful. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with Commissioner Nash's comments. She stated that she too has noticed the improvements in the area. She stated that for safety purposes she Ekes the idea of the selling of beer on the premises. She asked the applicant if wine would also be sold. The Applicant indicated that only beer would be sold at this time. He stated that he has applied for a Class 40 license,which enables him to only sell beer,not wine. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with the changes of the hours. However indicated that ABC might have some issues. Commissioner Polk concurred with the other Commissioners on the possibility of the ABC issues. He indicated that he likes the idea of steaks being sold. He indicated that he liked the idea of keeping the area a family oriented atmosphere. He stated that he was concerned with the hours of operation being extended,however would not object to the project. Chairman Barnes asked Community Development Director Brady how long is the time period for the CUP. Community Development Director Brady indicated that at the present time, there is not a time limit unless it becomes non-operational for a six-month period, then it becomes revoked. Chairman Barnes asked Community Development Technician Hennings about a ramp for the Handicap access into the building. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that the ramp for the Handicap is located towards to rear of the building. Chairman Barnes stated that he has no objections to the extended hours of operation on Friday and Saturday nights. He agreed that ABC might have some objections to the hours, but otherwise liked the project. Community Development Director Brady wanted to verify that the applicant agreed to the Conditions of Approval and to the modification to Condition No. 11 which extends the hours of operation until 2:00 AM on Friday and Saturday only. Chairman Barnes indicated that was correct. PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — April 17,2002 Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 PM. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY A 4-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11,A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-01 ALLOWING OUTDOOR SEATING AND THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE OUTHOUSE, INC. LOCATED AT 32310 RIVERSIDE DRIVE (APN 379-100-016) BUSINESS ITEMS NONE INFORMATIONAL NONE STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady • He wanted to advise the Commission that City Council has started the process of the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. He indicated that City Council had a Study Session on April 16''', and that City Manager Watenpaugh did present the budget to the City Council. He stated that the Council members would have the opportunity to go through the budget and will have several other study sessions sometime in May. He stated that the revenues for the City are higher than anticipated. He stated that there are some other issues that need to be dealt with and addressed. He stated that he would announce to the Commission when the next study sessions will be held. • He indicated that the dedication to the Skate Park went well and the kids seem to enjoy the park and have spoken highly of it. • He also wanted to congratulate Community Development Technician Hennings on her completion of certificate program in Planning and Environmental through the University of California. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Vice Chairman Matthies commented on the following: • She wanted status on the Water Tower that is to be located on Graham. She indicated that there are constant delays and wanted some clarification. Community Development Director Brady stated that these types of projects are unique and should be going PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - April 17, 2002 through the plan check process. He stated that he would find out the status of the Water Tower's process and let everyone know. Vice Chairman Matthies indicated that she saw a Water Tower in San Diego County, and really liked the look of it. She stated that these types of cell towers are being used more frequently. • She also wanted to comment on the Reflections project located off of Grand Avenue. She indicated that the builder is building homes in Wildomar yet is not putting up any models, and is having potential home buyers look at the models off of Grand Avenue. She stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting she had mentioned this to the Planner of the project Linda Miller and was waiting to hear a response to the matter. Community Development Director Brady stated that he would have Linda Miller look into this and would get back to her. • She also wanted to comment on the bus service that will be used at the Elsinore Middle School on Graham,which is currently undergoing the final stages of rehabilitation. She indicated that she went to a meeting at the Lake Elsinore Unified School District office where it was decided that the buses would be utilizing the arch driveway. She wanted to express her concerns with a possible traffic issue. Community Development Director Brady stated that there are signs posted of the 25mph zone in the area, which should help eliminate the potential traffic issues through that area. Chairman Barnes stated that the residents in the area will have to realize that during the before and afterschool time their can be a potential traffic issue. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He concurred with Vice Chairman Matthies on the status of the Water Tower. • He wanted to thank Staff for adding the speed bumps to Lincoln Avenue, just before Rice Canyon Elementary School. • He commented on the Skate Park and how well it is doing and how much it is appreciated. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He wanted to congratulate Community Development Technician Hennings on her certificate. • He wanted to let everyone know of the EDC luncheon to be held on April 18 at the Diamond Club at 11:30 Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He asked what type of electrical work is being conducted on Diamond Drive. Community Development Director Brady stated that he does not feel that this is something that the City is currently working on, as it may be SCE project. He stated that he would find out the status and let the Commission know. • He wanted to express his concern on what is noticed over the weekend at the Granite Homes site project. He indicated that he noticed that there were a bunch of motor bikes PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — April 17, 2002 using the landfill area. He indicated that this is a protected area. Community Development Director Brady stated that the bigger issue would be the MSHCP of the land. He stated that we could let the Police Department know of this. • He commented on the statement that the applicant John Outhuijse had given with regards to the City becoming another Orange County. He wanted to express that the many of our citizens work in Orange County, because that is where the majority of the jobs are. He stated that what would be our ultimate goal would be to have the services that Orange County can provide, so that the citizens of Lake Elsinore could work in their own city. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:38 PM. /14N BARNES, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted l Dana C. Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: obert A. Brady,Secretaryto e Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY,MAY 01, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES,.AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were Community Development Director Brady, Senior Planner Morita Community Development Clerk Typist Porche`, and Deputy City Attorney Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting-April 17, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 2. Conditional Use Permit 2001-06 and Minor Design Review M 2001-07 Construction of Wireless Antenna at Caltrans Park and Ride Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a request for a CLIP and Minor Design Review and requested Senior Planner to review the project with the Commission. PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 2002 Senior Planner Morita stated that this project is a Minor Design Review and CUP to allow construction of a wireless antenna facility to be located at the existing Caltrans Park and Ride, which is located at the corner of Central Avenue and the I-15 Freeway ramp, near Dexter Avenue. He indicated that the applicant is Verizon Wireless and they will be leasing a 370 square foot area. He stated that the antenna would be 65 feet in height. Senior Planner Morita indicated that there are two applications before the Commission. He stated that one is a Minor Design Review to consider the overall design of the project, and the other is a CUP, which is required since the proposed 65-foot antenna exceeds the 45-foot height maximum permitted in the C-2 zone. He stated that Staff supports the overall review of the project. He indicated that the wireless antenna would be stealthed as a cypress tree, which is also called a mono-cypress. He stated that in addition to the mono-cypress, two live cypress trees would be located next to the concrete pad area. Senior Planner Morita requested the Commission to refer to Attachment 3. He stated that Attachment 3 is a Xerox copy of the brochure that was provided by Verizon, which shows how the mono-cypress looks. He indicated that Attachment 4 is a computer simulation of how the mono-cypress would look with the two live cypress trees next to it. Senior Planner Morita stated that Staff believes that the proposed stealthing of the 65-foot wireless antenna as a mono-cypress and planting of two live cypress tress are reasonable solutions to screening the wireless antenna from public view along the freeway. He stated that wrought Iron fencing would be provided within the mono-cypress and five equipment cabinets for safety and security purposes. He indicated that the project would not disrupt the day to day activity of the Park and Ride. He stated that the mono-cypress would be located in a presently vacant area, outside the paved surfaces of the Park and Ride. Senior Planner Morita requested the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions to approve the CUP 2001-06 and the Minor Design Review 2001-07 based on the Finding, Conditions, and Exhibits for the construction of this project. Chairman Barnes requested any comments from the public. Their being no comments from the public,Chairman Barnes requested the applicant to approach the podium Applicant Jeremy Siegel of Verizon Wireless at 4300 Latham Street, Suite 103, Riverside CA indicated that the mono-cypress is a new design concept. He indicated that all the antennas are stealth, and are a much better design as opposed to the mono-palms. He stated that one was recently constructed in the City of Oceanside, and was well received. Mr. Siegel had no further comments. Conunissioner Nash asked the applicant about Condition No. 10, if they would agree to have other carries install more cabinets? Mr. Siegel indicated that it would not be an issue, as there are two cavities in the center of the mono-cypress, allowing other carries to attach additional cabinets, if necessary. He indicated that the cabinets would be flush mounted inside the tree, and not as visible as the cabinets on a mono-palms. Community Development Director Brady stated that we would encourage the other carriers to try locate within the existing facility rather than having another antenna placed near the mono-cypress tree. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 2002 Commissioner Nash stated that on Attachment No. 3, one of the trees looked great, however the other tree did not. He stated that the one that is to be used should have a natural look to it, as opposed to the others on the brochure. Senior Planner Morita stated that on Condition No. 10, the applicant is to construct the mono-cypress with tapering to the top, however the design is also subjected to the approval by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Nash asked if that the look of the mono-cypress has the ability to be adjusted? Senior Planner Morita stated yes. Vice Chairman Matthies asked about the wrought iron fencing, and how it would look? Senior Planner Morita stated that originally the applicant proposed chain link fencing or barb-wire,however he felt that wrought iron fencing has a nicer look to it. Vice Chairman Matthies asked if the wrought iron fencing would be black. Mr. Siegel indicated that they use a color that would match the surrounding area. Vice Chairman Matthies stated that the project looked good, however should be well blended with the surrounding area. Chairman Barnes asked if there would be landscaping around the fenced area? Senior Planner Morita stated no. Chairman Barnes asked if the Caltrans antennas would protrude from the foliage? Mr. Siegel stated that it is unknown at this time how the design of Caltrans antennas would look. Chairman Barnes asked Senior Planner Morita if there could be an adjustment made to Condition No. 10 that would address the appearance of the Caltrans antennas. Senior Planner Morita stated that it would be possible to change the verbiage of Condition No. 10 to include that the cabinets shall be painted a color matching the surrounding area. Chairman Barnes asked about an agreement for maintenance of the two live cypress trees that surround the mono-cypress. Mr. Siegel indicated that currently there is no irrigation around the trees, and that it would be their responsibility to maintain the two live cypress trees. PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MWUTES - MAY 1, 2002 Commissioner Nash stated that the cypress tree is drought resistant. Chairman Barnes asked if the trees should die,would the applicant replace them. Community Development Director Brady stated that should the trees die, it is .the responsibility of the applicant to replace the trees. He suggested that Condition No. 11 be modified to include that should the trees die, that they would be replaced with cypress tress or ones similar in height and shape. Chairman Barnes had no further questions. Their being no further questions,Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 7:18 PM MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY A 3-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 2002-12,A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-06, TO ALLOW 65-FOOT VERIZON MONO-CYPRESS AT CALTRANS PARK AND RIDE. MOVED BY MATTHIES SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY A 3-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 2002-13,A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW M 2001-07, DESIGN REVIEW OF VERIZON MONO-CYPRESS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AT CALTRANS PARK AND RIDE BUSINESS ITEMS NONE INFORMATIONAL NONE STAFF COMMENTS Communi Develo ment Director Brad • He wanted to remind the Commission of the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast on May 2, 2002 at the Diamond Stadium at 8:00 AM. Chairman Barnes stated that he did not receive any notice of this meeting. He advised the Commission that the Planning Commission Application period is now open and will run through May 29, 2002. He stated for those who are interested,we encourage them to apply. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MIlVUTES - MAY 1, 2002 • He also stated that in order for a Planning Commission meeting to take place, it would be necessary for all three Commissioners to attend the meeting. Deputy Miles stated that a meeting with only two Commissioners could take place, however it would be best to have all three. • He wanted to express his gratitude for Commissioner Polk's work and dedication to the Planning Commission, and wish him well and that his presence would be missed by all. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Vice Chairman Matthies commented on the following: • She stated that she enjoyed working with Commissioner Polk and wished him well. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He wanted to wish Commissioner Polk well on his new ventures, and expressed his gratitude for his service as a Planning Commissioner. • He also wanted to remind the Commission of the Golf Tournament on May 10, 2002. Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He expressed his gratitude for Commissioner Polk, and wished him well. • He asked Community Development Director Brady the status of Railroad Canyon. Community Development Director Brady indicated that currently there is a SCE sub- contractor doing the work on Railroad Canyon. He stated that the sub-contractor has obtained permits from the City. He stated that the work that is conducted under the bridge is within the Caltrans right-of-way. He stated that the City would require the portion under the bridge to be repaved • He asked Community Development Director Brady if there are any plans of expanding the Park and Ride? Community Development Director Brady stated that his has not heard of any information regarding expansion. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NASH SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:25 PM. HN BARNES,CHAIRMAN i i PAGE b -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 2002 Respectfully Submitted G` a Dana C. Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: 1,41 1,4LI",l obert A. Brady, Secretary the Planning Commission i MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY,MAY 15, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:01 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES,MATTHIES,AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were Community Development Director Brady,Associate Planner Miller,City Engineer O'Donnell,Community Development Clerk Typist Porche', and Deputy City Attorney Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting-May 1, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS Minor Design Review of a Single Family Residence Located at 315 North Riley Street. PAGE 2 -PLANNING CONMSSION MINUTES — MAY 15, 2002 Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a request for a Minor Design Review of a SFR and requested Associate Miller to review it with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that this SFR is located at 315 North Riley within the Historic Overlay District. She stated that the project site is on a 9,000 square foot parcel. She indicated that the applicant plans to construct a 1,510 square foot residential dwelling and a 500 square foot garage. Associate Planner Miller stated that the proposed dwelling is a pre-fabricated manufactured home. She indicated that the applicant has incorporated some elements of the Folk Victorian architectural style per the requirements of the Historical Elsinore Architectural Design Standards. She stated that the elements include changing the vertical siding to horizontal siding, adding a porch with columns, and increasing the size of the shutters. Associate Planner Miller stated that the garage is placed at the rear of the lot to add to the typical historical look. She indicated that the applicant had previously stated that they would construct a 6 foot high block wall, however has since then indicated that they would prefer to construct a City Standard 6 foot wood fence or a 6 foot block wall. She stated that therefore Staff is recommending changing Condition No. 16 to read either the City's Standard six-foot wood fence or a six-foot decorative block wall. She indicated that with that change Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution and approve the Minor Design Review for the construction of the 1,510 square foot residential dwelling and 500 square foot garage to be located at 315 North Riley Street, based on the Findings, Exhibits and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested any comments from the public. Their being no comments from the public,Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner Nash stated that he did have any specific questions. He did mention that the City is starting to see more manufactured homes in the area. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with Commissioner Nash. She stated that she liked the idea of the design. Chairman Barnes concurred with the other Commissioners on the design and had no specific questions. Commissioner Nash asked the applicant if they had read the Conditions of Approval and agreed to them. The applicant indicated yes. With no further questions, Chairman Barnes requested Community Development Director Brady to read the resolution. Community Development Director asked the applicant if they agreed to the changes on Condition No. 16. The applicant agreed. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMSSION MINUTES —MAY 15, 2002 MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY A 3-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 2002-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 1,510 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A 500 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 315 NORTH RILEY STREET - APN 374-071-010 INFORMATIONAL NONE STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Bra& + He wanted to remind the Commission that the City is still accepting applications for the Planning Commission. Chairman Barnes asked if the City had received any applications yet. Community Development Director indicated that a few have been submitted. • He also wanted to congratulate Deputy Miles for his success at the golf tournament. • He wanted to inform the Commission of the Study Session for the yearly budget would take place on June 5. He stated that it would be an all day event and would let the Commission know of the place and time. • He also wanted to advise the Commission that Staff has initiated the process to prepare the Overlay District for the Country Club Heights. He indicated that this would be a lengthy process and the first in a series of Study Sessions may be scheduled for the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. He also stated that it would be preferable to have a full Conunission to complete the process. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Vice Chairman Matthies commented on the following, • She stated that she was glad to hear that the Historical Society is able to use the basement of the Cultural Center. Commissioner Nash commented on the following. • He wanted to thank Staff for the great success of the Chamber Tournament. Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He had no comments. PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —MAY 15,2002 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NASH SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:15 PM. gOHNNES,CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted Dana C.Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: obert A. Brady,Secretary to e Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY,JUKE 05, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES,AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, Associate Planner Miller,City Engineer O'Donnell,Community Development Technician Hennings, and Deputy City Attorney Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting-May 15, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 PM. Liberty SPA No. 3,General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2002-02, Zone Change ZC� No. 2002-02, Industrial Project No. 2002-01, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2002-02. PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 05, 2002 Community Development Brady indicated that this is a SPA and a GPA to include a ZC for an Industrial Project and CUP in the East Lake Specific Plan area, and requested Planning Manager Villa to review it with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that this item is five applications to include one Negative Declaration. He stated that Liberty (East Lake) Specific Plan is being amended to remove 12.7 acres of vacant land from the Specific Plan to the City's General Plan designation with a designation of Limited Industrial with a Zoning designation of Limited Manufacturing. Planning Manager Villa stated that resulting from this is an Industrial Project No. 2002-01 to be up for Design Review for the construction of an industrial building approximately 40,900 square feet on 3.5 acres of the 12.7 acres. He stated that the applicant proposes to include 11,500 square feet of landscaping to include 92 parking spaces. He indicated that Staff has analyzed the proposed land use, the four legislative actions and has deemed them acceptable. He indicated that the CUP application the ability to have outdoor storage and display of materials and structures of Vertigo. He stated that Staff has felt that the design is acceptable and is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the Planning Commission resolutions to include the Negative Declaration, the Liberty SPA, General Plan amendment, the Zone Change, Industrial Project and CUP with the recommendation to the City Council for approval and the recommendation to the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to the CUP based on the Findings of Award and the Exhibits A through G. Applicant Alan Young 21010 Ventura Blvd requested clarification on Condition Number 9 of the Conditions of Approval regarding the block wall. He indicated that the block wall is an option at this point, and may or may not be built. He also wanted clarification on item number 25 of the Conditions which discusses park-in-lieu fee and also item number 27 where it discusses Capital Improvements. He also wanted clarification on Condition number 39, and item number forty of the Conditions where it discusses the developers contribution of $303,000.00 for traffic improvements to the Specific Plan. Applicant Alan Young stated that $303,000.00 was high. He requested that on Condition number 40 that the dollar amounts be eliminated and changed to, to be determined. He also questioned Condition number 44 where it discusses an Alquis-Priolo study. He stated that he felt that the site was outside of the Alquist-Priolo area and was not necessary. He asked clarification on Condition number 52 where it discusses Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports, prior to issuing a permit. He asked that the wording be changed to "if necessary" by the Riverside County Flood Control District. Lastly he asked clarification on Condition number fifty-eight, where it discusses FEMA elevation certificates. He asked if that is a surveyor's report or a something from another governmental agency. With no further statements from the Applicant,Chairman Barnes requested any statements from the public for or against the project. Hearing no further requests to address the Vertigo project, Chairman Barnes called for comments from the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that Condition Number 9 is standard for a CUP. Vice Chairman Matthies asked if we could add the verbiage, "if used for storage." Planning Manager indicated that the applicant applied for a CUP for outdoor storage, which would allow the applicant to build a block wall for outdoor storage and display. Chairman Barnes asked what would be the duration of the temporary time limit. He asked that the applicant address that question. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 05, 2002 Pete Iverson, 29885 Second Street, Lake Elsinore,CA Business Manager of Vertigo stated that there is no intention of storing anything outside at this time. He stated that one of the products that Vertigo produces is Air Beam and Air Beam Shelters. He stated that these shelters are large and will need to be assembled outside over a period of several days. He stated that this should clarify what the outdoor activity would be. He stated that they do not extent on storage anything outside. Chairman Barnes asked if the wording could be changed from "displayed" to "testing." Pete Iverson stated that this would be acceptable. Community Development Director Brady stated that the CUP is for outdoor storage. He stated that if outdoor storage is not going to be used, then the CUP is not necessary and could be eliminated. He also stated that should outdoor storage become necessary at a late time, the CUP could always be brought back and the applicant would need to come back for a public hearing at that time. Chairman Barnes asked if the applicant would be in violation with the City's code regulation regarding the testing of the products. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is temporary and not done on a regular basis, and therefore should not be in any violation of the City's code. Commissioner Nash suggested that the block wall be addressed in one year's time. Community Development Director Brady also wanted to advise the applicant that if they decide to drop the CUP at this time, and late decide to apply for it again,then they would be required to pay the costs for the application of the CUP. Community Development Director Brady suggested that Condition Number 9be eliminated since there would not be any storage yard. Planning Manager Villa suggested that Condition Number 8 is deleted as well. Community Development Director Brady asked the applicant what the length of time would be necessary for the temporary display. Mr. Iverson stated that the time is determined by the size of the shelter. He stated that the large shelters could be up for two weeks, but normally the smaller ones are up for just several days. Community Development Director Brady suggested that we could have a Condition that would address the limit amount of time for the temporary displays. Commissioner Nash felt that we could not control that time issue. Mr. Iverson indicated that they are expanding the business, and moving to the new facility will enable them to increase their product line. Planning Manager Villa addressed Condition Number 25 where it discusses the applicant would pay for park-in-lieu fees. He stated that it is necessary to include this Condition based on the City's Ordinance for the construction of parks. He believed that the fee is ten cents per square foot. PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 05, 2002 Vice Chairman Matthies asked if the applicant was in agreement with this fee. Community Development Director Brady stated that the applicant must agree to this, as it is a City Ordinance. Chairman Barnes asked City Engineer O'Donnell to address Condition Number 27. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that Condition Number 27 is a generic Condition that makes the applicant aware that he has to pay the Capital Improvements Fees and plan check fees. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that Condition Number 39 is necessary since it may be necessary to have a left turn pocket added on to Corydon. He stated that Condition Number 40 are part of an existing specific plan that had specific off site improvements designated. He indicated that the $303,000.00 is an estimated cost for the improvements recommended for the development of this specific area. He asked the applicant how many condominium buildings were going to be developed. Applicant Mr. Young said that there would be 21 units constructed ranging from 1,600 to 4,000 square feet for a total of 65,000 square feet. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the fees as indicated before would be for the entire building and not just the industrial building. He suggested that the City charge the applicant for the traffic mitigation fee at .71 cents per square foot for the industrial site, and pay $832.00 per unit for the condominium buildings. Community Development Director Brady stated that the condominiums are industrial condominiums and not residential and should be calculated at the industrial square footage. Commission Nash stated that this would reduce the fees from$303,000 to approximately$28,000 in fees. Applicant Young stated that realistically it would be around $140,000. He stated that this figure would be more in line with what they normally see, and would agree to this. Chairman Barnes asked Community Development Director Brady if this would be allowed. Community Development Director Brady indicated yes. He stated that the $303,000 was just an estimated share amount. He stated that the Condition is still necessary however it can be changed ass discussed. Commissioner Nash stated that there could be some major adjustments to this plan considering to what is happening in this area. Applicant Young stated that he appreciated the changes that were made regarding the industrial traffic mitigation fee however wanted to clarify that in most cases where it involves street improvements,they usually get credit for the amount of dollars that are put into the improvements. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that you only got credit for travel lanes, and not for curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. Community Development Brady stated that if they are going to do the improvements to the street that is within the system for the traffic mitigation fee, then yes, you would get credit for the travel lanes and the median as well. City Engineer O'Donnell address Condition Number 44 where it discusses the earthquake fault. He indicated that there are some earthquake faults in the area of Palomar, and therefore it may be PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JLTNE 05, 2002 necessary for a soil engineer to investigate the area. He stated that a soil engineer would be necessary anyway, and it should not be much of a cost to the applicant unless the soil engineer finds a fault in the area of the project site. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that Condition Number 52 discusses a Hydrology and Hydraulic Report. He indicated that the wording in this Condition could be changed to "if necessary." Commissioner Nash asked the applicant if he was aware of Conditions Number's 50 and 51 regarding the elevations and fill? Applicant Young indicated that they are aware of the Conditions and no adjustments would be necessary. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that Condition Number 58 discusses the applicant to provide a FEMA elevation certification. He indicated that this is a standard Condition that is used when there is construction in a flood plain. He indicated that it is a form to be completed by a surveyor or registered engineer. He stated that the purpose of the certificate is to determine that the pad is above the base flood elevation. Chairman Barnes asked the Commission if there were any further comments. Commissioner Nash asked the applicant if he is aware of the elevation and the filling requirements and or restrictions for that parcel. He stated that Staff has done a very good job putting it together and looks like a good project. Vice Chairman Matthies indicated that she has no further comments. Chairman Barnes concurred, and felt that it looked like a good project and closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 PM. Community Development Director indicated that there are several resolutions to read however wanted to remind everyone that Condition Numbers 8t and 9 would be eliminated and that Condition Numbers 25, 27, and 39, the applicant wanted clarification on. He stated that Condition Number 40 would be amended to the wording "the developer shall pay the City adopted Traffic Mitigation Fee". He stated that Condition Number 52 would be amended to say that the City Engineer "if necessary." MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTING OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2002-01 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-3, AMENDMENT NO. 3, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-02, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2002-02 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 2002-01. PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 05, 2002 MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT 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 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-3, AMENDMENT NO. 3 FOR THE REMOVAL OF PARCELS WITHIN APPROVED LIBERTY SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS APN 370-030-011,370-050-002,AND 370-050-012. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-02 TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PARCEL SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS APN 270- 030-011, 370-050-002, AND 370-050-012 FROM RESIDENTIAL-2 DESIGNATION UNDER THE LIBERTY SPECIFIC PLAN TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT 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 ZONE CHANGE NO. 2002-02 CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PARCELS SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS APN 370-030-011, 370- 050-002, AND 370-050-012 FROM RESIDENTIAL -2 DESIGNATION UNDER THE LIBERTY SPECIFIC PLAN TO LIMITED MANUFACTURING UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT 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 DESIGN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 2002-01,TO BE LOCATED ON CEREAL STREET- APN 370-030-011. Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 PM. Design Review for Commercial Project No. C 2001-02 and CUP No. 2001-08, for an Automated and Self Service Car Wash Facility-APN 379-131-010 and 379-131-012. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Design Review for a Car Wash facility, and requested the project manager Linda Miller to review it with the Commission. PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MR�UTES —JUNE 05, 2002 Associate Planner Miller stated that this is a Design Review for car wash facility that consists of two separate open structures. She indicated that one would have an automated car wash and seven would be self-services bays. The second structure will have twelve vacuum drying bays. She stated that the main structure would be made of split face concrete block with two smooth face bands used as accents. She indicated that there is a correction on what Staff thought that the applicant was requesting. She indicated that the applicant would like the building to be structured with split face and not smooth face. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the vacuum dry structure would be structured of the split face block columns supporting weather treated wood trellis-type open roof. She stated that the split face block will be a beige color and the accent stripes will be a contrast color of beige. She stated that the roof color would be a red-orange color concrete tile. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant would provide 24,000 plus square feet of landscaping. She stated that the applicant would be required to berm the landscape setback areas along Riverside Drive and Joy Street. She stated that the CUP is required for all car wash uses due to issues such as traffic impacts. She stated that Staff feels that this issue has been resolved by restricting access off Joy Street, which was a requirement of Caltrans. She stated that another potential issue was the visual impact that the building may have on the surrounding uses. She stated that the applicant has been working with Staff and has agreed to change the colors, and materials. She indicated that with these revisions to the facility, Staff can recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that City Council approve C 2001-02 and adopt a Planning Commission Resolution approving CUP 2001-08 for a Car Wash facility located at Riverside Drive and Joy Street. Associate Planner Miller indicated that she received a call questioning the issues of ambient light, noise and traffic. She stated that the call was from David Barren, 504 Quail Drive, which is a street near the proposed facility. She stated that Staff feels that Condition No. 5 mitigates the ambient light question. She stated that the traffic is not an issue because of only one access off Joy. She indicated that she spoke with the applicant and the applicant's intentions are to have the facility open 24 hours. She stated that at this time, Staff is not recommending setting any specific hours for operation of the car wash. She stated that she feels that if noise does become an issue, then Staff would have it be brought back to the Planning Commission for a decision on whether to have specific hours for operation. She stated that the applicant is present to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Applicant Ed Konopacki of 1680 Conway Drive, Escondido CA., stated that he has read and agreed to the Conditions. With no further statements from the Applicant,Chairman Barnes requested any statements from the public for or against the project. Hearing no further requests to address the Car Wash project, Chairman Barnes called for comments from the Commission. Commission Nash asked the applicant if they had discussed the project with the Water District, and discussed fees, and the street improvements. The applicant indicated yes. Vice Chairman Matthies asked about Condition Number 6. She stated that in the Staff report it states that the structure would be coated with an anti-graffiti material per Condition Number 6, yet the Condition did not mention this. She also stated that all wood would be weather treated, yet the same Condition did not mention that as well. PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —JUNE 05, 2002 Associate Planner Miller stated that there is an error in the Staff report. She stated that the report should have indicated that the anti-graffiti and weather treated materials per Condition Number 7 and not 6. Vice Chairman Matthies also asked if Staff has any recommendation regarding the noise issue. Associate Planner Miller stated that at this time the only recommendation would be to allow the applicant to have the facility open 24 hours. She stated that should the noise ever become an issue, then it would be brought back to the Commission for further actions. Chairman Barnes concurred with Vice Chairman Matthies concerns with the potential noise issue. He also had concerns with the Staff report where it discusses the location of the facility. He stated that the Staff report indicates that the only other car wash facility is located at the southern end of the City. He indicated that there is another car wash at Saint Charles. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is correct. Chairman Barnes asked if there are any concerns that there is another car wash one block away. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Staff report could be amended. Chairman Barnes also asked questions regarding Condition Number 7 where it discusses the wood roof should be weather coated. Associate Planner Miller clarified that there are two buildings. One would have a tile roof, and the other would have weather coated material roof. Chairman Barnes asked the applicant if the restrooms outlined on the plans would be for Staff only. The applicant stated yes. Commission Nash asked the applicant if there would be any attendant. The applicant stated yes, there would be someone there four to six hours a day. Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 PM, and requested the readings of the resolutions. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-08 FOR A CAR WASH FACILITY LOCATED AT RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND JOY STREET APN 379-131-010&379-131-012. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT 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 COMMERCIAL PROJECT NO 2 2001-02 FOR A CAR WASH FACILITY LOCATED AT RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND JOY STREET APN 379-131-010&379-131-012 PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —JUNE 05, 2002 BUSINESS ITEMS Study Session to Discuss the Preparation of an Overlay District for the Cotim Club Heights Area of the City, Community Development Director Brady stated that the item before the Commission was discussed by the City Council on March 5, 2002 to discuss the development issues that are associated with the Country Club Heights area of the City. He indicated that the Zoning Maps before the Commission define the study area. He indicated that Country Club Heights is a unique development of the town with history associated with it as well. He stated that the Country Club Heights area was subdivided in the twenties. He stated that the lot sizes were smaller than today's standards. He stated that some of the lots were as small as 25 feet. Community Development Director Brady stated that the streets were cut into sides of the steep hills and are narrow and winding. He indicated that there has been an increase of interest of residential development in the area. He stated that people who reside in the area have expressed their concerns with the roads, possibly getting them paved, or providing other standards for the area. He stated that in many cases the lots have to be combined in order to have them buildable. He also indicated that the majority of the area is not on any sewer system, and septic systems need to be installed. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Zoning Maps show that the majority of the zoning is a multi family residential, and some sections are for commercial uses as well. He indicated that the general boundaries of the area identified on the map are Lakeshore, Riverside, Strikland and Chaney Street. He indicated that this is the outline of the study area as Staff has defined it. He indicated that this is the area that has the unique requirements or development standards that may be appropriate to look at developing an overlay district or a specific plan for the area. He stated that currently in the General Plan it is identified as a future Specific Plan. He stated that the Planning Commission has a vital part at looking at the area. Community Development Director Brady stated that he received a letter from a property owner in the area, and that the Commission should have received a copy of that letter. Community Development Director Brady stated that he did respond to the letter as well as Councilman Buckley. He stated that just to give the Commission some statistics of the area which is interesting, he stated that the area covers about 502 acres within the study area that we area looking at. He stated that about 102 acres of that is dedicated to road right-of-way. He indicated that there are 3,568 parcels in that area. He stated that the average lot size is about 4,800 square feet. He stated that the City is currently conducting a slope analysis that is not yet available. He stated that the Zoning Map does identify the lot lines. He stated that the aerial map shows the overlay as to where the lots are and the street right-of-ways as well. Community Development Director Brady stated that one of the concerns is the majority of the area does not have sewer service. He stated that the zoning itself needs to be taken a look at as in terms of what kind of development is anticipated. He stated that the area has Utility service,'and the water district serves a large portion of the area. He indicated that there is some gas service, cable, and electricity and telephone as well. He stated that the area has spectacular views and scenic area. PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 05, 2002 Community Development Director Brady stated that the intention of this study session is to get ideas of the Commission and answer questions that the Commission may have. Chairman. Barnes asked if most of the parcels are privately owned. Community Development Brady indicated that the Water District own 136 parcels, and 2 which have been deeded to the City. Staff and the Commission discussed the possibilities of expansion of the roads, where there are slope easements, the importance of the traffic patterns, what is acceptable to today's standards and the problem areas off Hwy. 74. Community Development Director Brady used examples of other cities with the same situation as Country Club Heights, and indicated that development is allowed on the narrow lots. He was concerned with what would be the legalities, a way to do it, the costs involved and the practicality. Staff and the Commission discussed the possibilities of making the parcels buildable, desirable, and yet marketable. It was also discussed on the sanitation issues, and the choices that are currently available. Community Development Director Brady indicated that there could be other systems that are available,would they be allowed under the City's codes, and would bonding be allowed. Suggestion was made by Jackie Finerolie, 23663 Peppery Street, Murrieta, CA stated that it appears that the major concern would be the lot size in the Country Club Heights area, not having enough adjacent lot sized to be buildable. She wanted to know if the City could a sponsor a program where owners of the lots could exchange with one and other. Thomas Buckley, Councilman/resident of Lake Elsinore concurred with the idea of developing a neighbor that is desirable. He stated that the property owners in the Country Club Heights area, have been trying to negotiate deals with one another already. He indicated that a large portion of the parcels are delinquent. He stated that the County did a tax sale a few years ago. He stated that the sale of the lots were between $1,000 to $1,500.00 and the Spring lots were between 5,000 to 6,000, which he stated surprised everyone. Commissioner Nash indicated that might be the general market. Councilman Buckley stated that concerning putting lots together should be made free and simple. He indicated that currently it would cost a few hundred dollars. He stated that it should be just to walk into the City Hall, fill out a form, have your parcel numbers, and to comply with the map act. He stated that it would actually come up as a Council item under the warrant list. Community Development Director Brady stated that currently it does not need to go to Council. Thomas Buckley stated that this would be a way to get more people to move into the Country Club Heights area. He indicated that people prefer the front side of the hill for the view. He stated that the backside of the hill would be for those who might be interested in getting extra property to put in a house. He indicated that when it comes to design standards, building on pilings, so that you not have to grade, or having house terracing. He indicated that in order to get septic, permission be obtain through the Water District, and very expensive. He stated that there are other ways, besides leaching fields, such as individual water treatment plants. Community Development Director Brady indicated that AQMD might have an issue with that. Chairman Barnes concurred with that. Councilman Buckley stated that we want to encourage custom homes. He stated that the house would need to be worth the money that would be spent to build on the land. He stated that the City would need to put in strict design standards. He indicated that the MSHCP is interested in the backside of Country Club Heights. He indicated that the PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINMS --JUNE 05, 2002 problem might go away. Chairman Barnes asked who was interested. Councilman Buckley stated that the County for habitat purposes. Staff brought up the discussion regarding geology. Could it be possible to identify the percentages of slopes? Staff stated that if that study showed that some slopes and lots are just undevelopable, could the City make that finding, and then create open space areas. Deputy Attorney Steve Miles indicated that if there is an existing lot and it is unbuildable, nothing that the City has done as a regulatory measure, then we could call it what it is. He stated that if it is not buildable, and that would get incentives. He stated that a person who is landlocked has a right to gain access to the property. He stated that it would be over the adjacent lots. He stated that at the direction of Council, the City could take steps to do the title work and would be a necessary step. Commissioner Nash asked if there were a consensus of this study session. Community Development Director Brady stated that he feels that all agree to Single Family is appropriate. He stated that fees should be addressed, in terms of the in-lieu fees, and the combining of the lots. He stated that the Overlay District would be required, if we want design standards. He stated that another option would be a new zone for the area. Councilman Buckley stated that a view-shed ordinance should be included as well, which should be included in Country Club Heights and possibly the entire City. Community Development Director Brady stated that problems with a view shed would be difficult to enforce. DeputyMiles concurred. Resident John King stated that he owns lots in the County Club Heights area, and would hope to build a home someday. He stated that he is a contractor in Orange County. He stated that the idea of a one way street would be a good idea, and have drive ways go in at an angle,which would help get onto the lots. He stated that it would require a larger lot. Community Development Director Brady asked if a consultant could be utilized to develop this, rather than go through the Staff. Chairman Barnes stated that it is a big job, and possibly, a consultant would be a good idea. He indicated that it would depend on what Council would want to be done, or what the Commission would want to recommend to the Council. He stated that the purpose of the study was just to get an idea of what is to be done. Chairman Barnes asked if there were any further comments regarding the study session. No further comments were made. INFORMATIONAL NONE STAFF COMMENTS PAGE 13 -PLANNING CONMSSION MINUTES -JUNE 05, 2002 Dana C.Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: obert A. Brady, Secretary e Planning Commission 3 PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 05, 2002 Community Development Director Brady • He wanted to remind the Commission that the EDC lunch is on June 13. • He stated that the bids are in for the traffic signals for Collier, Central and Riverside and the City should be awarding at the City Council meeting June 25. The signal should be operational around September or October of this year. • He stated that there would be a follow up study session regarding the yearly budget for 2002-2003. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS i Vice Chairman Matthies commented on the following: • No Comments Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • No Comments. Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NASH SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:10 PM. HN BARNES,CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY,JUNE 26, 2002 Chairman Barnes called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 2002 to order at 7:02 PM. Due to the lack of Quorum, the meeting was cancelled, and a Special Meeting was held on June 26, 2002. Chairman Barnes called the Special Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:01 PM. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Barnes. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES,MATTHIES,AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Brady,Planning Manager Villa, Associate Planner Miller,City Engineer O'Donnell,Community Development Technician Hennings, and Deputy City Attorney Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting-June 5, 2002. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Design Review for Residential Project No. R 2001-10 Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 PM. PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 26, 2002 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for Design Review of a Residential Project consisting of an 8-unit apartment complex. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the request with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that this is a Design Review for an 8-unit apartment complex located on Graham Street. She indicated that the applicant intends on operating the facility as a senior only complex. She stated that Staff has conditioned the project as such per Conditions 2 and 3. She indicated that the complex consists of a 6,824 square foot two- story building. She noted that the first floor would contain three two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit. She stated that the second floor would have four one-bedroom units. Associate Planner Miller stated that there would be 11 parking spaces for the tenants, and the facility is planned to be gated. She stated that there would be both private and common spaces included in the plan. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the issues were the efficiency of the square footage of the private outdoor space, the deficiency of parking and allowing senior only facility. Staff felt that the deficiency of the Outdoor Open Space has met and exceeds the Common Open Space requirements. She stated that the deficient parking was a concern, however the applicant will operated the facility as a senior only complex and one space of parking per unit would be acceptable. Associate Planner Miller stated that the last issue was due to the allowance of a senior only facility. She stated that this issue was researched and found that the owners are allowed to designate a project to a seniors only,per the Housing of the Older Persons Act of 1995. Associate Planner Miller stated with these issues resolved Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to approve Residential No. 2001-10 based on the Findings, Exhibits and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes opened the floor for questions pertaining to this matter. Kim Quon, 506 West Graham Avenue, Lake Elsinore is the Architect at Studio 7 Architecture and Planning. He stated that prior to the Planning Commission meeting he had asked what were the in-lieu fees discussed in Condition No. 25. Community Development Director Brady indicated that Staff would need to establish fees per unit for the in-lieu fees, similar to the fees that were established on the apartments at Grape Street. The applicant agreed. Chairman Barnes requested any further questions from the public.. There being no further requests to speak,Chairman Barnes brought the discussion back to the table. Commissioner Nash stated that the project was very well designed, and a good addition to the Historical Downtown Area. i PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —JUNE 26,2002 Chairman Barnes concurs with Commissioner Nash's comments on the design. He asked the applicant if he had read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. The applicant stated yes. Chairman Barnes asked Community Development Director Brady if the applicant were to provide a written confirmation of their intent to designate the facility as a senior citizen facility before the Commission votes on this project. Community Development Director Brady stated no, that this is part of the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested to modify Condition No. 6 where it discusses air conditioning units. He requested that the phrase Wall or Window be added to the sentence. Chairman Barnes also requested to modify Condition No. 7 where it discusses exterior lighting. He requested that the sentence be changed to read all light fixtures shall match the architectural style of the building,and shall be a ppnxed by tdx CDD. He also requested to modify Condition No. 31 where it discusses security lighting. He requested to add the word exterior to the sentence. Chairman Barnes asked what the purpose was for Condition No. 52 where is discusses Hold Harmless Agreement, and was it necessary. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a standard Condition that is used for Commercial projects. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this Condition was developed by the CityAttorney's Office for the apartments on Grape Street, specifically for projects within the Redevelopment area. Applicant Kim Quon asked the Commission if this Condition is necessary for their project. Community Development Director Brady asked the Deputy City Attorney if the words if applicable could be added to the Condition. Deputy City Attorney indicated yes. Applicant Kim Quon stated that Condition No. 52 does not seem to identify what sort of lawsuits that this Condition would apply to. Commissioner Nash indicated that he does not recall seeing this Condition on other projects before. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the City has not had that many apartment projects. PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —JUNE 26, 2002 Community Development Director Brady asked the Deputy City Attorney Miles if we could leave out the Condition. Deputy City Attorney Miles stated yes. Chairman Barnes concurred with Community Development Director Brady on having this Condition removed under General Conditions. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with having the Condition removed. She asked the applicant, since this is a senior housing facility would there be an elevator or will there only be stairs as shown on the plans. Applicant Kim Quon indicated that the second floor of the complex is all 1-bedroom units and the first floor is all 3-bedroom units. He stated that there would not be an elevator in the complex. He stated that the project is geared toward the more active seniors, starting at the age of 55 and over. Vice Chairman Matthies had no further questions. There being no further comments,Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 7:28 PM. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. 2001-10, AN EIGHT (8) UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT 138 GRAHAM STREET - APN 378-151-028 WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS TO CONDITION NO. &, NO. 7, NO. 31 AND DELETE NO. 52. I 06. ALL ROOF MOUNTED OR GROUND SUPPORT AIR CONDITIONING UNITS OR OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT INCIDENTAL TO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ARCHITECTURALLY SCREENED OR SHIELDED BY LANDSCAPING SO THAT THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR PUBLIC STREETS INCLUDING GRAHAM AVENUE AND THE REAR ALLEY WAY. ALL SCREENING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEES APPROVAL. WALL OR WINDOW AIR CONDITIONERS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. i PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —JUNE 26, 2002 07. ALL EXTERIOR ON-SITE LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND DIRECTED ON-SITE SO AS NOT TO CREATE GLARE ONTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND STREETS OR ALLOW ILLUMINATION ABOVE THE HORIZONTAL PLANE OF THE FIXTURE. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES SHALL MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE BUILDING AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY CDD. 31. ANY EXTERIOR LIGHTING LOCATED ON-SITE SHALL BE ORNAMENTAL AND SHALL BE SHOWN ON BUILDING PLANS, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. 52. THE APPLIGANT SHALL DEFEND (NVIT44 THE APPLI SHAIL DEFINED (WITH GOUNSEL AGGEPTABLE TO THE G'I4"` , 1NDEA4NIFY, r D-rn-sm , OFFIGIALSf , ANY f AGTIGN, PROCEEDf ITS f OFFIGERS> EA4PLOYEES, ASIDE, OR AGENTS TO VOID, CITY, OR AIS414UL AN Appp,OVAL OF THE f APPEALS BeAp,,DS, OR AND PUBLIC R��ESOT�� !-ODE SL G'T'K)N 211/7. THE GIT* 9'ITT.TL PR4 AAIRTT V NePF* THE A PP IG A 1�TT OF ANY TV S GH G A TA? ti�11 1 �i 1L i li i i..���r�mcr u .. .., r , llN OR P r1!'�L'L'Tl7_N ' A!`A TNS T' THE GITYAND =T T i av 47S`�j n1Tr1C�1T���hTrl � v► L"T i GOOPERATE FULL* IN THE DEFENSE. 1F THE GITY FAILS TO P 0q P�TTV NC)T!F*�THEAPPLICANT !1L ANY S G CLAIAT, AGTICN, ODlTvuLLlTNGf THE APIT! AAT SHALL - NOT f , , 1NDE-AINIFY,OR HOLD HARAILESS THE . 3. Design Review of Residential Project No. 2002-02 for the construction of four duplexes located on Graham Street. Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:29 PM. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for Design Review of a Residential Project consisting of four duplexes to be located on Graham Street. He asked Community Development Technician Hennings to review the request with the Comtnission. I PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 26, 2002 Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that this is a Design Review for four duplexes to be located on Graham Street between Chestnut and Main Street. She stated that the property is within Area S of the Downtown Historical Overlay District. She indicated that each unit is 3 bedrooms with 1,004 square feet. She stated that there would be four covered parking spaces for each duplex. She indicated that Condition No. 17 was provided, which states that the applicant agrees to record in the deed a shared access agreement for all lots. She noted that the project meets all minimum requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) and the Lake Elsinore Architectural Design Standards. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution for the Residential Project No. 2002-02 based on the Findings, Exhibits and the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the project. Applicant Steven Mann, 23434 Bristol Way,Murrieta, indicated that he represents La Cresta Development. He stated that they have owned the property for 10 years, and is anxious to get started on this project. Chairman Barnes requested any further questions from the public. There being no further requests to speak,Chairman Barnes brought the discussion back to the table. Chairman Barnes asked the applicant if each unit would be individually owned. The applicant stated yes. Chairman Barnes asked the applicant who would be responsible for the maintenance of the yards. The applicant indicated that each unit would have their own separate area of yard,which the owner would be responsible for maintaining,to include the planters. Chairman Barnes indicated that on Condition No. 12 it discusses exterior air conditioning units. He stated that the plot plan did not show where the air conditioners would be. The applicant indicated that there would be air conditioners. Chairman Barnes stated that there are certain Conditions that would apply to air condition unit, such as being ground mounted, not visible from the streets, and must be screened. The applicant understood. Chairman Barnes asked Staff if the City standards for fences are galvanized steel posts and concrete for the vertical supports. He stated that on the plans, it shows that they are all wood. The applicant stated that he is aware of the Condition. PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 26, 2002 Chairman Barnes noted Condition No. 25, where it discusses replacing any damaged concrete curb and sidewalk. He indicated that the curb and sidewalk are already damaged. The applicant indicated that the sidewalk in the front of the project would be removed in order to add the driveways to the units. He stated that the sidewalks would then be replaced once this is completed. Chairman Barnes had no further comments. Vice Chairman Matthies commented on handicap accessibility. She also stated that she prefers not to see blank walls. Commissioner Nash stated that he likes to see projects developed at the in-fill lots. He stated that this is a good project. He indicated that he prefers not to see carports with cabinets in them because he knows how they will look after time. He stated that he would prefer seeing closed structures. Commissioner Nash stated that the applicant is meeting the minimum requirements. Commissioner Nash concurred with Vice Chairman Matthies regarding possibly window dressing in the rear and sides of the unit. He stated that the front of the unit looks great. He stated that the project is great for the area. Commissioner Nash had no further comments. There being no further comments, Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 PM. MOVED BY NASH, SECOND BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. 2002-02 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR DUPLEXES LOCATED ON GRAHAM STREET. (APN 373-024-003, -004, -005, & -006) BUSINESS ITEMS None INFORMATIONAL PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 26, 2002 Community Development Director Brady indicated that due to July 4 holiday and the lack of agenda items ready for consideration, the regular scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of July 3, 2002, would be cancelled. The next regular Planning Commission Meeting will take place on July 17, 2002. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following_ • He noted that there would be a Study Session Held at the City Hall on June 28. • He stated that the Housing Element was approved. • He stated that the City Council approved the Car Wash project and the Industrial 2001- 02 (Vertigo) project at the meeting of June 25, 2002. • He also advised the Commission that the interviews for two new Planning Commissioners have begun.He recommended to Chairman Barnes to prepare questions for the applicants. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Vice Chairman Matthies commented on the following: • She commended staff on a job well done. • She apologized for her delay at the last Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He thanked staff for doing a great job on all the projects. Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He stated that the City Council Meeting on June 25 did not go as well as he had hoped for. He hopes that all issues will be resolved. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NASH SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:50 PM. PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —JtNE 26, 2002 HN BARNES,CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted 2&4j Dana C.Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: obert A. Brady, Secretary o the Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY,July 17, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:01 PM by Chairman Barnes. Chairman Barnes wanted to introduce to the Commission, Staff and Pubhc Dan Uhlry and Ron LaPere. He stated that Dan and Ron have been sworn in as the two new Planning Commissioners. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES, NASH, UHLRY AND LAPERE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were:Community Development Director Brady,Planning Manager Villa, Associate Planner Miller,City Engineer O'Donnell, and Community Development Clerk Porche' PUBLIC COMMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE ThIE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting-June 19, 2002. I PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 17, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit CUP 2001-05 Lake Elsinore Motocross and BMX Racing and Training Tract. Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 PM. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this project would be heard at the next regular Planning Commission meeting, which is to take place on August 7, 2002, Chairman Barnes requested that the Staff Report be available for reviewing a few days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO HAVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON AUGUST 07,2002. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Minor Design Review of two Single Family Residences located at 389 & 379 Avenue 3. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for a Minor Design Review of a Residential Project consisting of two Single Family Residences at 389 & 379 Avenue 3. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the request with the Commission in the absence of Community Development Technician Hennings. Associate Planner Miller stated that this is a Design Review for two Single Family Residences located in the southeastern section of the City. She stated that the applicant proposes to construct two 1,250 square foot residences on adjacent lots. She indicated that each elevation would be different. She stated that one of the residences would be stucco siding with cultured stone, while the other would be masonite siding. Associate Planner Miller stated that the residence on 389 Avenue 3 would be 5,875 square feet, and the residence on 379 Avenue 3 would be 5,287 square feet, with 50-foot wide lots. She stated that in order accommodate the foot print of the proposed resident an exception to the side yard set back was made from 15 feet, which would have allowed 10 foot side yard, per section 17.23.080(B) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). Associate Planner Miller noted the City has the potential of seeing Single Family Residence in the in-fill lots and therefore Staff recommends that the Community Development Director could approve these projects administratively. Associate Plattner Miller stated that the applicant is proposing four different variations in materials and two different roof styles. She stated that Plan one shows a gable style roof with culture stone, plan two is a gable style roof with stucco and foam trim, plan three has PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 17,2002 the masonite siding and hip roof and plan four has the stucco and brick siding with hip roof. She stated that all plans would have bay windows. She indicated that Staff finds that the project meets the requirements of the LEMC, and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to approve a Minor Design Review for the construction of two residential projects at 379 and 389 Avenue 3. Associate Planner Miller indicated that there are a couple of corrections on the Staff Report. She stated that the Exhibit letters were left off. She stated that the letters "A" through "E" would be added. She also indicated that their would be an adjustment made to the Condition 23a to include architectural window treatment, when the windows are facing the Public right-of-way, which would read, whet a eku im faces a public right-of vay,additional arolnta�al window nww?ent shall be requirai Enhances' arrlxkchwal treatm shall be appwwd by the Camnmity Lkxkpmr Dirazr Designee Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant is present for any questions. I Chairman Barnes opened the floor for questions pertaining to this matter. Jay Hattabaugh, 17541 Barkshatt, Lake Elsinore, stated that he is the applicant for the proposed project. He indicated that he is a general contractor, and has worked on many refurbishing homes in the area. He stated that there is a need for affordable housing in the Downtown area. He stated that this is a new venture and is looking forward to working with the City. Chairman Barnes requested any further questions from the public. There being no further requests to speak,Chairman Barnes brought the discussion back to the table. Commission Nash asked if the applicant were going to provide curb, gutter and sidewalks. The applicant indicated yes. Commissioner Nash stated that he has seen prior work completed by the applicant and indicated that his work is good. He stated that he likes the idea of doing more of in-house approval process, since the City will be seeing more of these infill lot projects. Commissioner LaPere concurs with Commissioner Nash. Commissioner LaPere asked if the recommendation of having Single Family Residence approved administratively would be a separate resolution. Community Development Director Brady stated that the resolution was just for the approval of the project. He stated that this particular developer may have more projects like this one, and may be bringing this same design back, therefore could possibly be approved administratively. i Commissioner LaPere had no further questions. Commissioner Uhlry asked if the approval administratively also included Single Family Residences in the Downtown Historic Area, in-fill lots. Associate Planner Miller indicated that those lots would be excluded. Commissioner Uhlry indicated that he approves these PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 17, 2002 particular projects that are coming into the City, as it would bring in more revenue. Commissioner Uhlry had no further questions. Commissioner Matthies concurred with the other Commissioners. She thanked Staff for the recommendation of the enhancements to the window treatments. Commissioner Matthies had no further questions. Chairman Barnes stated that the project was designed well and is a good addition the to infill lots. Chairman Barnes had no further questions. There being no further comments,Chairman Barnes asked for the reading of the resolution. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS j VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES LOCATED AT 389 & 379 AVENUE 3 (APN 373-117-004& 008)WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS TO CONDITION NO. 23a. 23a. WHEN A ELEVATION FACES A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL WINDOW TREATMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED. ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DESIGNEE. 4. Design.Review of Residential Project No. 2002-06, "Shore Point II Tract No. 19561. Due to conflict of Interest, Chairman Barnes excused himself from discussion of this project. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a residential project to include 19 Single Family Residences, and requested Planning Manager Villa to review it with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that both applicants Joe Kil finger and John Previti were present to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have regarding this project. He stated that Community Development Technician Hennings could not be present, and therefore he would present it to the Planning Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that the applicants have proposed to construct three model homes within 19 lots within an old subdivision called the Maxson Specific Plan. He indicated that this subdivision Specific Plan was approved in 1974 and is located off Grand Avenue and Serena Way. He stated that the subdivision originally encompassed 28 lots, seven of which are currently developed with custom homes. He stated that of the three models that Forecast is proposing,two are one-story, and one is a two-story. He stated that each model has a different elevation. He indicated that plan number one is a 1,871 square 'I PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —July 17, 2002 foot single family home. He stated plan number two ranges between 2,032 to 2,232 square feet, and plan number three ranges from 2,311 to 2,521 square feet. Planning Manager Villa stated that Staff has been working with the applicant to have a product that would fit in with the established area. He stated that the proposed plans would blend in well with the existing homes and meets all the minimum requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the Maxson Specific Plan. He asked that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution based on the Findings, Exhibits and Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairman Matthies opened the floor for questions pertaining to this matter. Albia Miller of Wildomar stated that she is against the project due to the unprotected habitat. She stated that the City is not complying with the Multi-species Habitat Conservation plan. She stated that she did not find a map included with the agenda that would show where the project is being proposed. She indicated that she would discuss this further,later during the meeting. Vice Chairman Matthies requested any further questions from the public. There being no further request to speak Vice Chairman Matthies brought the discussion back to the table. Commissioner Nash asked the applicants if they have read and agreed to all of the Conditions of Approval. The applicants stated yes. Commissioner Nash asked if the issues pertaining to the block walls were resolved. The applicants stated yes. Commissioner Nash indicated that the design of the project were compatible and is pleased to see the project move forward. Commissioner Nash had no further comments. Commissioner LaPere stated that he likes the looks of the project. He asked the applicant if the sidewalks were going to be replaced. The applicant stated yes. Commissioner LaPere had no further comments. Commissioner Uhlry asked the applicants if there were going to be underground electrical i utilities. Community Development Director Brady stated that all utilities would be underground. Commissioner Uhhy stated that he did not see that it was included in the plans or Conditions. He asked on what were the plans for lot number 16. John Previd of 719 Belair Drive, Vista stated that lot 16 and 19 would not be constructed by Forecast Homes. He indicated that a private developer is developing one of the lots. PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —July 17, 2002 Planning Manager Villa indicated that lot 19 is currently being developed and, would be presented to the Planning Commission within the next few weeks. Commissioner Uhlry stated to Albia Miller that this particular Tract Map was approved in 1984, and several residence in the area are glad to see the area be developed. Commissioner Uhlry had no further questions. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with the other Commissioners on the project. She stated that she likes to design of the project, and is glad to see that development of the area is taking place. Vice Chairman Matthies had no further questions. There being no further comments, Vice Chairman Matthies asked for the reading of the resolution. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. 4 2002-06 CONSISTING OF 19 LOTS LOCATED WITHIN TRACT NO. 19561 5. Design Review.for Residential Project No. 2002-03 KB Home Coastal Inc. (Town of Lucerne. Due to the conflict of interest, Chairman Barnes and Commission Nash excused themselves from the discussion of this project. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Design Review of a Residential project consisting of 152 lots, and asked that Associate Planner Miller review it with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that this is a 152-lot project that would include a Model Home Complex. She stated that the project is located within the northern section of the City. She indicated that it is part of a Tract Map known as Town of Lucerne, which was recorded in 1888. She stated that the area was revised in 1984, and this is the last piece of development in the area. Associate Planner Miller stated that lots range in size from 6,003 square feet to 9,867 square feet. She stated that the productions units range from 1,582 square feet to 2,762 square feet. She indicated that there are six different floor plans, with three different elevations, 19 different elevations throughout the tract. She stated that the elevations are Spanish style ranch, or Italiante architectural style. Associate Planner Miller stated that the issues were traffic and circulation. She stated that when the project came before the Planning Commission in the past, the neighbors claimed PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 17, 2002 that Washington Avenue and Terra Cotta Avenue had been turned into direct routes in order to reach Lakeshore Drive. She noted that Staff has decided that traffic-calming devises were warranted. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the other issue is the compatibility with existing residences. She stated that Staff feels that the architectural styles compatible to the area, and will increase the value of homes in the area. She stated that Staff feels that the project meets the requirements of the LEMC. She stated that she did receive a letter from Lawrence Webber of Solona Court, Lake Elsinore indicating that his view would be impaired with the construction of the new homes, and was very concerned. She indicated that she did have a chance to drive out to the area, and did feel that Mr.Webber's view would be impaired. She stated that this is unfortunate, however with infill projects, such as this, sometimes they are unavoidable. She stated that their should be a change in the Conditions that would add 16a,which would read that the applkx7t shall ranow and replatee the existing uvod fend on lots 10 through 14 with a six foot City Stamdard uood fence. The applicant shall replace the fence and make the arraMo vats wash the property OMners on Sol,= Court; She recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution based on the Findings, Exhibits, and Conditions. i Vice Chairman Matthies opened the floor for questions pertaining to this matter. Bob Fallon, of KB Home Coastal San Diego. He stated that he is the applicant for this project Torn Ranch. He stated that the only issues remain are the traffic issues. He stated that he has read and agrees to the Conditions of Approval. He stated that with the regards to the traffic calming Condition, he would ask that their would be an agreement with the Police and the Fire Department of Lake Elsinore to make sure that KB Home is not doing anything to impede their emergency response time. He also commented on the Condition 16a. He stated that KB Home would be willing to put the fence in, however KB Home would need to work with the existing homeowners. Should there be any homeowners who opposes the new fence that KB Home has the right to work with Staff on that issue. Commissioner LaPere asked the applicant on how he would be willing to work with the homeowners. The applicant stated that he would discuss this with the homeowner and tell them that they have been asked by the City to put in a new fence, based on the City's Standards. He would need to advise the homeowner that the existing fence would need to be removed, and would ask for their cooperation. Commissioner LaPere asked the applicant if there would be any cost to the homeowner. The applicant stated no. Albia Miller of PO Box 1377, Lake Elsinore, CA. stated that she is opposed to the Shore Point II and KB Home Coastal projects. She stated that development of this project in the City would adhere further global warming. She indicated that restoration of existing PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 17, 2002 development is needed verses adding new development. She stated that adding new homes in the area would increase traffic, and cause more air pollution. Ms. Miller stated that with the production of the new homes in the area, it violates the Multi Species Habitat Plan. She stated that with development, it disturbs the natural habitat, causing rodents and insects to invade other rural areas in the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Matthies requested any further questions from the public. Their being no further requests to speak,Vice Chairman Matthies brought the discussion back to the table. Commissioner Uhlry stated that he had a chance to review the project over the weekend and approves of the project. He stated that the project blends in well with the surrounding neighborhood, and stated that he does not anticipate any problems with the Fire or Police Department on the traffic calming devices. Commissioner Uhhy had no further comments. Commissioner LaPere stated that he could see the entire project from his backyard. He stated that he has no problems with the project at this time. He indicated that the project would benefit the area. Commissioner LaPere had no further comments. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with the other Commissioners. She thanked the applicant on working the Commission and Staff on the new fencing Condition Standards and the traffic situation. She indicated that the project "Torn Ranch" was named after the Torn Family. Vice Chairman Matthies had no further comments. Commissioner LaPere asked if Mr.Webber's issue regarding the view was ever resolved. Vice Chairman Matthies asked if it would be possible to have a single story home place on the lot near Mr.Webber lot,verses a two-story. Applicant Bob Fallon stated that he would be willing to discuss the issue with the Mr. Webber. He stated that Mr. Webber's home might line up with one of the models. He indicated that the model is a two-story home. Vice Chairman asked if they would consider switching from a two-story model to a single- story model. Applicant Bob Fallon stated that from a marketing stand point, it would not be feasible to switch models. He indicated that it would only cause the potential problem for other neighbors. Community Development Director Brady stated that the way KB Home has graded their tract is to meet with the existing homes, drainage, and street pattern in the area. He stated that he believes that KB Home would be willing to work with changes as long as it is some of the production models. He stated that even a single story home would obscure some of the view. Applicant Bob Fallon stated that if the switching would not benefit the homeowner,then he would prefer not to do any switching. PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 17, 2002 There being no further comments, Vice Chairman Matthies ask for the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. 4 2002-03 CONSISTING OF 152 LOTS WHICH INCLUDES A MODEL HOME COMPLEX, LOCATED BETWEEN ST. CLAIRE AVENUE AND WASHINGTON AVENUE, TOWN OF LUCERNE TRACT, WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 16a. THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE AND REPLACE THE EXISTING WOOD FENCE ON LOTS 10 THROUGH 14 WITH A SIX FOOT CITY STANDARD WOOD FENCE. THE APPLICANT SHALL REPLACE THE FENCE AND MAKE THE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON SOLANO COURT. 6. Consideration of Changing the Regular Meeting Date and Time of the Plannin Commission. Chairman Barnes and Commissioner Nash re-joined the Commission. Chairman Barnes stated that this item is a consideration to have the Planning Commission date and time changed from the first and third Wednesday at 7:00 PM to the first and third Tuesday at 6:00 PM. He stated that this would be beneficial to the public, the Commission, and save money charged to the City for overtime. Chairman Barnes stated that this must be resented to the Commission and voted upon. P { Community Development Director Brady stated that the Planning Commission sets it own date and time under the laws of regulations, and other operating procedures. He stated that initially it was presented to the City Council, however the City Council did not express any opposition to the proposed changes. Commissioner Nash concurred with the change. Commission LaPere concurred with the change. He indicated that he would be coming from Upland, and there may be a time when he would be a few minutes late. He indicated that he would be willing to give it a try. Commission Uhlry concurred with the change. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with the change. PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 17, 2002 MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE DATE AND TIME OF REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. INFORMATIONAL Community Development Director Brady stated that on August 22°d, there would be a seminar/workshop held by the American Planning Association for Planning Commissioners. He stated that any Planning Commissioner wishing to attend this seminar may do so. He stated that if any of the Commissioners would be interested in attending please advise the office and arrangements would be made. STAFF COMMENTS Communi Development Director Bra&commented on the following: • He wanted to welcome Commissioner LaPere and Commissioner Uhhy to the Planning Commission. He stated that he looks forward to working with the new Commissioners on upcoming projects. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He also wanted to welcome Commissioner LaPere and Commissioner Uhhy to the Commission. • He recommended the upcoming seminar to the two new Planning Commissioners. He indicated that they are very informative. • He also wanted to thank Staff for all the hard work. • He stated that the Chamber is having a reverse drawing at the Diamond. He stated that there are a few tickets remaining. Vice Chairman Matthies commented on the following: I • She wanted to welcome the two new Commissioners. She indicated that she looks forward to working with them • She wanted to thank Staff for remembering to add the Condition that discusses the window treatments. PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 17, 2002 Commissioner Uh1Ty commented on the following; • He thanked Staff and the Commission for the support. He stated that he looks forward to working with the City on upcoming project. Commissioner LaPere commented on the following: • He stated that his philosophy is "Keep it simple." He stated that he has known Commissioner Nash for quite some time, and looks forward to working with all. Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He too welcomed the two new Commissioners. • He concurs with Commissioner LaPere on the growth of the City. • He wanted to advise Community Development Director Brady that he did in fact receive a copy of the notice of Study Session. Kathy Smith of 15210 Washington Avenue, CA. She stated that she purchased her home five years ago in the Torn Ranch area. She stated that she was under the assumption that five single story homes would be built next door to her. She stated that she has just learned that her home's view would also be blocked due to the construction of two story homes. She indicated that not only from the first floor but the second floor as well. Vice Chairman Matthies recommended to Kathy Smith to contact the project manager Associate Planner Miller. She stated that hopefully something could be worked out. i Associate Miller advised the Commission that Mrs. Webber has arrived to speak to the Commission. Mrs. Webber 801 Solano Court, Lake Elsinore. She stated that she has atwo-story, five-bedroom home in the area of the new project. She stated that she can look out of her master bathroom, and the height of the home that is being built would be a her back gate. She stated that the privacy of her home would be taken away. She stated that the homeowner who would live in this house would be able to look into her backyard. She stated that the reason she purchased this home was for the view of the lake. She indicated that she would no longer be able to view the lake from her home due to the construction of this house. Mrs. Olga Alvalos, City of Lake Elsinore, concurred with Mrs. Webber's statements on the lost of view and privacy due to this project. Vice Chairman Matthies stated that this had previously been discussed early. She suggested contacting Associate Planner Miller, the project manager for any issues on this project. She stated PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —July 17, 2002 that Associate Planner Miller is working with the applicant and hopefully can come up with some solution to resolves these issues. AD�TURNM ENT MOVED BY MATTHIES SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:15 PM. gOliNNES,CI-i��:[I�N1AN Respectfully Submitted i Dana C.Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: obert A. Brady,t ecret o the Planning Commission i MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY,AUGUST 07, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Uhhy. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES, NASH, UHLRY AND LAPERE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Brady,Planning Manager Villa, Associate Planner Miller,City Engineer O'Donnell, and Community Development Technician Hennings and Deputy Attorney Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR i MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting-July 17,2002. i i PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit CUP 2001-05 Lake Elsinore Motocross and BMX Racing and Training Tract. Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 PM. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a Conditional Use Permit for the Lake Elsinore Motocross. He stated that the item has been continued from the regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 17, 2002, per the request of the applicant. He indicated that there had been a flyer sent out indicating that Staff was going to shut down the facility. He indicated that the recommendation from Staff was to approve the continuance for the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the City had supported this item as an interim use facility four years ago. He stated that this is a request to renew the application as an interim use in the East Lake Specific Plan area. He requested that Planning Manager Armando Villa review it with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that the City approved this facility in 1998. He stated that the Planning Commission approved the CUP for a term of three years, with the possibly of extensions. He stated that the Planning Commission placed limitations on the facility to allow up to 50 bicycles on the tract. He stated that after that, the applicant requested an additional 25 bikes on the tract. He stated that this request was granted. Planning Manager Villa stated that since then, the permit has expired. He indicated that the purpose of this meeting is to approve the CUP,which would allow additional time of three years and up to five years, and to add a BMX facility. Planning Manager Villa noted that several issues have been raised. He stated that one of the major issues was noise and dust. He stated that two noise studies have been conducted. The study analyzed noises that were generated from the facility. He stated that both studies indicated that the noise from the facility were minimal and met the requirements of the noise ordinance. Planning Manager Villa stated that the other issue is dust generated from the facility. He stated that Staff has worked with the applicant and based on the Conditions of Approval, the applicant has agreed to water down the dirt on a periodic basis. Planning Manager Villa indicated that other issues that have been a concern were the emergency services. He stated that the Fire Captain has recommended that the facility employ their own EMT personnel. He stated that this request has been implemented into the Conditions of Approval. Planning Manager Villa stated that other issues were the need of additional Staff for the facility. He stated that Staff has recommended that they employ a minimum of at least 26 people to guarantee the safety of the riders during operation. Planning Manager Villa stated that overall Staff has analyzed the purposed project and found that if the use complies with the Conditions of Approval, that the operation would be an PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — August 07, 2002 asset to the community. He stated that he is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt two Resolutions. He noted that one is for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the other is for the CUP for a maximum of 128 bicycles and a BMX tract for three years with a possibility of yearly extensions up to five years, based on the findings, exhibits, and Condition of Approval. He stated that the applicant is present for any questions. Dr. Vernon Poole, Optometrist in Murrieta CA. He stated that that he uses that facility for the purpose of exercise and pleasure. He stated that he rides at least 3 days a week for about 1 1/2 hours per session. He indicated that he heard the City of Temecula is setting up a fund to purchase open space for parks. He stated that this facility is not costing as much money as the City of Temecula would be putting aside for the parks. He stated that he is glad to hear that the City of Lake Elsinore is recommending approval for the facility to remain open. Mike Redman- 41775 Hawthorne,Murrieta. He indicated that he runs the BMX tract at the Motocross facility in Lake Elsinore. He stated that he manufactures bikes in the City of Lake Elsinore at 311 Minthorne Avenue. He indicated that all ages use the Motocross facility. He stated that he hopes that the lighting at the facility would be approved for the use of the facility in the evening. He stated that most of the kids that use the facility participate with their parent's supervision. He indicated that he would appreciate the City's approval on the facility. Lynn Holzner - 4722 Gurky Street, San Diego CA. He stated that this facility is an excellent use for the military in San Diego due to the accessibility. He indicated that Motocross is one of the fastest growing sports. He stated that the continued use of the facility would mean higher revenue for the City of Lake Elsinore and better recreation for the military. David Masters - 33380 Loquat Street, Wildomar, CA. He stated that he lives approximately 1/2 mile from the Motocross facility. He stated that the noise and dust are minimal. He stated that he uses the facility frequently, and would like to use it more. He stated that he has been involved with motorcycles most of his life, and would like to see his son get more involved with the sport as well. He believes that the children in the area would benefit from the tract, as well as his own. He indicated that he would like to see if the facility could work with low-income families, so they could use the facility as well. He stated that he hopes that the City approves this facility. Greg Burrow - He stated that he attended the Planning Commission meeting in 1989. He indicated that so much growth has taken place in the City of Lake Elsinore and community. He stated that in the beginning their was just one tract, then two. He stated that Randy Hiner indicated that he wanted to give everyone an opportunity to ride there, no matter what their abilities are. He stated that he is a regular at the tract and he stated that this facility has done so much for the City of Lake Elsinore. He indicated that five different Counties' are using the facility, ranging from all different ages with their families. He stated that Randy Hiner has done a good job running the operation smoothly. He wanted to thank the City for the recommendation of keeping this facility open. I PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINO'ES — August 07, 2002 Gale Webb - Sun City CA. She indicated that she has been in the industry of over 26 years. She stated that she and everyone who uses the facility is continuing to look for places where kids and their families can have a good time that is safe and fun. She indicated that the Motocross facility in Lake Elsinore is one of the best that she has ever seen. She stated that she is currently active with a program that helps keeps kids off drugs. She believes that if more kids have a place where they can have fun, such as the Motocross facility then they would be less interested in drugs and helps keep their self-esteem up. She stated that Randy Hiner has the same beliefs. She thanked the City for recommending the approval of keeping the facility open. Carole Feeney- 15611 Lake Terrance, Lake Elsinore,CA. She indicated that she is in favor for keeping the Motocross facility open. She stated that in the past three years she and her family have used the facility. She indicated that the facility has something to offer to everyone. She stated that with such a variety of activities at the facility, she and her family spend most of the day at the facility, when possible. She stated that the City of Lake Elsinore is famous for Motocross, which began in the 1960`s. She stated that the City of Lake Elsinore was featured in a movie called "On any Sunday." She stated that she feels that this facility is a family park, and is in favor of keeping the facility open. Matthew Beerer - 31877 Corte Monicito - Temecula CA. He stated that he is a good friend of Randy Hiner. He indicated that Randy presented an opportunity for him to put together a safety program. He indicated that one of the concerns of that Randy had was the safety of the children using the facility. He indicated that a program was put together to allow kids to attend a day camp from 9 to 5 where they could learn to use the facility safely. He indicated that all of the equipment is provided free. He stated that at the motocross facility, kids are taught how to use to jumps safely, and how to use the facility when the tract is heavily populated with other riders. He stated that the kids are separated based on their ages, and their abilities to ride and their bike size. He stated that he has had 212 kids use the day camp since May 2002. He stated that the program is working fantastically for the kids. Chairman Barnes indicated that he received a letter from Keith Penny of 32675 Wildomar Road, Lake Elsinore, CA. He indicated that the letter stated that he was against the Motocross facility. He stated that the letter was very lengthy, and therefore would not read the letter,however did want it to go on record that Mr. Keith Penny is against the Motocross facility. Chairman Barnes asked the public of how many were against the Motocross facility. There was no raising of hands. Chairman Barnes asked how many were fore the project. Nearly all present raised their hand. Chairman Barnes then requested the public if anyone else would Eke to speak on behalf of the project. Mark Harrington- lived in Lake Elsinore for over twenty years and currently has a business in the City of Lake Elsinore. He stated that the facility could generate a lot of revenue for the City. He used an example of a super-store of cycle and watercraft sales in the San Bernardino County that brings in 200 million dollars in sales a year. He stated that he enjoys the facility and is a great asset to the City. He wanted to thank the City for the recommendation of approval of the project. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 Chairman Barnes requested the applicant to approach the table. Applicant Randy Hiner - 3350 Elizabeth Road, Temecula CA. He indicated that really did not need to tell the Commission about the tract, as the public has already taken care of that. He stated that he did however have some concerns with a few of the Conditions and wanted to go over them with Staff and the Commission. He asked about Condition No. 4 where it discusses noise studies to be conducted every 6 months. He stated that two noise studies have been done so far in concurrent with the amount of bikes used at the tract. He asked Staff if it would be possible to use their noise study consultant, as it was considerably less. He indicated that he paid $1,500.00 for a noise study,verses the City's consultant charged $6,500.00. He stated that both showed the same results. He asked about Condition No. 5 where it discusses the AQMD. He stated that there have been three studies conducted and each time they been acceptable. He stated that each day, more than 250 thousand gallon of water is sprayed over the area to maintain the dust levels. He stated that they have two water trucks that start at five in the morning and continue until ten or eleven at night, seven days a week. He stated that there are times that dust has been an issue. He stated that usually it is due to a wind issue. He stated that the airport,which is located near the facility, does not water down their area. He requested that Staff eliminate this Condition. Applicant Randy Hiner also commented on Condition No. 7 He stated that this is a recommendation of relocating the pay booth towards the site entrance. He stated that this would be an inconvenience for them as there is a significant amount of money that come through and for the safety against robbery,it would not be beneficial. He requested Staff let the booth remain where is currently located. He asked about Condition No. 8 where it discusses a $5,000.00 cash bond for removal of structures, artifacts and equipment. He stated that he feels that this is an issue between himself and the landowner and not so much the City's issue. He asked about Condition No. 9 where it discussed a $20,000.00 cash bond would be held until the area is put back into it's original state, should the facility be no longer used. He stated that again he feels that this would be a tenant/landlord issue, and that the City should not be concerned. He asked about Condition No. 11 where is discusses no off site advertising would be allowed. He indicated that he would need clarification on this Condition. He asked about Condition No. 12 where it discusses the use of vending machines. He stated that he would work with Staff on this Condition. PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — August 07, 2002 He asked about Condition No. 13 where it discusses that the applicant shall prepare a detailed site plan for the 60 x 200-foot pad area. He stated that he did not believe that this was on the existing map. He indicated that he would like to discuss with Staff as well. He asked about Condition No. 16 where it discusses the hours of operation. He stated that he neglected to put in the application for lights. He indicated that having lights would help with dust issues and overcrowding at times. He stated that he is purposing the use of lights on one of the tracts to the North/West of the facility. He stated that they would be using a low density of lights that would not interfere with the habitat near the area. He stated that he would like the hours of operation to be three days per week until 9:30 PM. He stated that he would prefer to not go through the Planning Commission but rather have it discussed internal. He asked about Condition No. 24 where it discusses emergency services. He stated that this issue has been an on going problem that he has been dealing with. He indicated that the facility runs a very safe track. He indicated that the riders who use the facility are recreational riders, between the ages of 25 to 60 years of age. He noted that the ambulance calls have dropped significantly since May of this year. He requested to continue to run the emergency service as it is. He asked about Condition No. 27 which is an Engineering Condition. He would like to discuss this Condition with Staff as well. He wanted to thank Staff for working so well with them in order to have this project extended. Chairman Barnes requested any further questions from the public. There being no further requests to speak,Chairman Barnes brought the discussion back to the table. Commissioner Uhiry stated that he was involved with the Saddleback racetrack and indicated that he could understand some of the problems that have been raised, regarding the medical services. He stated that he does have some concerns with conducting dust studies on a small section of land. He also had concerns with the proposed lighting. He had no further questions. Commissioner Nash thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and showing his or her support. Commissioner Nash wanted to point out to the public that this facility is a park. He indicated that it is for the use of families and public. He indicated that he feels it is important to keep it a multi tract. He stated that he does have some concerns with the safety issues. He indicated that he realizes the costs involved. Commissioner Nash stated that as far as the lights issue, he does not have a problem with it as long as it is worked out properly. He stated that the only question that he had for the applicant was the temporary issue. He asked the applicant if he had any plans on purchasing the land. Applicant Randy Hiner indicated that he did have plans on purchasing the property from the owner. He stated that he enjoys having this facility and will continue to operate it. He PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 stated that it would be beneficial to him to purchase the land, since the price of the land keeps increasing. Commissioner Nash also mentioned that the noise and dust studies would need to be conducted. He stated that having them done every 6 months does seem repetitive, however they will need to be conducted. He indicated that he is all for the facility. He indicated that all the other issues could be worked out. Planning Manager Villa stated that the purpose of having bonds implemented is so that the City does not have to re-grade the area, and have it cleaned up to its original way. He stated that the bond would give the City insurance that the area will be resurface to its original state. Commissioner Nash had no further comments. Commissioner LaPere commented that he too has a military background. He indicated that understood how useful the motocross facility could be for kids and theirfamilies. He asked the applicant on what type of lights would be used at the facility. The applicant stated that he would prefer to have the question addressed to a lighting specialist. Chairman Barnes stated that the question is irrelevant at this time, since the lighting issue was not in the Conditions. Community Development Director Brady stated that if the applicant wishes to discuss the lighting issue,then the Commission might discuss it at this time. Deputy Attorney Miles stated that there could be discussion on the lighting, and analyzed. Commissioner LaPere withdrew the question. Chairman Barnes asked Deputy Attorney Miles if we could approve the resolution as it is, and have the lighting issue be handle internally,by the Community Development Director. Deputy Attorney Miles stated that we first need to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He indicated the document is defined. He stated that the Commission could approve the CUP and give direction to review the lighting element of the project. Chairman Barnes stated that the Commission could continue as it is, or the applicant could withdraw and resubmit at some other time, after amending the application. The applicant agreed to amend the application for lighting and resubmit later. Commissioner LaPere stated that he did visit the site and stated that he did not hear any loud noises. He stated that all the kids using the facility impressed him. He stated that he j PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 was shown were there is room to be used for emergency treatment, and was impressed. He stated that he is in favor of the park. He had no further questions. Vice Chairman Matthies stated that she and her family has been a resident in the City for many years. She stated that she recalls when she used to ride her bike through field of dirt that is now filled with home. She indicated that the tracks in the other areas are set up for racing, however this facility would be used for recreation. She recommended to the applicant that a discount for the students with proof of their student ID, might be a good idea. The applicant stated that they have already implemented a plan to work with the students, and once the project is approved then they would proceed with the plan. Vice Chairman Matthies commented on the dust and noise issue. She stated that if tracts are added to the facility, then she stated that having studies conducted every six months would be feasible. However indicated that that right now she feels that having them done every six months to one year seems a bit much. Chairman Barnes asked why be the study conducted every six months. Community Development Director Brady stated that the purpose of the studies to be conducted every six months was due to the fact that noise and dust are an issue. He stated that dust and noise could vary due to the conditions of the weather. He stated that the purpose of the study is to measure and compare. He stated that the Commission could set the time, as to when they feel is appropriate. Vice Chairman Matthies stated that the guard at the gate is necessary, especially with the amount of money that comes through the facility. She asked Staff as to the necessity of having the booth moved. Planning Manager Villa stated that the purpose of moving the booth is due to the fact that the Army Corps regulations that no structure is allowed under the 1,265 elevation. He stated that the booth is currently located under that elevation. Vice Chairman Matthies asked if there is an elevation that is at 1,265 or above. Planning Manager Villa indicated yes. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with Commissioner Nash on the Conditions No. 8 and 9. She also stated that she wants to keep Condition No 10 as is. She stated that on Condition No. 11,which discusses advertising, she asked Staff to define. Planning Manager Villa stated that there currently is a provision in our municipal code sign ordinance that prohibits off site signage. He stated that through out the course of inspections of the project the facility had placed a large amount of signs in the size of 6 foot by 4 feet along the entrance. The signs were advertising other businesses from in an out of town. PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 Vice Chairman Matthies asked Planning Manager to clarify. Planning Manager Villa stated that an off site advertising meant that the applicant is only allowed to advertise their property. Vice Chairman Matthies asked why the ballpark is allowed to advertise other businesses on their property. Community Development Director Brady stated that just because the signs are out there does not mean that it was approved. Commissioner LaPere asked if there are signs placed within the park, and they are advertising business that could be affiliated with the business, are their fees that the advertiser has to pay to allow the sign to be placed there. The applicant stated yes. Commissioner LaPere commented that most parks that charge admission do that. He asked Staff why is the applicant an exception. Chairman Barnes recommended that this Condition be deleted. Vice Chairman Matthies asked about Condition No. 13. where it discusses a permanent office. She asked if the current office is mobile and not permanent. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that if the applicant could show the regulations in the federal register of the United States that you could put a structure or trailer in a flood plain and have it moved in 72 hours,then you could have one put there. However, he stated that does not believer that there is such a regulation. The applicant asked if he could get approval from the Army Corps. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the Corp of Engineers does not regulate the flood plain. He stated that FEMA does. The applicant asked if he could get approval from FEMA,would he be allowed to keep the structure where it is currently located. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that FEMA would not allow that unless the flood plain was changed. Deputy Attorney Miles stated that the City has multiple jurisdictions in the basin. He stated that the Corps has jurisdiction FEMA also has jurisdiction as well as the City. He stated that the most appropriate decision would be to use the Commissions jurisdiction. PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 Vice Chairman Matthies asked about the Engineering Conditions. She asked if this is something that the Commission could work out. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that these are the same Conditions that were used in the original CUP. Vice Chairman Matthies stated that with regards to the EMT's used at the park, she indicated that she has seen them and that they are not just sitting in their cars, they are in-fact doing their job. She indicated that should the facility add more tracts, then it may become necessary to add more EMT's to the facility. She stated that at this time she does not feel that adding more EMT's would be necessary. Vice Chairman had no further questions. Chairman Barnes pointed out that the Conditions on the project might seem lengthy, however he stated that these Conditions are necessary for a CLIP. He stated that as the park has grown from its original permit, it is necessary for more Conditions to be added in order to protect the City's interest. Chairman Barnes stated that regarding Condition No. 7 where it discusses to relocate the pay booth, he stated that FEMA placed those regulations regarding the flood plain, and that the Commission has no authority to change them. The applicant asked if they could re-grade the area so that the elevation would be higher, would they be allowed to have the pay booth remain where it is. Chairman Barnes indicated that this could be possible if it is worked out with the City Engineer. He stated that on Conditions No. 8 and 9 it would be necessary for the Cash Bonds since the City granted the CUP, then the landlord would come back to the City and the City would be liable to make sure that everything is flatten to reflect its original condition. He again stated that he would like to strike Condition No. 11. He commented with regards to Condition No. 24 where it discusses EMT, he asked Community Development Director Brady if the recommendation came from the Fire Department. Community Development Director stated that this is one of the major issues that the Fire Chief originally had with the tract. He stated that the facility has done a much better job of reducing the calls that they have had in the past. He stated that the concern with the Fire Department is that so many calls were made for the facility, that it was taking away for the City for other emergencies. Planning Manager Villa stated that the City has not received a letter from the Fire Chief indicating that things have changed and the City must rely on the recommendations. The applicant asked if he could be able to get a letter from Steve Gallagos stating that if the facility continues to run things the way that are then would it be able to delete this Condition or change the Condition at a later date. PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — August 07, 2002 Commissioner Nash pointed out to the applicant that the letter,which was received, is over a year ago. He stated that it might be possible to have the Fire Department re-assess the area, since it has been more than one year since the letter was written. Chairman Barnes asked if this could be handled internally by the Community Development Director. The applicant agreed. Chairman Barnes asked the applicant on what type of refreshments are sold at the facility. The applicant stated that they currently have a hot dog cart, which also sells drinks as well. He indicated that he does have a permit for the cart. He stated that the cart is located under a canopy for shade, and is not a permanent structure. Chairman Barnes asked the applicant if he has a business license to run the cart. The applicant stated that he does not operate the business, another business operates the cart. However,he indicated he will check on it. Chairman Barnes asked Staff if they grade over 50 cubic yards, would they need a grading permit. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that they would not need an Engineering Plan because it is not for structures,it would just be a site plan showing where the hills would be. Chairman Barnes asked if there were any other questions. Community Development Director Brady asked about one other Condition for consideration, which was prepared by out Attorney's office. He stated that Condition No. 44 would read app1kzvz shall defend with council reasonably accessible to City b7derrmify hold harmless City, its anployn s, agents and it's offoals f-an arty liability darns, wits, Aeons, arbitration proceedirgs, or adrni zz atiw promilings, rVlatory proc x&Cs, losses, expenses, or costs of any kind wlxttber actual, allegl or thrmozed, actual attorney fees of in xrd by City, court costs, interest, defense costs, including expert witness fees,or any other costs,or expenses of any kind uhat so er ,er,without restrictions or lwzaations inaand in relation to or a consequence of, or nsing out of, or in any uay attributable, act d1y, ilgibly or implied in-zJole or in part to qp uwl by the City, its advisory agertctes, appeal boards or legislative body coming CUP 2001-05 Lake Elsinm Mowuss, BMX racing and training tract and or Mitigate Negative Daclaratm 2002-02. Deputy Attorney Miles stated that the Condition only applies to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the CUP. Chairman Barnes asked if there were any other questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner LaPere stated that he still has questions regarding Condition No. 4 and 5. PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07,2002 Community Development Director Brady requested to go through each Condition that was in question, and then get a consensus from each Commission on their opinion. Community Development Director Brady asked about Condition No. 4 where it discusses the noise issue. It was decided by all Commissioners to have the noise study conducted annually. He noted that the Condition would then change from every six months to annually. He asked about Condition No. 5 where it discusses the air quality study to be conducted every six months. Vice Chairman Matthies asked if it was necessary to use the City's analyst or could the applicant use the analyst that was considerably less. Community Development Director Brady stated that it would be the City who would have the study conducted, and it would be the City to select the consultant. Planning Manager Villa pointed out that it is necessary that the City selects a qualified consultant, in the event, the City is ever challenged on the adequacy of the study. Deputy Attorney Miles stated that the consultant could be mandated to conduct the analyst and prepare the documents. He stated that the City has to certify the findings and be comfortable with the decision. It was decided by all Commissioners to have the study conducted annually. i Community Development Director Brady asked about Condition No. 7 where it discusses to relocate the pay booth due to the elevation being in a flood plain. He stated that on this Condition it would be necessary to re-word the Condition.to state that it would be necessary to relocate the pay booth to an elevation of 1,267 or above. He continued to say that any additional security booth structure would be required on the tower area. Community Development Director Discussed Condition No 8 where it discusses the $5,000 cash bond for guarantee proper removal of structures, Condition No. 9 discusses the cash bond for $20,000 to guarantee the proper reversal of all grading at the site, and Condition No. 10 discusses that a cash bond of $20,000 shall guarantee the removal of potentially contaminated soil. He asked the Commission if they all agreed on these Conditions. Chairman Barnes agreed. Commissioner Uhhy agreed. Commissioner Nash stated that he agrees on the bonds, however he feels that they could be reduced. He asked if it could be a general site bond,instead of separate bonds. Community Development Director Brady stated that he would like to see them separate. He stated that if the Commission decided to change the amount,we would know which one to change. PAGE 13 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — August 07, 2002 Deputy Attorney Miles stated that there is a plus and negative side to lumping the cash bonds together. He stated that one would be if their were a call on the cash bond, it might be to the City's disadvantage, because it would be a call on the full face value of the bond. City Engineer stated that he would agree to reduce the cash bond for Condition No 9 from $20,000 to 15,000 however, he recommends on leaving it the way it is. Condition No 8 would remain as is. Community Development Director stated that Condition No. 11 would be removed. All Commissioners agreed. Commission LaPere asked that if Condition No. 11 was part of the municipal code,then are we changing that code too. Community Development Director Brady stated that we were not changing the code, we were just eliminating the Condition. Community Development Director Brady asked about Condition No. 16 where it discusses the hours of operation. He indicated that the Condition would be left as is for now. All Commissioners agreed. Community Development Director Brady asked about Condition No. 24 that discusses the use of a private EMT service. He stated that we could add a sentence that would state that modification would be subject to review and approval by the Fire Chief and the Community Development Director. Chairman Barnes disagreed. He indicated that he would like to delete the second sentence, which states that 2 EMT personnel will be required during the week. Commissioner Nash asked the applicant if he has any contact with the Fire Chief. The applicant stated yes. Commissioner Nash indicated that it nught be in his best interest to have the Fire Chief review this situation now, and have his recommendations addressed in a letter, and then reviewed by Staff and the Community Development Director. It was all agreed to have the Condition No. 44 changed to read Ambubw service and EMT requmwxn s shall be subject to a ppmwl of the Fire Chief dnd Cmmmity Decekopment Dnwor: There being no further comments, Chairman Barnes asked for the reading of the resolution and closed the Public Hearing at 8:40 PM. PAGE 14 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2002-02 FOR THE APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-05 MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-05 WHICH ENTAILS ALLOWING CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING INTERIM/TEMPORARY MOTOCROSS PRACTICE AND TRAINING FACILITY AT APN 370-030-012 WITH THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED REVISIONS TO CONDITION NO. 44 THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED AT 8:45 PM THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 8:52 PM 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-05, Design Review for Industrial Project No. 1 2002-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2002-03 - APN 377-130-028. Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 8:52 PM Community Development Director Brady requested that Associate Planner Miller review the project with the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that this request is for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage and Design Review for 12 lot industrial buildings. She stated that an associated 12 Parcel Map has also been submitted and will be reviewed this evening. She stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed for the Industrial Project as well as the associated Tentative Parcel Map 30181 and neighboring Parcel Maps 30395 and 30396. She stated that Parcel Maps 30395 and 30181 are being reviewed at this time. Associate Planner Miller stated that the development is proposed to be developed in two Phases. She stated that the first phase consists of seven parcels. She stated that each parcel includes an industrial building,parking,landscaping, and outdoor storage area. She indicated that the outdoor storage area would be enclosed with wall and rolling opaque gate. She stated that the applicant went over the lot coverage by 2.6% on two lots. She stated that all other lots complied with the code. She indicated that Staff found this slight deviation to be acceptable. She stated that the project meets the requirements of the City's parking requirements, however she indicated that if the applicant intends on adding additional office area, a review from the Community Development Director would be required. PAGE 15 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 Associate Planner Miller requested that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-05, adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council certify Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2002-03 and approve the Design Review for Industrial Project No. 2002-02. This recommendation is, based on the Finding, Exhibits and Conditions of Approval. Associate Planner Miller stated that the applicant is present to answer any questions. Chairman Barnes requested the applicant to approach the table for questions. Carl Johnson, 30500 Caliente, Canyon Lake, CA, read and agreed to the Conditions. The applicant did not have any questions for the Commission. Commissioner Nash stated that Staff had done a great job in preparing the project. He asked the applicant if he had any problems with flood control. The applicant indicated no. Commissioner Nash indicated that the applicant has also done a good job with the project, and had no further questions. Vice Chairman Matthies concurred with Commission Nash on the job well done. She indicated the design of the building. She had no further questions. Commissioner Uhlry asked the applicant if the handicap parking was large enough to accommodate a van. The applicant indicated that he just follows the rules to meet the code. Commission Uhlry indicated that the sometime the parking lots for the handicap are tight on one side. Conrad Reiger 4044 Carmenita Circle, Temecula CA indicated that he is the Architect of the project. He stated that the parking spaces provided are van accessible, and meet all codes. Commissioner Uhhy had no further questions. Commissioner LaPere stated that the project looked very nice. He stated that Staff has done an excellent job. He had no further questions. Chairman Barnes concurred with the other Commissioners on the design of the project. He asked Staff about the traffic fees that would be imposed on the project. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the new traffic fee would supercede any of the other Conditions of the project. He indicated that the applicant would need to pay for the traffic Mitigation fee the Council adopted. Chairman Barnes had no further questions and closed the Public Hearing at 9:00 PM PAGE 16 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 MOVED BY MATTHIES SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-31, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTIFICATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.2002-03. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-32, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-05 FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE FOR AN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 8 2002-02) LOCATED AT PASADENA STREET AND CENTRAL AVENUE -APN 377-130-028. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. I 2002-02, TO BE LOCATED AT PASADENA STREET AND CENTRAL AVENUE - APN 377-130-028. 4. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30181 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2002-03 (APN 377-130-028) Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 9.04 PM. Community Development Director Brady requested that Associate Planner Miller review the project with the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that this is a Parcel Map to subdivide approximately 6.6 acres of land into twelve industrial parcels. She stated that the parcels range in size from 17, 071 square feet to 29,609 square feet. She stated that the parcels are in the M1 zone, which requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet. She indicated that a Planned Unit Development might have smaller lot areas if the project is master planned and share reciprocal facilities such as parking and access. Associate Planner Miller commented that the applicant has provided the required amount of parking spaces for each parcel. She stated that because of this the applicant has requested that Condition No. 17 be revised by removing the word "parking", and the rest would remain the same as shown. Associate Planner Miller requested that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending City Council certify Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approve of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30181 based on the Findings, Exhibits, and subject to the Conditions of Approval. PAGE 17 -PLANNING COMMISSION MR\TMS - August 07, 2002 Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commission. Vice Chairman Matthies asked Staff on the decision of removing the word "parking" from Condition No. 17. Associate Planner Miller indicated that Staff agreed to the revised Condition. Vice Chairman Matthies stated that she had no further questions. Commissioner Nash had no questions. Commissioner LaPere had no questions. Commissioner Uhhy had no questions. Chairman Barnes had no questions, and requested the reading of the Resolution, and closed the Public Hearing at 9:06 PM. Associate Planner Miller stated that the City Engineer O'Donnell had just noticed that in the Condition No 56,the word "parking" should be removed as well. All Commissioners agreed. MOVED BY UHLRY, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30181 LOCATED AT PASADENA STREET AND CENTRAL AVENUE - APN 377-180-028 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS NUMBER 17 AND 56: 17. The applicant shall record a CC&R that provides for irrevocable reciprocal pig, circulation, ingress and egress, loading and landscaping maintenance easements in favor of all lots. It shall also enforce standards of building maintenance and participation on landscape maintenance. The Community Development Director prior to building permit shall approve the CC&R- 56. Applicant shall cause to be recorded a CC&R which provides for irrevocable reciprocal Wig, circulation, loading and landscape maintenance easement in favor of all lots subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development &the City Attorney. The CC&R shall enforce standards of building maintenance, participation in landscape maintenance, prohibition of outside vehicle or material storage. PAGE 18 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 5. Tentative Parcel Mgp No. 30395 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2002-03 (APN 377-140-017 and 019� Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 9:07 PM Community Development Director Brady requested that Associate Planner Miller review the project with the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that this project is a Parcel Map that will subdivide 9.7 acres of land into six industrial parcels. She indicated that the sizes range from 20,038 square feet to the largest, which is 190,338 square feet. She stated that this parcel has a history of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that was approved by Planning Commission on May 2, 2001 for outdoor storage. She indicated that the storage would be allowed for 10 years to the year 2011. She stated that a requirement on Conditional Use Permit is when street improvements or building permits were applied for a constructed 6-foot block wall along Pasadena Street. She stated that because of this,Condition 18 was placed on this map. Associate Planner Miller requested that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 30395 based on the Findings, Exhibits, and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Planning Commission. The Commission had no comments, and Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 9:08 PM. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30395 LOCATED AT PASADENA STREET AND CENTRAL AVENUE AND THIRD STREET - APN 377-140-017& 019. 5. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30680 Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 9:10 PM. Community Development Director Brady requested that Planning Manager Villa review the project with the Planning Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that Alesco is the Developer. He indicated that the applicant is proposing to subdivide 6 acres of vacant land into two parcels pursuant to the requirements of Section 16.24 which is the subdivision ordinance and Section 17.56 which is the Limited Manufacturing Zoning of the LEMC. PAGE 19 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 Planning Manager Villa stated that the Commission acted on several applications in June, which are related to this project. He stated that the projects were an Amendment to the Liberty Specific Plan No. 93-3 and the Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a Zone Change and Industrial Project Design Review. He stated that this would actually further subdivide into 2 separate parcels. He stated that Parcel No. 1 is proposed at 2.5 acres and Parcel No. 2 is proposed at 3.5 acres. He stated that both parcels would be required to dedicate additional right of way on Cereal Street and Corydon Street. Planning Manager Villa stated that the subdivision has found that the lots sizes and parcels meet the minimum requirements under the M-1 Zoning standards. He indicated that the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the projects were heard in June cover the aspects of the subdivision as well. Planning Manager Villa stated that Staff has found this project to be acceptable and recommends that Planning Commission adopt a Resolution that would recommend that City Council approve a Tentative parcel map No. 30680, based on the following Findings, and Exhibits. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the public. Hearing no comments Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commission. There were no comments from the Commission, therefore Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 9:12 and requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30680. BUSINESS ITEMS 7. Minor Design Review of_a Single Family Residence located at 17555 Sunnyslope Avenue -APN 375-181-037&038. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Minor Design Review for a Single Family Home and requested Planning Manager Villa review it with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that this is an application for a Minor Design Review for a Single Family home. He stated that the applicant proposes to build a 2,379 square foot home, to include a 903 square foot patio and decking. He stated that the LEMC requires fencing is to be utilized, however Planning Manager Villa requested that the Commission waive the fencing requirements since fencing would serve no purpose. PAGE 20 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 Planning Manager Villa commented that Staff has found this project to be acceptable and requested that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Minor Design Review for the Construction of a 2,379 square foot residential located at 17555 Sunnyslope Avenue, based on the Findings, Exhibits and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested the applicant approach the table for questions. Gary Jacobs - Lake Elsinore, stated that the lot was very difficult to work with because it is not flat. The applicant had no further questions. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner Nash asked the applicant if a perc test had been conducted. The applicant indicated yes. The applicant also indicated that he has obtained his permit for the septic tank, and that there are utilities as well. Commissioner Nash stated that it is a great design and had no further questions. Commissioner Uhhy asked the applicant on how he was able to dig the leach pit. The applicant did not approach the table and therefore his comments were not heard for the record. Vice Chairman Matthies stated that she is glad to see the different types of homes in the area. She thanked Staff for the good work. There were no further comments from the Commission. Chairman Barnes requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 2,379 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 17555 SUNNYSLOPE AVENUE S. Minor Design Review of a Single Family Residential Project located at 31701 Canyon Ridge Drive APN,3 3- ,.272-007. 6 Community Development Director Brady stated that this is Minor Design Review for a Single Family Home, and requested Community Development Technician Hennings to review it with the Planning Commission. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that this is a Minor Design Review of a Single Family home, located on Canyon Ridge Drive. She stated that this home is located PAGE 21 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—August 07,2002 in the Revised Canyon Creek Specific Plan, also known as Summerhill. She indicated that the applicant intends on constructing a 2,263 square foot two-story house with a three-car garage. She noted that the applicant would utilize Spanish style architecture. She stated that the project meets all the minimum requirements of the LEMC and the Specific Plan. She recommended to the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution approving a Minor Design Review for the construction of a signal family residence based on the Finding, Exhibits and Condition of Approval. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that the applicant was present however had to leave the meeting. Chairman Barnes requested any comments from the public. Hearing no comments, Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commissioners. There were no comments from the Commissioners, and therefore Chairman Barnes requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 31701 CANYON RIDGE DRIVE, APN 363-272-007 9. Capitol Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2002-03. Community Development Director Brady stated that this item before the Commission is for the construction of the Capital Improvement Program, and requested City Engineer O'Donnell review it with the Commission. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that this Capital improvement is consistent with the General Plan. He indicated that the City Council approved it on July 9, 2002. He indicated that there are 16 projects in all,which would cost in the range of 5 million dollars. Chairman Barnes requested status on the Bridge on Summerhill. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that it is completed. Chairman Barnes requested any further questions. There being no further questions, Chairman Barnes requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY UHLRY, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-39, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-03. PAGE 22 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 07, 2002 INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Communi Develo ment Director Bradycommented on the following: • He wanted to advise the Planning Commissioner that there would be EDC luncheon on September 5,2002 at the Diamond Stadium. • He also wanted to advise the Commission that on future project such as the Single Family Residential projects that they may be approved internally to help expedite these types of project and to help lower costs of these types of projects. Commissioner LaPere requested that the Commission be provided a summary of the actions taken. Community Development Director Brady indicated that Staff could provide a list of what actions were taken internally. Planning Manger Villa commented on the following: • He advised the Commission that the next Planning Commission Meeting would take place on Wednesday August 21, 2002. He stated that Staff was hoping to have the meeting on Tuesday August 20, 2002, at 6:00 however due to a conflict of meetings, it would be necessary to have it on the 21'. The meetings will be held on Tuesdays, starting on September 3, at 6:00 PM. All Commissioners agreed to start on September. 3, 2002. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • No comments. Vice Chairman Matthies commented on the following: • She wanted to Thank Staff for all the hard work and effort put into the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Uhhv commented on the following: • No comments. PAGE 23 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — August 07, 2002 Commissioner LaPere commented on the following: • No comments. Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • No comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:31 PM. OHN BARNES, C—HAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted Dana C.Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: r obert A. Brady,Sec tart'to the Tanning Commissi n MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY,AUGUST 21, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by Vice Chairwoman Matthies. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Uhlry. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: MATTHIES,UHLRY, LAPERE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES AND NASH Also present were Community Development Director Brady,Associate Planner Miller,City Engineer O'Donnell,Community Development Technician Hennings, and Deputy City Attorney Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. 1a. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2002 will be considered on the regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 3,2002. PUBLIC HEARINGS None BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Minor Desigg Review of two Single Family Residences located at 107 & 320 Townsend Street (MN 374-202-006 &374-102-001 PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 21, 2002 Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Minor Design Review for two Single Family Residences, and requested that Community Development Technician Hennings review it with the Commission. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that this is a Minor Design Review for two manufactured homes. She indicated that one is located on Townsend Street between Lakeshore Drive and Heald Avenue, and the other is located on Townsend the corner of Pottery Street. She noted that the floor plan of 107 Townsend would have a Spanish Architecture to include a turn in garage, which complies with the Historic Elsinore Architectural Guidelines. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the applicant has requested to have a block wall with Plexiglas between pilasters,in order to have a view of the lake. She noted that the other home of 320 Townsend will have the garage entry off Townsend. She stated that the main view of the home would be off Pottery. She stated that both homes comply with the LEMC and the Historical Elsinore Guidelines and Staff is recommending approval, based on the Findings, Exhibits and Condition of Approval. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that the applicant is present for questions that the Commission may have. Vice Chairwoman Matthies requested any comments from the public. Delco Hagan, 431 Barham Avenue, San Marco CA is the developer for the project. He indicated that this project is relatively simple and that the homes are being constructed on in fill lots. He had no further questions at this time. Robert stated that he is also working on the project. He stated that he had submitted an alternate plan that shows an entrance off Pottery instead of Townsend. He stated that on Townsend, there is a considerable grade and for safety purposes, it would be more reasonable. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that there had been some discussion of the newly proposed entrance off Pottery with Delco Hagan. She requested that the City Engineer O'Donnell address this issue. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that he would prefer to keep the entrance off Townsend. He stated that he would look at the plans again and address the issue later. The applicant had no further questions. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if there were any more comments from the public. Being no further comments, Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked for comments from the Commission. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — AUGUST 21, 2002 Commissioner Uhlry asked the applicant if the lot was large enough to accommodate a pool. The applicant indicated that the lot could accommodate a small pool. He stated that the lot is 50 x 150. Commissioner Uhlry stated that his concern is that should a pool be put on the lot,it could create a step for someone to crawl over that additional 3 feet. The applicant stated that the grade is seven feet lower than the existing grade. He indicated that should someone attempt to climb the grade to get to the wall,they would have a tough time doing it. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if there were any way that the Plexiglas could be flush with the block wall. The applicant stated it would not make any difference if he did that. He stated that the grade is very steep, and you would need a ladder to get up to the wall. He stated that the best part of the lot is the lake. He stated that if he were to put up a six-foot fence,then it would block the view of the lake. Commissioner Uhlry asked the applicant if the house on the corner has the attached or detached garage. The applicant stated that the house on Townsend would have an attached garage. He stated that the house on Pottery is a detached garage and the hill off Pottery is very steep. The applicant stated that was one of his concerns, and the area has a blind spot, where you cannot see the on coming traffic. Commissioner Uhlry asked if there a way to have the driveway off the corner. The applicant stated that on his original design the driveway was to be off Pottery, but has since changed to come off Townsend. Commissioner Uhlry had no further questions. Commissioner LaPere stated that the Plexiglas is a great idea. He stated that he understands the concerns that Commissioner Uhlry has regarding the possibility of the pool being placed in the yard. He stated that the City Engineer should look at it, and if necessary a CUP would need to be issued if a pool were to be placed in the yard. Commissioner LaPere asked the applicant how thick is the Plexiglas and would much force could the Plexiglas sustain should someone fall against it. The applicant stated that the Plexiglas is very durable. He indicated that you could run into it, and it would not break. He stated that the Plexiglas is 3/16`h of an inch thick. Vice Chairwoman Matthies had no questions pertaining to the project. She recommended that Staff look into the issue of the garage entrance. There being no further comments, Vice Chairwoman Matthies requested the reading of the Resolution. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 21, 2002 MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY A 3-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-40, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 107 & 320 TOWNSEND STREET (APN 374-202-006&374-102-001). 3. Minor Design Review of a Single Family Residence located at 405 Pottery Street- APN 374-052-018. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a Minor Design Review for a Single Family Residence and requested Associate Planner Miller to review the project with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that this is a Single Family Residence located in the Historic Overlay District on Pottery Street. She stated that the project site is located on two lots that have been recently merged to create one lot, approximately 16,000 square feet. She indicated that the applicant intends on constructing a 2,627 square foot manufactured home to include a 440 square foot two car garage on the site. She stated that the Historic Overlay District requires that all new construction have elements of various 1920 styles present in the Historic Standards. She indicated that Staff recognizes that it is difficult for offsite manufactured homes to meet these Standards. Therefore, she stated Staff looks for substantial compliance with the code. She stated that in this case, the proposed residence provides a craftsman style porch with pillars and railing of that era. Associate Planner Miller stated that the colors of the project will be beige stucco and the trim will be a dark brown and dark brown asphalt shingle roof. She stated that the project is conditioned to provide landscaping and a six-foot City Standard wood fence. Associate Planner Miller noted that there are two unresolved issues. She stated that one is the placement of the garage and the other is the 20-foot right-of- way dedication. She stated that the first issue is the garage placement on the lot. She indicated that garage placement is a policy of the Planning Division. She indicated that the garage is to be placed at either at the rear of the residence or separated from the residence with a minimum of 10 feet. She stated that the Historic Standards states that the garage entrances from alleys, corners or sidelots are encourage preventing garage doors from dominating the street scene. Therefore, Staff is recommending adding Condition No. 21a to the Conditions of Approval to read "the applicant shall relocate the garage to the rear of tdx resxkw or place it at a minhm m of 10 feet to the residency per the review and appwzd of the Carmwiity Dadopmezt Dirrrtor or design&" Associate Planner Miller stated that the second issue is the dedication of the right-of-way. She stated that the right-of way dedication of 20 feet is a requirement of the General Plan. She stated that the set back requirement is also 20 feet. She stated that these two set backs totals 40 feet. She stated that the applicant refused to give the 20-foot dedication and choose a 10-foot right-of-way. She stated that due to this, Staff can not recommend approval for this project and recommends that Planning Commission considers the PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 21, 2002 proposed project. She stated that if Planning Commission finds that the Conditions of Approval are acceptable as presented Staff recommends Planning Commission adopt Resolution and approve the Minor Design Review for the construction of the 2,627 square foot residence and the 440 square foot garage to be located at 405 Pottery Street. She stated that these recommendations are based on the Findings, Exhibits and attached Conditions of Approval. Associate Planner Miller stated that the applicant is present to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if anyone from the public wished to speak regarding this project. Charles Neal (applicant) 2017 North Corlett Avenue, Los Angeles. He stated that he was told that the garage could not be place in the front of the home. He indicated that the side entrance that leads into the garage is approximately a 7-foot set back. He stated that the other problem is dedicating 20 feet. He stated that it is not feasible to give up 20 feet to widen the street. He stated that 90% of the houses would have to be torn down. He stated that 20 x 100 is a lot of land to dedicate for a street that will never be widened. He also stated that it would not be safe for the kids to cross a street that wide. Luciano Gomez asked the Commission why the City is going to make the street bigger. He also asked whose idea was to have the street widen. Antonio Arreta stated that he has been living in the City of Lake Elsinore for 30 years. He stated that he has not seen very many improvements to the City. He stated that now the City wants to come in and take 20 feet from all the residences on his street. He stated that his property is located on the corner of Pottery and Poe. He indicated that should the 20 feet be dedicated, the house would need to be moved in order to allow the dedication. He indicated that he currently is retired and the expense would be too much. He stated that all the neighbors are all in the same situation. He asked who was responsible for this decision and why were not the neighbors notified until now. Lois Urban,314 N.Poe Street,Lake Elsinore asked where the 20 feet dedication measured. Jose Garcia has two houses on Pottery Street. He stated that if a 20 feet dedication taken, then that would mean 40 feet from him. He stated that the street does not need to be widen, because drivers already drive fast on that street. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if there were any more questions from the public. Hearing no further questions, Vice Chairwoman Matthies requested comments from the Conunission. Commissioner LaPere asked Antonio Arreta to approach the table for questions. Commissioner LaPere stated that the homeowner is proposing the project. He indicated that the setback is being proposed for his project only. He stated that the two issues were PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — AUGUST 21,2002 for the garage and for the 20-foot dedication. He indicated that these procedures were developed by the City Standards for the Historic Overlay back in 1992. He stated that the garage which calls for a minimum of a 10 foot set back, and the set back from the road is part of the uniformity of the 1920 homes that were built during that time. He stated that the City must comply with these guidelines. Community Development Director Brady stated that the project before the Commission this evening is for the approval of the Single Family Home. He stated that the Commission is not going to approve the widening of the road. He stated that the City has a General Plan that is required by law. He stated that within that General Plan you have different elements and one of those is a circulation element. He noted that the circulation element was revised in 1995 which identifies the major streets. He stated that Pottery is one of the major streets. He stated that it is not the City intentions of widening the road at this time. He stated that the purpose of the 20-foot dedication is a case by case process, as properties develop along Pottery. He stated that there are not any plans at this time to widen the street. Antonio Arreta stated that he feels that if one person gives in, then the City will start asking everyone to give up the 20 feet. Community Development Director Brady stated that a church located on Pottery has already given up the 20 foot dedication, and the other project tonight as well. Commissioner Uhlry requested Vice Chairwoman Matthies to call order,Antonio Arreta has had his three minutes to speak. Vice Chairwoman Matthies explained to the public that the Commission and Staff would try to address each question. Community Development Director Brady also stated that one of the questions presented was where do they start measuring the 20 feet from. He stated that it is measured from the existing property line. He stated that generally it is behind the sidewalk from the property line. Associate Planner Miller commented that one of the questions presented was that they did not receive a notice of the project. She indicated that the City procedures are to send out a notice within the 300 feet radius of the project. She stated that the applicant provided the address labels with all the properties within that radius, so the property owners should have been notified. Commissioner LaPere stated that he has read the Zoning Code as it relates to the Historical Area of Lake Elsinore. He stated that the Standards that were approved in 1992 states the area should conform to the 1920's. He stated that Staff has included this as part of the Conditions, and therefore the applicant must comply with this request. PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 21,2002 The applicant stated that this property once belonged to his Grandfather. He indicated that the lot once had three houses that had burnt down. He asked why does he now have to dedicate 20 feet of his property. Commissioner LaPere stated that these criteria were established in 1992, so the Planning Commission has to follow those criteria. He stated that what the applicant is requesting, does not conform to what is now considered a Standard. He stated that it makes it difficult for the City to agree to allow one person to be an exception. Commissioner Uhlry asked the applicant that the drawings show a 5-foot set back from the back of the house. The applicant stated that it is 5 to 7 feet. Commissioner Uhlry asked the applicant why could he not go back another 3 to accommodate 10 feet. He stated that the advantage that the applicant would have would be that if the garage were moved back 10 feet,it would open that window in the master bedroom. The applicant stated that this is a manufactured home. He stated that once the home is designed and built,they can not make changes. Commissioner Uhhy stated that the plans appear to show window to be in the middle of the garage. The applicant stated that the only window that is in the middle of the garage is the bedroom window,not the master bedroom. Vice Chairwoman Matthies stated that the Commission is under the assumption that the garage is along the side of the master bedroom. The applicant stated that the garage is on the other side. Comrriissioner Uhhy asked the applicant why could he not move the garage back 3 feet. The applicant stated that the way the manufacture home is made, is that they are put together in three sections. He stated that they could not move that door back. Commissioner Uhlry stated that the only other option would be is to have a detached garage. Vice Chairwoman stated that the Historical District is trying to maintain the look of the existing homes in the area. She stated that in the past,the houses had the detached garage in the rear of the home. She stated that this is the look that Staff is following. She stated that this is based on the Standards that the City implemented in 1992. Commissioner LaPere asked the applicant on how far would he be willing to move the garage back. The applicant stated that he could not move it back any further. PAGE S -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — AUGUST 21, 2002 Commissioner Uhlry stated that all of the new housing that is going up in the Historical area, must meet the 40 foot set back. He stated that Pottery is a major street in the City, and eventually repairs will be necessary. He stated that at that time, the City will consider widening Pottery. He stated that in order for that to happen, the City would need the right- of-way easement in order to put the street. The applicant stated that he has already checked with the utility companies. He stated that it would cost millions of dollars to widen Pottery. He stated that widening the road would not be feasible. Commissioner Uhlry stated that the applicant must conform to the set back Standards. The applicant stated that he would not dedicate the 20 feet. Commissioner Uhlry stated that he could not approve this project, if the applicant is not willing to dedicate the 20 feet. Vice Chairwoman Matthies stated that it sometimes is difficult being a Planning Commissioner, as she said that they have certain rules to follow. She stated that she has lived in the City all her life as well as her Grandmother. She stated that this City has grown so much, and as the City grows, improvements need to be made. She stated that there are certain rules that must be followed. Commissioner LaPere asked the applicant if he would be willing to further discuss the two main issues with Staff. Community Development Director Brady stated that Staff has made the recommendations and Planning Commission could recommend approval of this project with the Conditions. He stated that the ordinance that implements the General Plan has been adopted by the City Council, and Planning Commission can not change that. He stated that if the Planning Commission wishes to make a decision as to where the set back would be, we could implement on what the Commission approves. Deputy Attorney Miles concurred with Community Development Director Bradys recommendations. He stated that one of the concerns is that there is a difference of opinion. He stated that the government could take away private property from private owners under certain circumstances without compensation. He stated that it happens all the time. He indicated the reason is due to building in the present year and what that means in terms of being a member of the public. He noted that the way it is set up as long as it has a basis, and the portion makes sense,then the City can do it. The applicant disagreed with the Deputy Attorney Miles. The applicant stated that he would set his property back 40 feet, but the City can not ask for 20 feet of his property. Deputy Attorney Miles stated that the City, this is what is happening. He indicated that unfortunately,government can say, give us that strip of easement. PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 21, 2002 The applicant disagreed with the Deputy Attorney Miles. He stated that the government could not say "give it to me," they can say, "we are taking it," but can not ask me to give it to them. He stated that it states no where in the government where it says "give me this," He stated that the government can say "we are taking this 20 feet for improvements," He stated that he received a letter from a City Council member that states that. He stated that he has no problems with having the City taking the 20 feet. Deputy Attorney Miles stated that there is a major distinction there. He stated that the City could at any time chose to take the property, and give compensation for it. He stated however they can also regulate your property. He stated that the City is asking for a Condition of Approval that an easement be granted and it is without compensation, because it is related to an entitlement for the property, and to the existing General Plan for the City. He stated that if the can not be done,then we can not make this specific findings to approve this project. He indicated that the Resolution states that this is consistent to the General Plan. He also indicated that a class three category exemption,that states that if the City were to deviate from the General Plan we wouldn't be able to rely on a class three exemption under CEQA because it would be granting exemption for which there is an impact to existing land. He stated that the City would not be able to grant an exemption, and the City would not be able to make the finding. Vice Chairwoman Matthies stated that the Commission must comply with the set back, or the project can not proceed. She stated that the applicant does have the choice to make an appeal to the City Council. Community Development Director Brady stated that if the Commission wishes to approve the project this evening, with the required Conditions of Approval. He stated that Condition No. 21 a would be deleted. Commissioner Uhlry requested clarification of the set back. He asked if it was 5 feet or 7 feet. Associate Planner Miller stated that the set back is general. She stated that the Condition could read that it align with the side door. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked for the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY UHLRY, SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY A 3-0 VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 2002-41,A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 2,627 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 405 POTTERY STREET - APN 374-052-018. INFORMATIONAL NONE PAGE 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — AUGUST 21, 2002 STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady • He wanted to advise the Commissioner that the next Chamber mixer would be held on Thursday,August 23, 2002 at the Lake Elsinore Ford at 5:30 PM. • He advised the Commission that the League of Cities conference would take place on October 2 through the 5 in Long Beach. • He suggested to Mr. Neal that if he decides to make an appeal to the City Council, then the cost would be $200.00, and an application to the City would need to be submitted. He stated that the statue of limitations is a 10-day period. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Vice Chairwoman Matthies commented on the following: • She wanted to express to the audience on the importance of making the right decisions, and she explained that sometimes it is a tough decision. Commissioner Uhlry commented on the following: • He wanted to thank the audience for the patience and understanding. He stated that as progress is made, there would be changes made. He stated that it is going to take a Community effort. • He wanted to thank Staff for all the hard work they have accomplished with regards to this project. Commissioner LaPere commented on the following: • He concurred on Commissioner Uhhy's comments on thanking Staff and the audience on the patience and work regarding the project. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY UHLRY SECONDED BY LAPERE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:10 PM. PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 21, 2002 r c VICE CHAIRWOMAN MATTHIES Respectfully Submitted Dana C. Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: R96ert A. Brady,Secretaryto e Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner LaPere. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES, UHLRY, LAPERE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NASH Also present were: Community Development Director Brady,Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell,and Community Development Technician Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner LaPere stated that the August 7,2002 Minutes on page 21 paragraph 4, the sentence should have read,There were no further comments from the Commissioners. It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the Minutes as noted. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. Minutes 1. a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting-August 7,2002 b. Planning Commission Regular Meeting-August 21,2002 PAGE 2- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Tentative Condominium Plan for Parcel#2 of TPM No. 30680 and Design Review of Industrial No.2002-03 "BIM Lake Condominium Business Park". Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 6:05 PM. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Tentative Parcel Map had come before the Planning Commission previously, and that this is for further subdivision. He requested that Planning Manager Villa review it with the Planning Commission. Planning Manager Villa indicated that this is a two-action item. He stated that the applicant is requesting a Tentative Condominium Plan for Parcel 2 of TPM 30680. He indicated that City Council approved the TPM at their last meeting. He stated that the applicant is requesting a Design Review for construction of three industrial buildings for the industrial building complex. He noted that the three building would encompass 63,044 square feet. Planning Manager Villa commented that Parcel 2 is approximately 152,302 square feet in the area. He stated that the proposal would include common areas, and about 158 parking spaces. He indicated that the applicant is proposing to provide approximately 30,467 square feet of landscaping which is 20% of the lot. He stated that the site is located at the corner of Corydon and Cereal, approximately 100 feet from the Skylark Airport. Planning Manager Villa stated that the Industrial Condominium concept is a new concept to the City. He stated that Staff has conducted extensive research, to see how other Cities dealt with this type of project. He stated that a common issue shared by all cities was the establishment of CC&R's to regulate all common areas, Landscaping responsibilities and infrastructure improvements. Planning Manager Villa stated that the project has met all applicable development Standards of the Municipal Code. He stated that Staff recommended to the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution for the Tentative Condominium Plan for Parcel No. 2 of TPM No. 30680. He stated that in addition he recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution for the Industrial Project 1 2002-03 based on the Findings, Exhibits and the proposed Condition of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Public. There being no comments, Chairman Barnes requested the applicant to approach the table for questions that the Commission may have. Jeff Sanner,Alesco Development,Woodland Hills stated that he had read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes brought the discussion back to the table for Commissioners comments. PAGE 3 -PI-ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES--SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner LaPere stated that the project looks very well put together. Vice Chairwoman Matthies commented on the large blank wall on building "C." She indicated that eventually this blank wall would more than likely not be an issue once more development is added. However, she stated that this is a pet peeve of hers, and she prefers not to see blank walls. Planning Manager Villa stated that the Parcel adjacent to the area would be developed with similar structure eventually. Vice Chairman Matthies asked if a pattern could be added to the wall, such as brick. She stated that she realizes that some day the area adjacent would be developed, however she does not the look of a blank wall. Planning Manager Villa stated that the applicant could raise the parapet wall, and make the same similar design as the front elevation. The applicant stated that they could make a ledger band as proposed to raising the parapets. He stated that the ledger band is approximately 24 inches wide. He noted that it is detailed when the concrete panel is poured. He stated that it adds a different color band and texture to the building,giving a more attractive appearance. Chairman Barnes asked Vice Chairwoman Matthies if she wished to adjust a Condition. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked Staff for a recommendation. Planning Manager Villa noted that a Condition could be added to include the ledger band. Community Development Director Brady stated that Staff could add and amend the wording to Condition No. 19. Vice Chairwoman Matthies stated that she notices the compact spaces in the parking lot. The applicant stated that the compact spaces were provided for a reason. He stated that the project is actually over the code parking requirements, and could accommodate the larger parking spaces. Vice Chairwoman Matthies had no further questions. Commissioner Uhlry joined the meeting at 6:10 PM. He stated that the compact parking space has been resolved. The applicant stated that one of the requirements of the Conditions of Approval was to expand the alleyways. Commissioner Uhlry had no further comments. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Chairman Barnes hearing no further comments closed the Public Hearing at 6:15 PM, and requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-42, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM PLAN FOR PARCEL NO. 2 OF TPM NO. 30680 MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-43, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO 2002-03, TO BE LOCATED ON CEREAL AND CORYDON STREETS - PARCEL NO. 2 OF TPM NO. 30680 WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS TO CONDITION NO. 19: 19. MATERIALS AND COLORS DEPICTED ON THE PLANS AND MATERIALS BOARD SHALL BE USED UNLESS MODIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE ONE ADDITIONAL ACCENT COLOR TO THE COLORS PROPOSED. THIS COLOR SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE. ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO THE REAR OF BUILDING "C" IN THE FORM OF A ELEVATION ENHANCEMENT SHALL BE MADE SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04 and Design Review for Commercial Project No C 2002-02. Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 6:20 PM. Community Development Director indicated that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and requested Community Development Technician Hennings to review it with the Commission,in Associate Planner Miller's absence. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the CUP is for a church in a residential zone, and a Design Review for the construction of the church facility. She stated that the site is a 3.3-acre parcel, and is located at the corner of Grape Street and Malaga Road. She stated that the access will be off Malaga Road. PAGE 5-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the facility would be a single story 5,892 square foot building,which would include a sanctuary, two classrooms, a kitchen a pastor office, and other miscellaneous rooms. She stated that there would be a six-foot decorative block wall constructed on the northern/eastern property line, with 1 acre reserved for future development. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that the parking spaces provided- exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the LEMC. She stated that the CUP is for general church activities. She stated that the two issues that are currently involved are the noise and the traffic in the area. She stated that Chapter 17.78 of the LEMC regulates noise control and would cover any issues. She also stated that with regards to the traffic issue, Staff has analyzed the operating hours of the church and has determined that the church will operate at alternative times, and Olive Street could be used as a alternate street. She noted that the applicant is being required to pay fees for the future associated right-of-ways. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that Staff has found the proposed project complies with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and Municipal Code and Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to approve the Conditional Use Permit 2002-04 and adopt a Resolution for the City Council approve Design Review for Commercial Project No. C 2002-02 based on the Findings, Exhibits and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Public in favor or against the project. Phil Saenz 23895 Via Delalinda, Murrieta, Senior Pastor of the church. He stated that the Bread of Life Fellowship was in 1995 in Lake Elsinore,with five families. He stated that the congregation has grown to 280+ and is currently meeting at the Elsinore High School Theater. He stated that the church has members that come from all around the area and he feels that the church is a great asset to the Community. He requested that the Planning Commission approve their request for the building of their church. Ronald Feenstra 3629 Lloyd Place, San Diego stated that he is a mobile church architect,and has worked for the church as an architect for over twenty-five years. He stated that the church keeps the property neat and clean up by maintaining the weeds, and recommends to the Planning Commission approval of the project. Chairman Barnes hearing no further comments from the Public brought the discussion back to the table for comments froin the Commission. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked about the eastern elevation of the building and wanted to know about the two classrooms. Art Lopez, member of the Fellowship stated that on the eastside of the church there would be a six-foot block wall, which is required Staff. He also stated that the two classrooms would be used for Sunday school children. Planning Manager Villa verified the six-foot block wall. PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 3,2002 Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked about the landscaping along the block wall. Art Lopez stated that the area that would be landscaped would be the area near the two driveways, and around the back of the church. He stated that the area along the block wall would be ground cover. Commissioner LaPere stated that Staff has done an excellent job, and had no further questions. Commissioner Uhlry asked about the south side of the church where the plans show future parkway and curb. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that at this time there would not be a curb. He stated that street improvements would not be completed at this time, however, the applicant would be required to pay in-lieu fees. He noted that the area would only be paved. Commissioner Uhlry asked if there were plans to build a school in the near future. Art Lopez stated that the church plans in a few years to develop a larger sanctuary or a day care center to serve the community and the church. He stated that there are no plans for a school at this time. Commissioner Uhlry had no further comments. Chairman Barnes stated that Staff has done a good job with the project, and asked the applicant if they have read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. The applicant stated yes. Chairman Barnes had no further comments and closed the Public Hearing at 6:35 PM. MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-45, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04 FOR A CHURCH FACILITY, BREAD OF LIFE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH LOCATED AT GRAPE STREET AND MALAGA ROAD -APN 365-020-011. PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-44, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT NO. C 2002-02 FOR A CHURCH FACILITY, BREAD OF LIFE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, LOCATED AT GRAPE STREET AND MALAGA ROAD - APN 365- 020-011. BUSINESS ITEMS None INFORMATIONAL None STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following_ p He wanted to advise the Commissioner that the annual EDC Luncheon will be held on Thursday September 5 p He stated that the League of the Cities would be held on October 2, 2002 Planning Manager Villa commented on the following_ • He advised the Planning Commission the status of the Motocross and BMX facility. He stated that the Staff has met with the Fire Chief of Lake Elsinore and that the Fire Chief recommends that the Motocross facility have two EMT's and no ambulance at the site during business hours. The ambulance would be a requirement during special events. • He stated that Staff will have a meeting with the applicant on Monday, September 9 at the City Hall, and will go over the Conditions of Approval. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS PAGE S- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • Thanked Staff for making it easier for the Planning Commission prepared for the meetings. Vice Chairwoman Matthies commented on the following: p She noted that the City s rodeo was a great success and congratulated Commissioner Uhlry. She stated that City Council expressed their recognition to Commissioner Uhlry for the excellent job with the rodeo and presented to him an award at the last City Council meeting. Commissioner Uhlry commented on the following_ • He stated that he is glad to see that the Bread of Life Fellowship is moving forward with the church plans. He noted that the designs of the church look good and looks forward to seeing it grow with the community. Commissioner LaPere commented on the followin p He thanked Staff for all the hard work. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES SECONDED BY LAPERE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM. HN BARNES, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 tfz -� o. � Dana C. Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: obert A. Brady, Secretary to e Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Uhlxy. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES, NASH, LAPERE, AND UHLRY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Brady,Associate Planner Miller, City Engineer O'Donnell, Community Development Technician Hennings, Community Development Clerk Porche' and Deputy City Attorney Steve Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR i NONE MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. Minutes 1. September 3, 2002 PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-06— Instant Fun for Kids located at 31361 Riverside Drive APN 379-160-015) Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 6:03 PM, and requested the Staff Report. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Conditional Use Permit for a family style pizza restaurant, and requested that Community Development Technician Hennings review it with the Commission. Community Development Technician Henning stated that this CUP is for a project called Instant Fun For Kids, which is to be located at 31361 Riverside Drive at the corner of Riverside Drive and Walnut Street in the Patricia Plaza. She stated that it would be a family style pizza restaurant that would have maximum of 25 electronic arcade games. She indicated that Staff has proposed a Condition of Approval that would limit the number of games to no more than 25 and that the arcade area to no more than 2000 square feet. She indicated that the proposed hours for the restaurant would be from 10:00 AM until 10:00 PM, seven days a week. Community Development Technician Hennings commented that the LEMC does not provide parking standards for arcades. She stated that Staff is proposing that dne space is provided for every 200 square feet of arcade area. She indicated that the applicant is requesting for consideration of a CUP for shared parking. She stated that shared parking is permissible under .Section 17.66.070 of the LEMC. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that all of the retail uses close after 6:00 PM therefore leaving all the parking spaces available to the proposed restaurant. She stated that the restaurant's peak hours of operation would be from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Community Development Technician Hennings requested that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to approve the Conditional Use Permit based on the Findings, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Public in favor or against the project. There being no comments from the Public, Chairman Barnes requested the applicant to approach the table for questions that the Commission may have. Applicant Wah Taing, 31361 Riverside Drive, stated that he has read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval and looks forward working with the City and Staff. Chairman Barnes brought the discussion back to the table for Commissioners comments. Commissioner LaPere arrived at 6:07 PM. Commissioner Uhlry asked the applicant if the landlord agreed to Condition Number 13. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Gary Washburn, Lake Elsinore, a representative for the applicant approached the table and indicated that the applicant is the landlord. Commissioner Uhiry had no further questions. Vice Chairwoman Matthies stated that she likes the idea of a family style pizza restaurant and had no further questions. Commissioner Nash stated that he has seen the work of the Applicant in the past and he runs a clean business. He stated that he is glad that the applicant purchased the plaza. He had no further questions. Commissioner LaPere asked the applicant if there would be any alcoholic beverages served at the restaurant. Applicant Wah Taing stated that in the future there would be plans for serving alcoholic beverages, and would apply for a license later. Commissioner LaPere asked if the parking issue was agreed to. The applicant stated yes. Commissioner LaPere had no further questions. Chairman Barnes asked the applicant about Condition Number 13, and what would happen should the business be sold later. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the agreement for shared parking is recorded against the deed, and that it runs with the property. There being no further comments, Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 6:11 PM, and requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-46, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE RESTAURANT AND ARCADE WITH THE PROVISION OF SHARED PARKING AT INSTANT FUN FOR KIDS, WITHIN PATRICIA PLAZA, LOCATED AT 31361 RIVERSIDE DRIVE (APN 379-160-015). 3. Zone Change No. ZC 2002-04 and Design Review for Residential Project No. R 2001-12 Mudti-fatnily Apartment Complex on Ru pard Street & PotteU Street — APN 377-313-013. Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 6:12 PM, and requested Staffs Report. PAGE 4 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 17,2002 Community Development Director indicated that this is a request Zone Change and Design Review of a Residential Project. He requested that Associate Planner Miller review it with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that this request is for a Zone Change from R-1, Single Family Residential District to R-2, Medium Density and a request for a Design Review of a residential multi-family project. She stated that the project site is currently zoned R-1,which is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of Medium Density. She stated that the Medium Density of the General Plan allows densities of up to 12 dwelling units per acre consistent with the R-2 zoning. She noted that the General Plan supercedes, therefore, a zone change from R-1, Single Family Residential District to R-2, Medium Residential was required as part of the process for consideration of the Design Review. She stated that the residential project consists of 24 apartment units to be located at the corner of Rupard Street and Pottery Street. Associate Planner Miller commented that the project is located within Area 3 of the Redevelopment Plan. She stated that the area site is 1.7 net acres or 74,671 square feet. She . indicated that the apartment complex consists of three 6,480 square foot buildings for a total of 13,837 square feet of building footprint. She noted that the applicant intends to build eight apartment units per building. Associate Planner Miller stated that one building would include eight, three bedroom units, and two buildings would have two bedroom and three bedroom units. She indicated that all units would have a washer/dryer so that a separate laundry facility would not be required. Associate Planner Miller commented that the dwelling unit sized for the two-bedroom unit would be 700 square feet and 800 square feet for the three-bedroom unit. She stated that each unit would also be provided with 95 cubic feet of attached, enclosed storage space per the requirements of Section 17.24.170 of the LEMC. Associate Planner Miller stated the applicant is providing 24 covered parking spaces. She indicated that the parking structure would have a gabled, tiled roof that will match the apartment buildings. She noted that there would be 40 open parking spaces, which would include four handicap spaces for a total of 64 parking spaces and meets with the LEMC. She indicated that the applicant is also proposing to provide 6,100 square feet of common open space area that would include a playground for children residing in the apartment complex. She stated that the playground would include a slide and swing set and would be enclosed with a tubular steel fence. Associate Planner Miller stated that the proposed project complies with the LEMC and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approve Zone Change No. ZC 2002-04, and adopt a Resolution, recommending City Council approval of Residential Project No. 2001-12 , based on the findings, Exhibits and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Public. John Reese, Hermosa Beach Architect for the project stated that the City of Lake Elsinore has been supportive of this project. PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner LaPere asked Staff about Condition Number 5 under the Planning Division. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a standard Condition. Commissioner LaPere asked about the tubular fencing that is to be used. Community Development Director Brady stated that fencing is not wrought iron. He stated that the material is made out of tubular steel and has the appearance of wrought iron. Commissioner LaPere asked about Condition Number 42, where it discusses the dedication of a 5-foot wide strip along the right-of way on Rupard Street. Community Development Director referred the question to the City Engineer. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that this would be partial improvements. He stated that the full improvements have been put on hold due to drainage issues. Commissioner LaPere had no further questions. Commissioner Uhlry inquired about the power poles in the area of the project. The applicant indicated that the power poles would be moved underground. Commissioner Uhlry had no further questions. Commissioner Nash concurred with the street improvements, and in-lieu fees. He stated that the project looks nice. He indicated that he doesn't have any problems with the extra units, and had no further questions. Vice Chairwoman Matthies noted the playground. She asked the applicant if the children in the area would have to cross the parking lot in order to get to the playground. She also asked if any benches were around the playground area. The applicant stated that the area would have sidewalks that would lead to the playground. He indicated no provisions for benches at the playground. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if benches could be added, and that a revision could be made to the Conditions of Approval. She had no further questions. Chairman Barnes stated that the project looked great. He asked the applicant if the existing trees in the area would need to be moved. The applicant stated yes. PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Chairman Barnes asked if they could be incorporated into the area. The applicant stated that the trees are in the expanded road area. He stated that they would try to keep them. Chairman Barnes asked about Condition number 49 where it discusses street improvements along Flint Street and a portion of Rupard. He stated that he would like the words changed to "Shall be". He also asked Community Development Director Brady what is Affordable Housing based on. Community Development Director Brady stated that it is based on household size. He stated that it varies from County to County. He indicated that the Housing Element of the General Plan is approved. He stated that the Housing Element contains provision and a policy that allows density increases as a bonus, provided the applicant agrees to set aside units as affordable units. There being no further questions, Chairman Baines closed the Public Hearing at 6:34 PM, and requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY MATTHIES SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-47, 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 ZONE CHANGE NO. 2002-04 CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF A PARCEL IDENTIFIED AS APN 377-313-013 FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). MOVED BY MATTHIES SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-48, 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 THE DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. R 2001-12, A TWENTY FOUR (24) UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT RUPARD STREET AND POTTERY STREET, APN 377-313-013 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS: K: Sitting beaches shall be.installed in or adjacent to playground atea. 49. Street improvements shall be need to be constructed along Flint Street and along a portion of Rupard Street. PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 17,2002 4. Zone Change Amendment ZCA No. 2002-01 Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 6:35 PM. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is an amendment to various Sections of Tide 17, Zoning of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) in accordance with Chapter 17.84, Amendments, to revise the land use regulations related to churches, schools, and other places of assembly. He indicated that several zones would be amended. He stated that the proposed amendments would be applied City wide and are not confined to a single location of the City. He commented that it represents about 19% of the City total land area that this would affect. He noted that it does not include any of the Specific Plan areas, as those have their own zoning land use designations development standards. Community Development Director Brady stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission may have regarding a specific zone area. Chairman Barnes requested any comments from the public. There being no comments, Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner LaPere expressed his concerns if the verbiage should be changed, where it discusses public parks and playground. He also expressed his concerns with churches and where they could be located. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the words "and/or" could be added when discussing public parks and playgrounds. He also indicated that their wasn't a specific code that stated where churches could or could not be developed. There being no further discussion, Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 6:55 PM, and requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-49, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 ZONING, OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 17.84, AMENDMENTS, TO REVISE THE LAND USE REGULATIONS RELATED TO CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. ZCA 2002-01 WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE ZCA. PAGE 8 --PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE INFORMATIONAL NONE STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady corrunented on the following • He stated that the League of the Cities would be held on October 2, 2002. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • No comments. Vice Chairwoman blatthics commented on the following: • She received a call from Susan Reid at the City Hall indicating there is a luncheon on Saturday. She indicated that she could not attend the meeting. • She thanked Staff for a job well done on preparing for the Planning Commission Meetings. Commissioner Uhky commented on the following: • He concurred with the Commission on thanking Staff for all their hard work. Commissioner LaPere commented on the following: • He wanted to apologize for being late for the Planning Commission Meeting. He also wanted to thank Staff for their job well done. Commissioner Nash commented on the following • He wanted to let the Commission know that he is going to be very busy in the next few months, and more than likely will not be able to attend any other meetings, other than the Planning Commission Meetings. • He thanked the Commission for being patient while he was recuperating from his illness. PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 17,2002 ADJOURNMENT, MOVED BY MATTHIES SECONDED BY LAPERE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:55PM. 4OHNRNES, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted � G r Dana C. Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: obert A. Brady, Secretary to rh Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 01, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner LaPere. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES, LAPERE, AND UHLRY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NASH Also present were Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell, Community Development Clerk Porche' and Deputy City Attorney Steve Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY UHLRY, SECONDED BY LAPERE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. Minutes 1. September 17, 2002 PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—OCTOBER 1, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Studv Session to Review and Discuss Amendments to Various Development Regulations. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the purpose of this Study Session was to discuss in a round table type of discussion the various Development Regulations with the Planning Commission,and identify several areas that may need to be revised or updated. He indicated that the first standard that he wanted to discuss was the Parking Standards for commercial and industrial uses, under the Parking Section 17.66 of the Zoning Code. He stated that currently the standard is designed for compact cars. He noted that today's cars and SUV's are considerably larger and parking in a compact parking space can be difficult. He indicated that Staff recommends eliminating the use compact parking spaces, and requiring the full size parking space in our commercial and industrial development. Commissioner LaPere asked if their were any Federal laws that states compact spaces are required Community Development Director Brady stated that he is not aware of any. Commissioner LaPere stated that a developer might be reluctant to agree to this standard, since it would mean using more land. Commissioner Uhlry indicated that a full size parking space would be a benefit, especially for emergency vehicles. Commissioner LaPere stated that in the 1970's the compact parking spaces were provided, since cars were smaller in the 1970's. However, he indicated that today more vehicles are larger, and require more space to park, and he agreed to eliminate the compact parking spaces. Community Development Director Brady stated that there would more than likely be some opposition with this revision, since it will require the use of more land. Chairman Barnes indicated that the compact parking spaces were developer motivated, as the developer could meet their parking requirements using less land. Commissioner Uhlry suggested the possibility to reduce the amount of compact parking spaces. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—OCTOBER 1, 2002 It was unanimously decided to eliminate the compact spaces. However, Community Development Director Brady indicated that should it ever become an issue then the Commission could amend the code again. Community Development Director Brady stated that another element of the parking lots is the landscape areas. He commented that presently in the code it states that there is to be a minimum of 5 feet of landscaping. He stated that Staff is recommending having a finger type of planter area to stick out of the parking space, every 10 spaces. He indicated that the purpose of this revision would help beautify the parking area, help reduce the heat. He stated that the finger would be approximately 6 feet wide by 18 feet long. Community Development Director Brady stated that another area of parking that he would like to address is the parking area for garages for single family residential. He stated that typically the current size for the parking area of the garage is 20 x 20 feet. He commented that again with the larger types of vehicles of today's standards, the parking area might need to be increased. He stated that another idea would be to lengthen the parking area from 20 feet to 22 feet,which would also accommodate for recreational vehicles as well. Chairman Barnes asked if we were setting minimum dimensions. Community Development Director Brady stated yes. He stated that there is a development in the City of Murrieta that is offering 8-foot garage doors instead of the 7-foot garage doors. He stated that they have a 26-foot deep two bay garage area. He indicated that this is useful for those who have boats, or RV's. He stated that the developer is using this as a marketing feature and they seemed to be selling very well. Chairman Barnes asked what you would base the minimum on. Community Development Director Brady stated that a possibility would be having the size of the home, or amount of bedrooms be a deciding factor. He stated an idea would be to look at what other communities in the area are doing. Planning Manager Villa indicated that we might need to cross-reference the building code,to see if there are any minimum or maximum standards to make sure that we are not violating any other codes. Commissioner Uhlry asked if low-income housing needs to comply with this revision. Community Development Director Brady stated that Staff would need to look at the Housing Element. Chairman Barnes indicated that we might need to check the State or Federal guidelines. Community Development Director Brady stated that the next area to be reviewed is the Manufactured Housing. He stated that the City has seen an increasing amount of homes coming into the area. He stated that he has seen people moving older Manufactured Homes from other locations and would like Staff to look into implementing an age requirement of PAGE 4-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—OCTOBER 1,2002 the home, such as 5 to 10 years. He requested the Deputy City Attorney Miles to address this area of concern. Deputy City Attorney Miles stated that the City's position with respect to Manufactured Homes would be to look at the Planning Code and Law. He stated that the City could not do anything that might prohibit the use of Manufactured Homes as a concept. He commented that Manufactured Homes in the Historic Overlay District would need to comply with all the requirements of the Historic Overlay area. He noted that the same would apply to the building, electrical and plumbing code. He stated that this would be a benefit to look into. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City of Corona has implemented a code that states, "The manufactured home must be certified under the National Mobile Homes Construction and Safety- Standards Act of 1974 and must be installed on a foundation system pursuant to state law under this chapter. A manufactured home shall not be eligible unless it was constructed within the ten-year period prior to application for a building permit,was issued an insignia of approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development or the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,and has not been altered in violation of applicable law." Community Development Director Brady indicated that the Manufactured Homes would still need to go through the Minor Design Review process, however the City would like to slightly tighten the restrictions. Commissioner LaPere concurs. Commissioner Uhlry felt that five years was not enough. He noted that ten years would be sufficient. All Commissioners concurred. Community Development Director Brady another area to be reviewed was the wall and fencing materials used in the City. He noted that Staff would like for the wall and fencing standards to be upgraded. He noted that a possibility would be for a block wall to be used in lieu of a wooden fence in the front of the house. He stated that another consideration would be for wrought iron to be used. He also stated that there are some new vinyl materials that would replicate wooden fences and requested that Planning Manager Villa review it with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that lately fencing Manufactures have been coming up with new products for fencing that are more durable and attractive looking, and have requested Staff and the Commission to look it over. He stated that these types of materials will last longer, and are more durable against the weather elements, and easier to install Commissioner Uhlry asked if this product would be used in lieu of the wooden fences. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—OCTOBER 1, 2002 Planning Manager Villa stated that wooden fencing would still be used ii the City, however Staff would like the Commission to consider using the new vinyl fencing material on a trial basis in one tract. Chairman Barnes asked how easy it would be for the homeowner to make any repairs, do the materials contain any lead, and are they easily to corrode. Community Development Director Brady stated that those are good questions. He stated that Staff could look around at other City's that use this type of fencing materials,and see how they look and wear. Commissioner LaPere asked should the fencing become necessary to replace,would it be the homeowners responsibility or the builders. Community Development Director Brady stated that it would depend if the fence were still under warranty, and then it would be the manufactures responsibility to replace. He asked the Commission if they would be willing to use a tract as an example. Commissioner LaPere agreed to use it as an example on one tract of homes. Vice Chairman Matthies arrived to the meeting at 6:50 PM. Community Development Director Brady stated that another area that needs to be addressed is the industrial and commercial development guidelines. He requested that Planning Manager Villa go into the details further. Planning Manager Villa stated that the guidelines were used to create a better design. He stated that with die consideration of updating the guidelines, it would make commercial or industrial buildings use more than one type of material, such as brick or iron, making the appearance of the building more attractive. He stated that again,Staff could use other cities for ideas. Community Development Director Brady stand that the last item up for discussion is to have Design Review for Single Family homes to be conducted administratively. He stated that the purpose of this would be that it would save money and time to process an application. Commissioner LaPere agreed however requested that a monthly report be provided to the Commission on the status of actions taken. Chairman Barnes concurred. Commissioner Uhlry asked what it would take to make that happen. Community Development Director Brady stated that it would take a code amendment. He stated that the Council would decide to approve or decline. He stated that the Commission always has the option to take it back. PAGi? G - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—OCTOBER 1, 2002 INFORMATIONAL NONI: STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following: • He stated that Mr. Neal did appeal to the Council last week, and the appeal was denied. • He stated that the Alesco design went before the City Council last week, and the Council decided to have a joint study session to discuss the design review. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He would like to get the status of the Gas Station on Main Street, the Water Store, and Mr. Kipp's mini-storage. He also wanted to know who is maintaining the K-Mart lot,'as it is overgrown with weeds. Mr. Brady indicated that the Water Store has withdrawn their application. He commented that he believes that Mr. Kipp's mini-storage is in plan check. He indicated that the Design Review has expired for the Ultra-Mar Gas Station and will need to come back with another Design Review before proceeding. Community Development Director Brady noted that he would let Code Enforcement know of the weed situation at the K-Mart/Theater parking lot area. Vice Chairwoman Matthies commented on the followin • She noticed that lately at the Lake Theater, she has seen kids hanging out at around 10:00 in the evening,unsupervised by parents. She is concerned for their safety and wanted to know what the hours of the Theater are. Community Development Director Brady stated that he would advise the Community Services Department of this situation. Commissioner UWU commented on the following_ • He stated that he believed that the blank wall of the commercial building was resolved. He stated that the comments from the City Council meeting reflected otherwise. Community Development Director Brady stated that he had mentioned to the City Council that the blank wall of the commercial building had been resolved, during the City Council meeting, as well as the Study Session. ADJOURNMENT PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- OCTOBER 1, 2002 MOVED BY UHLRY SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:23 PM. AOHNARNES, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted /'C21.6 Dana C. Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: Robert A. Brady, Secretary to the Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES, NASH, UHLRY, & LAPERE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell, Senior Planner Morita, Community Development Technician Hennings, Community Development Clerk Porche' and Deputy City Attorney Steve Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. Minutes 1. October 1, 2002 PAGE 2 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—OCTOBER 15, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Commercial Project No. 2002-01 Design Review of an Office/Commercial Building next to the Elsinore City Center (Walmart.) shopping center. Chairman Barnes opened the public heating at 6:02 PM, and requested the reading of the Staff Report. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a Design Review for an office/commercial building and requested Senior Planner Morita review it will the Commission. Senior Planner Morita indicated that this Design Review is for an 8,000 sf office/commercial building which would be located on the outside boundaries of the Walmart Shopping Center. He stated that the building would consist of 5 suites, ranging in size from 2,800 to 1,100 sf. He noted that the applicant would be utilizing the larger suite as their office,while the other 4 remaining suites would be leased out. Senior Planner Morita stated that the project is consistent with the sites C-2, General Commercial Zoning, and complies with the appropriate standards in the Zoning Code related to setbacks, landscaping, building heights, parking, and other related issues. He stated that the project would provide 49-lighted parking spaces,which represents 53% or 17 more parking spaces than required. Senior Planner Morita stated that the architectural design is consistent with the other existing building within the City Center Shopping Center, such as the Denny's and Starbucks. He stated that the proposed design would be Spanish Mission-style architecture. He noted that the building would have a tower-feature. Senior Planner Morita indicated that this project would not create traffic congestion,nor hazard conditions within the Walmart Shopping Center or along Grape Sheet. Senior Planner Morita recommended to the Commission to adopt a Resolution, which would recommend that the City Council approve Commercial Project No. 2002-01, based upon the Findings, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the public. Applicant Glen Daigle, Oakgrove Equities, 28991 Front Street in Temecula, CA staged that he has read and agreed with the Staff Report and the Conditions of Approval. He thanked Staff for their support on this project, and would answer any questions that the Commission may have. Commissioner Uhlry asked the applicant about the grading in the rear of the building. He asked while the grading is taking place, how would they prevent the excess dirt from rolling down Railroad Canyon Road. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES— OCTOBER 15,2002 The Applicant indicated that along Railroad Canyon, there is a cut, and the equipment is geared so that it would be pulling the dirt back off Railroad Canyon. Commissioner Uhlry stated that the rear of the building is visible to Railroad Canyon. He asked the applicant if they intend on designing the tower so that it would not look so blank. The applicant stated that they did add an architectural design to the tower to enhance the look. He stated that there would be windows at the rear of the building because one of the suites would use as an office. He stated that the intent was to create a rhythm with the two towers, which would be help break up a flat look. He indicated that this would give an excellent opportunity for signage. He stated that the building would also have a colored tile to help accent the buildings. Commissioner Uhlry had no further questions. Vice Chairwoman Matthies stated that Commissioner Uhlry covered all the questions that she had. She stated that she liked the design of the building. Commissioner LaPere concurred. Chairman Barnes asked about the signage. Senior Planner Morita stated that because the buildings are located outside of the City Center Specific Plan area, the commercial/office building would need to comply with the sign standards of the Zoning Code. Chairman Barnes had no further questions, and closed the Public Hearing at 6:14 PM. MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-50, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVE COMMERCIAL PROJECT NO. 2002-01, DESIGN REVIEW OF AN OFFICE/COMMERCIAL BUILDING ADJACENT TO THE ELSINORE CITY CENTER SHOPPING CENTER. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Design Review of Residential Project No. 2002-07 — Construction of six single-farnily residences among 14 vacant lots on Mill Street,Avenue G, and Park Water. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Design Review for six single- family homes and requested Community Development Technician Hennings to review it with the Commission. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES---OCTOBER 15, 2002 Community Development Technician Hennings stated that this project being considered consists of six single-family residences among 14 lots along Avenue 6. She stated that the entire project is located on Mill Street and Park Way. She noted that the applicant had originally planned to use manufactured homes, however has now decided to construct the homes. She stated that because of this change, the applicant has only submitted a design for one home. She indicated that the home is for plan 3 of the design, and would introduce the two other designs for the other homes at a later time. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that plan 3 is a one story home that consists of 1,601 sf.,which would be placed on six lots. She stated that the design has three different front elevations schemes. She noted that this is the same floor plan that the Planning Commission approved at the meeting of October 2001. She stated that the applicant would be constructing a block wall between the school, houses and adjacent to the public right-of way. She noted that the applicant might be considering on using the vinyl fencing material along the interior side property line. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that this project meets all of the requirements of the LEMC, and Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a Resolution approving R 2002-06. She indicated that the applicant had to leave the meeting due to personal reasons. Chairman Barnes requested the Commission for their comments. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked Community Development Technician Hennings if the applicant intended to using only four styles of homes. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that there would be three different designs. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if the applicant had intended on reversing the plans. i. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated yes. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if they would be all single-story. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that plan two is a two-story home. Commissioner Uhlry asked if the applicant wanted approval on all three designs or just for the plan three. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the approval is only needed for plan three at this time,and the other two would need to come back to the Commission later. Commissioner Uhlry asked about the access to the channel in the rear of the homes. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the channel is owned and maintained by the school, and they have access to the channel. PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—OCTOBER 15, 2002 Commissioner LaPere asked if Staff had the lot numbers that showed which plan would be place where. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the plotting plan shows the different lots and plans. Commissioner LaPere asked about the fencing. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that it is required that a decorative wall is to be used along the right-of-way. She stated that it has not been specified as to what type of fencing would be used along the drainage channel. She indicated that the applicant is considering the use of the new vinyl fencing, however the costs are higher, and no decision has been made. Commissioner Nash had no questions. Chairman Barnes indicated that he is glad that the applicant decided not to use Pre- Manufactured Homes. He asked if the Commission has control on making the applicant put up money for the underground utilities. Community Development Director Brady stated that the cost would be prohibited, and because of the location, there are no underground utilities. Chairman Barnes asked if the applicant would consider having gang mailboxes, instead of individual boxes. Community Development Director Brady stated that this could be looked into. Chairman Barnes asked if Staff would be requesting a grading plan for the homes along Mill Street. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that she already has a grading plan for that site. She indicated that their would be a retaining wall in the rear. Chairman Barnes requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY NASH SECONDED BY BARNES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-51, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, FOR APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 2002-07- CONSTRUCTION OF SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AMONG 14 VACANT LOTS ON MILL STREET, AVENUE 6, AND PARK WAY. PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—OCTOBER 15, 2002 4. Minor Design Review of Miscellaneous PrWea No. M 2002-02 for the co-location of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility APN 377-330-007. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the applicant has requested that this project be pulled from the Agenda due to unknown reasons. INFORMATIONAL Community Development Director Brady stated that the intent of the meeting is to provide status to the Commission of the series of events that have taken place since the meeting of August 7, 2002. He requested that Planning Manager Villa review the status with the Commission. Chaixman Barnes stated that if the applicant does not comply with the Conditions of the CUP, then the CUP could be revolved. Community Development Director Brady concurred. He stated that in order to revoke the CUP, a Public Hearing would be necessary. Chairman Barnes stated that the City has given the applicant four tunes to comply with the Conditions, and the applicant has not complied. He indicated that the applicant still has no insurance for the project and still has not complied with the number of employee needed for this project. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the applicant has signed the Acknowledgment of Conditions of Approval to accept the Conditions. Commissioner Nash stated that this project is more like a Club. The majority of the people using the facility are from out of City. He indicated that if an accident should happen at the facility, and it go into litigation, then the City would be held responsible, not the applicant. He stated that the City is trying to make it work for the applicant,but the applicant is staling. Commissioner Uhlry stated that the applicant is still not complying with watering down the facility with the water trucks as indicated in the Conditions. Chairman Barnes stated that the City has met with the applicant on four separate occasions, and during those occasions,the applicant was told to comply with the Conditions. He stated that during the.meeting the applicant stated that he would comply by a certain time,however he still has not. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Planning Manager Villa did in fact fax the applicant a copy of the Staff Report for meeting this evening, yet the applicant has not shown up. Commissioner LaPere asked for the status as of today's date. PAGE 7 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—OCTOBER 15, 2002 Community Development Director Brady stated that the applicant is in the process of amending the CUP to include night lighting for night riding. It was decided that should nothing happen between now and the next Planning Commission then it would be necessary to have another Public Hearing for the possibility of revoking the CUP. Deputy Attorney Miles stated that in order to bring it back to the Commission,it would be necessary to have a Public Hearing, and provide a notice per Section 17.74.110 of the Municipal Code within the next four days,which would set in motion the formal hearing for revocation of the CUP. He suggested to the Commission that the City would view everything as separate items, and address them at that same time. He noted that it would be necessary for properly noticing the item, and provide a Staff Report for the actual item;we could frame it as a modification and a revocation. He indicated that we would need to notice them both and then the City could entertain the modification first to give the applicant their due process in terms of their status. He stated that then the Commission could make the determination of whether the application is sufficient with respect to the revocation issue. All Commissioners concurred. Community Development Director stated that should the applicant comply with all that is necessary, then revoking the CUP would not be necessary. Deputy Attorney Miles suggested that we have a meeting set for the November 5 as a Business Item to take it forward for the possible revocation for the November 19 meeting. STAFF COMMENTS Communit)�Development Director Brady commented on the following_ , • He stated that the Mayor's State of the City breakfast would take place on November 5 at the Diamond and that the Commission would be invited. • He indicated that at the last City Council meeting the Council approved the Zone Change and the apartments along Pottery and Code Amendment as well. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Chairman Barnes commenced on the following: • No comments Vice Chairwoman Matthies commented on the following: i • No comments i PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — OCTOBER 15, 2002 Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He stated that concerning the Commercial/Office Building that was discuss tonight, he stated that the rear side of the buildings would more than like be used for signage. He would prefer to discourage this and monitor what types of signs are to be used, and the amount of tunes. Senior Planner Morita indicated that the same developer for the Walmart Shopping Center is being used for this project. He indicated that the applicant is known for the good quality that is put out, and will be consistent with the shopping center. Commissioner LaPere commented on the followiii�: • No comments Commissioner UhIZE commented on the. following: • No comments ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY UHLRY SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING i COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM. i NAB DH:S,?C1 IAIRI'v L,�N i Respectfully Submitted Dana C. Porche' 1 Community Development Clerk PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES— OCTOBER 15, 2002 i ATTEST: i ert A. Brady, Secre to the Planning Commission i i i i I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM by Vice Chairwoman Matthies. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: MATTHIES,NASH, UHLRY, & LAPERE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES Also present were Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell, Associate Planner Miller, Planning Consultant Donahoe, Community Development Technician Hennings, Community Development Clerk Porche' and Deputy City Attorney Steve Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. Minutes !. October 15, 2002 PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 5, 2002 EI BLIC HEARINGS 2. Zone Change No.2002-03 an&Tentative Parcel Map No. 30792—APN 363-550-008 Vice Chairwoman Matthies opened the Public Hearing at 6:03 PM. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Public Hearing for a Zone Change and a Tentative Parcel Map No. 30792, and requested Associate Planner Miller to review it with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this Tentative Parcel Map is for the intention of allowing Weinerschnitzel and Jiffy Lube ownership of their own parcel. She stated that in order for this to happen, a Zone Change would be necessary. She stated it would be necessary to change the zoning from C-2 (General Commercial) to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial). Associate Planner Miller stated that Staff funds that the request for the Zone Change and the Tentative Parcel Map meet the minimum requirements, and recommends that the Planning Corntnission adopt a resolution based on the Findings, Exhibits and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairwoman requested comments from the Public. Hearing no comments, Vice Chairwoman brought the discussion back to the table for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Nash asked if the current buildings are owned by one person. Community Development Director Brady stated yes. Commissioner Nash asked if they were present at the meeting. Associate Planner Miller indicated no. Commissioner Nash inquired about the lighting used on the building. He asked if they had the proper shielding. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the applicant has taken some action to help shield the lights. He stated that the applicant has had the inside of the light fixtures painted to help dim the light. Commissioner Nash had no further questions. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant arrived at 6:09 PM. Commissioner LaPere arrived at 6:09 PM. Commissioner Nash asked the applicant to approach the table for questions. PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 5, 2002 Commissioner Nash indicated that sl}e-he had no further comments. Commissioner LaPere concurred with Commissioner Uhlry with the looks of the project. He stated that it would be a benefit to the neighborhood. He had no further questions. Vice Chairwoman Matthies concurred, and had no questions. She requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-561 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 32885 SERENA WAY (APN 381-040-016). 5. Review Status of Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit CUP No. 2001- 05, Lake Elsinore Motocross and BMX Racing and Training Tract. Community Development Director Brady stated that this project is being brought back to the Commission as a Business Item for the purpose of reviewing the project with the Commission. He requested that Planning Manager Villa go over the current status with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa indicated that at the Planning Commission meeting of October 15, 2002, Staff presented an Informational Status Report to the Planning Commission, outlining the events that have taken place since the Planning Commission Meeting of August 7, 2002. He indicated that there are certain Conditions that have not yet been complied with. He stated that a $2,000,000.00 Insurance Certificate has been submitted, however Staff has not been able to verify the Certificate, and the Insurance carrier has not returned any calls. Planning Manager Villa stated that he has received the signed copy of the Acknowledgement of Conditions from the applicant. However, he indicated that Condition No. 25 is non- compliance as well as Condition No. 6 and 13. He noted that the applicant is present for any questions that the Commission may have. He stated that the checks for $20,000.00 and $5,000.00 to cover the bonds have been returned by the bank for insufficient funds. Applicant Randy Hiner, BMX Motocross stated that he has run into some minor problems. He stated that the bank has put a hold on a $20,000.00 AND $5,000.00 check. He requested the Commission to hold off on the requirement for the cash bonds so that he can reserve money in order to purchase the property. He also requested that Condition No. 13 be eliminated. It was discussed between the applicant and the Commission that putting a hold on the $20,000.00 would be acceptable. It was recommended that there would not be any action taken at this meeting, however the project be scheduled for another informational meeting PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 5, 2002 Vice Chairwoman Matthies closed the Public Hearing at 6:35 PM. MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-543, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTIFICATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2002-04. MOVED BY UHLRY SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30670 LOCATED ON MACHADO STREET. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Minor Design Review of a Single-Family Residential Project located at 32885 Serena Way (APN 381-040-016. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Minor Design Review for a Single Family Residence and requested Community Development Technician Hennings to review it with the Commission. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that this is a 2,716 square feet two- story residence. She stated that the proposed project is utilizing Spanish style architecture. She noted that the applicant owns two lots, and will merge the two in order to meet the setback requirements. She indicated that the home would have direct access to the lake. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the applicant would be providing a block wall. She stated that this home would be a benefit to the neighborhood. She indicated that the applicant is present for any questions that the Commission may have. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if there were any comments for or against the project. Hearing no comments, the project was brought back to the table for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Uhlry stated that this project looked great. He had no further comments. Commissioner Nash asked the applicant to approach the table. Applicant Gloria Jimenez 33083 Olive Street, Lake Elsinore CA was asked if she has read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. She indicated yes. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 5, 2002 in the rear. He noted that unfortunately he has no control of the potential future high school. He stated that the future homes to be built are good quality. He commented that all homes would have front yard landscaping, sprinklers systems in the front yard, and block wall fencing. Community Development Director Brady explained to the audience that that this project would be coming back to the Commission as a Design Review. Vice Chairman Matthies asked if there were any more questions from the Public. There being no further questions, Vice Chairwoman Matthies brought the discussion back to the table. Commissioner LaPere asked the applicant if block walls and landscaping would be provided. The applicant indicated yes. Commissioner LaPere asked the applicant if a water system would also be provided. The applicant indicated yes. Commissioner LaPere had no further questions. Commissioner Uhliy noted that there would be many houses in the cul-de-sac. He noted that sometimes-emergency vehicles have a difficult time getting in and out of the cul-de-sac. Planning Manager Villa stated that emergency vehicles have issues such as these when a cul- de-sac is longer than 800 feet. He stated that this cul-de-sac is approximately 400 feet, so there should not be a problem. Commissioner Nash noted that traffic did not appear to be an issue. He stated that the elevations look good. He indicated that a letter has been sent out discouraging that area for a high school. He had no further comments. Commissioner LaPere indicated that one of the questions that were presented this evening from Cynthia Paige was the power pole issue. Commissioner LaPere indicated that when power poles are more than 12,000 volts, they are too e4ensive to go srnderground. Vice Chairwoman Matthies thanked Staff for all there hard work on this project. She liked the idea of the idea of single-story homes. She stated that the architectural enhancements look great. She had no further comments. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City of Lake Elsinore has no control as to where the schools are to be located. He stated that signals and access would be discussed later. He asked Planning Manager Villa as to when the project would be going to City Council. Planning Manager Villa indicated that this project has been scheduled for the November 26, City Council meeting. PAGE 4-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 5,2002 Planning Manager Villa indicated that this is a request for an approval to subdivide 12.04 acres of vacant land into 50 single-family residential lots, pursuant to Chapter 17.23, and Title 16 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the State of California Subdivision Map Act. He stated that the property is located along Machado within the City's jurisdiction. Planning Manager Villa stated that the average lot size is 8,155 square feet. He indicated that the smallest lot is 6,480 square feet, and the maximum lot size is 14,340 square feet. He stated that the overall density is 4.2 dwelling units per acre, which is lower than the allowed density of six dwelling unts per acres,per the LEMC and the General Plan. Planning Manager Villa indicated that improvements would be made to the primary access route along Machado Street, increasing it to 45 feet right-of-way, which would also include curb and sidewalks. He stated that the two issues of concern are the grading of proposed lots 1 through 6. He noted that the original proposed grading plan was to be approximately 5 to 6 feet higher than the adjacent properties along Le Harve Avenue. He stated that Staff has requested the applicant to lower the elevations pads to 3 feet to protect the future concerns of privacy. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the other concern was the landscaping along Machado Street. He stated that his concerns were that the future maintenance of the Parkway. He indicated that the applicant has agreed to participate in a program that would insure maintenance along Machado Street Parking. Planning Manager Villa indicated that Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the review period is from October 25 to November 15, 2002. He stated that the subdivision has been found to be consistent with the LEMC. He recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council Certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval the Tentative Tract Map No. 30670 based on the Findings, Exhibits,and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairwoman Matthies requested comments from the public. Cynthia Paige 161 Le Harve Avenue, Lake Elsinore indicated that she has concerns with landscape issues, the block wall facing Machado, and the quality of housing. She indicated that she also has concerns that the single-story homes will lose there view. She stated that there are concerns with the potential future high school and the traffic associated with the school, which is planned for the area. She indicated that she has questions regarding the power poles and wanted to know who could address these questions. Brian Scoles 615 Le Harve, Lake Elsinore indicated that he has concerns with the maintenance of the buffer and concerns with the traffic. He stated that there is a stop sign at Grand Avenue and a signal at Lincoln. He indicated that he is concerned with the potential traffic in that area. Wes Keusder, Applicant for the project. He stated that the project would probably get started sometime in the spring. He noted that the rear of lots 1 through 6 would be a maximum of 3 feet. He indicated that this should protect the view of the single-story PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —NOVEMBER 5, 2002 Applicant David Fried, 301 Summerhill Road, Lake Elsinore CA. stated that they have placed shields on the lights. He stated that they first had painted the lights, but that didn't seem to work, so they went ahead and purchased the shields. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked the applicant if he agreed to the Conditions of Approval. The applicant indicated that he has read and agreed with the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Uhlry concurred with the changes to the Zone Change, and had no further comments. Commissioner LaPere concurred with Commissioner Uhlry's comments, and had no further comments. Vice Chairwoman Matthies indicated that she was glad to see that the light issue has been resolved. Vice Chairwoman Matthies closed the Public Hearing at 6:10 PM, and requested the reading of the Resolutions. MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-523, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVE THE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002-03 WHICH PROPOSES TO AMEND A C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE TO A C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE, PER CHAPTER 17.84, AMENDMENTS OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE. MOVED BY UHLRY SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-53, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30792, LOCATED AT 301 SUMMERHILL DRIVE,APN 363-550-008. 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 30670 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2002-04., Vice Chairwoman Matthies opened the Public Hearing at 6:11 PM. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a Public Hearing for Tentative Tract Map No. 30670, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2002-04, and requested that Planning Manager Villa review it with the Commission. PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 5, 2002 to take place on November 19, 2002 in order to give the applicant two weeks more to comply with the outlined Conditions. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THESE PRESENT TO REVIEW CUP 2001-05 MOTOCROSS AT THE NOVEMBER 19, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. INFORMATIONAL Ann Mower approached the Commission, advising them that she is new to the City and is available for consultants that would need computer imaging. Commissioner Uhlry indicated that he did receive a copy of her brochure and was very impressed by her work. STAFF COMMENTS Communijy Development Director Brady commented on the following: • He stated that the Mayor's Breakfast would be held on November 6. • He noted that there would be a Study Session held on November 6 at 10:00 AM at the City Hall. • He introduced Carole Donahoe, Planning Consultant for the City of Lake Elsinore. He indicated that she would be working on a number of upcoming projects for the City. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Vice Chairwoman Matthies commented on the following: • She reminded Staff and the Commission that the motocross would be held this weekend. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: r • He stated that he appreciated the hard work that Staff has done with the BMX motocross. He indicated that it would certainly be in the applicant's best interest if he could purchase the property. Commissioner LaPere commented on the following: • He welcomed Carole Donahoe. • He thanked Staff for all there hard work and indicated that sometimes it is necessary for more patience with the applicants. Commissioner Uhky commented on the following: PAGE 9 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 5, 2002 • He asked about the Army Cops of Engineers regarding 12.67. Planning Manager recommended that this could be discussed at the November 19"', in order for the applicant to be present. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY UHLRY SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:20 PM. ERICKA MATTHIES, CE&HAIRWOMAN Respectfully Submitted ,4., e. Dana C. Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: RA ert A. Brady, Secretary the Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Uhlry. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES, NASH, UHLRY, & LAPERE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell, Planning Consultant Donahoe, , Community Development Clerk Porche' and Deputy City Attorney Steve Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Nash indicated that there was a typographical error to the minutes on page 7 of 9, first paragraph. He indicated that the word "she" should have read"he". Commissioner LaPere indicated that an error was made to the minutes on page 5 of 9, paragraph 12, the sentence should read, it is extremely expensive to go underground. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE NOTED CORRECTIONS. Minutes 1. November 05,2002 PAGE 2-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 19, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Tentative Tract Mai No.30811 Due to a potential conflict of interest, Chairman Barnes excused himself from the meeting at 6:05 PM. Vice Chairwoman Matthies opened the Public Hearing at 6:05 PM. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Public Hearing for a 16.9-acre parcel to be subdivided into 65 single-family residential lots, and requested Planning Manager Armando Villa, to review it with the Commission in Senior Planner -Morita's absence. Planning Manager Villa indicated that this is a request to subdivide 16.9 areas into 68 total lots that would consist of 65 single-family residential lots and 3 open space lots pursuant to Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Code, and Title 16 of the LEMC. He stated that the location of the area is along Lake Street between Terra Cotta Middle School and Mountain Street. Planning Manager Villa noted that the lot average is 8,700 square feet. He stated that the smallest lot is 6500 square feet and the largest is approximately 19,000 square feet, for an overall density of 3.84 units per acre. He indicated that the lots meet the minimum standards of the Single-Family Residential Zoning. Planning Manager Villa stated that the issues pertaining to this project are the wall and fencing interface with the existing Lake Terrace Subdivision. He stated that normally the Code would allow constructing a 6-foot high block wall. He stated that some the homeowners in the area have existing fencing that varies. He it was recommended that the developer contact the homeowners to develop a fencing plan that would mitigate problems, preserves the views of the existing homeowners and yet meet the minimum standards of the Code. Planning Manager Villa indicated that another issue was the potential loss of views. He stated that this project would be graded approximately 10 feet lower than the existing homes. The applicant has agreed to construct some single-story homes. Lastly, he noted that drainage could be an issue along the southern boundary. He stated that currently there is a concrete V-ditch that runs along the southern property line and the school's property. He indicated that the Applicant is requesting that the V-ditch remain, and that the area would be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). Planning Manager Villa requested that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution, which would recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 30811 based on the Findings, Staff Report and subjected to the Conditions of Approval. He noted that the Applicant is present for questions. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Vice Chairwoman Matthies requested comments from the public. Chris McColley, 29072 Palm View, Lake Elsinore, stated that she is a resident near the location of the project. She indicated she project has been a subject of discussion for almost 10 years. She stated that the project has been through several phases of commercial proposals however, she stated that the City Council voted to have it re-zoned for residential use. She noted that the issues have been addressed,and most of the homeowners in the area are pleased of the outcome. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if anyone else wished to speak on behalf or against the project. Hearing no comments, Vice Chairwoman brought the discussion back to the table for Commissioner Comments. Commissioner Nash stated that he concurred with Ms. McColley's comments on the progress of the project. He stated that he was glad to hear that the property was zoned for residential and not commercial. He liked the lay out and noted that the project would blend in well with the existing homes and enhance the area. Commissioner Uhlry asked the City Engineer about the ditch along Mountain and Lake Street. He indicated that the ditch handles a large amount of water flow, and wanted to how the developer would handle the elevation changes. Applicant Chris Willis,Woodside Homes, stated that the developer intends on having the V- ditch empty into a storm drain. Commission Uhlry asked the Applicant if the developer intends on creating a bank with a retaining wall along Lake and Mountain. Planning Manager Villa stated that most of the water that drains off Mountain would be collected into a storm drain onto Lake. He indicated that the current mound on the corner of Lake and Mountain would be graded down to approximately 8 to 10 feet. Commissioner Uhlry had no further comments. Vice Chairwoman Matthies noted that there was someone in the audience who wanted to address some concerns. Sam Resnick, 1530 San Ponte Road, Corona, CA stated that he is an Engineer and has property adjacent to the project. He noted that a civil engineer and himself looked at the area and determined their could be a problem with flooding. He stated that there is a depression in the street, which does not allow the water to flow. He stated that currently there is not a storm drain in the area, and could have a potential for flooding. PAGE 4-PLANNING COMNi TISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 19,2002 City Engineer O'Donnell stated that there is a low area on Mountain Street and Lake Street, and he indicated that the developer intends on putting large catch basins in the area, which will have a pipe connected directly to the storm drain. He indicated that this should improve the situation; however, there still would be some minor flooding during heavy rains in the area. Commissioner LaPere noted that Lake Terrace homes that are adjacent to the project have many different types of existing fencing. He asked what type of fencing would be used. Planning Manager Villa explained that since there were several different variations of fencing in the area, the developer would get in contact with the neighboring homeowners to come up with a solution that would meet the fencing requirements and please the neighboring property owners. Commissioner LaPere stated that on page 4 of 17-item number 2,it states that the Applicant has agreed to construct a masonry decorative wall along the entire perimeter of the project site. He asked if this aspect would be under review of the director. Community Development Director Brady stated that ideally a block wall would be used. However, he stated that the developer would need to work with the neighboring property owners,as some of them have wrought-iron fencing, some have wood,and some have block walls. He indicated the developer would discuss the options with the property owners, and possibly have the existing wall removed, and replaced with block wall as part of that development. He stated that the property owners are not obligated to have their existing fence removed. Commissioner LaPere asked the Applicant if the HOA was a mandatory item for the new home purchasers,and would be required to be a member. The Applicant stated yes. Commissioner LaPere asked if the HOA would only be responsible for the items listed on page two of 17, fifth paragraph. The Applicant stated yes. Commissioner LaPere asked the Applicant if it would transfer to new ownership, should there be a change. The Applicant stated yes. Commissioner LaPere told the Applicant that he would like to see decorative block wall used. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Community Development Director Brady stated that typically the developer would use slump stone or split face. He stated that the developer would try to match what is used in the surrounding area. Commissioner LaPere had no further questions. Vice Chairman wanted to commend Staff and the Applicant on their hard work. She asked the Applicant if he has read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. The Applicant stated yes. Vice Chairwoman Matthies closed the Public Hearing at 6:27 PM and asked for the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30811 3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30787 Vice Chairwoman Matthies opened the Public Hearing at 6:27 PM. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a Public Hearing for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30787 and requested that Planning Consultant Donahoe review it with the Commission. Planning Consultant Donahoe stated that this project is to divide 480 acres of undeveloped property into two parcels for the purpose of sale. She stated that the property is located on the western edge of the City, north of McVicker Park and west of Grand Avenue and Lincoln Street. She indicated that the area is known as the La Laguna Specific Estates Plan, which was approved by Council in November 1998. Planning Consultant Donahoe stated that Forecast Homes plans to develop Parcel 1 with single-family residential units. She stated that they would eventually further subdivide the remaining Parcel 2. Planning Consultant Donahoe noted that there are two issues of concern. She stated that one is that the applicant agreed to provide an access to the property north of the project. She commented that the second area of concern is the design of the Tentative Tract Map, on Parcel 1. She indicated that the residents on Sunswept Drive have concerns with the development of Parcel 1. She has noted that the adjacent residents are concerned with the PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 19, 2002 proposed improvements to Sunswept Drive, and with the potential small houses on small lots. Planning Consultant Donahoe stated that the Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the approved La Laguna Specific Plan. She stated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30787 based on the Findings, Exhibits, and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Planning Consultant Donahoe stated that Staff met with the applicant prior to the meeting and agreed with their request to change a few of the Conditions. She stated that Condition number 7 should read "November 15, 2002." She noted that Condition number 11 should say, "final Parcel Map." She commented that Condition number 13 should add to "join CFD 88-3." She indicated that Condition number 16 should be changed to read, "Applicant shall identify the access." Lastly, she stated that the last change would be to Condition number 17 where it should read"an access easement from Dale Court." Planning Consultant Donahoe indicated that both the property owner and a representative from Forecast Homes were present to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Vice Chairwoman Matthies requested any comments from the public. Kevin Manning, applicant for the project stated that he wanted to thank everyone associated with this project for all the hard work. He confirmed that he read and agreed to the Conditions of Approval, to include all the changes,additions, and deletions. Woody Woodard, 29108 Sunswept Dr, Lake Elsinore stated that he and his neighbors met and discussed the potential traffic congestion at the corner of Sunswept and Lincoln. He indicated that some of his neighbors did not know of this meeting. He stated that he has a letter that is signed by all of the residents on Sunswept, and requested to give this issue some serious thought. Brad Hollerbach, 29125 Wayfarer Court, Lake Elsinore stated that he resided directly in front of the property. He indicate that he would have preferred more time of notice regarding this meeting, so that he could have prepared the neighbors, and had more neighbors show up for the meeting. He stated that he has hopes that the homes that Forecast intends on constructing will be comparable to the existing homes in the neighborhood. He stated that he has concerns with the lot sizes of the projected project, and feels that if the lots are going to be small, and it will devaluate the homes in the existing area. Karla Papaco,29101 Wayfarer Lane,Lake Elsinore concurred with the other speakers on the traffic issues. She asked if lights were proposed for the area. She stated that when she purchased her home through Centex, she was told that the area of discussion would be large lots, with large homes, which would increase the value of her home. She asked what PAGE 7-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 19, 2002 recourse she has, since now the information is different. She stated that she is against leveling the area, and placing smaller homes on the smaller lots. Planning Consultant Donahoe thanked the homeowners for taking the time to come out to the meeting. She noted that there would be a traffic study conducted,to assess the area. She stated that the safety concerns would need to be addressed by the City Engineer. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the City could check the site distance on Sunswept and Lincoln. He indicated that he did not realize that there was a problem there. Planning Consultant Donahoe stated that at this time, the Commission was approving the Tentative Parcel Map, and not the Design Review. She indicated that the project would need to come back to the Commission at a later date for the Design Review. Vice Chairwoman Matthies concurred with Planning Consultant Donahoe that this meeting was just the subdivision of the Parcels and not the Design Review. She requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner Uhlry stated that he understands the concerns of the existing homeowners in the area surrounding of the project. He stated that this meeting is just to review the splitting of the parcels. He stated that the Commission will look at how many houses would be placed on the parcel at a later date. He had no further comments Commissioner LaPere concurred with Commissioner Uhlty. He stated that when the project comes back to the Commission for Design Review, at that time Staff and the Commission would have more information on the lot sizes,and homes. Commissioner Nash concurred with the other Commissioners. He stated that traffic would be an issue. He asked Staff if the street names were tentative. Planning Consultant Donahoe stated the Specific Plan approved the roadways. She stated that they might be realigned, however the Specific Plan is showing the spine road,and where they are located. Commissioner Nash noted that McVicker Parkway was the main artery, and that Sunswept was an emergency assess along with Sandpiper in the project. He stated that the parcel meets with all of requirements. Vice Chairman Matthies thanked all who came out to the meeting to express their concerns. She asked Staff if there was a target date that this project would be coming back to the Commission,for the Design Review. Planning Consultant Donahoe stated that it would probably come back sometime in Spring of 2003. PAGE 8 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Commissioner Nash also wanted to point out to the audience that the City is to notify all residences within a 300-foot radius of the project of a Public Hearing. He stated that there would be some people who would not be notified. He suggested that those who receive a copy of the notification of the upcoming Public Hearing, that they start spreading the word out. Community Development Director Brady stated that anyone who would like to receive a notice, that did not already receive one, could leave their name and address with the Planning Consultant, and she would send a notice to you for the next meeting regarding this project. Vice Chairwoman Matthies closed the Public Hearing at 6:50 PM and requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY LAPERE SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-58, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30787 LOCATED NORTH OF MCVICKER PARK AND WEST OF GRAND AVENUE AND LINCOLN STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 391-260-040 —047, - 050,AND — 051), A DIVISION FO 480 + ACRES OF UNIMPROVED LAND INTO TWO (2) PARCELS WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONDITIONS: (7) The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department, as identified in their amended transmittal dated September- 11, 200� November 19, 2002 attached. (13) Developer shall enter into an agreement for eenstruetion of to join CFD 88-3 Phase 4 improvements included in GFD 88 3. (16) Applicant shall dedieate identify the access to the fire station on the final parcel map. (17) Applicant to provide an access easement from Dale Court to the Bishop property to the north of Parcel II. 'italics indicated addition to text, saikeditough indicates removal from text. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Review Status of Conditions of Approval for Conditional.Use Permit (CUP) No. 2001- 05, Lake Elsinore Motocross and BMX Racing and Training Tract. PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINU`1'ES—NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Chairman Barnes reconvened the meeting at 6:54 PM. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is status of the Lake Elsinore Motocross. He stated on November 5,2002, status was reviewed with the Commission,and the purpose of this meeting is going over the latest developments. He requested Planning Manager Villa to go over the status with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the Staff report in front of them outlined the status of the CUP. He stated that as of today's date, Staff does not have full compliance. He indicated that today he received a fax from an insurance agent, indicating coverage for one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). However, he stated that the Condition indicated that the coverage should be for two million dollars ($2,000,000.00). Planning Manager Villa stated that another concern is the cash bond that remains outstanding. He stated that the applicant had filed for the cash bonds for $20,000.00 however did not go through, due to insufficient funds. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the applicant did return the Acknowledgement of Conditions. However, he stated that the applicant still does not comply with the staffing issue outlined in Condition 46. He indicated that the applicant has submitted a sheet that outlines there justification of staff. He commented that there are some justifications that Staff does not agree with. Planning Manager Villa noted that Condition Number 13,which calls for a site plan, is not in compliance. He stated that due to the high level of activity, there really needs to be an area for an office that would include restrooms and a place for the employees to rest. He stated the present time there is anything for the employees. Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked if there is a State Law that requires such. Planning Manager Villa indicated no, however Staff feels that due to the size of the facility there should be accommodations for the employees. He stated that the applicant did submit an amended application, however due to lack of fees; the application had to be put on hold pending payment. Vice Chairwoman.Matthies asked to explain about the negative fees. Planning Manager Villa stated that the original application is in a negative balance, due to the high amount of processing and issue resolution activity that has been occurring on this project. He indicated that the applicant did submit fees; however, they were used to cover the negative balance. He stated that the applicant would need to submit new fees fot the amended application. He did state that the applicant is present for any questions that the Commission may have. PA G E 10 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked why we were asking for two million ($2,000,000.00) for the insurance certificate. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the Administrative services Director recommended two million($2,000,000.00)based on his opinion for risk management purposes. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Conditions of Approval that were approved were for two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) and unfortunately, neither Staff not Commission can go back and amend them unless it is brought back as an amended CUP. Chairman Barnes indicated the importance of a cash bond is to protect the City from potential lawsuit. He indicated that without the cash bond, the City could be held liable for damages. Commissioner Uhlry stated that he empathizes with the applicant; however, he states that this project has been going round in circles for months. He stated that the applicant still has not complied. Vice Chairwoman Matthies stated that she too realizes that the applicant is doing everything to succeed in this community. However, she noted that it is necessary for the insurance coverage. Chairman Barnes asked the applicant if he wished to come up to the table to make a statement. Randy Hiner, 33350 Elizabeth Road, Temecula, stated that he has made numerous calls to the City regarding his project to see if the insurance certificate was acceptable, but he commented that he never receive a call back. He stated that he just found out about the Planning Commission meeting on Monday,via FedEx. He stated that he was not aware that there was an issue regarding the insurance. He indicated that he thought that his certification that was submitted was for two million ($2,000,000.00), not one million ($1,000,000.00). Mr. Hiner commented about Condition number 13, where it discusses a site plan for an office building to house the management and employees. He stated that it is not on the plan and has not' had been since 1999. He stated that currently there are two offices, which act as an FNIT office, and general administrative offices. He noted that he has been out of town, and thought that the check for$20,000.00 had been submitted. Chairman Barnes stated that a meeting was held on September 9, September 22, and on October 9 of 2002. He stated that each time, the City Manager was present, and the Manager of Planning Division was present. He stated that at every meeting the same issues were discussed, and each time the applicant stated that everything would be brought up to conformance for the next meeting, yet nothing did. He indicated that this project has been PAGE 11 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—NOVEMBER 19, 2002 discussed for over three months; it does not comply with the original CUP. He noted that he would be agreeing with Commissioner Uhlry and recommend having the CUP revoked. Deputy City Attorney Miles indicated that the procedure to have the CUP revoked would be to motion a Notice to consider a Public Hearing to consider a revocation of the CUP. MOVED BY UHLRY, SECONDED BY BARNES AND PASSED WITH A 4-1 VOTE WITH MATTHIES ABSTAINING TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVOCATION OF THE CUP NO. 2001-05, LAKE ELSINORE MOTOCROSS AND BMX RACING AND TRAINING TRACT. INFORMATIONAL None STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following; • He stated that the Tree Lighting Ceremony will take place on November 23, 2002 at the Outlet Center. • He noted that new Fire Station at McVicker Park was dedicated on Friday, November 15, and went very well. He stated that the dedication for the Riverwalk took place today, and also went very well. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Vice Chairwoman Matthies commented on the following: • She noted that the Throttle would take place at the Diamond this coming weekend, and should be lots of fun.. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He commented on the Motocross issue. He stated that he empathizes with the application, however the applicant was not complying, and therefore the Commission had no other alternative. Commissioner LaPere commented on the following: PAGE 12 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —NOVEMBER 19, 2002 • He concurred with the other Commissioners regarding the Motocross. Commissioner Uhlry commented on the following,: • He noted that he would not be present for the Tree Lighting Ceremony due to his busy schedule. • He stated that the hours of the upcoming Throttle would be from 10:00 AM to 2:00 AM the following day, and that he would be working that event. • He stated that he attended the Riverwalk dedication and it was great. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NASH SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:30 PM. )OHN BARNES, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted Dana C. Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: obert A. Brady, Sect ry to the Planning Commissi MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM. by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner LaPere. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES, NASH, UHLRY, & LAPERE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Community Development Technician Hennings, Community Development Clerk Porche' and i Deputy City Attorney Steve Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Minutes 1. November 19, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE PAGE 2-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 3, 2002 BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Minor Design Review of a Single��Residential Project located at 29479 Kalina Avenue (APN 378-191-011) Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Minor Design Review of a Single-Family Residence and requested Community Development Technician Hennings review it with the Commission. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that this project is a Minor Design Review for a manufactured home to include a detached garage. She stated that the house that was there previously burnt down in April 2002. She said that the property owner is replacing the home that burnt down with a manufactured home. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the manufactured home consists of 3 bedrooms, is 1,883 square feet, and includes a detached garage that is 484 square feet. She stated that the home would have a small porch that would be facing Kalina Avenue and will include shutters on the windows. She indicated that the garage would have a rear entry and would have access from Arnold Avenue. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that the applicant would provide front yard landscaping and irrigation, with additional landscaping provided as needed. She stated that the property currently has wooden and chain link fencing. She indicated that the City's policy is to have current development replace existing fencing with the City approved enhanced wooden fencing. She commented that the applicant has indicated that he does not wish to replace the chain link fence. She noted that in order to be consistent with the other developments and to enhance the area, Staff feels that the chain link fence should be replaced. Community Development Technician Hennings indicated that another issue of concern is the swimming pool that is located on the adjacent lot. She stated that the applicant also owns this lot but has indicated that he does not wish to merge these lots. She commented that the Building and Safety division has advised the applicant of the swimming pool barrier requirements that must be met prior to certificate of occupancy. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that with the attached Conditions of Approval, the project meets all minimum requirements of the LEMC, and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution, approving the Minor Design Review of the 1,883 square foot manufactured home and 484 square foot detached garage, to be located at 29479 Kalina Avenue,subject to the Findings, Exhibits and the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested the applicant approach the podium for any questions that the Commission may have. Tom Hensley, 29479 Kalina Avenue, Lake Elsinore stated that he has resided at this residence for the past 29 years. He stated that the home burnt down in April of this year, PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES---DECEMBER 3, 2002 and was a total loss. He indicated that he owns 5 lots, which includes a 3-car garage, a swimming pool and a swimming pool cabana, all which came through the City and was approved. He indicated that he does not want to put up a fence between the two lots that separate the pool and the house. He stated that Staff has requested another 2-car garage, which he has agreed to. However, he asked not to have the fencing removed and replaced with the City's enhanced wooden fence. Chairman Barnes brought the discussion back to the table for Commissioner's comments. Chairman Barnes indicated that he did not see where the pool is located on the information that was given to him. Community Development Director Brady stated that the pool is located on a separate parcel,which the applicant owns as well. Commissioner Nash stated that the applicant has fencing that goes around the entire five parcels, including a safety fence around the pool. Commissioner Nash concurred with the applicant that a fence not be put up between the two parcels that separate the pool from the home. He stated that the applicant would still need to comply with the swimming pool barriers, according to the City code, however he stated that he concurred not to have another fence installed that would separate the two lots. He indicated that currently the applicant has 75% of his property fenced with chain link. He requested that the fencing become more consistent, especially to the front of the property. Commissioner Nash stated that his decision is based on the fact that the applicant intends on living at that property. Chairman Barnes asked Deputy City Attorney Miles if the house was burnt down, does the City require the new home be brought up to "spec."with the City's current code. Deputy City Attorney Miles stated that a new home that is replacing an existing home,must be brought up to code, however this applies to just the building. He stated that an interpretation of what is called the vested rights doctrine, which is for a Design Review of a new building, is that there would be some leeway with respect to fencing, current code as opposed to previously applied code, and would be at the discretion of the Commission to apply current standards. Community Development Director Brady stated that when the City has a non-conforming type of development, and someone is coming in to make an improvement to the property,it has been the City's policy to bring it in to greater conformance. He stated that Commissioners might want to consider wrought iron along the two street frontages. He stated that Staff has been trying to eliminate chain link fence in the City. Commissioner Nash stated that because the applicant has lived at this residence for a long period, and the neighboring house also has the same type of fencing, he concurs with the applicant on not replacing the chain link fencing. Vice Chairwoman Matthies concurred with Commissioner Nash, on not having the chain link fence removed and replaced with either wooden fencing or wrought iron. She also stated that she would like to see some consistency with the fencing. PAGE 4-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 3,2002 Commissioner LaPere also concurred with Commissioner Nash on the fencing issue. He asked the applicant if he had Homeowners Insurance. The applicant stated, "Yes". He asked if the Homeowners Insurance covered the swimming pool. The applicant stated, "Yes". He explained to the applicant that whether the pool is full or empty, that the applicant is still liable for any injury that may occur. The applicant understood. Commissioner LaPere indicated that around the swimming pool, the City requires a 6-foot fence with a self-locking gate. Commissioner LaPere asked the applicant if the current fencing around the pool is temporary. The applicant stated that he has used the same fencing around the pool ever since his son was born.. He stated that he has a 6-foot fence surrounding his property,in addition to a 3'/2 to 4-foot high wrought iron fence surrounding the pool. The applicant indicated to Commissioner LaPere that the existing fence around the pool would be removed. Commissioner LaPere had no further questions. Commissioner Uhlry stated that he drove by the property and indicated that it is a nice piece of land. He stated that he did not understand why another 2-car garage was being requested. Community Development Director Brady stated that the purpose of requesting another 2-- car garage was because it is a separate lot. He indicated that should the applicant merge the two lots, then it would not be necessary. Commissioner Uhlry stated that he would like to see the applicant provide wrought iron or a six foot wooden fence to the front portion of the lot that faces the streets. Commissioner LaPere asked Community Development Director Brady approximately how much money would the applicant save,should he merge the two lots. Community Development Director Brady stated that the applicant would save the cost of the garage,which is about$40.00 per square foot. He stated that it would cost the applicant about $20,000.00 to build his garage. He indicated that the cost to merge lots is approximately$250.00 to$325.00 per lot. The applicant again stated that he has no problem having another garage built. He stated that it would be more convenient having the second garage. He stated that he realizes that it would be cost effective to merge the lots,but not convenient. Commissioner Uhlry had no further questions. Commissioner LaPere had no further questions. Community Development Technician Hennings stated that modifications could be made to the Conditions of Approval that would consist of deleting Condition number 21, and revising Condition number 20. Community Development Director Brady wanted to express to the Commission that normally Staff has discourage the use of chain link fence. PAGE 5 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 3, 2002 Commissioner Nash indicated that the Commission does realize that the City tries to discourage the use of chain link fence. He stated however, in this situation, the Commission feels that there needs to be some levity, and therefore is allowing the applicant to keep the existing chain link fence in the rear, and have the fencing replaced with tubular fencing along that portion which faces the public right-of-way. Chairman Barnes requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY BARNES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 29479 KALINA AVENUE (378-191-011) WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 20: A wrought iron fence shall be provided along the property fronting Kah a Avenue. A chain link fence shall replace the wood fence that is along the frontage on Arnold Avenue. The existing gate along Arnold Avenue will remain. 21: Ghftift kiftk feffees and gates shall pt!ohibited. The wood feneiftg a4A have an • Italics indicates addition to text, .indicates removal from text. INFORMATIONAL 3. Discussion regarding Nuisance Abatement Hearings Community Development Director Brady stated one of the hearing officers has resigned, which has prompted Staff to review the process and procedures for administrating nuisance abatement cases. He stated that in the past the City Manager appointed two hearing officers to review and make determinations on nuisance abatement cases. He noted that two members of the Commission were assigned, until a few years ago. He stated that at that time, two non-Commission members were appointed to serve as the hearing officers. PAGE 6-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 3, 2002 Community Development Director Brady stated the purpose of this meeting is to ask the Commission if they would consider serving as the hearing board. He indicated that the meetings are currently held once a month,usually at 9:00 AM. on the second Wednesday. He stated that it would require an amendment to the code, and would require some additional responsibility. Chairman Barnes stated that in the past, two hearing officers were selected, and the hearings were held usually in the mornings,which often caused some hardship due to the time of the meeting. Chairman Barnes felt that it would be best if the Commission did consider serving as the hearing board,as it would formalize ,gs. Vice Chairman Matthies asked if it would require any additional Staff time. Community Development Director Brady stated that Staff time would involve Code Enforcement completing a report,which would be included in the Planning Commissioner's Agenda packet, and having the City Attorney present during the meetings. He stated that the biggest impact would be on the Community Development Clerk typist, in terms of running additional reports, and typing the minutes. Commissioner Nash asked if this would entail structure abatement only. Community Development Director Brady stated that the cases would consist of property maintenance. He stated that if the Commission considered serving as the hearing board, then he would draft a report from the Commission, take action on recommending Staff to amend the Code Section or to the City Council to take action. Commissioner LaPere asked if it would be necessary for the City Council to take an action to appoint the Planning Commission to handle this. Community Development Director Brady stated that an ordinance would be necessary to amend the Code. Commissioner LaPere asked if the City Council is aware of this consideration. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City Council received a Planning Commission Agenda packet that addresses this item. He stated that the only person who is currently not aware is Tom Franson,who currently serves on the hearing board. Chairman Barnes called for a motion. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY UHLRY AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SERVE AS THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT HEARING BOARD. STAFF COMMENTS ornmunit,Development Director Brady commented on the following PAGE 7-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 3, 2002 • He wanted to remind everyone that the City's winter fest is this Friday, December 6, which starts at 5:00 PM. He stated that the tree lighting ceremony would take place at 6:00 PM. • He also wanted to remind the Commission that at the next Planning Commission meeting, the CUP for the Motocross would be brought back, and that a Public Hearing Notice has already been published, and circulated to property owners within a 300--foot radius. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He had no comments. Vice Chairwoman Matthies commented on the following-. • She heard of a great idea, that any store who decorated their windows with Christmas decorations receive a free business license. Community Development Director Brady stated that this is probably offered through the Community Services Department for the Downtown Business Association. Commissioner LaPere commented on the following: • He asked the Community Development Director if their would be formal action taken at the December 17 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Motocross. Community Development Director Brady indicated"Yes". Commissioner Uh4 commented on the following: • He had no comments. Commissioner Nash commented on the folio«Jiiig • He wanted to express to Staff that they are doing a good job, and the Planning Commission appreciates their hard work. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES SECONDED BY UHLRY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:06 PM. PAGE 8- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 3, 2002 HN BARNES, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted ,ka,a, o - Pgltb Dana C. Porche' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: i R bert A. Brady, Secretary to e Planning Commission * Italics indicates addition to text, indicates removal from text. ' i MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2002 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM. by Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner LaPere. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, MATTHIES, NASH, UHLRY, & LAPERE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, Associate Planner Millet, City Engineer O'Donnell, Community Development Clerk Porche' and Deputy City Attorney Steve Miles. PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Barnes indicated that there is a correction to the December 3, 2002 minutes, on page 6, second paragraph, the last sentence should read, "Chairman Barnes felt that it would be best if the Commission did consider serving as the hearing board, as it would formalize the hearings." Community Development Director Brady stated that there is a correction to the same minutes, on page 6, first paragraph, the sentence should read, "He indicated that the meetings are currently held once a month,usually at 9:00 AM on the second Wednesday." He also stated that on the same page, paragraph 10, the name is Tom Franson. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE NOTED CORRECTIONS. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —DECEMBER 17, 2002 Minutes 1. December 03, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Revocation Proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-05 Lake Elsinore Motocross and BMX Racing and Training Facility Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 6:03 PM, and requested the reading of the Staff Report. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the item before the Commission is the Revocation Proceedings for the CUP No. 2001-05 Lake Elsinore Motocross and BMX Racing and Training Facility, and requested Planning Manager Villa review the progress with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that the applicant has satisfied the 44 Conditions of Approval. He indicated that Condition number 10 had not been met, which required a submission of $20,000.00 cash bond. He stated that the applicant submitted the $20,000.00 yesterday, and therefore all Conditions have been met. Planning Manager Villa stated that Conditions 4, 5, 6, and 13 requires periodic monitoring. He stated that the applicant has submitted a plot plan, and is acceptable by Staff. He stated that Staff has agreed to a 45-day extension to implement this plan. He noted that Condition number 19 stated that the applicant have 2 million dollars in coverage for the project. Planning Manager Villa stated that two insurance binders for one million each have been submitted. Planning Manager Villa stated that the applicant is present to answer any questions that the Commission may have. He also indicated that he received an email letter of protest from Mr. Keith Penny, which a copy of the letter has been given to each of the Commissioners and entered into the Public Record. Chairman Barnes requested anyone to speak in favor or against the project. There being no requests to speak,Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner Nash stated that he is pleased to hear that all Conditions have been met. He stated that if the applicant has any issues that he would like to have resolved, it would need to follow the process of amending the CUP. He stated that any additional improvements would need to be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner LaPere concurred with Commissioner Nash comments. Commissioner Matthies concurred with the other Commissioners. PAGE 3 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 17, 2002 Commissioner Uhlry asked Planning Manager Villa about the enforcement. Planning Manager Villa indicated that Staff has the obligation to conduct periodic monitoring, to ensure that the operation is complying with the Conditions. Commissioner Uhlry indicated to the applicant that he too is pleased to see that everything has been resolved. He had no further comments. Chairman Barnes stated that the project is a benefit to the City. He asked the applicant if he agrees to all of the Conditions of Approval. Randy Hiner, 33350 Elizabeth Road, Temecula, CA indicated that he agrees to the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes closed the Public Hearing at 6:13 PM and called for a motion. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO TAKE NO ACTION, AND TO RULE THE OPERATION IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, 3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30832 Abbacy Holding Corporation Chairman Barnes opened the Public Hearing at 6:21 PM, and requested the reading of the Staff Report. Community Development Director Brady stated that this project is TPM No. 30832 and requested Planning Manager Villa review it with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that Bill Kipp is the applicant and is requesting approval to subdivide 7.47 acres of vacant land into 9 commercial parcels and two letter parcels of the Canyon Creek "Summerhill" Specific Plan. He stated that the area is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Summerhill Drive and Canyon Estates Drive within the Canyon Creek Specific Plan. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the largest parcel is 44,866.8 square feet and the smallest is 22,651.2, just over a half of an acre. He stated that the average parcel size is 32,428 square feet approximately 3/4 of an acre. He noted that the applicant has gone to great lengths to propose a project that is pedestrian oriented. Planning Manager Villa commented that a previous Negative Declaration Environmental document had been prepared as part of the previous project which provides clearance for this project, and a Mitigation-Monitoring Program has been adopted and will be implemented. PAGE 4- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 17, 2002 Planning Manager Villa recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution, recommending the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel No. 30832, based on the Findings, Exhibits,and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the applicant is present for any questions that the Commission may have. Chairman Barnes requested comments for or against the project. William Kipp, Abbacy Holding Corporation, 361 Railroad Canyon, Suite C, Lake Elsinore, CA. The applicant stated that he received a comment sheet from Planning Manager Villa, which has been addressed and returned to Planning Manager Villa and City Engineer O'Donnell. He stated that all comments were resolved with the exception of Condition No 18. The applicant indicated that he spoke with the City Engineer about Condition No. 18, and could not make a decision on how it should be handled. The applicant indicated that the City is requiring the developer to pay a Railroad Canyon Benefit Assessment Fees at the recording of the map. He stated that he feels that the Railroad Canyon fees should be divided by 9, and paid by each owner or developer of each parcel. The applicant stated that 45 days ago he pulled a building permit and paid the Railroad Canyon fees. He stated that he spoke with the City Engineer who told him that the K-rat fee would be prorated. He indicated that his Engineer,John Canty is also present this evening to answer any questions. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner Uhlry asked about the changes to the Conditions of Approval, and wanted some explanation about Parcel A. The applicant indicated that there are two lettered lots, A&B. He stated that both have easements flow down to the San Jacinto water shed. He stated that these lots will be given to Municipality and will trade off for other land so they can be maintained. He stated that these lots can not be developed because of the easements. He indicated that rather than working around that, the developer leveled lots A&B. Commissioner Uhlry asked if the easements crossed that one section. The applicant stated yes,and indicated that it also goes under the freeway at that point. Community Development Director Brady requested City Engineer O'Donnell to go through the revisions of the Conditions of Approval. Planning Manager Villa wanted to advise Community Development Brady that there has been a revision to Condition No. 8 where it stated; The applicant shall pay applicable fees and obtain proper clearance from the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) prior to issuance of building permits. He stated that the word applicant should be changed to owner. He noted that Staff has accepted this change. PAGE 5 -- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 17, 2002 City Engineer O'Donnell stated that there has been revisions to several Conditions and requested to go over all of them. He stated that on Condition 18, the final sentence shall read,"K-rat fees can be paid at the building permit at$415.00 per lot." The final sentence of Condition No. 24 shall read, "To the extent such access is granted by the City Engineer." Condition No. 25 shall read, "The City shall enter into an agreement with Abbacy Holding Corp for reimbursement if the traffic impact fee for the project is less than the total cost for installing the traffic signal." Condition No. 32 shall read, "The center line of the private street shall be offset with the center line of Boulder vista Drive no more than 10 ft." The final sentence of Condition No. 35 shall read, "This does not include the traffic signal." Condition No. 47 shall read, "A drainage acceptance letter will be necessary from the downstream or drainage easement owners for outletting the proposed stormwater run-off onto property offsite." Condition No. 50 shall read, "Driveway access shall be limited on Summerhill Drive as noted on the Conceptual Site Plan,but in no case no more than 2 driveways will be allowed subjected to the approval of the City Engineer." City Engineer O'Donnell stated that Condition No. 53 would be added to read, "Assessment District 90-1A and 89-1 shall be reapportioned as to the benefit spread and this shall be paid by the developer." Chairman Barnes asked the applicant if he agreed with the revisions. The applicant stated that he agrees with all of the Conditions with the exception of Condition No. 18,where it discusses K-rat fees. Commissioner LaPere ask if the fee were for all of the parcels together. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated yes. Commissioner LaPere stated that he heard the applicant request that the Railroad Canyon Fees be divided among the other parcel owners. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that is correct. He indicated that if the Condition No. 18 changed, the applicant would pay the Railroad Canyon fees that would be prorated for each parcel. Commissioner Uhlry asked clarification on the recording of the final map. He asked if the fees have to be paid,as the Conditions read now. PAGE G - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 17,2002 City Engineer O'Donnell stated that is correct. Commissioner Uhlry asked if that was by Ordinance, or could the Commission recommend to the City Council that if the Condition changed to;at building permit. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the revision to Condition No. 18 would be acceptable. Commissioner Uhlry asked the applicant if this revision would be acceptable The applicant indicated yes. Commissioner Matthies asked if the Convnission is allowing the K-rat fee to be paid at the time of the building permit, then would the Commission also accept having the Railroad Canyon fee paid then as well. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that only City Council could make that recommendation, since it was an Ordinance. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council,and move forward from there. Commissioner Matthies stated that she would like to have City Council revise Condition No. 18. Commissioner Nash asked if the access off of Summerhill was a permanent access for a left turn. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that there would not be any left turns. He stated that it would be only right turn in and out,and would restrict the total number of access points. Commissioner Nash indicated that he is concerned with the steepness of Summerhill Drive and the traffic coming down the hill. He asked if their would be any lights added to Summerhill Drive. Chairman Barnes explained that in Condition No. 25, it states that there would be a traffic signal constructed at Summerhill Drive and Canyon Estates Drive. Commissioner Nash stated that he too concurs to have the Railroad Canyon fees split between the parcel owners. Chairman Barnes asked City Engineer O'Donnell if there is a conflict between Condition No.24 and Condition No. 50. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that there is a conflict between the two Conditions, and that was the purpose of having Condition No. 50 revised. PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —DECEMBER 17, 2002 Chairman Barnes recommended having Condition No. 24 struck. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that in Condition No. 24, it discusses restricting the driveway movement, not the number of driveways. He stated that in Condition No. 50, it discusses the number of driveways. Commissioner Nash pointed out that the project would be heard by the Commission later for Design Review. Chairman Barnes suggested rewording Condition No. 50 to state that; on Summerhill Drive as noted on the Conceptual Site plan. He stated that he feels that there should be just one access, and should be agreed upon tonight. Applicant Bill Kipp stated that the County Fire Department requires additional access above their guidelines for fire control. He stated that the purpose of having the additional access is for safety purposes for a later date. Commissioner LaPere asked if we had a Condition that covers that. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that a second driveway would need the approval of the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer. Chairman Barnes asked the Commission if they had any further questions. City Attorney Miles wanted to point out that on Condition No. 24 it could be in conflict with Condition No. 50 and suggested that at the end of the sentence add; to the extent, such access is authorized by the City Engineer. Chairman Barnes asked the applicant if he agreed to this revision. Applicant Bill Kipp stated yes. Chairman Barnes asked if there were any further questions. Being none, he requested the reading of the Resolution with revisions to the noted Conditions and closed the Public Hearing at 6:49 PM. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY LAPERE AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-60, 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 PARCEL MAP NO. 30832, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: #8 The appheit ownershall pay applicable fees and obtain proper clearance from the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD) prior to issuance of building permits. PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 17, 2002 #18 Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34, Resolution 85-26). The Railroad Canyon Rd. fee is $20,106. The K-rat fee is $3,739.00. K-rate fees can be paid at building permit at$415.00perlot. #24 The lots adjacent to Summerhill Dr. shall have their access restricted to right turn-in and right turn-out only on Summerhill Drive to the extent such access is granted by the City Engineer. #25 Developer shall design and construct a traffic signal Summerhill Drive, and Canyon Estates Drive. The City shall enter into an agreement with the Abbacy Holding Corp. for reimbursement if the traffic impact fee for the project is less than the total cost for installing the traffic signal. The traffic impact fee will be $3.35 per sq. ft. of building for commercial and $1.26 per sq. ft. of building for office. The traffic signal shall be operational at the first certificate of occupancy for any building on Parcel Map 30832. #32 The center line of the private street should align shall be offset with the center line of Boulder Vista Drive,no more than 10 feet. #35 Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan showing all traffic control devices for the tract to be approved prior to final map approval. All traffic control devices shall be installed prior to final inspection of public improvements. This includes No Parking and Street Sweeping Signs for streets within the tract. This does not include the Traffic Signal. #47 A drainage acceptance letter will be necessary from the downstream private property owners or drainage easement owners for outletting the proposed stormwater run-off onto property offsite. #50 No eemmereial lot .hail shail rent and Driveway access shall be .lim.ited access shaff be restriete on Summerhill Dr. and so as noted on Conceptual Site Plan, but in no case no more than 2 driveways will be allowed subjected to the approval of the City Engineer. #53 Assessment Districts 90-Ll and 89-1 shall be reapportioned as to the benefit spread and this shall be paid by the developer. • Italics indicate addition to text,strikethrexgk indicates removal from text. BUSINESS ITEMS PAGE 9 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES---DECEMBER 17,2002 4. Design Review of Residential Project No. 2002-07,Amendment No 1 Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a Design Review for the Plan 1 and Plan 2 for this residential project and requested that Associate Planner Linda Miller review it with the Commission in Monika Hennings absence. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a request for a previously approved 14 lot single-family project located on Mill Street, Parkway, and Avenue 6. She stated that the applicant recently received approval for Plan 3 of this project at the October 15, 2002 Planning Commission,however did not submit all three plans. Associate Planner Miller stated that Plan 1 is a 1,428 sq. ft. single story home with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths and Plan 2 is a 1,515 sq. ft two story home with 3 to 4 bedrooms and 3 baths. Associate Planner Miller indicated that since the original approval of this project, it was determined that Avenue 6 is designated as a major road in the General Plan. She stated that currently the road has a 30' half-width. She noted that the applicant has been advised to provide a 20' right-of -way for all the lots along Avenue 6. She indicated that due to this new development,it has affected lot number 26,and therefore the lot will remain.vacant. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this project meets the requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution based on the findings,Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested for Commissioners comments. Commissioner Nash asked Associate Planner Miller if lot number 26, would remain undeveloped. Associate Planner Miller commented that the project is being handled by Technician Hennings,and could not comment on any proposed developments. However, she indicated that more than likely the applicant would find a way to build another home on this lot. Commissioner Nash had no further comments. Commission LaPere asked Community Development Director Brady if this project and others like this could be handled administratively. Community Development Director Brady indicated to Commissioner LaPere that the Commission would need to approval the models, however the individual lots could be approval administratively. Commissioner LaPere had no further questions. PAGE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 17, 2002 Vice Chairwoman Matthies asked about Condition No. 26, where it discusses the elevation facing the public right-of-way. She asked if this applied to the right-of-way when backing to the schools. Associate Planner Miller indicated that Staff could add verbiage to the Conditions so the two-story home that backs the right--of-way to the school provides additional architectural treatments. Vice Chairwoman Matthies had no further comments. Commissioner Uhlry asked if the lot assignments are going to remain the same as previously approved, to include the floor plans with the exception of lot number 26. Associate Planner Miller stated yes. Chairman Barnes asked about the dedication of the 20 feet, and how it would be handled with the existing lot. Community Development Director Brady stated that the lot that is in discussion is not owned by the applicant,and would be the responsibility to the owner of that lot. Chairman Barnes had no further questions, and requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY LAPERE, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-61, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. R 2002-07, AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISION TO CONDITION NO. 26 #26 When a second story elevation faces a public right-of-way or a public faciLrty additional architectural treatments shall be required. Enhanced Architectural treatments shall include surrounds for windows, shutters or other architectural features per the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. Italics indicates addition to text,stlrethifeugk indicates removal from text. 5. Minor_Design. Review of two Single Family Residences located at 31170 and 31172 Wisconsin Street (APN 379-202-005 and 379-202-0061. Community Development Director Brady stated that the project before the Commission is a Minor Design Review for two Single Family Residences, and requested that Associate Planner Miller review it with the Commission. PAGE 11 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 17, 2002 Associate Planner Miller stated that this project is for two single-family units on two adjacent vacant lots. She indicated that each lot is 5,000 square feet and would have a 1,639 sq. foot dwelling, with a 210 sq. ft. covered patio. She indicated that each unit has 3 bedrooms, 2 bathroom, and a family room. She indicated that Staff feels that each unit meets the minimum requirements of the LEMC and recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution,based on the Findings, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Barnes requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner Nash indicated that he wished that the applicant were present for this meeting. He stated that he was not pleased with the layout. Otherwise, he indicated that everything else looked fine, and had no further questions. Commissioner LaPere had no questions. Vice Chairwoman Matthies had no questions. Commissioner Uhlry stated that he likes the idea of the layout. He indicated that this development would help enhance the area,and is looking forward to seeing it built. Chairman Barnes wanted to point out that this area is septic and not sewer. Commissioner Uhlry agreed and stated that the area of discussion was in the district of Elsinore Valley Water District, and they currently do not have any sewer system in that are. There being no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Barnes requested the reading of the Resolution. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY BARNES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-62, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAIC ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES LOCATED AT 31170 AND 31172 WISCONSIN STREET—APN 379-202-005 & 379-202-006. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS • Chairman Barnes asked Community Development Director Brady the status of the City Council approving the Planning Commission serving as the Hearing Board for the Nuisance Abatement Hearing. Community Development Director Brady indicated that a code amendment would need to be completed first, and then it would go to the City Council for approval. PAGE 12 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 17, 2002 STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following • He wanted to wish Staff,and the Commission Happy I iolidays. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He wished all Happy Holidays. Vice Chairwoman Matthies commented on the following: • She wished all Happy Holidays. Commissioner LaPere commented on the following • He wished all Happy Holidays. Conmaissioner Uhlry commented on the following • He wished all Happy Holidays. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He wished all Happy Holidays. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES SECONDED BY LAPERE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:17 PM. _ .HN BARNES, CHAIRMAN PAGE 13 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—DECEMBER 17, 2002 Respectfully Submitted � V,7 Dana C. Porcbe' Community Development Clerk ATTEST: g6< Robert A. Brady, Sec jato=the Planning Commission *Italics indicates addition to text,sqi a gk indicates removal from text.