Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-1996 NAHMINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1996 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 3, 1996, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, LiZG lIl sta Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1996 iF+k•ie * * * *ifkAR *+k+kielFf *ik ik * *A * *irAAA * * *1F * * * *AAAirA iF •ik• * * * * *1F iF A iF+k * * * * *A ** The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Allenbach. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Associate Planner De Gange. OATH OF OFFICE Deputy City Clerk Bryning administered the Oath of Office to Robert Schiffner. NOMINATION OF OFFICERS 1. Chairman Wilsey opened the nomination for Planning Commission Vice Chairman. Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies to nominate Commissioner Allenbach. Hearing no further nominations, Chairman Wilsey called for the vote. Commissioner Allenbach was appointed Planning Commission Vice Chairman by a vote of 4 -0 with Commissioner Allenbach abstaining. 2. Chairman Wilsey opened the nomination for Design Review Committee Chairman. Moved by Commissioner Sands, seconded by Commissioner Allenbach to nominate Commissioner Matthies. Hearing no further nominations, Chairman Wilsey called for the vote. Commissioner Matthies was appointed Design Review Committee Chairman by a vote of 4 -0 with Matthies abstaining. 3. Chairman Wilsey opened the nomination for Design Review Committee Vice Chairman. Moved by Commissioner Allenbach, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies to nominate Commissioner Sands. Hearing no further nominations, Chairman Wilsey called for the vote. Commissioner Sands was appointed Design Review Committee Vice Chairman by a 4 -0 vote with Commissioner Sands abstaining. 4. Chairman Wilsey opened the nomination for Nuisance Abatement Committee Member. Moved by Commissioner Sands, seconded by Commissioner Allenbach to nominate Commissioner Schiffner. Hearing no further nominations, Chairman Wilsey called for the vote. Commissioner Schiffner was appointed to the Nuisance Abatement Committee by a 4 -0 vote with Schiffner abstaining. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 1996 MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of December 6, 1995. Moved by Commissioner Matthies, Seconded by Commissioner Sands and carried by unanimous vote to receive and file the Minutes of December 20, 1995 and January 3, 1996. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS None BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 95 -4 - USA Properties Associate Planner De Gange explained the item was continued from the December 6, 1995 Meeting to allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare a Traffic Study. He further explained that since that time a Study was prepared, however it has gone through some changes and upon staff review the study was returned to the applicant for modification. He stated that there has not been sufficient time to prepare the environmental document and allow for the thirty day review period, therefore staff is requesting a further continuance to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 21, 1996. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 95 -4 - USA PROPERTIES TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 1996. Chairman Wilsey asked that staff request a Joint Study Session with the City Council to discuss USA Properties. INFORMATIONAL 2. Associate Planner De Gange stated that this is an informational item regarding a request to allow a temporary on -site strawberry sales stand with continuous operation from February through July and the applicant was informed at the time of his initial inquiry that based on the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the provisions of the City that this type of operation is not specifically addressed. He explained that there is no provision for a Temporary Use Permit which would address this type of request and therefore, he would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) . Associate Planner De Gange explained that the Code states that a Temporary Use Permit allows an activity for 30 days and no longer than 30 days and the applicant's request exceeds that limit. He stated based on the request and the history of previous applications, staff recommends that Planning Commission inform Mr. Craig, the applicant, that his proposal requires approval of a CUP and suggest to him that if it is his desire to obtain approval for his request that he follow the appropriate steps to submit an application for a CUP. He further stated that it is recommended that if the Planning Commission feels that this and similar type uses (temporary uses which exceed 30 days) should be processed under the provisions of Section 17.98 (Temporary Outdoor Activities), PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 1996 that staff be instructed to take the necessary steps to initiate an amendment to Section 17.98 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Craig, Applicant, 39610 Medina Court, Murietta, stated that he has talked with several people from staff and further stated that he is asking to go about this project in a different manner due to the cost involved in obtaining a CUP. He explained that he has concerns given that he has never had to pay a fee for this amount just to be considered and that after he goes through the process there is no guarantee that he will be approved. He presented an informational packet which outlines the costs and information from the different cities that he has done business with. He stated that he hoped that the City of Lake Elsinore would allow him to operate in the same manner and at a similar cost as he does in the other cities. Commissioner Allenbach stated that he feels that the business is a good one and the site is excellent, however after reviewing the staff report and the Zoning Code he stated that he sees this activity as more of a retail and not a temporary use. Commissioner Allenbach asked if the applicant had tried to use the Municipal Code, Section 8.64 regarding Regulation of Food Establishments and Food Facilities. Mr. Craig stated that he had not. Mr. Allenbach asked if the City of Lake Elsinore could amend the Zoning Code to allow for stands. He explained that if a CUP is applied for, as a general rule it would be approved and per the existing Code there is no area that addresses stands. There was discussion in regard to Temporary Use Permit and Outdoor Activity Permits. Associate Planner De Gange explained that each section addresses different things. He further explained that there are several gray areas and staff will be working to clarify certain sections of the Code to better define the Code. He stated that they are working with the Community Services Department at this time to clarify this particular section. Commissioner Allenbach asked what it would take to better address these Codes and allow them to address these gray areas. He asked if it would be possible to work on these sections of the Codes and combine the two and work out the bugs. Associate Planner De Gange stated that it is possible and that Planning and Community Services agree that there is some overlap and inconsistencies and this should be addressed. Commissioner Allenbach asked where a situation like Mr. Craig's fit in the Municipal Code. Associate Planner De Gange stated that just as a suggestion the City could separate Special Temporary Events and Special Uses into two different categories in which uses can be addressed. He explained that at this time there are no definitions in the Code to distinguish between these two different types of issues. Commissioner Allenbach asked what it would take to achieve this. Associate Planner De Gange explained that this would require a Resolution of Intent to initiate a change to the Ordinance and then it would require an actual revision to the Ordinance with Planning Commission and City Council approval done in a public hearing format. He explained that this would take approximately three months. Commissioner Allenbach stated that he felt that the strawberry stand was a good idea, but under the current Codes he could find no other solution to Mr. Craig's situation except through a CUP. Mr. Craig stated that he would not mind seeing this process started and explained that he would miss out for this year, but next year and future years it would make it possible to do his business. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 1996 Commissioner Schiffner stated that he would be thrilled to see a business in that location and under the provisions of the Code it is not possible without a CUP and pointed out that in the staff recommendations it is suggested that the Planning Commission instruct staff to take steps to better define the Code and at this time he sees - -it as the only option. Commissioner Sands asked if the previous CUP for a strawberry stand was a different applicant. Associate Planner De Gange stated that it was and that the other applicant that was approved was located on the corner of Riverside Drive and Collier. He pointed out that the other applicant in 1992 was also a different applicant and stated that he had found the CUP cost prohibitive and as a consequence choose a site in the County and was approved by them. Chairman Wilsey stated that in analyzing the cost of the previous CUP, he explained that he has always had a problem with this type of related cost and its effect on the small business applications. He pointed out that it is a very large cost for a small business of that nature. He stated that there must be some way in which to fast track applications that could fall through the cracks. He suggested a Work Shop to amend the Zoning Code to allow the Commission to deal with this type of situation and would eliminate some of the gray areas and allow a section to deal with this type of business. Chairman Wilsey suggested that as staff is dealing with this, that they contact the different surrounding cities and review their zoning codes in regard to this issue. Chairman Wilsey asked why the Commission could not allow a Special Event Permit for 30 days and at the end of that time renew the Permit. Associate Planner De Gange explained that the Code allows this type of event once -a year. Chairman Wilsey asked what time factor is the Commission looking at for a change. Associate Planner De Gange stated that the Code must be followed and it would could take 3 months. Chairman Wilsey asked the applicant if it would be possible to set up his stand and at the end of 30 days to move the stand to a different location. Mr. Craig explained the difficulties of that suggestion and the fact that it would not be feasible to do this. He explained the problems that he experienced trying to get the lease on the property that he is proposing. Associate Planner De Gange pointed out that the relocation of the stand would include addressing the Engineering Department's concerns regarding Traffic Circulation and the ingress and egress of the site since it would be entering and exiting on a State Highway and will require an encroachment permit from Cal- Trans. Mr. Craig explained the process of the encroachment permits from Cal Trans and noted that in Temecula and Hemet it was determined that since he was not doing any work on the roadway they determined that it would not affect the State Highway. Chairman Wilsey stated that it appears that at this time it would require a CUP, but that the Commission will be working on this situation and suggested that Mr. Craig keep Elsinore in mind for the next season. Mr. Craig asked if there were any other meetings that he should attend. Associate Planner stated that there will be a Work Shop in regard to this matter and that he would be welcome to give input at those meetings. ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 7:40 P.M. RECONVENED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7:54 P.M. Associate Planner De Gange welcomed Commissioner Schiffner. +fie m. E'.. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 1996 Commissioner Sands welcomed Commissioner Schiffner. Commissioner Allenbach commented on the following: 1. Welcomed Commissioner Schiffner. 2. Stated that the Union 76 on Grape Street looks good. Commissioner Matthies welcomed Commissioner Schiffner and congratulated everyone on their new positions. Commissioner Schiffner thanked the Board for their welcome and stated that he hoped that he would be an asset to the Board. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the followings 1. Welcomed Commissioner Schiffner. 2. Reminded the Commission that he would like to have a Work Shop with City Council regarding USA Properties and other issues. 3. Asked that staff start working on a Zone Code Amendment regarding fruit stands. He asked that they contact the surrounding cities and see how they have handled this issue. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY NATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:00 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Linda Grin staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAYf FEBRUARY 71 1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:59 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, SCHIFFNER, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of January 17, 1996, as submitted. PIIBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 95 -11 - Daniel J. Hammes (Diamond Sports Bar) Associate Planner Villa explained the request is to establish a sports bar with a deli and eleven billiard tables within approximately 7,220 square feet of improved leasable space within the Winston Tire Plaza, Units A -F, 31762 Mission Trail. The request also entails consideration of a parking standard of two parking spaces per billiard table (similar to County regulations) , and also allow shared parking within the center which currently has 142 parking spaces total. When the parking standards for bar /deli, and billiard halls are applied, the parking spaces for the proposed use exceeds the amount of spaces currently allotted for the space to be occupied. Pursuant to the Code, Section 17.66.070, the Planning Commission may approve the use of shared parking to reduce the total number of on -site parking spaces for different uses as long as no conflict in hours of operation exist. The applicant is requesting a 30% reduction in parking requirement in conjunction with allowing shared parking. Associate Planner Villa then referred to the Land Use Survey, listed on Page 2 of the Staff Report, which summarizes existing uses, lease area, hours of operation, parking spaces required, and shows a summary of parking required as a retail center strictly and parking spaces required with a 30% reduction for the bar. Peak demand time for the sports bar is 8:00 p.m. (weekdays and weekends). The majority of the uses within the center will be closed after 6:00 p.m.; therefore, the 142 parking spaces could be available for the sports bar. If the sports bar is allowed, staff does not anticipate this project to negatively impact surrounding uses provided the landlord agrees to allow the bar the use of extra spaces and that a more intense use will not be allowed while the Conditional Use Permit for the sports bar is in operation. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 Mr. Hunter, Officer of Winston Tire Company, stated he hopes the Commission will look favorably on CUP 95 -11. He then stated the space has been vacant for over three years, and thinks this is a good use. Mr. Goodman, property owner, stated they need the business very badly and this will bring a number of people into the shopping center. Mr. Goodman submitted a letter to the Commission explaining that he will meet any conditions needed to get this shopping center going. He then stated that he hopes the Commissions looks upon this favorably. Mr. Daniel Hammes, applicant, 13772 Deodar Street, Santa Ana, stated that he has read all of the conditions of approval and everything seems to be in a workable condition. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Sands inquired about trash enclosures for the center. Mr. Hammes stated that access to a trash service area, enclosed trash area, is within 51 feet of the service door or entrance. Community Development Director Leslie explained that due to the design of the center and the way it backs into a hill there is no back, the trash enclosures are actually out in front within the parking area within trash enclosures. Commissioner Matthies stated that all of her questions have been answered. Commissioner Allenbach inquired about the location of the service entrance, product delivery. Mr. Hammes stated the service entrance is in Unit A. Commissioner Allenbach asked if any spaces were being provided for a dart board. Mr. Hammes stated it is his understanding they are allowed three video type machines; planned are two dart machines and one jukebox. Community Development Director Leslie stated he believes the requirement is not to exceed five. If there are more than five arcade machines then it is classified as an arcade in addition to whatever else. Community Development Director Leslie stated he was unsure if the electronic dart games would qualify as an arcade machine, but staff can work with you on this. Commissioner Schiffner stated everything seems to be covered and looks good. Chairman Wilsey stated he concurs and has no further questions. He then called for a motion. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY NATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -11 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT nAn AND SUBJECT TO THE 14 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 2. Conditional Use Permit 95 -12 - Jeff Chudner (BBO Bob's Smokehouse) Associate Planner De Gange explained the request is to allow the placement of a barbecue pit outside of and in conjunction with a restaurant use at 31733 -A Riverside Drive. The applicant has supplied a model for your review. The applicant has entered into a lease agreement with the Brookstone Center and is requesting approval for the placement of his semi - mobile barbecue pit outside the restaurant (previously this was E1 Presidente Mexican Restaurant). The barbecue pit is approximately six feet wide by nine feet long and eight feet high, and will be in operation during the restaurant's hours of operation and on demand. Associate Planner De Gange PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 highlighted staff concerns as follows: the request is not specifically addressed in the Zoning Code; therefore, the request for a Conditional Use Permit. This request involves the semi - permanent placement of equipment outside an enclosed facility and is not a request for a temporary use. Therefore, it falls upon the Planning Commission as a discretionary approval to determine if this is an appropriate use and whether this is the type of activity the Commission would want to encourage considering the proximity to Riverside Drive, a heavily traveled thoroughfare, and would want to see this type of activity in the future in other locations. This also leads to staff's concern of aesthetics of the barbecue pit. In staff opinion it is somewhat unattractive and the fact that the applicant wants to place it in front of the restaurant along Riverside Drive poses some concerns. Staff and the applicant have worked on ways to soften the visual impact of the grill and came up with three proposed solutions: lowering the concrete pad approximately three feet whereby lowering the level it would be seen from the street; installation of a decorative block wall around three sides of the pit area with wrought iron fencing on top of the wall. Staff has also added a condition which proposes a landscape planter around the block wall and shrubbery to be planted in the planter to soften the visual impact of the grill and to soften the block wall itself. Another concern is dissipation of smoke generated by the barbecue grill with regard to air quality and safety. In discussion with the Building Department it is their contention that the amount of smoke would be the same as if it were indoors. The only concern would be the velocity of smoke. Inside the restaurant it would be funneled through a hood and projected into the atmosphere at a higher level, and in this case it is being disbursed at a lower level and in a more concentrated manner. Also, it was not felt that this proposal needed any clearance from Air Quality Management District (AQMD) , based on the fact that the volume of smoke is the same as if it were indoors. Staff is asking that the Commission make a determination that this use is appropriate, and also look at the conditions proposed to mitigate some of the visual impacts associated with this use, and if the Commission feels these are appropriate then staff would recommend approval. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jeff Chudner, 15148 Grand Avenue #10, stated the Staff Report lays out all the details. Would like to add that the County of Riverside Environmental Health Department has approved the operation of the barbecue pit, to be placed out front and operated in the manner proposed. Also, today the landlord has agreed to all of the stipulations and conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Mr. Chudner stated he would like to correct the hours of operation written in the Staff Report. Anticipated hours of operation would be 10:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Tuesday through Sunday and closed on Monday. Mr. Chudner stated they will have a sealed concrete floor and this will be installed by a concrete contractor so that floor will be easily washable, mop the surface and bring all of the dirty water or cleaning material back into the restaurant and dispose of this material properly. The barbecue pit puts out very little grease, just by the very nature of barbecuing. Almost all of the material put off by the meat is put into a dry type of vapor, and we have our whole procedure laid out as far as nightly cleaning and this would not be detrimental to the environment or to the surrounding areas within the center. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Nick Nash, 157 South Pennsylvania, owns and operates Park Plaza Restaurant, representing the Park Plaza Restaurant and PAGE FOUR— PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — FEBRUARY 7, 1996 his family who owns and operates the Park Plaza Center. Mr. Nash stated that he has a number of concerns about this proposal. Aesthetics is the major concern and does not believe this lends any aesthetics to the neighborhood or to the other businesses. Also,. of concern is cleanliness. I disagree with',, Mr. Chudner barbecues are messy and they do produce a lotlof grease. I observed his crew cleaning the barbecue in my driveway the other day and had them stop and clean up the mess, it was quite extensive. Another concern is the zoning. When you give this conditional use permit out you are opening a "Pandora's Box" to anybody in this town that wants to try and do that type of cooking outside. Mr. Nash stated that he has to pay a yearly fee to Air Quality Management District to operate the open flame broiler in his restaurant and doesn't know how Mr. Chudner plans to get around this. Mr. Nash urged the Commission to reject this proposal on the stipulations stated. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Schiffner stated he has concern over the disposal of grease and smoke. Would to see this addressed more completely before such a proposal is approved. Would not like to see a mobile unit like this taken elsewhere and washed down. Whatever happens should be sufficient so that it can be taken care of at this location if it is going to be permitted. Commissioner Matthies stated she concurs with Commissioner Schiffner. Knows that the applicant is working with staff on the aesthetics, but it is hard to dress -up something like this. Commissioner Sands asked if there will be any cooking indoors. Mr. Chudner stated they anticipate starting a breakfast menu, but almost everything to this point will be done on the barbecue. We do have side dishes that will be cooked on a range. Commissioner Sands stated he has concerns with disposal of waste from the clean -up of the grill, smoke from the grill and cleanliness of the barbecue unit. Mr. Chudner stated the barbecue unit is sealed from the bottom so hardly anything can escape. Ashes are remaining at the end of the day and will be disposed of properly, which ever way the City determines appropriate. There will be a little dripping onto the ground, a completely sealed concrete floor which will be mopped with appropriate cleaning agents. The restaurant has a 1,000 gallon grease interceptor that has been approved by the water district so whatever residue may be on the materials when we bring in to clean will be trapped in the interceptor which we intend to have professionally cleaned every 2 -3 months. The only thing escaping from the barbecue pit is smoke. We can cook over charcoal or wood and it is a fairly clean process. Mr. Chudner stated that if the concern is the drippings from the barbecue that he would like to assure the Commission that this is minimal and will be cleaned up appropriately and disposed of properly. Mr. Chudner commented on the aesthetics and stated they could lower the barbecue pit even further down than shown on the model bring the wall up higher, and even put planters around it. We are willing to do whatever necessary to please the Commission. Commissioner Sands referred to condition number 3, "The cleaning of this area shall not violate the terms and restrictions established within the Storm Water Pollution Discharge Permit (NPDES)'I, and stated that this means the barbecue unit cannot be cleaned in the alley, as previously done. Mr. Chudner stated that this was an isolated case where they needed to clean the pit from the inside out, which we PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — FEBRUARY 7, 1996 would do but never in this location. We will not be using any other area but the sealed and appropriately prepared surface from now on. Commissioner Sands then complimented staff on their three proposals for improvement. Commissioner Allenbach stated his concerns are basically the same, cleanliness and grease. Mr. Chudner reiterated that the Health Department has approved this and the barbecue pit itself; however, this was their concern as well. Mr. Chudner stated this was also a concern of the Health Department prior to their approval of the barbecue pit itself. A sealing agent for the area under the barbecue pit has been selected and the Health Department and myself are confident this will take care of the problem. The sealing agent selected will not soak up any grease. Commissioner Allenbach asked where the grease will go once on top of the concrete. Mr. Chudner stated they will use appropriate biodegradable detergents to mop up the area and carry the waste into the kitchen for proper disposal. Commissioner Allenbach asked if there will be a drain in the concrete. Mr. Chudner responded in the negative and explained this is something they wanted to avoid, we do not want anything seeping out of that area. Commissioner Allenbach stated he loves the concept; however, the major concern is aesthetics. Asked if a permanent barbecue pit had been considered. Mr. Chudner stated this is something they could do; however, would like to have the option to take it to catering events occasionally. Commissioner Allenbach stated this would be precedent setting if approved, and doesn't see approving a precedent setting thing unless we have something that is top quality. Associate Planner De Gange referred to condition number 1, with regard to the concerns raised, staff would perform periodic reviews and if at any time it is staff's opinion that the operation is not to be in compliance with the conditions then the matter would be brought back before the Commission with a recommendation to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Wilsey asked if the CUP deals specifically with the portable barbecue unit as opposed to a permanent structure, or a barbecue or cooking structure is to be placed outside. Associate Planner De Gange stated he believes the reason is because it is outdoors. It would still be policy to bring this before the Commission whether done as a permanent structure or mobile because it is outdoors. Commissioner Matthies commented on the statement to keep the barbecue pit mobile for catering events, stating the hours of operation would limit catering to Monday, early mornings or late at night. Asked how the menu for the restaurant would be served if the barbecue were at a catering event. Mr. Chudner explained the catering would not be a regular basis. If this should occur all of the meat could be cooked early in the morning, late at night or during the operation to where we could take the barbecue unit out to the catering site and at the same time have enough product to run the restaurant. Commissioner Matthies asked if on the one side where you are proposing to pull the unit out, the pan as called earlier, will there be a lip there be keep drainage inside so it won't wash out when mopping. Mr. Chudner responded in the affirmative and stated this has already been discussed with the contractor. It will have a lip running up the sides all the way around so that nothing will escape. Mr. Chudner reiterated that all waste will be carried into the restaurant and disposed of properly. PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 Commissioner Schiffner stated that precautions are being taken to prevent material from escaping, but what will happen when it rains? Mr. Chudner stated that during the rain they may have to mop periodically. We can barbecue when it is rains, but if it rains hard we will shut the barbecue down. Chairman Wilsey asked about the dimensions of the cooking surface. Mr. Chudner stated the cooking surface encompasses the entire interior of the barbecue grill. Chairman Wilsey asked if Health Department requires this to be hooded or vented with electrical fans. Mr. Chudner responded in the negative. Chairman Wilsey asked whether this barbecue unit has electrical fans for venting. Mr. Chudner responded in the negative, but it does have ports at the top which will allow the smoke to escape. The Health Department is not asking for anything other than to keep the flooring clean, and this is where we began to look into and address those issues. Chairman Wilsey stated that at this time a drain is not going to be installed in the flooring, correct? Mr. Chudner stated they are not going to install a drain because they do not want anything escaping from that area. The concrete contractor mentioned that if we are not using the barbecue pit and there is nothing on the floor, no residue, we may be able to open some kind of trap. All of the details have not been worked out, but there will not be a flood within the enclosure. All of these issues have been addressed with the Health Department. Chairman Wilsey stated all of the bases have been covered with regard to how this application would work. The major concern is aesthetics. Personally, would not want to see this on Riverside Drive, particularly this unit and application. Chairman Wilsey stated he was intrigued with the concept, but thinks there is a better way to do it. Having an outdoor barbecue is no problem, but would favor a more permanent structure, and this would be my recommendation. He then asked staff if this application was denied and the applicant wanted to work with staff on a better concept would another Conditional Use Permit be required, or could this be postponed to work out better details. Community Development Director Leslie stated the latter would be an alternative, if the desire of the Commission is to table and allow staff and the applicant to work on another proposal it could come back under the same Conditional Use Permit request. Chairman Wilsey asked staff if this needed to be continued date specific. Community Development Director Leslie stated a specific date could be set, but if no specific date is set then it would have to be renoticed. Chairman Wilsey stated he would lean toward continuation, and asked for comments from the table with regard to continuance. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the request for Conditional Use Permit. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -12 AND SENT IT BACK TO STAFF WITH DIRECTION TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON PROVIDING AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING PERMANENT OUTDOOR BARBECUE PIT WITH A WELL SCREENED LANDSCAPED AREA. Chairman Wilsey stated that when this proposal comes back before the Commission he would like to see a condition added that prevents the storage of the barbecue trailer and commercial truck on- site. 3. Variance 96 -1 and Sign Program - Unocal Oil Co=any Associate Planner Villa explained the request is to deviate from the Municipal Code (Sections 17.94.170.I.3.a & b) to allow construction of a freeway identification sign, at 31805 Grape Street, which exceeds the maximum height by 15 feet and PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 to allow the construction of a nonpermitted sign which incorporates flashing and intermittent lighting in the form of a message board (Section 17.94.090.C). The proposed freeway sign exceeds the area allowed by 190 square feet. If a sign in compliance with the Sign Code were provided it would be limited to 92 square feet. It has been determined that this is insufficient area to accommodate the message board and the circular logo sign. In order for the message board to be effective and readable from the freeway, it has been determined that the dimensions would be have to be 5' 8" high by 1518" inches wide for a total of 89 square feet. To maintain overall proportion, the circular 76 logo sign has been proposed at 16 feet in diameter. The main purpose of the sign is for site identification and it is understandable that the applicant would not want the sign out of proportion or dwarfed by the message board. The combined total is approximately 290 square feet. The sign program provides design and installation guidelines for all on -site signs advertising the business name, products and gasoline prices pursuant the Sign Code. It also includes sign design criteria for retaining walls. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant or a representative was present and would like to address the Commission. Nancy Kay, Swain Signs 1384 East 5th Street, Ontario, representing the applicant, stated they recently moved and due to this she just received the Staff Report this evening, but has read the report and agrees with everything. Ms. Kay referred to the change in color on the monument sign and stated she did not believe this to be a problem, condition number 4. On the electronic message board, additional height is being requested because of the location and grade level. The size of the message board and identification sign for 76 are to compliment each other. Ms. Kay stated there are 2 additional wall signs and explained there were problems with visibility. We tried to place a monument sign at the corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road; however, with the retaining walls, grade difference and iron fence there was a problem with visibility, so it was placed on the retaining wall. The only other option would be to add another 6 feet or so to the proposed sign we had there. Chairman Wilsey asked if there was a representative from Unocal present. Community Development Director Leslie stated staff would request the addition of the two conditions, and allow the representative a chance to respond to the proposed conditions. He provided a brief history on the work between the City and Unocal relative to an agreement on the freeway identification sign and on a graffiti removal program, and requested the addition of the following conditions, to read: Condition No. 5: The sign permit for the freeway identification sign as proposed shall not be released and the variance for said sign shall not become effective until Unocal has submitted an agreement and the City has approved it guaranteeing the City use of at least 25% of the display time on the electronic message board. Condition No. 6: The applicant shall study and review with City Staff additional measures for discouraging the placement of graffiti on the retaining walls being used for sign supports for signs B and C. Such measures may include but are not limited PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 to additional' landscaping in front or growing on wall, special treatments to wall or reducing height of wall. These measures found to be potentially effective and feasible shall be put in place as a further- deterrent to graffiti. The applicant shall attempt to remove all graffiti as soon as possible but not longer than 48 hours after it appears. Community Development Director Leslie stated that temporary banners have been put up on the site. The City has regulations regarding temporary banners and they require a permit. In this instance, a permit was not obtained. The banners are understandable because they have not been able to install all of their signage. Asked the Planning Commission to encourage the applicant to process any banners desired in the future through the City's established process. Chairman Wilsey asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 8:08 p.m. Chairman Wilsey asked staff whether this matter should be postponed, particularly with regard to condition number 6, until Unocal has an opportunity to respond. Community Development Director Leslie stated that Unocal is eager to install their signage, but they weren't expecting these conditions as they came down late today and they have not had a chance to review them. Commissioner Allenbach asked staff who determined the size of the electronic message board, and the 60 foot height. Community Development Director Leslie stated the size of electronic message board was a joint determination. Both the City and Unocal determined that the electronic message board had to be a certain size to be readable from the freeway. As far as the circular 76 logo, Unocal decided that if they went with a smaller sign it would be dwarfed by the message board and they requested a diameter similar to the width of the message board. The 60 foot height came from the fact that we needed to bring the message board up to a certain height in order to be readable, and Unocal wanted their sign as the primary sign on top. Commissioner Allenbach stated that he did a drive by from both directions, north and south. Believes a 45 foot high sign would be sufficient going south and going north doesn't think a 60 foot sign would make that much difference. Commissioner Allenbach stated that he had no problem with the smaller signage. He then referred to the temporary banners and stated because they don't have signs you can see the banners going up, but the Code requires permits. Suggested Unocal pull permits immediately for the existing banners and any future banners. Commissioner Schiffner asked staff whether this matter will go before City Council. Community Development Director Leslie stated the Commission's approval is final unless appealed, and explained the appeal process. Commissioner Matthies stated her main concern pertained to the electronic message board and the time allotted the City; however condition number 5 addresses this. She then requested that condition number 7 be added addressing banners and require pulling of permits prior to voting on this. Community Development Director Leslie stated this could be added as a condition, but this is standard procedure and staff will pursue whether there is a condition or not. PAGE NINE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 Chairman Wilsey suggested the following verbiage for condition number 7: "Applicant is advised that temporary banners and signage is allowed by separate City permit only. Unauthorized banners are subject to Code Enforcement action." Commissioner Sands referred to Page 3, paragraph 6, of the Staff Report "If these are approved, no wall signs will be allowed on that side of the building." Asked what side of the building and what wall signs are being referred to. Associate Planner Villa stated this is the building wall that faces onto the off -ramp and the building wall faces on Railroad Canyon Road. By Code they are allowed to have wall signage on that, but because they proposed the monument signs this was part of the consideration. Commissioner Sands asked staff if consideration had been given to the visual effect of the 60 foot high sign on surrounding businesses along the Grape Street frontage, if the variance is granted and the sign installed. Associate Planner Villa responded in the affirmative and explained that the pad elevation of the Unocal site is approximately 55 feet below the actual /potential pad for Denny's restaurant. Community Development Director Leslie stated this was a concern of staff; however, the sites are offset. Ms. Kay referred to the statement about graffiti and explained that the room to those signs would be limited with landscaping, ivy or something high. She explained that originally the monument sign was to be placed on top, at grade level, but because of the wrought iron it was not feasible. She stated that should this become a big problem an alternative is to allow a larger base, maybe the same size sign cabinet for the monument, but allow the sign to be tall enough to go past the fencing and this eliminates the problem on the side on the retaining wall and landscaping could be provided. Chairman Wilsey stated that he has a concern about proceeding with this matter without a representative from Unocal to address concerns raised, and suggested this matter be postponed to the next meeting so that Unocal can address the 3 additional conditions and comment to staff. He then asked for comments from the table. Commissioner Matthies stated she concurs. Commissioner Allenbach stated he concurs as he would be inclined to reject because of the 60 foot height on the main sign, and because Unocal cannot respond to the added conditions. Community Development Director Leslie stated as far as condition number 5 goes staff does not feel there is any concern. Staff has been working with Unocal and expects a signed agreement shortly. Condition number 6 is an issue; however, this needs to be addressed because it is a prominent location. Ms. Kay stated that she would like to address the concern on the height of the sign. She explained that there is a 24 foot span between the top of the Unocal logo and the bottom of the electronic message board. Ms. Kay suggested, with the approval from Unocal, some testing on site with the use of a balloon to give an example of the height and size of the sign and staff members or Planning Commissioners could view this in person, or with the use of photographs. General discussion ensued on the identification sign and message board with regard to size. Whether staff had discussions with Unocal regarding the size of the message board compared to the circular logo and the possibility incorporating the logo into the message board. PAGE TEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7,'1996 4. 5. Chairman Wilsey stated his contention is that the circular 76 logo is overwhelming compared to the message 'board, and would like to see the message board larger and less of the logo. He then reiterated that he would 'suggest postponement to the next meeting. Commissioner Allenbach asked if this would allow sufficient time for testing. Ms. Kay responded she ' would do what she can. Commissioner Schiffner asked if a 2 week delay would present any problems to either the City or applicant. Ms. Kay stated she did not believe this could create any problems and will inform Unocal tomorrow and bring it up to the sign company. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY ALLENBACH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO POSTPONE VARIANCE 96 -1 AND SIGN PROGRAM TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 1996. Community Development Director Leslie informed the Commission that the City Council desires a Joint Study Session to review these towers. He explained that staff could proceed with the Staff Report and the Commission could open the public hearing and take testimony, then decide what to do, or continue to allow for the scheduling of a Study Session. Chairman Wilsey stated that public hearing number 4 and 5 are basically the same, correct? Community Development Director Leslie responded in the affirmative. Chairman Wilsey asked for the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Sands asked how these proposal differ from the recently approved Air Touch. Community Development Director Leslie stated that in the case of Air Touch the antennas were 25 feet high and located in remote areas, and not viewed by City Council as an issue they needed to review. Therefore, the Planning Commission action was final. Whereas, these antennas are proposed at 75 feet and visible from the freeway. Chairman Wilsey asked if a representative from Pacific Bell was present. Mr. Daryl Duarte, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, 2955 Redhill Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated this is news to them this evening. Mr. Duarte stated they were for education and educating the communities they are providing service to. In fact, it is a very popular thing - -to have study sessions, and it is pretty common for us. We don't mind doing this and are certainly for it, but wish we had a little more time this evening. We will be happy to meet and provide information. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY ALLENBACH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS TO POSTPONE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96 -2 AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE ERECTION /CONSTRUCTION OF THE MONOPOLE AND ANTENNAS AT APN 377 - 330 -007. MOVED BY ALLENBACH , SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO POSTPONE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96 -3 AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE ERECTION %CONSTRUCTION OF THE MONOPOLE AND ANTENNAS AT APN 348- 161 -011. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PAGE ELEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 8:35 P.M. RECONVENED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 8:38 P.M. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie provided the Commission an update on the following: 1. USA Properties was continued to the meeting of February 21. They have re- doubled their efforts to get some of the area residents up to their projects in Sacramento. Because these arrangements could not be made until after February 21 USA is asking for a continuance. Also, USA is waiting to hear when this Study Session might happen. Chairman Wilsey commented that previously a couple of the Commissioners expressed an interest in seeing facilities operated by USA, and nothing has been received regarding this. Asked staff to reiterate this interest to USA. 2. Staff met with representatives that want to do a new Community of Interest area called Warm Springs that would encompass County unincorporated areas on either side of Central Avenue (Highway 74) east of I -15, the Groves and going up the mountain. This proposal would go to LAFCO and the City would make their comments. 3. Staff met with individuals looking to bring a supermarket to the Four Corners area. The property is the vacant parcel behind the Chevron station, Del Taco and SS Burger Basket. The property has some issues regarding access to Riverside Drive and Lakeshore Drive. 4. Staff has been contacted by Komerica, who own the property on Lake Street next to Terra Cotta Middle School, and they may be preparing to submit another proposal that would involve a shopping center with a supermarket. Chairman Wilsey stated with regard to the market, one of the problems, when research is done, is that they could not legally get wide enough access into that property from Lakeshore without using the entire property next to Del Taco and they did not want to disturb this property because they thought it would be another fast food. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Allenbach - nothing to report. Commissioner Sands - nothing to report. Commissioner Schiffner - nothing to report. Commissioner Matthies - nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey - commented on the Study Session with City Council. We are going to try and incorporate the items brought up this evening along with USA Properties. He asked whether staff has heard anything from City Council with regards to a date. Community Development Director Leslie stated a tentative Study Session Scheduled has been put out by the City Clerk's office. This Schedule indicates that March 14 has been set aside for a Joint Study Session. City Council has been having two Study Session a week and since this date is out there a ways there is no guarantee and we are waiting for confirmation from the Clerk's office that this will be the date. PAGE TWELVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 7, 1996 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER''AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:48 P.M. AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN Respectfu y Subm' ed, Linda Grindstaff Recording Secre ary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Schiffner. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, SCHIFFNER, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of February 7, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance 96 -1 and Sign Program - Unocal Oil Company (Continued from February 7, 1996) Associate Planner Villa explained that the Variance and Sign Program were continued from February 7, pending review and acceptance by the applicant of three additional conditions imposed by the Commission, and pending results from a balloon test to determine if the proposed freeway identification sign was appropriate in terms of height and area. Associate Planner Villa stated he had a telephone conversation with the applicant and it was indicated that they agree with the conditions except for the last sentence of condition number 6, which reads: "The applicant shall attempt to remove all graffiti as soon as possible but not longer than 48 hours after it appears." Associate Planner Villa stated the applicant has requested this be changed to 72 hours, which would allow sufficient time to respond in the event they are hit with graffiti on a Friday. Associate Planner Villa stated the applicant will present the results of the balloon test, but to aid in the evaluation of the balloon test staff prepared a table, listed on Page 2 of the Staff Report, illustrating existing approved signs along the freeway. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Steve Birckett, representing Unocal, 17700 Castleton Street, Suite 500, Industry, stated they applied for a freeway sign similar to others in the area. He explained that with the size of sign permitted by the Code there was concern with visibility, so a variance was submitted. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Nancy Kay, Swain Signs 1384 East 5th Street, Ontario, stated they performed the balloon test. Ms. Kay explained that each photograph illustrates a height at 60 and 45 feet, a distance at 3/10, 5/10 and 8/10 of a mile, and whether north or south bound. Ms. Kay further explained that two 36 inch balloons PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1996 were used on the top /bottom and that the spacing between the two balloons shows the signage and illustrates visibility for the entire sign height. Ms. Kay stated that she did not know if there were questions about the flag test. Chairman Wilsey informed Ms. Kay that she would be called back to the podium if there were questions. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Sands commented that previously he had questions on the balloon test, but has reviewed this test and has no further questions. Commissioner Allenbach stated that he too reviewed the balloon test, but it did not help much with the distances concerned about. He stated his concern is with the scale and this tends to dominate that corner.. The reason for the balloon test was to verify or negate that fact. Commissioner Schiffner stated that he too reviewed the balloon test and agrees that it does not show much, but does not have any objection to the signage as proposed. Commissioner Matthies concurred with Commissioner Schiffner. Chairman Wilsey stated the balloon test does not illustrate what he had hoped for. He stated his major concern was the massing of the circular 76 logo above the message board. He commented on the photographs at 5/10 and 8/10 of a mile at 45 and 60 feet stating it is very evident at 60 feet. Concern is visibility of the reader board, if it is to be visible from a distance we have to go over that height. MOVED BY SCHIFFNERr SECONDED BY MATTHIES TO APPROVE VARIANCE 96 -1 AND SIGN PROGRAM BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Sands asked if the motion includes the amendment to condition number 6. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFNER AMENDED >HIS MOTION WITH CONCURRENCE FROM THE SECOND TO AMEND CONDITION NUMBER 6 CHANGING THE TIME LINE FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL FROM 48 HOURS TO 72 HOURS. Chairman Wilsey asked for further discussion from the table. There was general discussion on the time line for graffiti removal and the language contained in the original Graffiti Program submitted, and whether the applicant is working with staff to develop a program to eliminate graffiti potential. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. Condition No. 6: The applicant shall study and review with City Staff additional measures for discouraging the placement of graffiti on the retaining walls being used for sign supports for signs B and C. Such measures may include but are not limited to additional landscaping in front or growing on wall, special treatments to wall or reducing height of wall. These measures found to be potentially effective and feasible shall be put in place as a further deterrent to graffiti. The applicant shall attempt to remove all graffiti as soon as possible but not longer than 44 72 hours after it appears. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1996 2. Commissioner Sands referred to the letter from the Cemetery District requesting continuance. Community Development Director Leslie explained this proposal consists of two parts. The Cemetery District is requesting that CUP 96 -1 be continued to March 20, 1996, to allow them to better understand what impacts the dedication may have on their operation. Staff is bringing forth the General Plan Amendment in conjunction with CUP 96 -1 and recommends the Commission proceed with the General Plan Amendment due to timing, limited to the number of times a year the General Plan can be amended. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY ALLENBACB AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER MATTHIES ABSTAINING TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96 -1 TO MARCH 20, 1996. Associate Planner De Gange explained that General Plan Amendment 96 -2 is being proposed by the City to rectify inconsistencies recorded with the General Plan Land Use Map when it was adopted in 1990. The parcels to be changed are: 377 - 050 -044 from Freeway Business to Public Institutional, 377 - 050 -053 from Public Institutional to Freeway Business, 377 - 050 -062 from Public Institutional to Freeway Business, 377 - 050 -063 from Public Institutional to Freeway Business, 377 - 050 -076 from Public Institutional to Freeway Business. The site(s) is generally located along the north side of Collier Avenue near the intersection of Riverside Drive. Environmental impacts are addressed by the EIR prepared for the 1990 General Plan certified November 27, 1990. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Hearing no request to speak the public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Allenbach asked staff if they were saying that the designations were a mistake. Associate Planner De Gange responded in the affirmative and explained this was an oversight when the Land Use Map was prepared. Commissioner Sands asked whether this includes the building owned by the military academy, and the construction company. Associate Planner De Gange stated the academy's parcel is not involved, but the construction company's parcel is involved. Chairman Wilsey commented on the inconsistencies between the exhibits for CUP 96 -1 and GPA 96 -2. Associate Planner De Gange explained that at the time it was incorrectly given a Public Institutional designation, and that all properties in control of the cemetery are currently designated Public Institutional, including the property just acquired. Chairman Wilsey asked how long the designation has been on Lot 124, corner commercial lot. Community Development Director Leslie stated this designation has been in place since 1990, when the General Plan was adopted. Chairman Wilsey commented on the corner parcel and this considered a commercial lot when the parcels were developed, and would not want to be surrounded by a cemetery now, where the corner is not available, it would block views. As this corner stands today, it would be detrimental to business to have that corner this way, in my mind. Community Development Director Leslie stated that on March 20 representatives from the Cemetery District will be present and there can be direct discussion, but it was relayed to staff that the District intends to acquire all of that property, notwithstanding the existing uses. Chairman Wilsey stated if this is their intention this solves the problem. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1996 Commissioner Allenbach asked if the other property owners were notified. Community Development Director Leslie responded in the affirmative. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A 4 -0 VOTE WITH COMMISSIONER MATTHIES ABSTAINING TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A 4 -0 VOTE WITH COMMISSIONER MATTHIES ABSTAINING TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -1 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 96 -2 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95 -8 - MENTOR AVIATION (PAUL PRIBBLE) Associate Planner Villa explained the request is for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the establishment of an aircraft landing and take -off runway facility. The proposed runway dimensions are 60 feet wide by 2,040 feet long, located adjacent to 32301 Corydon Road within the boundaries of the East Lake Specific Plan. Pursuant to Section 7.5.5(b) of the East Lake Specific Plan the proposal requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Associate Planner Villa stated without going into further details he would like to turn the presentation over to Community Development Director Leslie who will comment on some issues that have surfaced since preparation of the Staff Report. Community Development Director Leslie stated the School District has raised some concerns in that approval of this runway may or may not jeopardize their ability to build on a school site they own nearby, and they have approved plans and • funding commitment from the State. He explained that when • school site is within a half -mile of an airport or runway serious concern is raised, and staff needs to obtain a ruling from the State, either the Department of Education or Caltrans Aeronautics Division because these agencies are involved in approving school sites, to see if they would oppose building on this school site if this runway is approved. Staff has tried over the last few days to obtain an answer from Caltrans; however, no definitive answer has been received. Today, staff met with School District officials and agreed to work together to try to get that ruling from the State. At this point, staff would request this item be continued to allow time for staff to obtain a ruling from the State. Chairman Wilsey stated the public hearing should not be opened, correct? Community Development Director Leslie stated a question he has is continue to when, cannot say how long it may take to get an answer from the State. He stated the Commission may want to asked the applicant if he has a feeling as to when this may be continued to. Chairman Wilsey then referred from Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, representing Kris Kakkar, opposition to the proposal. to the correspondence received Wilheim & Waldron, law firm Skylark Airport, expressing Chairman Wilsey stated there is discussion on whether or not to open the public hearing and asked Mr. Pribble what kind of time line he thought would be adequate to work out the issues. Mr. Pribble responded at the Commission's convenience. Community Development Director Leslie then suggested a 30 -day continuation, March 20, 1996. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1996 Chairman Wilsey suggested staff contact local airport managers or other airport use authorities in the area to get insight. He commented that the conditions proposed need to be refined, as to legality and governing body. MOVED BY ALLENBACH, SECONDED BY NATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -8 TO MARCH 20, 1996. Commissioner Sands asked Mr. Pribble if he had received an update from Caltrans Department of Aeronautics. Mr. Pribble stated this project has been in development in excess of a decade. Mr. Pribble stated he has first hand knowledge of all the technical aspects, and everyone has reviewed every possible thing that would be required to be reviewed and we have no negatives. He stated the problem is that everybody does not understand how the operation works - -we can modify CNLE Noise Contour Levels, change direction of flights, etc. Chairman Wilsey asked Mr. Pribble if he had been made aware of the correspondence from the principals of Skylark Airport. Mr. Pribble stated he had, but not sure what it is about. He then provided a brief history on the outcome at all the East Lake Specific Plan scoping meetings with regard to the airport. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Residential Proiect 95 -4 - Associate Planner De Gange presented the applicant's request for continuation. He explained that it was suggested that a group of concerned residents visit the applicant's project in Sacramento. A trip has been set up for four individuals from the Ayres development to visit the applicant's Sacramento project on February 24th. Since this trip is to be held after this meeting the applicant has asked for a continuance to March 6th. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOU VOTE TO CONTINUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 95 -4 TO MARCH 6, 1996. 5. Commercial Proiect 96 -1 - Machado Storage /Gary Pebley Associate Planner Villa explained the project entails Minor Design Review for the expansion of an existing storage facility at 16401 Lakeshore Drive, in accordance with the requirements of Sections 17.38 and 17.82.100 of the Municipal Code. The proposed new building is a rectangular building 20 feet wide by 155 feet long for a total of 3,100 square feet, and is to be constructed on the back of the storage facility. The new building will be constructed of metal (metal frame, siding, roof and roll -up doors), and will be set back approximately 20 feet from the rear property line and approximately 22 feet from the side property line. Staff is not opposed to allowing the use of metal materials as storage structures offer little opportunity for design consideration. It has been determined that the proposed use is not of the type and size to require environmental clearance therefore not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Pebley responded in the negative. Commissioner Matthies asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Pebley responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sands asked if everything would be contained within the block wall. Community Development Director Leslie PAGE SIX'- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — FEBRUARY 21, 1996 explained the property line adjacent to where this will be is a chainlink',fence with thick oleander and there is not a block wall. The new building is proposed entirely within the contained site. Mr. Pebley stated that on the back between the apartments there is a block wall. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER# SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE COMMERCIAL PROJECT 96 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 8 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 6. Residential Project 91 -6 Amendment #2 - Centex Homes Associate Planner De Gange explained the request is for Design Review of an amendment to Residential Project 91 -6 which is a request to add three new models ranging in size from 2003 to 2708 square feet, an associated model complex for production on a yet undetermined number of the lots in the Spinnaker Point portion of the North Shore Project (Tract 24624 -7). These new models would be built in conjunction with four previously approved models within R 91 -6. The intent is that production of the previously approved models would continue; however, the approved site plan for this project will be amended to include plotting of the new product. The applicant is proposing to construct the new models on selected lots when requested by a potential home buyer. The applicant's goal is to increase selection and provide more flexibility within these final phases of construction. The proposed architectural styles /color schemes are similar to those approved for R 91 -5 and R 91 -6. Recently, staff administratively approved modifications to the color schemes /architectural themes for the models that are being constructed as part of R 91 -6. The architectural themes /color schemes proposed in this applica- tion are consistent with those approved by staff. Associate Planner De Gange then highlighted staff concerns with regard to the models and plotting of production units. Associate Planner De Gange stated that prior to the meeting the applicant provided a draft set of criteria; however, the criteria has not been reviewed, but staff can work closely with the applicant. Associate Planner De Gangs stated the proposal meets all criteria of the Zoning ordinance, is consistent with the General Plan, and environmental impacts are addressed by EIR 88 -2, certified on December 12, 1989. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jim Bolton, representing Centex Homes, stated they reviewed the Conditions of Approval and have no objections, and will answer any questions that arise. Commissioner Allenbach stated he likes the concept of the client selecting the house and lot. He stated certain models sell better than others and asked if there is a quota on the number to be sold or if the market is to dictate. Mr. Bolton stated it will be what the market decides, and explained that when a phase is released for sale, 8 -10 lot phase, those are the ones that potential buyers have a choice in selecting which house on which lot. If we have a 10 -house phase and 5 are sold then we will fill the remaining lots following the criteria. Commissioner Allenbach stated that condition #8 may stifle. Mr. Bolton stated they have done this in other neighborhoods and so far it has worked. Commissioner Schiffner stated the only limitation would be after a certain number of units were sold then the buyer would lose the option to select which house on which lot, referring to condition #8. Commissioner Sands asked if the models would be located on Sunswept. Mr. Bolton responded in the affirmative and stated the models would be directly behind the existing models. Commissioner Sands then asked for the exact location of the PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1996 lots. Mr. Bolton stated the homes would be built on the empty lots toward the end of Lincoln. Chairman Wilsey asked if there were several people wanting a specific model, 3 or 4 in a row, if there would be different color schemes to break up the monotony. Mr. Bolton stated there are different variations and there cannot be more than 2 in a row of the same color, and one of those has to be a different elevation. He explained that if there are several requests for a particular model their rule is that it is a first come first serve basis; otherwise, it gets out of hand. MOVED BY MATTHIESt SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 96 -1 AMENDMENT #2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 9 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. INFORMATIONAL 7. Topics for the March 19, 1996 Joint Study Session. It was the consensus of the Commission to defer this item until the DRC portion has been completed. ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 8:01 P.M. RECONVENED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 8:08 P.M. 7. Topics for the March 19, 1996 Joint Study Session Chairman Wilsey stated Tuesday, March 19, 1996, at 8:30 a.m. has been tentatively set for a Joint Study Session, and asked if there were any conflicts with this date and time. Receiving no response, he asked the Commissioners to mark their calendars. He then stated that staff has suggested some topics that could be brought up for consideration and asked for additional topics the Commission would like addressed. Commissioner Sands asked when the Zoning Code was last updated, primarily in reference to residential zoning, and when the General Plan was last updated. Community Development Director Leslie stated the General Plan was last updated in 1990, and the Zoning Code staff is working with was last adopted in 1986, since then there have been numerous amendments, but not a general update. Community Development Director Leslie stated that an in depth discussion of the Zoning Code is beyond the scope of this Study Session; however, there could be general discussion on the need to review the Zoning Code. Commissioner Sands stated perhaps they could look at the requirements, restrictions on certain aspects. Community Development Director Leslie stated the topic General Plan could be expanded to General Plan and Zoning, because zoning is an implementation tool of the General Plan. Commissioner Sands stated that another item could be security requirements around antenna towers. Chairman Wilsey stated he believed this topic was going to be discussed at this meeting and that a presentation would be made by the telecommunication people. Commissioner Schiffner stated he heard that the USA Properties proposal is to be discussed at this meeting, is this true? Community Development Director Leslie responded in the negative and explained that City Council wants the Planning Commission to review this project on its own merit and forward their best recommendation. Community Development Director Leslie stated if the Commission desires another workshop could be held with the applicant and residents in the area. Commissioner Allenbach stated he has a problem with the generality of multi - family standards and would like to see this refined. Also, conflicts generated with Section 5.73 (Special Events) and 17.98 (Temporary Outdoor Activities) of PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 1996 the Zoning Code believes these Sections should be combined and the conflicts removed. Chairman Wilsey stated that multi- family was one of his concerns, particularly the rodeo area, imagines there will be lengthy discussion with regards to multi- family and maybe even look at minimums. Community Development Director Leslie stated he will submit these topics to the City Council through the City Manager and City Clerk's office, but cannot promise that they will be on the agenda. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie stated the USA Properties project was continued to March 6. A tour has been scheduled for February 24 for four individuals from the Ayres development to visit the Sacramento project. The applicant has indicated that after this tour they will press the Ayres group for a round table discussion. Will keep the Commission informed of activity. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Allenbach commented as follows: 1. Heard a rumor about plans for an Italian style village or center over by the Diamond, asked staff if they knew anything about this. Community Development Director Leslie responded in the negative. 2. Inquired about status for AM /PM project. Community Develop- ment Director Leslie stated plans are in plan check. 3. Inquired about status for the race track. Community Develop- ment Director Leslie stated he had no new information, but believes the groups are positioning themselves. Commissioner Schiffner asked if the environmental documenta- tion was still on hold. Community Development Director Leslie responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Schiffner - Commented on the following: 1. Asked staff if they had any new information on the property behind Chevron at Four Corners, heard today that Vons has bought the fast food restaurant there. Community Development Director Leslie stated he had no new information, but an issue is access. Engineering was to look at that, on a preliminary basis, and give them some idea as to what might be expected on access. Chairman Wilsey stated for those not familiar with this the property in question is behind the SS Burger Basket and Del Taco. He explained that a shopping center was proposed with access off Riverside Drive and from the existing driveway between the two fast food restaurants. The Engineering Department found the driveway width inadequate and at that time the only other alternative was to use the adjoining commercial property as ingress /egress, and they did not want to do this because of the loss to revenue from the other property. Commissioner Sands - commented on the following: 1. Asked if a storm drain could be installed at Prospect and Main, as requests have been received from residents on Main Street. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated this can be looked into. PAGE NINE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1996 Commissioner Matthies - nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey - nothing to report. MOVED BY SANDSo SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:25 P.M. AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted, -LJ Linda Grind taff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6r 1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Schiffner. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, SCHIFFNER, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Allenbach, Seconded by Commissioner Schiffner and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of February 21, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Wilsey stated a number of requests were received to address items on the Agenda and these requests will be recognized during the discussion of those items. At this time, Chairman Wilsey asked for a consensus from the table to adjourn to Design Review Committee and take action on the items listed, before proceeding with the public hearings listed on the Planning Commission Agenda. It was the consensus of the Commission to adjourn to Design Review Committee. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:25 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 95 -12 - Jeff Chudner (BBO Bob's Smokehouse) Associate Planner De Gange stated this item was tabled at the February 7 meeting due to concerns relating to aesthetics, and direction given that staff and the applicant work together on a permanent aesthetically pleasing structure. Mr. De Gange explained that the barbecue grill is to be a permanent block structure with smooth river rock veneer, the dimensions are 9' long by 10' wide and 7' high with a 3 to 4 foot high chimney, to be placed on a 12' by 12' concrete pad. Also, proposed is the extension and installation of wrought iron fencing and a two foot wide landscape planter bed. Mr. De Gange stated that in revising the plan the applicant expressed a desire to expand the restaurant's patio area to include outdoor eating, three tables are proposed to be added to the enclosed patio area increasing the customer area to approximately 175 square feet. Mr. De Gange highlighted staff's concerns as follows: the barbecue structure based on its size and location will be isolated and conspicuous. The height of the chimney detracts from the design and aesthetics of the overall structure, too high and massive. Also, of concern is the demand for five additional parking spaces with the expansion of the outdoor eating area. This proposal brings the number of required spaces to 261 which is two more than the center has based on the uses which were in place in October of 1995. However, based on shared parking arrangements enough parking will be available. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1996 Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Jeff Chudner, 15148 Grand Avenue #10, explained that he has worked with an architect engineer, mason, metal contractor and concrete contractor to devise a.plan that would be very attractive and conducive to the surroundings of the area. Incorporated into the plans are collection trays so that at the end of the day the unit can be cleaned and all material brought back into the restaurant and disposed of properly. There would be minimal or no debris, on the outside of the barbecue and the grease drippings would be minimal. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner Schiffner asked about the parking spaces allocated for the bowling alley and if this allocation would change since the use changed. Associate Planner De Gange stated a roller rink is proposed and the demands are similar. Commissioner Matthies asked what effect reducing the chimney would have on the smoke and customers. Mr. Chudner explained that to divert the smoke over the patio the chimney should be at least up to the top of the facing below the roof and to accomplish this the chimney needs to be 3.5 to 4 feet in height. Commissioner Matthies stated previously precautions were taken to prevent material from escaping the pad area and asked if the same precautions will be taken. Mr. Chudner stated they thought about placing the pad #two inches down. The pad will be smooth and sealed all the way around, nothing would get out during clean -up and everything would be collected. Mr. Chudner reiterated that they do not 'expect much debris from the unit. Commissioner Allenbach stated this design is much better; however, still has the same concern regarding aesthetics. Believes a gazebo or lattice is needed to soften the visual effects, and wants top quality since this is precedent setting. He then referred to the model and stated the planters need additional work. Mr. Chudner stated the model is a rough reference to the basic concept and reiterated that they are more than willing to make this as beautiful as possible. Commissioner Allenbach asked whether this could be handled at staff level or would need to come back before the Commission if approved with that condition. Community Development Director Leslie stated it would be the desire of the Commission, staff could handle or it can be brought back. Chairman Wilsey stated he concurs with Commissioner Allenbach. He referred to the model and stated that he was unsure what staff had in mind with the concrete pilasters and wrought iron, condition number 5. Community Development Director Leslie stated the condition is intended to tie it back into the building. Chairman Wilsey stated he visualizes wrought iron fencing, open beam patio coming over to some type of gazebo feature over the barbecue structure itself, this would tie the building to the structure and allow the chimney up through the gazebo. Chairman Wilsey suggested condition 5 be altered to reflect this discussion. He then commented on the parking requirements and asked whether an agreement for shared parking was needed. Associate Planner De Gange responded that an agreement may already exist. Chairman Wilsey suggested condition 10 be added, to read: The applicant shall provide a landscape plan for the patio area to visually enhance the area from Riverside Drive. This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or designee. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1996 :z Commissioner Schiffner stated condition 9 could be deleted if the chimney is to be allowed. A brief discussion was held on whether staff should handle or if it should come back before the Commission, and whether to delete condition 5 and rewrite to reflect an open beam gazebo type structure. Chairman Wilsey asked staff for verbiage on the rewrite of condition 5. Community Development Director Leslie suggested the following language;: The applicant shall submit plans to staff for review and approval that would include an overhead structure, open beam trellis with a gazebo feature. MOVED BY ALLENBACH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -12 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition 5: axe- s*:41eee, The - stueee -used in the _fe .ci v shall he h y e same texture and eeler as the building. The applieant shall submit a €eeeieg —plan to the GeRhTmnity ^_:-_' =pment In order to incorporate the barbecue structure into the existing building and to improve the aesthetics the applicant shall submit plans which indicate an overhead structure, open beam trellis with a gazebo feature, to the Community Development Department. This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or designee. Condition 9: .. �_..i__ __ his designee. DELETED. Condition 10: The applicant shall provide a landscape plan for the patio area to visually enhance the area from Riverside Drive. This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or designee. 2. General Plan Amendment 96 -1 - Frederick Johnson Trust c/o Wells Fargo Associate Planner De Gange explained the request is to amend the General Plan Land Use Map for property at the intersection of Graham Avenue and Lakeshore Drive by changing the designa- tion from Medium High Density Residential, established by the Historic Elsinore Land Use Plan in 1993, to Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. De Gange stated the request stems from the applicant's desire to reestablish a commercial use in the vacant building, and provided a brief history on the site. Mr. De Gange stated there is a similar situation that exists on two parcels at the intersection of Graham and Lakeshore (Assessor Parcel #'s 374 - 221 -003 and 005), and staff suggests these parcels be included for consideration. Mr. De Gangs stated a letter was received today from the School District expressing opposition to this proposal due to the proximity of the existing middle school, directly across the street from this use. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 'MARCH 6, 1996 Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Michael Brewer, 44111 Northgate Avenue, Temecula, stated he works with Wells Fargo and concurs with staff recommendation and will answer any questions`'that arise. Ms. Mary Venerable, 1112 West Graham, stated they own the property and opened the Water Store in 1994, under the grandfather clause. Ms. Venerable stated they support staff recommendation to include their property in the General Plan Amendment, and urged approval. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8 :00 p.m. Commissioner Schiffner stated he would like to see this area get back into productive use. The main objection is the possibility that liquor will be sold, but would like to leave this to the ABC Board. Commissioner Matthies stated she concurs. Chairman Wilsey stated he concurs. He stated the type of uses found objectional were taken care of with requirement a Conditional Use Permit. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96 -1 CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PARCEL AT 1006 WEST GRAHAM AVENUE (AP NO. 374 - 222 -001) AND ALSO THE TWO PARCELS ADJACENT AND TO THE WEST OF THIS PARCEL (AP Vs 374- 221 -003 AND 005) FROM MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 96 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 96 -2, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 96 -2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96 -1 - FREDERICK JOHNSON TRUST, c/o WELLS FARGO BANK At this time, Chairman Wilsey asked for a consensus from the table to consider Item No. 4, Residential Project 95 -4, prior to the Zone Code Amendment and Zone Change for the Adult Business. It was the consensus of the Commission to take the items out of sequence. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Residential Project 95 -4 - USA Properties (Continued from January 17, 1996) Associate Planner De Gange explained the request is for Design Review of a 126 unit multi- family residential complex to be constructed on a 7.24 acre site located near the intersection of Franklin Avenue and Casino Drive. Mr. De Gange provided a brief history explaining the steps taken to address concerns raised by neighboring residents. Mr. De Gangs explained the project proposes 12 buildings and four floor plans, 284 parking spaces and 16,500 square feet of common recreational area. This project is being proposed as an affordable housing project and the applicant has received approval from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. Mr. De Gange stated there is a discrepancy in the description of the low income housing breakdown the Staff Report states that not all PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1996 units are rent restrictive, all the units will be rent restricted. Also, there is a typographical error that states 40% of the residential units whose household income is less than 60% where in fact it is 50 %. The remaining 60% of the units will be restricted to household incomes less than 60% of the median gross income or lower. Mr. De Gange then high- lighted concerns relating to land use compatibility, concerns and opposition from the neighboring resident in the Ayres Tract, design of the project with regard to carports, open space, security fencing and access, architectural variations, noise impacts, traffic and pedestrian safety, impact on schools. He further explained that this project meets the minimum standards established in the Zoning Code and General Plan. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Emily Hemphill, attorney with the law firm of Selzer, Ealy, Hemphill, Blasdel, stated she would present the project for the applicant, and also available for questions are Mr. Steven Gall and Mr. May representing USA Properties, Mr. Scott Adams from the architectural firm, Mr. Fred Crowe from the engineering firm and Ms. Karen McKirty of USA Properties. As staff indicated this is intended to be an affordable housing community. She also stated that the developer had reviewed the various conditions and found them acceptable and is willing to work with staff to ensure that these conditions are met in the course of the development. Ms. Hemphill then outlined the developer's experience with affordable housing communities, and how the developer has attempted to alleviate the concerns raised by residents of the Ayres tract. Ms. Hemphill stated that in terms of design review, the project meets all the zoning criteria and development standards required, as has been indicated by staff. In addition, the developer is not asking for any density bonuses or variances of any kind, redevelopment funds, or fee waivers. She further explained that the developer applied for and received a tax credit allocation through the State and that the developer is required to own and manage the project for at least 15 years and their intent is to hold it longer. Ms. Hemphill explained that ordinarily two resident staff people reside on site for management purposes. There will also be a 24 -hour answering service which will call either the on -site manager or 911 in the event of an emergency, and there is an aggressive program dealing with issues like graffiti. Ms. Hemphill stated that the developer has agreed to convert a certain amount of open space within the project into additional active recreational spaces. Also, the developer will be working with staff on traffic programs to ensure safe pedestrian traffic. Chairman Wilsey stated there are a number of requests to speak and recognized the following people. Catherine Best, 381 Avenue 12, stated she is opposed to this project for various reasons and asked that the Commission turn down the project. Ms. Best posed the following questions, will law enforcement and fire protection be increased? Why such a large complex in such a small area, and why all low income housing? Why can't the project be made smaller and more of an income mix accepted. Ms. Best expressed concern with the impact on schools, pedestrian and traffic safety, vacancy rates and maintenance of the property. Dick Whitney, 430 Avenue 10, stated he had the opportunity to visit the applicant's project facility in Sacramento and was impressed with the unit and operation, but still does not think it would be conducive to the neighborhood. He expressed concern with density, law enforcement, pedestrian traffic and fencing. He then explained there is an open lot between Casino, Avenue 10 and Griffin Avenue and requested that a fence be installed to enclose the neighborhood from pedestrian traffic if this project is approved. PAGE SIX -- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1996 Chairman Wilsey asked Mr. Whitney to provide some insight on the trip to Sacramento, as none of:thg Commissioners went and need to rely on those that did: Mr. Whitney reiterated that he was impressed with the complex, it looked like they were run well; however,, their complex was surrounded by several single - family - housing; areas and',did not see any other apart- ment complexes . around it so the ratios were way down, and understands the houses in the area are $110,000 to $120,000 homes, basically what ours have been lowered down to, but the ratios are really high. Mr. Whitney reiterated that the unit was clean and looked well maintained and has nothing negative to say, but does not think it is pondvcive to the environment, or neighborhood. Patrick Greenia, 451 Avenue 10, expressed concern with the density, reduction in property values, vacancy rates, and this becoming a tax burden to the property owner and tax payers. David Bowman, 371 Avenue 10, stated he visited the facility in Sacramento and it was a well maintained development, as far graffiti and internal issues. He stated the impact on schools should be addressed. He expressed concern with crime and the impact to an already insufficient police service, and explained a recent experience. Ms. Marji Hunnewell, 320 Avenue 9, stated she did a lot of research on this project and became educated on low income housing, and is concerned with the "snowballing" effects. Believes that 100% low income housing causes economic segregation versus inclusionary development. She commented on the density ratio and stated the project is 1.5 to 1. Take 20% of the neighborhood, there are 72 homes, put in 14 low income housing units that is good inclusionary development. Ms. Hunnewell expressed concern with concentration of low income housing, since it is also proposed on the other side of the freeway, at the base of Tuscany Hills. Concerned with police protection, employment, demographics, image of the city, school- impacts, and the lease agreement. There are a number of things left open and would ask for a continuance. Ms. Hunnewell stated the residents on Griffin Way would prefer a sound barrier wall and the developer has stated that he would entertain a sound barrier wall instead of wrought iron in front of his project. Mr. Earl Tallman, 391 Avenue -12, stated he concurs with what has been said. Not against the apartment complex; however, not clear why this type of housing is designated in a high profile area. He commented on Casino Drive and the traffic safety issues and hazards this project will create. Mr. Jim Hosenfeld, 321 Avenue 11, stated he has spent the last 25 years developing, managing and being involved in low income housing programs, and in favor of low income housing but in opposition to this development. He expressed concern with the density and stated the City needs to plan for the development of low income housing and set guidelines that are unique to that social economic development,. Suggested close considera- tion of the unique aspects of low income housing and a plan for development scattered throughout the City. Chairman Wilsey stated that this.concludes the requests to speak on this matter and asked for:..discussion at the table. Commissioner Allenbach asked staff to provide clarification on the inconsistencies in the site plans. Associate Planner De Gange stated the developer's original calculations included other property, but 7.24 acres is what the site plan represents, and the applicant can be consulted with regard to this. Mr. Steve Gall stated the initial property purchased was 6.55 acres and approximately 3/4 of an acre, at the corner of Franklin and Casino, was purchased to bring it to 7.28 acres. ,A PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1996 Commissioner Allenbach asked staff to provide clarification on Conditions No. 28, pertaining to on -site lighting. Associate Planner De Gange explained the intent is to have the lighting itself directed down "toward the project. Chairman Wilsey stated this is a standard condition, and explained this condition came about due to the need to mitigate a glare problem in the community for Mt. Palomar Observatory. Commissioner Allenbach asked staff to provide clarification on Conditions No. 32, pertaining to landscaping freeway right -of- way and the figure established. Associate Planner De Gange explained that a program was established to landscape the freeway corridor to improve the look of the City, and projects adjacent to the freeway are required to pay a fee to offset the cost incurred for this landscaping. This formula was generated by the Engineering Department. Commissioner Allenbach inquired whether the property up to the street and right -of- way is owned by the developer, referring to the site plan and the property at Franklin and Casino. He stated that a landscape plan has not been submitted, and asked if one will be submitted. He stated there are numerous concerns and some have been addressed by the conditions. He stated that he could not vote for the project because of the nature, size and the numerous concerns, and for the record, if this project is approved would-.like concerns implemented as conditions and attached to the approval. He noted the following concerns: acoustical, specifics not submitted; wall; balconies on the back side, freeway, should be eliminated open space, enlarge open space - -total open space, there is a deficiency in open space; 8 -10 foot wall opens up a graffiti problem and no condition regarding graffiti removal; landscaping for the entire project and also at Franklin and Casino; Section 17.14.140.A, Siting, only three of the units comply; Section 17.14.140.B, Architecture, there is a tunneling effect. The elevations indicate a tunnel effect that we were trying to avoid; Section 17.14.140.G, Parking Structures, package includes photographs and an indication that a steel column structure with sheet metal on the roof was to be provided which is inappropriate according to Code, although a condition is proposed to mitigates this; Section 17.14.140. H, Recreation Areas, the tot lot was a major concern and glad to see this has been moved away from the parking lot. The location of the recreation area is off balance, not centered, and this goes along with the laundry facilities; School impact needs to be mitigated Commissioner Allenbach stated if this project is approved would like a condition added that the mitigation measures found in the evaluation of the environmental checklist be complied with. Commissioner Sands stated he has a number of concerns and read a statement with regard to the negative effects upon surrounding properties values, research studies submitted not having foundation, density and compatibility, creation of unsafe conditions for school age pedestrians and school impacts, inundation of traffic and law enforcement problems. Commissioner Matthies expressed concern on the impact to schools, condition 19, explaining there is no bus service for the middle school, and concerned with the unsafe condition for PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING school age. children Lakeshore. She asked on site to take care landscaping would be storage, location of and whether enough provided, location of maintenance in future the minimum standards MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1996 created with the use of Franklin or whether maintenance personnel would be of any problems that arise, and whether bonded. She then noted concern with the tot lot, recreational entertainment green belt or buffer zone has been the laundry facilities, rent issues and years, design of the project not meeting of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Schiffner stated he would not go into the details of the problems that can be resolved. But finds he cannot favor the project due to the basic differences in density. At some time in the future, when the area is more built out and there is a larger number of single - family houses and other uses in the area possibly a project of this kind would not be so overwhelming. Chairman Wilsey provided this opportunity for the applicant to respond. Ms. Emily Hemphill, addressed inclusionary zoning and stated Ms. Hunnewell is probably right in theory. She stated the practical consequences of inclusionary zoning is exclusionary zoning and explained it is not economically feasible to scatter affordable houses amongst houses that are supposedly not affordable, land prices and development costs are prohibitive. She further explained that zoning which excludes low and moderate income housing has been fought in the courts for years, and explained the State's posture contained in the Government Code. She stated the number of units proposed are within the General Plan and Zoning, and timing is something that cannot be controlled; at some point single - family, commercial and multi - family developers will come along. With respect to law enforcement, this is a community -wide issue, more jobs have to be created in order to develop additional funding resources to provided more police and fire. Ms. Hemphill stated there was error in the Staff Report, the 60% guideline, which is what 60% of the units are set aside for, the maximum income level is almost $26,000 and the Staff Report incorrectly identifies this as approximately $17,000. Ms. Hemphill reiterated that staff will reside on site, and a copy of the policy can be provided, which indicates that as the need becomes apparent USA Properties will hire on site security and have people on site and available to take care of internal problems. She stated that USA Properties wants to be a neighbor not an adversary and welcomes the opportunity to join with the residents in organizing a neighborhood watch program, and to assist and add to their resources in terms of that kind of community effort. Ms. Hemphill stated a laundry room has been added. With respect to the design would request an opportunity to discuss specific concerns in detail this evening, or if not practical, the items be sent to staff, so copies can be obtained, and see if these can be addressed adequately either by modifications to the site plan or by formulating conditions that would respond to the concerns, and bring it back at a subsequent date. Ms. Hemphill stated that graffiti was listed as a concern and does not anticipate a problem with a graffiti program. Also, expects to provide a full landscape plan before building, and would be happy to look at the other specific items with respect to design concerns and attempt to address them in a responsive way. She then stated that the architect can answer any questions. I Mr. Scott Adams, of Bassenian Logoni Architects, Orange, addressed the design of the units, Yeferencing Section 17.14, and explained that specific narratives were used in the design and there were no attempts to disregard. He stated the PAGE NINE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1996 r ordinance suggests thatKattached housing must be interesting and attractive, this has.. een done with privacy, orientation and setback. Mr. Adams iterated that they have looked at the ordinance and worked 'it- to an even higher degree. We believe the analysis-,. offered from a site planning and an architectural standpoint respond to the section about design and would encourage consideration of the comments offered tonight. Chairman Wilsey asked for further discussion from the table. Commissioner Allenbach stated that in reviewing the plans and elevations the design could have been easily achieved. He stated there are so many design issues not in accordance with the Code, and reiterated concerns on the tunneling effect, open space, and parking. He then stated that a continuance was requested based on design concerns and asked staff how this should be handled. Mr. Steve Gall stated that a number of new concerns have surfaced this evening and would like the opportunity to have the item continued back to staff with specific concerns that we can address. Commissioner Allenbach asked how the scaling and massing of the buildings would be addressed, as it does not apply nor fit the zoning requirements, Mr. Gall stated they are a professional company and assembled a professional team, and have professional management. We are pleased the homeowners visiting our project in Sacramento came back indicating they did not find any significant problems with our development. He stated that if the desire is to meet the letter of the Zoning Code rather than the intent, then would be happy to come up with a design that is more to the letter. He stated the issue about single -story units came up back in November and it was responded to, and it was not indicated since that it was problematic. Commissioner Allenbach stated the single story issue has not been responded to. Mr. Gall stated a letter was sent to John DeGange, believes November 27, responding to what they felt the intent of the Code was and how it was addressed. Until the Staff Report was received never heard anything else about it and the concerns tonight focus on this particular point of the Zoning Code. Again, we would like the opportunity to have the proposal continued. Commissioner Allenbach commented that the only contact with the developer was one meeting and the item continued since, and the material requested was not received until the agenda packet was received. Mr. Gall stated that it would be appropriate to send it back to staff to address these concerns. Associate Planner De Gange explained that the applicant provided some of the material, but staff thought it would be more convenient to provide the material at one time rather than piecemeal. MOVED BY SCHIFFNERo, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 95 -4 BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE DENSITY PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH AND COULD OVERWHELM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEIR CURRENT DENSITIES. At this time, 9:45 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9:50 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. r PAGE TEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1996 3. Zone Code Amendment No. 94 -2 and Zone Change 96 -1 - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner Villa explained that Zone Code Amendment 94- 2 is to amend Section 17.70 of the Municipal Code by providing new and revised development standards for regulation of adult businesses and limiting them in designated Adult Business Overlay Districts. Zone Change 96 -1 amends the zoning designation of certain parcels as illustrated on Exhibit "A" by attaching an Adult Business Overlay District designation to the underlying zoning.' Mr. Villa 'explained that State and Federal Courts have held that the First Amendment of the Constitution, particularly the freedom of speech clause, protects to a limited degree adult businesses, and courts have held that cities cannot ban or prohibit adult businesses entirely or explicitly limit the number within a city. Based on court decisions cities are'- allowed wide discretion in regulating the location of such businesses, as long as regulations allow the proposed adult use sufficient avenues of communication. Mr. further explained that the proposed ordinance has been drafted to provide some of the strongest regulations allowed by the courts, and tailored after an ordinance adopted by the City of Mission Viejo which has been considered to be very effective in mitigating secondary adverse impacts. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 9:53 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on*t4is item. Ms. Debbie Poole, 551 Birch Street, stated she has a general concern about this type of activity going on in any city, particularly this city, because strict standards cannot be set to make people who open these businesses live by. Ms. Poole expressed concern with the scattered locations and the location having freeway access and signage visible from the freeway, and the secondary effects of .adult businesses. Ms. Poole stated she intends to stimulate opposition to anything that goes on. Ms. Susan Stevenson, 533 Birch Street, stated there is very limited police activity in the arch, and concerned with the secondary effects with adult businesses. Ms. Poole has expressed the way I feel and itgis a grave concern. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone., else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 9:56 p.m. j Chairman Wilsey then asked stafTE to provide an overview on how the areas were defined and some..of the legalities. Community Development Director Leslie explained that these uses could be concentrated in an area or disbursed throughout the city. The approach, proposed for the new ordinance, is a combined approach, hopefully'- ;getting the best of both. Regulations are included requiring uses to be a minimum distance from each other so there is not a concentration in the area, and the new ordinance also requires the approval of a conditional use permit for these uses. Chairman Wilsey explained this issue has to be dealt with and trying to deal with it in a constructive manner. Distances from major intersections off the freeway and distances from residential were part of the criteria reviewed. Ms. Poole asked whether or not it was a concern that legitimate businesses can no longer go into these areas. Community Development Director Leslie stated there is a concern; however, an adult business has to be treated equal. PAGE ELEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1996 Commissioner Allenbach stated adult uses cannot be prohibited and that the proposed ordinance provides strict guidelines, and staff did an excellent job in preparing the ordinance. Commissioner Schiffner stated he understands the concerns from the citizens; however, there was a lot of study done on the locations and the areas selected. Commissioner Matthies commented that these types of businesses may be detoured with the avenues they will have to go through. Commissioner Sands stated the incorporation of conditional use permits will take care of sensitive areas. Chairman Wilsey stated he concurs, and reiterated that this type of use is something that has to be dealt with. He stated that if the City Council approves this ordinance a tool will be in place to deal with these types of applications. MOVED BY ALLENBACH, SECONDED UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CODE AMENDMENT 94 -2, ZONE CHANT DECLARATION 96 -6 BASED ON THE REPORT. BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE "aE 96- 1'.AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF Community Development Director Leslie stated he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Allenbach Nothing to report Commissioner Schiffner Nothing to report Commissioner Sands Nothing to report Commissioner Matthies Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY SCHI TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING Respectfully Submitted, 4n-n-16taf f Recording ecretary F'FNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE .M. MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SCHIFFNER, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS AND ALLENBACH Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Matthies, Seconded by Commissioner Schiffner and carried by a vote of 3 -0 to approve the Minutes of March 6, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. 1. Conditional Use Permit 96 -1 - Elsinore Valley Cemetery District (Continued from February 21, 1996) Associate Planner De Gange explained that a letter was submitted requesting withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 96- 1; however, staff had verbal contact with Mr. Hugh Walker, President of Elsinore Valley Cemetery District, who indicated a willingness to work with staff to try to resolve the issues relating to right -of -way dedication. Therefore, staff would request this item be tabled-rather than withdrawn. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 -0 TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96 -1. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95 -8 - MENTOR AVIATION (PAUL PRIBBLE) Chairman Wilsey stated that staff is recommending this item be continued to the meeting of April 17, 1996, and called for a motion. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SCHIFFNER AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 -0 TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -8 TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1996. BUSINESS ITEMS IN[6300 ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 7:08 P.M. COMMISSIONER SANDS ARRIVED AT 7:08 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 7:17 P.M. STAFF COMMENTS Nothing to report. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sands - nothing to report. Commissioner Schiffner - nothing to report. Commissioner Matthies - nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey - commented as follows: 1. Announced that Arta Valenzuela, a past mayor, passed away last Saturday in Virginia. Memorial services will be held in the near future and she will be interred in our local cemetery. Arta was a great lady and worked diligently for the community and she will be missed. 2. Western Municipal Water District is sponsoring an inspection trip of the Colorado River Aqueduct, April 12 -14. For those interested in water resources would highly recommend this tour as it is very informative. Commissioner Allenbach - Absent MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:21 P.M. AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted, Cd/ L' da Grin staff Recording ecretary lull►��.` REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1996 ffff** f***#***#**#*#** ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff * * # * # # * * * * # ** The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Schiffner. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, SCHIFFNER, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. IT [ SM Y DWAN Y (Il l Moved by Commissioner Sands to approve the Minutes of March 20, 1996. Commissioner Schiffner referred to Page 1, Public Hearing Item #1, 5th line, and stated the word "with" should be added after the word work. Commissioner Sands withdrew his motion. Moved by Commissioner Allenbach, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Commissioners Sands and Allenbach abstaining to approve the Minutes of March 20, 1996, as corrected. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Wilsey stated a request has been received to address Public Hearing #1 and this request will be recognized during the discussion of that item. There being no further request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance 96 -2 and Residential Project 86 -9 Amendment #1 - Tava Development /Citation Homes Associate Planner De Gange explained the request is to deviate from Section 17.23.080 B. of the Zoning Code that requires the side yard set back for all structures to be 15 feet from a public right -of -way. The request is to reduce the side yard setback by 3.2 feet, from 15 feet to 11.8 feet, for the eastern property line along Lot 64 in Tract 18719 -3. A request for Design Review of two single -story models, 1,380 and 1,606 square feet in size, to be construction on eight vacant lots that remain within the Citation Homes portion of Tract 18719. These eight lots were left vacant per a condition of approval for Tract 18719, which required these lots to remain as retention basins until the Lake Street Storm Drain System was extended to Mountain Street. The storm drain improvements were completed, the retention basins removed and pads graded in 1991, approximately two years after the build out of this tract, and due to the downturn in the housing market it was infeasible to build on these lots until now. Mr. De Gauge then highlighted staffs concerns with regard to compatibility between the existing and proposed product. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Jerry Linton, Citation Homes, stated they are trying to do an upgraded product on the remaining eight lots, and explained that the lot for which the variance is requested is narrow and the plan would not fit; with the architecture and style PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 3, 1996 proposed we do not feel this would pose any harm to the neighborhood. Mr. Linton stated they have no problem with the conditions with the exception of fencing and Mr. Isolda will address this. Al Isolda, Tava Development /Citation Homes, stated the existing project has wood fencing and would propose the use of wood fencing on the remaining eight lots, feels this would be compatible with the existing fencing, and that it would be cost prohibitive to provide a block wall for eight lots. Believes there is concern with the existing design and would be willing to address this and come up with a couple of proposals to provide wood fencing. Mr. Isolda stated they do not have a problem with providing a storage area for the trash receptacles or using roof tiles to blend with the existing product, and that the color schemes can be modified to be compatible with the existing product. Rocky Olds, 16497 Mango Way, expressed concern with the color schemes, architectural style, blocking of views, and fencing. Mr. Olds then inquired about the location for the variance and stated his concern would be whether this would be beneficial for everyone in the tract and that it did not affect values. Community Development Director Leslie explained the variance is for Lot 64, at the corner of Naval and Tangerine Way, and this is the only variance requested. Chairman Wilsey asked Mr. Olds about the fencing surrounding his home. Mr. Olds stated the fencing is dog eared cedar and six-foot high. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Sands stated his concern is the plotting for this lot and asked why the variance can't be turned around and go on Tangerine Way instead of Naval. Mr. Linton explained that a variance for the rear yard setback would then be required, and that they have tried to blend in with the existing product. Commissioner Sands commented on fencing and stated he would go along with wood fencing, compatible with the existing homes. Commissioner Schiffner commented on fencing and stated he would like to see consistency. Asked if there were existing masonry walls. Mr. Linton responded in the negative and explained that dog eared cedar fencing was constructed. Community Development Director Leslie explained the previous fencing policies. Commissioner Schiffner stated he would like to see fencing of a higher quality than the dog eared cedar, but compatible with the existing fencing. Mr. Linton submitted a photograph of fencing they believe to be a compromise, and explained this fence is sturdier and more attractive than what was constructed in the existing tract. Community Development Director Leslie explained the fencing requirements and stated the standards require a decorative block wall on side yards facing public streets. Chairman Wilsey stated he would go with wood fencing for compatibility, but meet the new standards with regard to steel posts. Also, would direct staff to work on the fencing to ensure compatibility between the existing and proposed fencing. There was general discussion on fencing requirements and the photograph submitted; construction of existing fencing and the proposed fencing being compatible with the existing fencing. Commissioner Matthies suggested stain or paint treatment be provided if wood fencing is allowed. Commissioner Allenbach asked if Lot 64 previously had a variance and when it was originally plotted. Mr. Linton stated he was unsure and explained this lot bad to remain as a retention basin and does not believe plotting was ever done. Commissioner Allenbach stated he has a problem with the variance and plotting of PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 3, 1996 this lot as a plan with a two -car garage could be used and it would not be incompatible. Mr. Linton explained their intent was to bring back value to those lots and to be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Allenbach stated he would like to see fencing with upgrades compatible to the existing fencing, and that color schemes and roofing materials are consistent with the existing product. Commissioner Schiffner referred to Lot 34, the lot adjacent, and asked if the existing house is parallel to the lot line between Lot 33 and Lot 34 or parallel to the street. General discussion ensued on Lot 34. Commissioner Wilsey asked whether Tava did the initial design of the tract, who owned Lot 64 and what product was anticipated. Mr. Linton explained that they purchased lots from another builder. Lot 64 belonged to Tava Development and this lot was a retention basin so plotting was never done. Mr. Linton further explained that the original tract plotting included two and three car garage plans, but predominately three car plans for the tract. Commissioner Wilsey stated that it bothers him that the tract was designed and years later the developer requests a variance from the miniinum standards. Mr. Linton reiterated their intent is to bring back value to those lots and to be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Wilsey suggested condition 9, pertaining to fencing, be amended as follows: fencing shall be of wood that generally matches the existing fencing in the tract except steel posts shall be required. Wood fencing shall be treated with an appropriate sealer, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. Commissioner Sands stated condition 6 should also be reviewed. Community Development Director Leslie stated that condition 6 pertains specifically to the retaining wall on Lot 64 and has to be masonry and staff recommends decorative block. MOVED BY MATTHMS, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ALLENBACH CASTING THE DESCENDING VOTE TO APPROVE VARIANCE 96-2 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-9 AMENDMENT #1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT. Condition No. 9: unless an alterna&e wMeh meets the City's adopted feneing standard is approved by the Planning Commission at Design Rwview - .j_ v may. �17.' "'�T Fencing shall be of wood that generally matches the existing fencing in the tract except steel posts shall be required. Wood fencing shall be treated with an appropriate sealer, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Residential Project 94 -2 Amendment #1 - Inco Homes Associate Planner Villa explained the amendment entails Design Review for the replacement of approved Model Plan 1 with a 1,161 square foot model. The proposed model is 171 square feet smaller than the approved Model Plan 1. Although the proposed model is smaller the reduction is not reflected in the scale of the model. He then highlighted staff concerns with regard to the architectural features and enhancements. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 3, 1996 Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Gary Sorley, Inco Homes Corporation, explained there was a lack of interest by potential home buyers with the previous plan that was started approximately a year and a half year ago. In an effort to improve sales rates on the low end models, a smaller model was created that could be sold in the one hundred thousand dollar range. Even though this model has smaller square footage, it has a very attractive street appeal. Mr. Sorley provided a brief history on the use of reglets and explained that reglets are expensive and on all of their projects they have tried to refrain from bringing those into play. However, this is not an issue because it is a small house, estimates 60 lineal feet of the product. Commissioner Allenbach asked why reglets were selected over anything else. Associate Planner Villa explained that reglets were selected for enhancement and that the applicant used reglets on previous plans. Commissioner Allenbach asked if the color schemes would be compatible. Mr. Sorley responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matthies inquired about cost comparisons for the reglets versus brick or river rock. Mr. Sorley stated the reglets would be less expensive than the brick or river rock. Commissioner Sands commented on the architectural features and stated that he likes the river rock, but if condition 3 is resolved then that is fine. Commissioner Schiffner stated he could approve the proposal with staff's recommendation. Chairman Wilsey commented on the architectural features and since reglets were used previously does not have a problem with requiring it for this model. He then referred to the porch feature and stated the elevation is plain, but the use of reglets will help to alleviate some of this, and there is no condition addressing this. Community Development Director Leslie explained that staff felt it necessary to make the Commission aware of this feature and that a condition was not added requiring this feature as it would raise the costs and be counter to what the applicant is trying to achieve. MOVED BY ALLENBACH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. 94-2 AMENDMENT #1 BASED ON THE FINDING, EXHIBITS °A°, AND SUBJECT TO THE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 7:53 P.M THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 7:55 P.M STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie reported that Don Neff, former Planning Commissioner, may be submitting a request to make a presentation to the Commission on fencing, city -wide. It was the consensus of the Commission to list fencing as an informational item on a future agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies - nothing to report. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 3, 1996 Commissioner Sands - thanked the Commission for allowing him to attend the League of California Cities Conference in Long Beach. It was very informative and enjoyable. Commissioner Allenbach - nothing to report. Commissioner Schiffner - nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsev - commented on the memo from the City Manager's office on recycling of oil. He stated that his store takes used oil although they are not on the list. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MAITHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:00 P.M. AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted, - - - -- ul/ inda Grinds Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17,1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, SCHUTNER, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie and Associate Planner De Gange. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of April 3, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95 -8 - MENTOR AVIATION (PAUL PRIBBLE) Community Development Director Leslie explained that staff is close to resolving the issue pertaining to this proposal; however, additional time is needed therefore the request for continuance. MOVED BY ALLENBACH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-8 TO MAY 15, 1996. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 7:02 PAW VAT ) 6it[ ,$I[1).M,I5[KIL1l /D1►1Di1X.N&AQ 1065 � STAFF COMMENTS Nothing to report. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1996 Commissioner Allenbach - commented on Pottery Street and the street repairs being performed by EVMWD associated with the water system improvement project. Asked N this street repair is a temporary measure. Community Development Director Leslie stated this is a temporary measure and explained that temporary pavement is put down and then at a later date the road is resurface, at least half width. Commissioner Schiffner provided a brief explanation on the street repair process. Commissioner Sands - commented that he attended the Colorado River tour sponsored by Western Municipal Water District, along with Commissioner Schiffner. For those who could not attend, if you ever get the opportunity would recommend this tour as it is very educational. Commissioner Matthies - nothing to report. Commissioner Schiffner - nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey - nothing to report. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY ALLENBACH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:45 P.M. AL WILSEY, CHAHI AN - Respectfully Submitted, inda Grinddtaff Recording Secretary REGULAR PLANNING COMML4SION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Schiffner. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, SCHIFFNER, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa and Engineering Department Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of April 17, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Don Neff, 2240 University Drive #230, Newport Beach, stated he would like to request time after the agenda items are completed to discuss fencing standards. Chairman Wilsey asked for a consensus from the table to schedule fencing standards as an Informational Item. It was the consensus of the Commission to add fencing standards as an Informational Item. There being no further request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Associate Planner Villa asked that staff be allowed to make a single presentation on Conditional Use Permit 96 -2 and Conditional Use Permit 96 -3, but have separate action. It was the consensus of the Commission that a single presentation be made by staff. 1 & 2 Conditional Use Permit 96 -2. Conditional Use Permit 96-3 and Design Review for a Monopole. Antennas, and Associated Ground Equipment - Pacific Bell Mobile Services (Continued from 2 -7 -96) Associate Planner Villa explained the request is for the construction of two (2) wireless communication monopoles. One to be located on Assessor's Parcel Number 377 - 330 -007 (Franklin Street) and the other on Assessor's Parcel Number 348 -161- 011 (near the intersection of Riverside and Collier). Both of these proposals require approval for Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit because the structures exceed the maximum height allowed within the Zoning District for which they are proposed. He further explained that a joint study session was held on March 19, 1996, and various aspects related to regulating the placement of wireless communication monopoles and antennas was discussed. It was recommended that the applicant consider alternate locations, and the committee suggested consideration be given to the Temescal High School Baseball Field and the water tank location over looking downtown. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 Darrell Daugherty, representative for Pacific Bell Mobile Services, 2955 Redhill Avenue, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, stated the project planner, Marianne Boring, is also present. Mr. Daugherty provided a brief history on Pacific Bell Mobile Services and explained that the company is less than two years old and was founded to go after a new type of wireless technology, called PCS. He explained that PCS differs from cellular in that personal mobility is the focus, calling people and not places. He explained that cellular operates at 800 megahertz and PCS companies will operate at 1850 or 1.9 gigahertz. PCS is all digital and being digital there will be 8 times the capacity or 8 calls for every 1 cellular antilog call. Mr. Daugherty stated that Pacific Bell Mobile will have to operate within the strict guidelines of the FCC, and these sites are several thousand times below the NC standards for safety adopted by the FCC. Mr. Daugherty commented on the proposed sites and provided illustrations of the proposed BTS radio cabinets. He stated the BTS radio cabinets are similar to traffic control boxes, and are painted forest green. Mr. Daugherty presented an illustration of the typical antenna configuration and stated there will only be 6 antennas; whereas, cellular and SMR operate anywhere from 12 to 22 types of antennas. He explained the proposed antennas are about 8 inches wide and 4 feet high. Mr. Daugherty stated their marketing people have been looking to expand the coverage around Lake Elsinore and referred to an illustration of coverage for the proposed sites. Mr. Daugherty presented a photograph of the Franklin Street site and stated the monopole will be placed behind the tree and tucked into the corner of the Van Dame property, and that a decorative masonry wall will be constructed around the radio cabinets per the conditions of approval. Mr. Daugherty stated that per a meeting earlier in the week they decided to lower the pole to 60 feet although the Staff Report says 75 feet and requested the Commission make note of this change. He then presented a photograph of the 11th Street site proposed near the intersection of Collier Avenue and Highway 74 and explained that the monopole would be 75 feet and hopefully this site will be integrated into existing power poles. Mr. Daugherty stated that an alternative from the study session for the 11th Street site was to possibly locate a ballfield light standard at Temescal Canyon High School. He explained that this comes down to a need to put signals as far up into the canyon toward Lake Street as possible, and this is difficult as the PCS signal only travels about half as far as the existing cellular signal due to the frequency range. Mr. Daugherty presented radio frequency signal coverage plots for both sites and explained that the Banner Concrete (11th Street) site was the number one choice. Mr. Daugherty stated the alternative for the Franklin Street site was to try to co- locate on the existing water tank downtown, Air Touch site, and explained the problems associated with this site being a 20 -25 second gap in coverage and the direction in which the antennas point. Mr. Daugherty then stated that he would answer any questions. Community Development Director Leslie informed the Commission of the letter from Plancom, written by Mr. Daugherty, which further explains their analysis of the alternate sites. Commissioner Allenbach inquired about Plancom. W. Daugherty explained that Plancom represents Pacific Bell Mobile Services in the Inland Empire. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Schiffner stated that he has no objection to the locations for this type of installation, but would not want it to be assumed as an approval for this type of antenna at other locations in the future. Commissioner Matthies stated she concurs with Commissioner Schiffner. Commissioner Sands asked about the size of the antenna support arms, are they 6 feet 6 inches? Mr. Daugherty stated he did not have the exact dimensions, but they PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 emulate a street light arm, arcing out at 8 feet from the base of the pole. Commissioner Sands asked about the height requirement for a warning beacon. Community Development Director Leslie stated that he does not have an answer. Mr. Daugherty stated the threshold for obstruction marking and lighting is usually 200 feet above ground level, but it could be as low as 30 feet. W. Daugherty stated all of their sites are filed with the FAA for obstruction noticing. Commissioner Allenbach expressed concern with visibility and stated he has noticed several antennas down the freeway. He stated that it is .3 miles from the Banner Concrete site to the Temescal High School field site and asked if this distance would make that much difference. Mr. Daugherty stated there is a severe topographical feature along Nichols Road to the north, and location of the antenna is important as it provides that extra edge in bending the signal and getting it as far down into the canyon as possible. Mr. Daugherty stated they do look at using water tanks or parks where replacement structures can be done and currently looking at doing a replacement structure at McVicker Park. Commissioner Allenbach asked why the locations can't work together. Mr. Daugherty explained there is a site further north by Lake Street and the issue there is another carrier has an exclusive right, and has informed Pacific Bell that they are going to enforce their exclusive right to that site. Commissioner Allenbach asked whether this site was in the City, and if it received approval with exclusive rights. Community Development Director Leslie stated the sites referred to are the Air Touch sites on Hampton Circle and Lake Street and these sites were approved, but the exclusive agreement is between the property owner and the carrier. Commissioner Allenbach commented on the need for carriers to commingle. W. Daugherty stated they are willing to cooperate and their contracts do not contain exclusive arrangements. Chairman Wilsey asked whether the Air Touch sites are under a Conditional Use Permit and whether this can be pulled for reviewed. Community Development Director Leslie stated the Commission could review the Conditional Use Permit; however, when approved there were no conditions prohibiting them from entering into exclusive agreements with the property owners. Associate Planner Villa stated the Air Touch sites are not under a Conditional Use Permit as the antennas did not exceed the height requirements and the application was processed under Design Review. Community Development Director Leslie stated this does not prevent the Commission from reviewing the project, it could be brought back and staff could contact Air Touch. Chairman Wilsey recommended that these types of uses be required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for better control. Commissioner Allenbach stated that he foresees other carriers coming in and that condition number 11 is not strong enough. Commissioner Allenbach commented on condition number 4, pertaining to review in 10 years and suggested this be changed to every 5 years. Commissioner Allenbach inquired about the lease. Mr. Daugherty stated the lease is for 25 years in 5 year terms. Commissioner Allenbach commented on the R -3 zoning designation for the Franklin Street site and asked if the Code addresses location. Community, Development Director Leslie stated the Code does not specifically address large antenna poles. However, if this is considered a quasi public utility, although privately held, the Code states that utility substations and transmission stations are permitted in any zone subject to review. Commissioner Allenbach stated it is his understanding that something is being written to address these types of uses. Community Development Director Leslie stated this is correct. Commissioner Allenbach asked whether these types of uses would then be limited to commercial and industrial areas. Community Development Director Leslie stated discussion could be held on what would be the appropriate zone. Chairman Wilsey stated this matter was discussed at the joint study session and other cities do not allow these uses in R -3 areas, only in commercial and industrial areas. Chairman Wilsey stated concern on the number of new sites —up to 6 more, referencing the illustration of coverage, and that 75 foot poles would be all over. Mr. Daugherty stated the water tank sites they are working on are very high and 75 PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 foot poles are not needed, and the goal at a water tank site is to keep the antenna as low as possible. Chairman Wilsey commented on landscape requirements and stated this should be incorporated into the Code. Chairman Wilsey referred to condition number 11 and asked if co-location would be a problem. W. Daugherty stated this would not be a problem, as there is a lot to gain from co-location. Commissioner Wilsey asked if one antenna could be used for several carriers. Mr. Daugherty responded in the negative, and explained that they operate at different frequencies. Commissioner Schiffner suggested that condition number 11 be modified by replacing the words "consider allowing" with the word "allow ". Chairman Wilsey suggested that condition number 4 be modified by changing the review period from 10 years to 5 years. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ALLENBACH TO POSTPONE UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS OBTAINED. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ALLENBACH CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-2 AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE ERECTION /CONSTRUCTION OF THE MONOPOLE, ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH TBE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. Condition No. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-2 and Design Review approval shall be re- reviewed every in 5 years (May 2001) to investigate if other means of fewer or smaller and more appealing wireless telephone communication stations have been introduced among the telecommunication industry. If so, at the end of this time the applicant and/or operator shall be required to upgrade (size and aesthetics) the station. Condition No. 11. The applicant agrees to eei}sider- allowing co- location of other antenna equipment by other wireless communication carriers at these sites when applications are received by the City and it is considered feasible, subject to agreements between the applicant and other carriers and the applicant's and property owner's terms. 2. Conditional Use Permit 96 -3 and Design Review for a Monouole. Antennas. and Ground Eauiument - Pacific Bell Mobile Services Banner Concrete Concepts) - Continued from 2 -7 -96 Community Development Director Leslie stated staffs presentation for this item was included with Conditional Use Permit 96 -2. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Hearing no request to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. Chairman Wilsey noted that the same modifications to the conditions should be made to this proposal. Commissioner Allenbach stated he did not have a problem with this site since it is not on a residential lot. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-3 AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE ERECTION /CONSTRUCTION OF THE MONOPOLE, ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. Condition No. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-2 and Design Review approval shall be re- reviewed every in S years (May 2001) to investigate if other means of fewer or smaller and more appealing wireless telephone communication stations have been introduced among the telecommunication industry. If so, at the end of this time the applicant and/or operator shall be required to upgrade (size and aesthetics) the station. Condition No. 11. The applicant agrees to senside allowing co- location of other antenna equipment by other wireless communication carriers at these sites when applications are received by the City and it is considered feasible, subject to agreements between the applicant and other carriers and the applicant's and property owner's terns. 3. General Plan Amendment 96 -3 and Zone Change 96-2 - City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Director Leslie explained that City Council adopted Resolution 96-17 on April 9, 1996, initiating these proposals. With the adoption of this resolution, staff was directed to proceed and bring forward a proposal to change the land use classification on this site to allow only single - family residential uses. The site is located on the westerly side of Lake Street, between Terra Cotta Middle School and Mountain Street and bisected by Orange Grove Way. The General Plan designation for this site is Specific Plan Area "N" and the proposed change is to Low Medium Density Residential. The Zone Change would rezone a portion of this area, south of Orange Grove Way, from C -2 (General Commercial) to R -1 (Single - Family Residential). He stated that background information on this site is contained within the Staff Report, and it is recommended that Planning Commission consider the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and make a recommendation to the City Council. Staff proposes to return to the Planning Commission at their next meeting with a resolution for adoption reflecting the Commission's recommendation. Also, Negative Declaration 96-2 would go on to City Council for consideration. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Richard Ruger, 3250 Wilshire Boulevard #1500, Los Angeles, attorney for the property owner, submitted written objection to the amendment and zone change. Mr. Ruger stated the public notice was inadequate as it did not allow them to prepare for this hearing, and that the property owner was out of the country when the notice was received. He requested this be taken into consideration and the hearing continued for 2 -3 weeks. Mr. Ruger stated another reason for the continuance is that a new specific plan is being finalized and should be submitted within the next 7 -10 days, and believes the new plan mitigates all the concerns raised. Mr. Ruger also requested a study session on the proposed plan to be submitted. Mr. Ruger stated that if the Commission is not inclined to grant continuance then he would go into the merits of the proposed amendment and zone change in addition to the letter submitted this evening. Mr. Ruger reiterated his request for a continuation. Chairman Wilsey informed Mr. Ruger that the request for continuance will be considered; however, the public hearing has to proceed. Mr. Ruger stated this proposal is similar or the same as was previously rejected by the PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 City Council. Mr. Ruger commented on the events that have occurred since 1994 and the need for commercial property in this area, as the residential population will quadruple with the approvals granted to date. Also, since 1994 the property owner has submitted at least two petitions to the City showing overwhelming support for the commercial use and has not seen a petition indicating opposition. Mr. Ruger stated the property owner has been trying to get the specific plan into place and develop the property for several years. He stated the property valuation would be $3,000 per lot with a residential use and this equates to about $18,000; for this property, 17 -18 acres, this equates to $325,000.00 and this is a small fraction of the purchase price. If the zone change is approved, it will constitute inverse condemnation by the City, and the same legal problems are going arise. Mr. Roger asked that the letter submitted raising objections to the proposal be incorporated by reference and that they reserve the right to make additional objections on ascertaining additional facts. George Alongi, private citizen and elected Councihnember, stated he would like to see the hearing postponed and proper information about this project obtained from the opponents and proponents, as both have issues that need to be recognized. Mr. Alongi suggested the Commission ask City Council for an immediate study session on this issue. He stated there is another plan that was submitted and it was given to the City Manager and Community Development Director; this plan was kept in the back room to make sure that all the questions were answered from the school district and staff before it was brought forward. Mr. Alongi stated the previous specific plan was approved and in effect for six years. Mr. Alongi stated that he recognizes the concerns of those opposed to the project, but less make the concerns true and see if they can be worked through and if they cannot then walk away and that is the end of the project. Ralph Ferro, 29054 Forestview, stated that most of the people who live up there do not have all the details about this project, we keep hearing rumors. Asked what could be proposed by the property owner. The concern is vacancy rates. There are existing shopping centers that are empty and this could be a graffiti palace if vacant. Asked if Mountain would be widened to take care of the added traffic, and who will foot the bill. Mr. Ferro stated the housing market is not there and suggested a senior citizen apartment complex as a compromise, such as the one in Murrieta called Amanda Park. Ms. Pam Hendrix, 29074 Palm View, commented on the General Plan Goals, Objectives, Polices and Title 17 provisions -- consistency, conformity and compatibility in relation to existing uses of adjacent land and this representing the primary basis for determining the appropriate land use. Ms. Hendrix stated that developing this site commercially will create a pocket or island of inconsistent land use. The roadways leading to and from the tract were planned as residential roadways and not structured for more intense uses, referring to General Plan Objective 1.2, Policy 1.2.1 and 1.3.1. She commented on evaluating land use compatibility, noise, traffic and other environmental hazards when making residential land use decisions, referring to Policy 1.1.3, Goals 1.0, 2.0, Policy 2.1.1, Policy 2.1.4 and Policy 3.1.2 of the General Plan. These provisions support the inappropriateness of a high density commercial land use adjacent to schools and residential neighborhoods. She stated the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) states that with the exception of no project the alternatives of a lower density residential development would result in the fewest negative impacts on existing neighborhoods. The EIR confirms that a lower density residential development is the environmentally superior alternative and is the land use most compatible. Stacey Mitchell, 16500 Running Deer, stated she favored rezoning, and would not want vacant buildings or commercial businesses with long hours in front of the tract where children may be walking to and from school or sport activities. Ms. Mitchell commented on the survey referenced and stated she was contacted twice about a shopping center, but the location was never specified. PAGE SEVEN- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 Will Buck, representing the property owner, stated he has been retained to revise the specific plan for the Lake Terrace project. Basically, we are asking for continuance this evening. Mr. Buck stated all the issues brought up by the homeowners and the school district have been addressed. Mr. Buck then provided a brief history on the 1990 General Plan designation, the petitions and proposed development for this site. Donald Foster, 29256 Northpointe, submitted a Super Market Survey that he performed in the last three weeks with major supermarket chains and stated that no major market is negotiating for this site. He stated a similar survey was done two years ago, when Komerica brought a plan forward. Asked why Komerica keeps claiming they have a commitment they do not have. Mr. Foster then commented on Komerica's claim to signatures on petitions in favor of this plan. Mr. Foster stated that you cannot find three people in the entire neighborhood that want the development. Mr. Foster stated that he moved from an area that was two blocks from a shopping area much like Komerica's proposal and often found shopping carts on the front lawn, debris littering the street, and there was noise from after hour parking lot parties and trucks unloading. Asked that any commercial development be denied so the City Council can rezone the area to R -1 and make it compatible with the existing land use. William Fauber, 29124 Outrigger, representing Spinnaker Pointe residents, stated they are not prepared to voice an opinion for or against, and asked for time to review all the plans involved. Jack McColley, 29072 Palm View, stated for 6 years they have expressed their opposition to commercial development of the former Tee Pee Ranch, and submitted sound arguments supported by extensive research and documents opposing commercial development. He stated there is an opportunity to resolve this issue with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change before the Commission. Mr. McColley commented on the health, safety and welfare of residents, increases in traffic and crime, and inconsistency of land use that would create an isolated pocket of commercial development in a residential area. He commented that the EHt states the best compatible use for the land is low density single - family residential development. Mr. McColley referred to the petitions and surveys submitted for this site, and asked that the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change be adopted and passed on to City Council. Chris McColley, 29072 Palm View, stated this is not a premature motion on behalf of the City Council or Planning Commission, and this case has been presented in the past and fully supports the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Ms. McColley stated the primary focus in relation to this site is land use compatibility and the resulting impact on the surrounding residential corridor and school site, this is a precedence setting issue. She stated that there is no other commercial project of this magnitude proposed directly contiguous to R -1 single - family residential neighborhoods and schools, and the arguments of the proponents are outweighed by the negative factors. Ms. McColley commented on the site's 1982 General Plan designation, and the zoning designation and cancellation of the agricultural preserve when annexed into the City in 1984. Ms. McColley stated that commercial development at this site poses severe safety hazards, jeopardizes the hillside district and disregards Title 17 provisions. Ms. McColley stated commercial projects at this location have been denied by past Planning Commissions and City Council and it is time to remedy this matter. She stated the concerns involving traffic, roadway circulation, noise, public safety, economic factors including vacancy rates and non- marketable uses remain unmitigated, and the EHt states that many of the concerns are unable to be mitigated to an insignificant level. Ray Knight, 16504 Mango Way, stated support for rezoning to R -1. He stated that at the study session held on this matter the developer was asked to hold meetings with the residents in opposition, the school district, and the Commission wanted PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 another study session, but the developer refused to meet with all groups concerned. He then commented on the developers inability to properly monitor and control the two existing residences and the old market on the site. Lois Knight, 16504 Mango Way, stated her only concern is safety of the children, and does not believe commercial development is in their best interest. Diana Gilliam, 16505 Mango Way, stated a petition was submitted to them previously, but nothing has been submitted in many years. She then commented on the problems associated with commercial development and schools in close proximity to each other, and the traffic impacts. Ron Hendrix, 29074 Palm View, stated he has never seen the petition circulated, but has seen a petition that asked for ideas. Aaron Mofi-it, 90210 Tangerine Way, stated he wants houses instead of shops because he does not want traffic in his neighborhood, as cars and trucks will have to be dodged when riding his bicycle. Also, does not want pollution from the trucks and shops. Jackie Leach, 29074 Tangerine Way, stated traffic considerations are enough to prove the lack of feasibility of commercial uses at this location. She stated the Government Code requires the Circulation Element to be correlated with the Land Use Element in a General Plan, and items such as road capacity, public infrastructure and other related items must be considered in designating a land use. Ms. Leach stated that even with improvements to Lake Street the topography and logistics of the roads at this location are dangerous in and of themselves. She stated one of the environmental mitigation measures proposed to handle traffic is to widen Orange Grove Way, increasing its size to 100 foot right -of -way. This roadway was dedicated by Lake Terrace developers as a residential entryway to the tract, and we do not want it changed. She stated one Objective of the General Plan is to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the people in the community and this Objective is eliminated with commercial land use at this location. She then stated the emissions are approximately 4 times greater than the Air Quality Management District's level of significance and this is in direct contradiction to the General Plan, Objective 2.2, regarding reduction of air pollution emissions. Ms. Leach stated that R -1 zoning for this entire site is in the community's best interest, and supports the rezoning for R -1 use only. Tom Ginnetti, 29069 Palm View, stated support for rezoning to R -1. He then commented on the request for continuance and stated people who work and are not dedicated to this project came up with the information needed and they do not need additional time. Asked that this be concluded. Charlene Harris, 29109 Outrigger, stated she was with a small group from Spinnaker Pointe and representing many families that could not be in attendance. Ms. Harris stated she could not speak for or against, and commented on the need to co -exist and referred to the park, parking lots, school and youth activities occurring in her neighborhood that they had to learn to deal with. Chairman Wilsey noted the letters received from the Lake Elsinore Unified School District in support of the proposal. He then asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 9:11 p.m. Chairman Wilsey referred to the request for continuance, based on inappropriate noticing, and asked staff to address this. Community Development Director Leslie explained the noticing requirements and stated this item was noticed pursuant to the Code. Chairman Wilsey asked about revisions to the specific plan, how much detail PAGE NINE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 and how much interfacing with staff occurred? Community Development Director Leslie stated specific plans have been submitted in the past, but were never adopted, and believes the developer is working on revisions to the specific plan previously submitted. Chairman Wilsey asked if staff had been actively involved with the revisions and asked about the time line. Community Development Director Leslie stated staff has not seen a new draft specific plan, and two or three months ago a conceptual drawing relative to use of a park area was given to staff. Also, from time to time there have been conversations with Mr. Buck relative to putting together a revised specific plan. Commissioner Sands stated he is inclined to agree with the residents, 6 years is long enough to look at any issue, and does not feel this is a premature proposal. He stated that it would be of no value to continue this item. Commissioner Schiffner stated he agrees with part of Commissioner Sands comments, and would like to see the use of this property decided. However, would not like to see a decision made that may be overturned through some judicial avenue. Commissioner Matthies stated concurrence with Commissioner Schiffner. Commissioner Allenbach stated there is a lot more going on with this project than he is aware of and sufficient information has not been given to make a determination one way or the other. Agrees that 6 years is a long time and it should have been decided either way. Chairman Wilsey stated that at some point a hard decision has to be made. On the flip side, the property owner has a substantial investment and hears that he is trying to do revisions on a speck plan and mollify some of those concerns. Chairman Wilsey commented on postponing the decision until a document is presented; however, since there has not been ongoing dialog with staff on the specific plan revisions believes the developer is not working with staff in a fashion considered ongoing, trying to make these decisions and make the project work. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ALLENBACH CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 96-2, GENERAL PAN AMENDMENT 96-3 AND ZONE CHANGE 96-2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUSINESS ITEMS h At this time, 9:20 pm. the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9:28 p.m. the Planning Commission reconvened. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMI&rITEE AT 9:28 P.K THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:36 PAL PAGE TEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 INFORMATIONAL Don Neff stated he was present this evening on behalf of K. Hovnanian Company, who is presently building in Lake Elsinore, and presented a brochure on the company that contains inserts he would like to discuss. Mr. Neff provided a brief background on his education and experience as a city planner and Planning Commissioner. Mr. Neff stated he was interested in seeing how the fencing standards had been implemented throughout the city, since adopted when he was on the Planning Commission. He then presented an exhibit of a box frame, butt tight fence with a 2 x 2 middle rail. He stated a survey was performed and submitted to the Community Development Director on the different fencing options being built in four cities along the I -15 corridor, and referred to photographs contained in the handout. Mr. Neff stated the premise for steel posts was durability, and along rights -of- way it was an eyesore to see fences only a few years old decaying and falling over. He stated that cedar posts set in concrete is an option that works relatively well to interior, side and rear locations and is cost effective. Mr. Neff referred to the diagram illustrating footings set in concrete for construction of the fencing proposed, and stated the critical element is that the concrete needs to be domed to shed water. Mr. Neff referred to the cost analysis contained in the handout and explained the costs associated with wood (cedar without middle rail), masonry and wrought iron fencing, and requested flexibility to move the dollars around to make it more appealing/profitable and keep the good builders here. Mr. Neff stated this was discussed with the Community Development Director, people around the City and the City Council and they felt it innocuous, and unsure what direction to take to implement. Mr. Neff stated he is unsure whether to request a modification to the conditions of approval for K. Hovnanian, or a city -wide Code amendment. He then explained that when Hovnanian purchased the property they bought the conditions that were put in placed in 1992, and when they submitted their plans they were re- conditioned in 1995 and the new standards imposed. He inquired about the possibility of a condition modification; however, not sure whether this should be an amendment to the conditions to offer flexibility with regard to steel posts and the location of steel posts, or if it should be a city-wide Code amendment. Chairman Wilsey stated the concept is still the same, whether looking at steel posts or other alternatives, and asked staff for the criteria on interior wood fencing. Community Development Director Leslie stated that block wall has been required on all interior, side and rear property lines since 1986; however, the Code states the Planning Commission can approve alternative fencing materials. But recent Code changes have instituted specific types of things the Commission can consider as alternate material. Chairman Wilsey stated that from the builders perspective the standards do not allow flexibility regarding interior fencing. Commissioner Schiffner stated that going from a masonry wall to wood fencing with steel posts is a step backwards, and does not agree that the primary concern is to protect the street right -of -way, it is also to protect the property owners' future fence. Chairman Wilsey stated perimeter fencing alternatives are not being discussed, it is just interior fencing. Commissioner Allenbach inquired about the intent and asked why interior fencing included steel posts. Mr. Neff stated there was no differentiation from public right -of -way or interiors. Community Development Director Leslie stated that one of two things occurs, the project is being built in phases and fencing is left exposed because the next phase hasn't occurred, and in hillside areas what is an interior fence is sometimes elevated and visible from public view. Commissioner Schiffner commented on the ordinance and whether it refers to fencing visible from the right -of -way rather than perimeter fencing. Mr. Neff stated where there are views the builders will choose to go with wrought iron to preserve the view shed and try to get a premium in the sale of that lot. Chairman Wilsey suggested the material distributed be retained and a joint study session scheduled and see if alterations are warranted. PAGE ELEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 1, 1996 Community Development Director Leslie stated he discussed with Mr. Neff the options to K. Hovnanian, a modification to the Code that would effect everything city -wide or a variance. Chairman Wilsey asked if this could be tied into the previous approvals. Community Development Director Leslie stated the conditions of approval on the Design Review for K. Hovnanian stipulated block wall. However, the standards allow the Planning Commission latitude to review alternate material and Hovnanian came back with a fencing plan suggesting alternate materials. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved this fencing plan subject to the new standard that requires steel posts and other design features, and does not believe the condition can be modified because the approval was based on the Code at the time, and a variance from the Code would be required. Chairman Wilsey stated he would be interested in seeing comparison costs on fencing with steel posts as opposed to redwood, pine and cedar set in concrete. Discussion ensued on the fencing standards and the number of developers that have utilized the steel post standard, and whether a variance could be supported. Chairman Wilsey reiterated that a joint study session be requested and fencing listed as a topic. STAFF COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies - complimented Chairman Wilsey on conducting the meeting this evening. Commissioner Schiffner - concurred with Commissioner Matthies. Commissioner Sands - nothing to report. Commissioner Allenbach - nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey - Stated he has been contacted by a citizen residing on Bailey Street off Dryden who would like to have his street paved, but would at least request the City come out and grade it again. Asked that this be passed on to the Engineering Department and maintenance scheduled. Commissioner Sands stated there is another street up on Granite off Pottery that requires maintenance. Community Development Director Leslie stated letters have been received regarding Granite Street. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHMUNER, SECONDED BY ALLENBACH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING MEETING AT 10;1$ P.M. Respectfully Submitted, mill [I. II Recording Secretary REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Schiffner. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, SCHUTNER, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa and Engineering Department Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Allenbach referred to Page 4 and Page 5, condition number 4 for Conditional Use Permit 96-2 and 96 -3, and made the following correction: re- reviewed every 5 years. Moved by Allenbacb, Seconded by Matthies and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of May 1, 1996, as corrected. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 95 -8 - Mentor Aviation (Paul Pribble) Continued from February 21, 1996 Associate Planner Villa explained the request is for the establishment of a dirt aircraft landing and take -off facility seventy five feet (75') wide by two thousand thirty -nine (2,039') feet long, pursuant to Section 7.5.5(b) of the East Lake Specific Plan, located adjacent to 32301 Corydon Road within the boundaries of the Airport Use Area of the East Lake Specific Plan. He provided a brief history on the proposal explaining that the item was continued several times in an effort to resolve the issues raised by the School District regarding the runway and the proximity of a proposed school. Staff received documentation from Caltrans indicating they do not object to the acquisition and development of the proposed school site nor the runway. Consequently, the School District has withdrawn their opposition to the project. Associate Planner Villa stated the original proposal called for a two -way runway with landing and take -offs occurring from the west and east. The revised proposal calls for a one -way runway with take -offs and landings occurring from only the west. He explained the reason for the revision was safety for the existing single - family homes located within the east side Runway Protection Zone of the runway and that the applicant has agreed to the revision. Based on the response received from Caltrans and resolution of the concerns raised by the School District, and based on the operational characteristics of the proposed runway it is anticipated that the runway will not create substantial impacts on surrounding land uses; therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the proposed runway. He then referred to the memorandum dated May 15, and requested that condition 18.a. be considered and imposed on the project, which reads: The applicant shall submit a Dust Control Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 15, 1996 prior to commencement of operations. The plan shall include measures to maintain dust resulting from the proposed operations within the site to levels of insignificance. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Paul Pribble, 32301 Corydon Road, provided a brief history on the operation and stated this facility would be for his own use and rebuilding aircraft, Phase I runway is basically for this use. Also, projected was the new Recreational Airport Program that is the entire airport runway, further down into the floodplain site, which will allow all of the operations that occur at Skylark now to occur at the new facility. But this is based strictly on what the City decides. All property directly off the end of the Phase I or Phase H runway is now dedicated in perpetuity as open space, so this removes any problems. Mr. Pribble then stated that he would answer any questions. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. Chairman Wilsey stated he reviewed the project extensively and has concern with conditions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18. These conditions, although good safeguards from a community standpoint, are beyond the reahn of authority for the City to impose. He explained that anything in the airport on the ground is controlled by the State under Caltrans Aviation Department and off the ground it is under the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and suggested deletion of conditions 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13. He then referred to condition 22, pertaining to fill, and asked Mr. Pribble if be had a Corps of Engineers permit approved for this. Mr. Pribble stated he has a current pending extension on his 404 Permit. In the mean time, the Corps says that 404 Permits are no longer required, as of March 4, 1996. Mr. Pribble stated the 404 Permit allows placement of fill material in the floodplain specifically for the construction of runway and taxi way. Community Development Director Leslie referred to condition 22, and explained the 404 Permit deals with the regulatory agency's jurisdiction and is an environmentally tied permit. The City is required to maintain a certain amount of flood storage in the back basin and flood storage is generally in areas below the elevation of 1265. Even with Mr. Pribble's 404 Permit the City is obligated through agreements with the Riverside County Flood Control District to maintain a certain amount of flood storage. To that extent, the new ruling the Corps has done making the issuance of 404 Permits mute specifically says there shall be no fills made in the back basins without prior approval of the Riverside County Flood Control District. Mr. Pribble stated the 404 Permit being discussed is for Mentor Aviation and not the East Lake 404 Permit. Community Development Director Leslie asked Mr. Pribble whether he has evidence that Riverside County Flood Control District reviewed and consented to allowing fill as part of the 404 Permit. Mr. Pribble stated this was no problem and that he also has water quality assurance for the site. Community Development Director Leslie stated the recent action by the Army Corps effects everything in the back basin or the East Lake area. Mr. Pribble stated he has asked the Army Corps of Engineers whether he is to refile or obtain a letter stating this is not permitted as part of the East Lake project, but permitted as a separate entity. Mr. Pribble then stated the runway is terrain following and that complete biological and environmental studies have been done. Chairman Wilsey questioned whether language should be added to condition 22 to allow more latitude - -allow transfer of materials should this become necessary. Assumes compactible material will be brought in on the taxi way and runway in the interim. Mr. Pribble explained the soil composition and stated they would remove 12 -18 inches of the top cap and place it out of the floodplain and lay the base for the runway, which is DG. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 15, 1996 Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated two Federal Agencies are being dealt with, the US Army Corps of Engineers dealing with waters of the United States, and FEMA dealing with flood insurance and flood proormg. Condition 19 pertains to flood control and floodplain management. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated he was unsure of how much fill was to be brought in, but this proposal will effect the floodplain behind the dike, and the 404 Permit does not address flood control and floodplain issues. He explained that the City has to be in compliance with FEMA; otherwise, there are problems obtaining flood insurance. Chairman Wilsey asked about modifying condition 22 to allow transfer of material. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated the fill should be brought in from the floodplain not from outside. Mr. Pribble suggested the following language for condition 22: "fill brought into the floodplain cannot decrease the storage volume of the floodplain." Community Development Director Leslie suggested the following language for condition 22: " fill brought in must be offset by a like amount of material moved out of the floodplain, relative to the runway /taxi way only." Commissioner Schiffner suggested the following language for condition 22: "no fill can be imported into the floodplain without the approval of the City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Department and /or the Riverside County Flood Control District." Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated he would prefer something more specific than approval of the Engineering Department. Associate Planner Villa explained that conditions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were taken from the East Lake Specific Plan. The level of environmental review on that document placed these conditions on the airport area, so these conditions were carried over. He explained the intent of the Specific Plan was to have more of a local private airport with some recreation. Commissioner Allenbach stated the wording of condition 8 precludes any commercial aircraft. Chairman Wilsey stated a training flight is virtually any flight that has an instructor on board, reference condition 9. Mr. Pribble stated that he is the senior pilot and the only one that can fly out of the airport, family members are occasionally guests. There are no other operations, this is a private facility. He stated the conditions referenced are controlled by city regulations when a commercial business is started. Community Development Director Leslie stated condition 8 could be modified to state that no commercial passenger facilities will be permitted. Mr. Pribble reiterated that he is the owner, senior pilot and the only person that can fly out of the airport. Community Development Director Leslie stated the Environmental Impact Report for the East Lake Specific Plan set up the basic guidelines for allowing an airport runway, and these conditions were listed as mitigation measures, therefore the obligation. Chairman Wilsey stated conditions 8, 9 and 10 are inconsequential, but would like condition 11 deleted as it is not under the City's jurisdiction. Chairman Wilsey commented on condition 14 pertaining to the 60 CNEL noise contour level and asked if this came from the East Lake Plan. Associate Planner Villa responded in the affirmative. Chairman Wilsey suggested condition 14 be modified by replacing the words "airstrip property" with "airport operations area" as this does not keep it to the width of the runway. Mr. Pribble suggested the words "airport land use area ". Commissioner Schiffner suggested the words "airport property ". Mr. Pribble stated sound does not stop at the property line and an area has to be allowed for it to operate, and the 60 CNEL will never be experienced because of the property's classification of open space. He then stated the Runway Safety Zone is 5,000 feet long and 1,500 feet wide and the airport land use area is underneath this. Commissioner Sands stated his questions have been answered. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 15, 1996 Commissioner Schiffner stated he concurs with Chairman Wilsey that the items are redundant since covered by federal regulations, and concurs with deletion of condition 11, and modifying condition 14 changing airstrip property to airport land use area. He then commented on condition 21 pertaining to prohibiting the use of asphalt or bituminous materials and noted the plans indicate bituminous paving. Mr. Pribble stated this refers back to the 404 Permit. The 404 Permit requirement was placed in there by Fish & Wildlife and Fish & Wildlife and Wildlife Enhancement have both signed off for development below that, but we are just putting in dirt in any case. Community Development Director Leslie explained the reason for this condition is to prevent pollutants from leaching into flood waters and then ending in the lake. Mr. Pribble commented on the Phase H runway and stated this runway will be paved with whatever material is allowed, concrete or asphalt. Commissioner Schiffner stated that he has no objection to modifying condition 22 to indicate that there will be no negative effect on the flood volume capacity. Commissioner Matthies stated she concurs with Commissioner Schiffner. Commissioner Allenbach stated that he had no further questions or comments. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-8 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT 'A' & "B' AND SUBJECT TO THE 22 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. Condition No. 11• No training flights will be •t4 d. DELETED Condition No. 14: The 60 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) noise contour will be contained on the air tnip-prepec ty airport land use area. The applicant shall submit a Noise Abatement Procedure Plan for approval by the Community Development Director. Condition No. 18.a: The applicant shall submit a Dust Control Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to commencement of operations. The plan shall include measures to maintain dust resulting from the proposed operations within the site to levels of insignificance. Condition No. 22: No till can be imported We the floodplain. Fill imported into the back basin cannot impact the flood storag %onveyance capacity of the back basin floodplain. Fill repositioned in the floodplain can be used but there must be no impact on the flood conveyance capacity of the back basin. 2. Tentative Tract Mau 28198 (Formerly TTM 27908) and General Plan Amendment 94 -3 - Golden Castle (Unitech Building Systems Inc.) Associate Planner De Gauge explained the request is for subdivision of 33.7 acres into 107 lots (a gross density of 3.2 and a net density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre) averaging 7,857 square feet in size, and a General Plan Amendment changing the site's land use designation from future Specific Plan Area "V" to Low Medium Density Residential (6 dwelling units per acre). The project site is located west of the termini of Mountain Street and Running Deer Road. He provided a brief history on the proposal previous approvals under TTM 21128, VTTM 24010 and TTM 27908 and explained that TTM 28198 was continued indefinitely by the Planning Commission in December 1995, at the applicant's request. Since that time, staff and the applicant have discussed the conditions and feasibility of the project and the applicant wishes to proceed. Associate Planner stated he would only address a few PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 15, 1996 of the concerns as the Staff Report addresses in detail staffs concerns on the map. He then highlighted staff concerns on Mountain Street, access of adjacent property owners with termination of Mountain Street, and the width of the Rice Canyon Levee Bridge. He informed the Commission that a letter has been received and distributed this evening from property owners at the end of Mountain Street opposing the development. He then stated the conditions have been formulated to deal with the concerns; therefore, staff would recommend the Planning Commission recommend to City Council recertification of Negative Declaration 88 -37, approval of GPA 94 -3 and TTM 28198 subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Carolyn Ingram Sites, P.O. Box 784, Westminster, representing the applicant, stated it looks like the staff, applicant and project engineers have worked very hard to reach a compromise and find a way to make the project work referring to the history of the project. She stated staff did a good job in presenting the good/bad news about the design of the cul -de -sac on the existing tentative map, and appreciates the wording of the condition that allows flexibility. She stated they would like the opportunity to work this out to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, as the design of the cul- de-sac could create more problems than it solves. Ms. Sites commented on the width of the Rice Canyon Levee Bridge and the solutions reached and stated the applicant has agreed to the condition. Ms. Sites then referred to condition 66, pertaining to construction equipment using Running Deer and stated this condition is not speck and this is not a problem, but would like to preserve the option to use Lincoln for construction equipment access. Elizabeth Wilson, 29035 Avocado Way, expressed concern on loss of views, drainage and Mountain Street and asked if Mountain Street would be a cul -de -sac. Asked how the developer will work with the existing residents. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m. Commissioner Schiffner referred to the map, east side of Street Lot A, and asked why no slopes are shown between the lots. Also, concerned with drainage for this property as there are no provisions shown for storm drains. All surface drainage for the entire 33 acres will end up at the intersection of Running Deer and Lot A street. He commented on the subdivision's requirement to have two access points and asked why the two access points onto Lincoln are not adequate. He commented that it is unfair to put traffic down Running Deer, as it is only half street for the first half, and keep traffic off Mountain. Commissioner Matthies stated that she has no comments. Commissioner Sands commented on the Staff Report Page 7, Finding #4, referencing the report from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District ( EVMWD), which is also condition 16. Chairman Wilsey stated this is a standard condition requiring the applicant to work with EVMWD and submit a will-serve letter. Commissioner Sands asked if Lincoln would access Robb Road or Lake Street. Associate Planner De Gange stated Lincoln will eventually connect to Cole Road and then to the freeway. Community Development Director Leslie explained the future alignment of Lincoln to Nichols Road to Lake Street. Commissioner Sands then commented on condition 32 and suggested the word "including" be replaced with the word "except ". Associate Planner De Gange explained the purpose behind condition 22 is to allow flexibility for temporary access for potential home buyers and existing residents up to the, 20th unit and prohibit construction traffic from utilizing Mountain Street. Commissioner Sands stated he likes the pedestrian pass through on Mountain, condition 29, and asked what the final decision was on Lots 81, 82 and 83. Associate Planner De Gange stated this cannot be determined at this time and PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 15, 1996 that more specific designs will have to be submitted to the Engineering Department; however, flexibility and standards have been included if the Engineering Department determines that the cul -de -sac needs to be larger, or if it is determined the current design of the cul -de -sac would render Lot 82 unbuildable then a pedestrian pass through would be required. Community Development Director Leslie responded to Ms. Wilson's concern on Mountain Street and explained the intent is to terminate Mountain Street, at this point in time. Associate Planner De Gange addressed Ms. Wilson's concerns on loss of views, and stated condition 10 stipulates those house plottings for the portion of the tract adjacent to the Lake Terrace homes along Avocado Street would be single - story to preserve views, and condition 11 requires a combination of wrought iron and block walls where views are to be considered. Chairman Wilsey asked staff to address the concerns raised on the V -ditch and alignment. Associate Planner De Gange explained that a V -ditch was installed for drainage purposes and this V -ditch is currently on Lake Terrace residents' property outside the fence line. Condition 27 requires the applicant to negotiate with adjacent property owners to remove the existing V -ditch and regrade the property whereby extending the property owners' usable property and reconstructing a fence along the perimeter. Associate Planner De Gange further explained this requires cooperation from the homeowners. Community Development Director Leslie stated he would like to clarify the point on views and the height of houses. There is no condition that limits houses in that area to one - story, condition 10 was mentioned, but it does not include wording for limiting. However, the Staff Report states: "if the Planning Commission considers this to be a legitimate concern, staff would suggest that a condition requiring lots along this boundary to be constructed with single story floor plans be added. Staff would, however, suggest that this condition only require one story plans where the lots are directly adjacent to existing two story plans. The reasoning behind this is that views will only realistically be preserved for existing two story homes and no matter what size home is constructed in front of a one story home, the views will still be limited." This requires action by the Commission to include a condition or modify condition 10 specifically stating that the new homes along that tract boundary will be limited to one -story when immediately opposite a two -story home in the existing adjacent tract. Commissioner Allenbach stated his concerns were also those brought up by Commissioner Schiffner. He commented on the suggestion of single -story homes along the eastern boundary and does not consider this a problem and does not believe a condition is necessary. Commissioner Allenbach commented on construction access, referring to Running Deer Road and Lincoln, and asked why a third entrance is needed. Community Development Director Leslie stated staff would not have a problem with saying that construction traffic can use Lincoln. The problem with using Lincoln as sole access is that Lincoln has only one outlet, and this classes as only one way in and one way out; therefore, the recommendation that Running Deer be brought in to provide secondary access. Commissioner Allenbach commented on the Mountain Street cul -de -sac and stated that much time was spent addressing this area, and asked why Mountain was not allowed to terminate at Avocado. Community Development Director Leslie stated when the existing Lake Terrace tract was originally designed the intent was that Mountain would be extended, so the intersection of Mountain and Avocado was not made into a knuckle. Commissioner Allenbach asked if this could not be done now. Community Development Director Leslie explained the requirements for the creation of a knuckle, and further explained that right -of -way would have to be acquired along Mountain to widen the knuckle and right -of -way from the fast lot on Avocado and that substandard situations would be created for these lots. Commissioner Allenbacb asked why a barricade could not be installed. Community Development PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 15, 1996 Director Leslie stated this could be a possibility and explained the concerns with barricading a street and the City's regulations for terminating a street in a cul -de- sac. If the Planning Commission feels these circumstances require special consideration would suggest recommendations be made and forwarded onto City Council. Chairman Wilsey stated he concurs with Commissioner Schiffner on several issues, and does not agree with the cul -de -sac concept on Mountain. He stated there are more potential problems with trash and illegal parking in a cul- de-sac than if it were blocked off at the property line or at Avocado Street. He commented on Running Deer and stated this concept is even less favorable unless the City has long range goals for Running Deer to extend to Lake Street. Community Development Director Leslie stated this project is conditioned to extend Running Deer to Lake Street, with minimum pavement requirements, and the situation here is that there has to be a connection between Lincoln and Lake. Chairman Wilsey asked what is to be done about the right -of -way on Running Deer below this proposed tract. Engineering Manager O'Donnell explained that when Citation Homes developed they were only required to build balf the street, so there is only 20 feet of paving. When Pacific Scene came forward in 1989 -90 Mountain and Running Deer both went through so there were two access points, but the residents on Mountain were opposed to that access and petitioned City Council. City Council agreed; therefore, Mountain as access into any tract beyond Citation cannot occur. Engineering Manager O'Donnell provided a brief history on the discussions between staff and the applicant regarding the design of Mountain Street. Considerable discussion ensued on Mountain Street regarding the cul -de -sac and barricading Mountain Street at Avocado or at the property line; access for the site being provided by Running Deer and Mountain Street; how Running Deer would connection to Lake; abandoning Running Deer; distance from the Lincoln/Grand intersection, and extending Lincoln. Chairman Wilsey asked staff to address the concerns raised on drainage. Engineering Manager O'Donnell referred to condition 63 and stated that a storm drain will be installed and the majority of the drainage, over 50 %, will drain toward Rice Canyon Levee. Mr. Tom Cao, project engineer, stated this project site is higher on the south and lower on the north, 25 -30 feet, and believes this can be graded away and drain into the levee rather than into the adjacent tract. The storm drain has not yet been designed, but some type of catch basin /storm drainage system will be installed to ensure water is drained into the levee. Commissioner Schiffner stated the water will have to be surfaced run all the way down to Lincoln Street - -this is the way the land drains and there is no way to get it across to the levee except down there and it will have to be quite a system. Community Development Director Leslie stated the drainage system has not been designed and conditions 50 -53 are intended to ensure that the drainage system for this tract is properly designed. Chairman Wilsey reiterated that he would like to see Running Deer abandoned and utilize Lincoln for ingress /egress. Discussion ensued on access to Running Deer and this access being designed as temporary access; adding a condition addressing access to Lincoln Street; time frame for the extension of Lincoln Street; whether the City really wants Running Deer to extend to Lake Street, and; topography of Running Deer extension. Commissioner Schiffner asked about the closure of Mountain Street. Engineering Manager O'Donnell reiterated that this was a commitment made by City Council. Chairman Wilsey recognized a gentleman from the audience. PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 15, 1996 Mr. Earl Johnston stated he resides on Billings Lane which is actually Mountain. Mr. Johnston stated that Mountain has been closed and now discussing closure of Running Deer and there is no access to the rest of Mountain Street that goes over the hill to several properties. Mr. Johnston stated a portion of Mountain Street is in the County and questioned its closure. Discussion ensued on Mountain Street with regard to its dedication and whether there are existing easements or prescriptive rights for access for existing property owners. Community Development Director Leslie stated that if the Commission has strong feelings on the use of Mountain then would suggest that a recommendation be made and forwarded onto City Council. Commissioner Schiffner suggested that Mountain Street and Running Deer both be used for access or both be closed. In the event a cul -de -sac is necessary, inquired about taking right -of -way off the corner lots along Avocado and from lots easterly and make a cul -de -sac there as this would not affect the property and would probably allow another lot. Discussion ensued on Mountain Street with regard to existing easements or prescriptive rights; opening Mountain as a through street with a knuckle and maintaining Running Deer so the traffic load is balanced coming down toward Lake Street. Chairman Wilsey commented on preservation of views and suggested the addition of condition to address this. Community Development Director Leslie stated the suggested wording wasn't to require all houses to be one -story but only on the lots that would be opposite a two -story in the Lake Terrace tract. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated that if Mountain Street is to be put through there are a number of conditions that require deletion. Community Development Director Leslie stated that if the Commission provides the direction and the recommendation is accepted then staff would modify the conditions. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28198 (FORMERLY TENTATIVE TRACT 27908) BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 78 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NUMBER 10.A., AND WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT MOUNTAIN BE OPENED AS A THROUGH STREET WITH A KNUCKLE AND RUNNING DEER BE MAINTAINED AS A THROUGH STREET TO BALANCE THE TRAFFIC LOAD COMING DOWN TOWARD LAKE STREET, AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-3 AND RECERTIFICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 88-37. Condition No. 10.a: The new homes along the eastern tract boundary will be limited to one -story when immediately opposite a two -story home in the existing adjacent Lake Terrace tract. Condition No. 32: No construction traffic shall be allowed on Mountain Street during any phase of construction, ineluding except the fast phase when Mountain may be allowed to be used for temporary access. PAGE NINE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 15, 1996 MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY ALLENBACH AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-0 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 964, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 96-4 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-3 (GOLDEN CASTLE LTDJUNITECH BUHMING SYSTEMS) At this time, 9:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9:15 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Resolution 96 -3 for General Plan Amendment 96 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Director Leslie explained that at the May 1, 1996 meeting the Planning Commission voted to recommend to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 96 -3 and that a resolution establishing this action would be brought back for adoption. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY ALLENBACH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-3. A brief discussion was held on the vote taken at the meeting of May 1, 1996 on this proposal. COMMISSIONER SANDS RESCINDED HIS MOTION AND COMMISSIONER ALLENBACH RESCINDED HIS SECOND. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH ALLENBACH CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-3, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 96-3 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-3 (THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE) THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 9:19 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:21 P.M INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies - nothing to report. PAGE TEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 15, 1996 Commissioner Schiffner - nothing to report. Commissioner Allenbach - nothing to report. Commissioner Sands - nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey - commented on the Invitation to the Vons opening, scheduled for Wednesday, May 22nd. Community Development Director Leslie explained that landscaping of the rear slopes for the Elsinore City Center has been an issue in the past. City Council allowed Wal -Mart to open with promises from Wal -Mart and the center's developer that this slope would be landscaped. Again, we are ready for another major store to open and the developer has failed to landscape the slope. Discussions are occurring with representatives from Vons and the developer of the center relative to this landscaping. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY ALLENBACH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMSSION MEETING AT 9:32c P.1vL � AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted, J �6�- da Grind taff Recording Secretary f� : 1 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5,1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Allenbach. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, SCHIFFNER, MATTHIES AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie and Associate Planner De Gange. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Sands, Seconded by Matthies and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of May 15, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 96-4 - Tozai Inc. Associate Planner De Gange explained the request is to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Specific Plan Area "Q" to General Commercial for several parcels fronting Lakeshore Drive between Riverside Drive and Machado Avenue. This area is part of a 64 -acre specific plan area and the applicant is not ready to prepare a specific plan for the entire area and wishes to amend this portion of the project area by removing 9.2 acres from the specific plan designation and proceed with a commercial development proposal. The applicant's proposal for this site seems consistent with what is specified in the General Plan. However, removal of this 9.2 acres from the future speck plan designation raises questions on the remainder of the specific plan area regarding compatibility and consistency with respect to architecture and circulation patterns. The applicant has included three smaller parcels along Lakeshore Drive, which he does not currently own. The Staff Report refers to the applicant's negotiations with these property owners; however, this has not occurred. The applicant felt it appropriate to include these parcels so as not to place a burden on them to prepare a specific plan. Staff feels the Planning Commission should consider excluding these parcels from this proposal unless the applicant can show how they will be incorporated or what purpose they may serve in the future commercial project. Also, these parcels have an underlying zoning of C -P (Commercial Park). The General Plan Land Use Compatibility Matrix indicates that C -P zoning is only consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial under special circumstances. If these three parcels are included in the General Plan Amendment then Planning Commission/City Council should make the fording that this is a special circumstance in which C -P would be compatible with the General Plan Land Use classification. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration 96-3 and General Plan Amendment 96-4. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 5, 1996 Chairman Wilsey stated he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this proposal because of the proximity of his business to this property. He then stated for the record that he has never met or spoken to the applicant or his representatives. He then turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Allenbach. Vice Chairman Allenbach opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Charles Hulsey, Keith International, representing the applicant, stated the area in question is at the corner of Highway 74 and Lakeshore Drive, and identified the boundary of the Tozai property and the three smaller parcels under separate ownership, utilizing exhibits. Mr. Hulsey stated the difficulty they have encountered with the three parcels and how to treat them is their size, together these parcels total 1.2 acres, and developing a specific plan for each, as it comes on line, is quite a burden for that piece to carry. On top of this, our client owns property in between so it is intermixed with those three commercial pieces. Mr. Hulsey stated there is some question about whether these parcels can be integrated with this development and this could be limited to pedestrian linkage between this area and the commercial development. Mr. Hulsey stated they are not taking control away from the City in the future development of the three parcels as they could be required to develop a master center that is consistent with the architecture and style of the larger development. In fact, by developing this piece now, the City has a stronger position on those three parcels. Mr. Hulsey stated there is now a demand for commercial development and this is the reason for removing the 9.2 acres from the specific plan designation. Commissioner Sands stated he was not opposed to the plan. He asked how the three parcels would be incorporated or the purpose they will serve. Mr. Hulsey stated the three parcels are already serving their purpose, they have commercial uses on them. The type of use may change over time, but they are going to remain commercial. The way we would try to integrate the two is by providing pedestrian linkage for future development. Aesthetically, as projects are reviewed, they could be required to develop in an architectural style compatible with the existing development. Commissioner Sands asked why written acceptance from these three property owners was not felt necessary. Mr. Hulsey stated he did not believe this was required to remove something from the General Plan. Commissioner Sands stated the three parcels should be included in the plan and indicate special circumstances to change to C -2. Community Development Director Leslie stated compatibility, consistency and integration of circulation, whether pedestrian or vehicle, could be ensured when proposals are submitted on these properties. Commissioner Schiffner stated he was in favor of including the three parcels with the proposal, but would have liked to have heard from representatives of those properties. Mr. Hulsey stated the property owners were notified of the action. Commissioner Matthies stated concurrence with Commissioner Schiffner. Vice Chairman Allenbach asked what is the purpose of removing the current designation. Mr. Hulsey stated the specific plan process is rather lengthy, 6 -9 months at minimum, and we would like to move more quickly on the development of the 9.2 acres, as there have been discussions with potential developers /tenants. Vice Commissioner Allenbach asked if the applicant owns the property surrounding the three parcels. Mr. Hulsey responded in the affirmative. Vice Commissioner Allenbach asked Mr. Hulsey if they had anything in writing from the property owners of the three parcels indicating their desire to be included. Mr. Hulsey responded in the negative. Vice Chairman Allenbach commented on the nautical theme established for this area and asked whether this proposal would have to comply. Community Development Director Leslie stated the Community Design PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 5, 1996 Element of the General Plan calls for a nautical theme in this area. This development could be the largest in this area since the Community Design Element was adopted and compliance would have to be reviewed; however, this development could have its own theme. These are issues that will be addressed during the design review process for the site. Vice Chairman Allenbach asked staff to provide clarification on zoning compatibility with the General Plan under special circumstances. Community Development Director referred to the General Plan Land Use Compatibility Matrix and explained zoning, land use compatibility and special circumstances for C -P and C -2. Commissioner Schiffner asked whether non - conforming uses would be created with this change. Community Development Director Leslie responded in the negative. Vice Chairman Allenbach asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH WILSEY ABSTAINING TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 96-3, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-4 WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE THREE SMALLER PARCELS AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 96-5, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO 96-5 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-1 (TOZAI INC.) BUSINESS ITEMS NONE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 7:22 PAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 7:28 P.M INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie informed the Commission that a new revised draft specific plan has been submitted for the Lake Terrace Plaza City Council has scheduled a Study Session for June 13, at 9:00 a.m. at City Hall, to review this new document prior to its associated General Plan Amendment coming before them on June 25. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Allenbach - commented on the following: 1. Asked about the status on the zoning ordinance for commercial antennas. Community Development Director Leslie stated adopting news regulations takes time and staff is working on the ordinance and hopefully it will be completed shortly. 2. Asked about the USA Properties suit, referenced an article in the newspaper. Community Development Director Leslie stated a claim was filed with the City PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 5, 1996 and heard that USA filed the suit before the City rejected the claim. Also, heard there could be discussion with USA on the proposal, maybe modify the development so that everyone can live with it However, the City Attorney is still of the opinion that the City was within its rights to deny the project. Commissioner Sands - nothing to report. Commissioner Schiffner - nothing to report. Commissioner Matthies - nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey - commented on the following: 1. Lincoln Street, has a street name sign at Riverside Drive that reads "Lincoln Avenue ", everywhere else it says Lincoln Street. There is another Lincoln Street off Jameson Street (in the County) and this is a safety issue with fire and police. In the past there was discussion on changing this to Lincoln Avenue. Asked that the Engineering Department check into this and that Lincoln Street be renamed Lincoln Avenue because it is a major thoroughfare. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY ALLENBACH, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:37 P.M. CHAIRMAN ' NE Respectfully Submitted, =911romm"WIMLIFIff Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 1996 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 19, 1996, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, *�, >6%�60 Linda Grindstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 03, 1996 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JULY 03, 1996, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff U� Recording Secretary I1- ILL REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Vice Chairman Allenbach. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, SCHUTNER AND MATTHIES ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie and Associate Planners De Gauge and Villa. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Matthies, Seconded by Schiffner and carried by unanimous vote of those present to approve the Minutes of June 5, 1996, as submitted. The Minutes of June 19, 1996 and July 3, 1996 were ordered received and tiled. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Sign Program for Town Center Shopping Center - Mutual of New York Authorized Agent: Ares. Inc. (California Do It Center) Associate Planner Villa explained this is Amendment No. 2 of approved Sign Program for the Town Center Shopping Center, located along Mission Trail between Malaga and Campbell Street. This Amendment entails revising Section D.l.b of the Sign Program to add provisions for major tenants to allow signage letter height up to 66 inches. He further explained the "California Do it Center" home improvement center is proposing to occupy the former Builder's Emporium building. California Do it Center proposes a frontage major wall sign with uppercase letters to be a maximum of 66" high and lower case letters of 52 ", and signage on the other three sides of the building with a maximum letter height of 42 ", which the sign program and sign code allows with the proposed amendment. Also, the California Do it Center proposes to change the color of the fascia and top trim to a warm red color, and a green color for the area where a garden center is proposed. These colors are different than the colors used for the center, however, these are national corporate logo colors. Mike Mauck, General Merchandise Manager, California Do It Center, urged approval of the Sign Program Amendment. He then provided a brief overview of the California Do It Center operation and locations and stated that he would answer any questions. Commissioner Sands stated he has no problem with the amendment provided the property owner has no problem with the amendment and the colors proposed. Ms. Nolen, Assistant Vice President, Ares, Inc., Authorized Agent for Mutual of New York, stated the property owner has approved the amendment and colors. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 17, 1996 Commissioner Matthies stated she is familiar with the chain and finds the proposed colors consistent with the center. Vice Chairman Allenbach stated his only concern would be the proposed colors, but no problem since the property owner has no problem with the amendment and colors. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY SCHITFNER AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE AMENDMENT 412 TO THE TOWN CENTER SIGN PROGRAM. THE PLANNING COMM COMMITTEE AT 7:20 P.I�L THE PLANNING Run 1 wroom, tst�.�y ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW RECONVENED AT 7:25 P.M. Community Development Director Leslie informed the Commission that Denny's Restaurant has scheduled a private pre - opening party for Sunday, July 21, 1996. He further explained that landscaping of the entire center is still an issue and the official opening of Denny's is contingent upon the completion of the center's required landscaping. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sands - nothing to report. Commissioner Matthies - nothing to report. WILSEY ARRIVED AT 7:26 P.M. Commissioner Schiffner - Asked staff to provide status on projects recently approved at Lakeshore and Riverside. Community Development Director Leslie provided a status report on the AM/PM gasoline station at Lakeshore and Riverside, and Citation's single- family housing development at Mountain and Running Deer. Commissioner Wilsey - Informed the Commissioners of the upcoming League of California Cities Conferences. Commissioners wishing to attend should contact the Planning Department Secretary to obtain registration material. These conferences are very informative and beneficial. 1. Economic Development/Downtown Revitalization Main Street, August 22 and 23, 1996, Sacramento. 2. 98th Annual Conference, October 13 through October 15, 1996, at the Anaheim Convention Center, Anaheim. Commissioner Allenbach - nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY ALLENBACH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:36 PAL Daniel Allenbach, Vice Chairman Rctfully Sub 'tt Grind tall Recording Secretary DIIINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1996 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m by Commissioner Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Schiffner. OATH OF OFFICE Deputy City Clerk Bryning administered the Oath of Office to reappointed Commissioners Matthies, Sands and newly appointed Commissioner Barnes. a. Commissioner Wilsey opened nomination for Planning Commission Chairman. Moved by Commissioner Schiffner, Seconded by Commissioner Sands to nominate Commissioner Wilsey. There being no further nominees the nominations were closed. Commissioner Wilsey was appointed Planning Commission Chairman by a vote of 5 -0. Chairman Wilsey opened the nomination for Planning Commission Vice Chairman. Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies to nominate Commissioner Schiffner. There being no further nominees the nominations were closed. Commissioner Schiffner was appointed Planning Commission Vice Chairman by a vote of 5 -0. b. Chairman Wilsey opened the nomination for Design Review Committee Chairman. Moved by Commissioner Matthies, Seconded by Commissioner Schiffner to nominate Commissioner Sands. There being no further nominees the nominations were closed. Commissioner Sands was appointed Design Review Committee Chairman by a vote of 5 -0. Chairman Wilsey opened the nomination for Design Review Committee Vice Chairman. Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Schiffner to nominate Commissioner Matthies. There being no further nominees the nominations were closed. Commissioner Matthies was appointed Design Review Committee Vice Chairman by a vote of 5 -0. C. Chairman Wilsey opened the nomination for of Nuisance Abatement Committee Members. Moved by Commissioner Schiffner, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies to nominate Commissioner Barnes. Moved by Chairman Wilsey, Seconded by Commissioner Schiffner to nominate Commissioner Sands. Commissioners Barnes and Sands were appointed to serve on the Nuisance Abatement Committee by a vote of 5 -0. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1996 ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, BARNES, MATTHIES, SCHIFFNER, WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners Villa and De Gange. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Chairman Wilsey and Commissioner Barnes abstaining to approve the Minutes of July 17, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 96 -4 - O'Pool's. Inc.- Dennis J. Browning (Steven E. Anthony) Associate Planner Villa explained the request is to allow continuance of a non- conforming restaurant use that is proposing to expand approximately 1,000 square feet of adjacent retail space and add eight (8) billiard tables, at 31361 Riverside Drive within the Patricia Plaza. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required pursuant to Section 17.52.030 of the Municipal Code. Also, a CUP is needed to allow use of shared parking pursuant to Section 17.66.070 of the Municipal Code. Currently, 46 parking spaces are provided and the restaurant use (Marino's) requires 93 parking spaces pursuant to the parking standards. Restaurants require a greater number of parking spaces due to the dinning area. The proposed restaurant with billiard tables will reduce the dinning area; however, it will not be reduced to the point where the parking standards can be met. Of concern is, the shopping center currently has space for two restaurants (proposed restaurant with billiards) and the vacant restaurant (Golden Dragon). If the other restaurant was allowed then parking requirements could not be met even with a reduction, and staff could not support any further reductions. Therefore, staff has added a condition to limit the center to one restaurant. It has been determined that the use is not of the type and size to require environmental clearance therefore not subject to the requirements of CEQA, and staff would recommend approval of the CUP based on the Findings, Exhibit "A" and the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Steven Anthony, owner of the center, stated that he and Mrs. Anthony agree with the staff recommendation and the conditions imposed. He stated his business address is 31375 Riverside Drive, and his home address is 32855 Skylark Drive, Lake Elsinore. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Matthies asked the applicant about his experience in this field. Mr. Dennis Browning, Vice President O'Pool's, Inc., stated that an officer of this corporation previously owned a billiard hall in Pomona. Commissioner Barnes stated this is a variance to the parking. The Staff Report indicates eight (8) billiard tables; however, the plans show more. Asked for PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1996 clarification on the number of tables. Mr. Browning stated that eight (S) billiard tables are proposed. Commissioner Schiffner stated he favored approving the CUP as long as the owner and everyone understands and agrees to the conditions. Mr. Browning stated the corporation has read the conditions and has no problem in meeting or exceeding them. Commissioner Sands stated his questions have been answered and concurs with Commissioner Schiffner. Chairman Wilsey commented on shared parking and stated that a more intense use, such as the facility that housed Golden Dragon, could not meet the parking requirements in this center, and wants to make this absolutely clear to the shopping center owner as well, referencing Condition 12. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-4 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT 'A' AND SUBJECT TO THE 14 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 2. Variance 96 -3 - K. Hovnanian Companies of California Associate Planner Villa explained the request is to vary from Section 17.14.130.D.5(a) and (c) of the Municipal Code, to modify the wood fencing standards applied to the Northlake subdivision, located on Lincoln Street northwest of Machado and southeast of Grand Avenue, to allow the use of 4 x 4 wooden posts rather than the required galvanized steel posts, and only paint /treat the fence visible from the street rather than both sides. The reason for this request is the applicant believes the new standards puts them at an unfair economic disadvantage with other builders in the City. The other builders in the City are not required to provide the upgraded fencing standard because they received Design Review approval prior to the City establishing the new fencing standards. This project has been determined to be exempt from the requirement of the Californian Environmental Quality Act, and staff requests the Commission consider the request. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Neff stated he was present this evening on behalf of K. Hovnanian Company, and with Bob Cummings of K. Hovnanian. He provided for the record a brief background on Mr. Cummings' responsibilities with K. Hovnanian, and background on his involvement with the City on behalf of Woodcrest Development when building in Tuscany Hills, the Montalcino community. Mr. Neff commented on the problems over the years with water spray and fences decaying and falling over and becoming an eyesore, and the success in upgrading the fencing standards over the last few years to include galvanized steel posts. He stated a fencing study along the I -15 corridor, from Corona to Temecula, was prepared by Neff & Associates and a copy given to Community Development Director Leslie. This survey indicated that Lake Elsinore has the highest fencing standards of any community along the I -15 corridor. Mr. Neff stated the requested variance from the standard would still leave a standard higher than other communities along the I -15 corridor. W. Neff referred to the Staff Report, Page 2, Project Description, and explained their intent. He asked that the following language be inserted at the end of the first sentence "only on non - visible interior and rear yard property lines ". The request is not to do away with galvanized posts everywhere just where there is no practical beneficial effect for the City. He explained that fencing on interior, side and rear will not be visible and is the homeowners' responsibility to maintain. The public right -of -way and the City is protected and believes this was the intent when the standards were drafted. He then referred to Page 1 of the Staff Report and commented on the Design Review approval granted April 20, 1995. Originally, there PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1996 were conditions dating back to 1989 and 1992; however, the fencing plans were not reviewed until August 3, 1995. When K. Hovnanian purchased the property it was based on the conditions associated with the record map and this did not have any reference to the new higher fencing standards. K. Hovnanian has complied, but it has been at a serious budget constraint. The new standards had not been implemented when K. Hovnanian's Design Review came before the Planning Commission, and this needs to be clarified for the record. Mr. Neff then referred to Exhibit "C" contained in the Staff Report that illustrates the current and requested fencing detail. He stated an error was made on the requested detail as it shows 4 x 4 wooden posts and this should be treated redwood or cedar wooden posts. This is important because this is what the applicant is doing or proposing to do. The entire fence is cedar. Mr. Neff distributed handouts and explained the maps illustrate a bird'seye view of a public right -of -way intersecting with another public right -of -way, corner lot, interior lots and the exterior block wall that the applicant is presently constructing. W. Neff reiterated the request is not to eliminate steel posts everywhere just on the non - visible interior and rear yards. Mr. Neff referred to the cost analysis contained in the handout and stated this is the actual fencing cost for the Northlake project. The side yard fencing represents the Temecula standard and Mr. Neff reiterated that the request will still leave the standards higher than the Temecula standards. He then explained the costs associated with side yard fencing, masonry and wrought iron fencing. He stated for the record that according to Frazee the treatment with Monochem Aquaseal is far superior to Thompson water seal that only last about six- months, and understands that the Monochem Aquaseal has a warranty from the manufacturer of five- years. He stated maybe there are trade -offs where there is no public interest to protect and some money can be moved and spruce up the community, or spend the money on marketing. One of the upgrades could be steel roll-up garage doors. Mr. Neff stated this project is not making money and all they are trying to do is reallocate the money in a way to make it appear nicer to the community, increase sales and get it built out more quickly. Mr. Bob Cummings, 15149 Chaumont Street, stated he would continue K. Hovnanian's pledge to offer the best community in Lake Elsinore, as far as quality is concerned. He stated they like the fence standards as far as aesthetics, and the only issue is the steel posts. He stated the standards were discussed with fencing companies and they do not feel much is gained as far as durability, and reiterated that the request is not to eliminate steel posts everywhere just on the interior and rear yards. Mr. Cummings stated there are very few areas in the project where the fencing is visible from rights -of -way, and the visible areas have block walls or wrought iron view fences. He stated the Staff Report indicates that part of the motivation was financial issues and this is partly it, but in no way do we want to detract from the aesthetics of our community; in fact, we are always striving to make it better. Mr. Cummings referred to the treatment and stated they would prefer not to put a treatment on the interior fencing, except where the back yard fence is visible from the right -of -way. In fact, we would do this even if we were not conditioned. Mr. Cummings then stated that he would answer any questions. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Schiffner stated he appreciates the concerns of the builder; however, does not feel the responsibility is totally toward the City, on City right -of -way. Believes there is a responsibility toward the buyer to ensure a product that is going to last. Believes this was the intent of the Planning Commission /City Council when the standards were established. He stated that he was unsure whether there is another standard in between that would be adequate, but not here today to redesign the fence standard. He reiterated his appreciation of the applicant's position and stated that he hopes the applicant will also appreciate his feeling to protect the buyer, and that his opinion would be to require conformance to the existing standards. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1996 Commissioner Barnes referred to the side yard fencing costs and asked if the cost of $60.00 per foot for painting the returns was correct. Mr. Cummings stated this should be $60.00 per unit. Commissioner Barnes stated for the record, everyone needs to understand that the lumber member proposed is a half -inch shorter /smaller in dimension than what is normally ranked as lumber. He then provided an explanation on lumber dimensions and stated the actual dimension is not used as identification. He then stated the 1 x 4 material proposed for the top is flimsy and the standard 2 x 4 would give more stability. Commissioner Barnes asked if the lumber would be knot free and straight. Mr. Cummings stated they try to avoid knotted wood, but it comes in that way occasionally. Commissioner Barnes referred to the painting of fencing and stated the request is to paint the fence only on one side and do nothing with the interior fencing, correct? Mr. Cummings responded in the affirmative, and stated with the exception of any fencing that is visible from the street. Commissioner Barnes suggested painting both sides of the fence visible to the street because of irrigation, wet -dry cycles, and explained this would assure a more aesthetic quality construction and the initial painting would last longer, after this it is up to the homeowner. Commissioner Matthies stated she concurs with some statements. She stated that it is very expensive to purchase wood free of knots, and that treating the fence should be done on all sides. Commissioner Matthies commented on the reasons behind the fencing standards, fencing costs and the hardship created on people in the community should the fence have to be replaced within a couple of years, and feels the fencing standard needs to be complied with. She suggested the developer use the higher fencing standards as a marketing tool. Mr. Cummings stated they sell one home a month, and do things that are not required. If we are not able to do this, we will have to eliminate other things. Mr. Cummings then stated when the property was purchased it was not conditioned for this. The project was reconditioned in 1990 when we took our plans in to make them more current for the market. This would not be required had we stayed with the original plans. Commissioner Sands stated he was concerned with the intent of wording that did not get into the Staff Report that could have given a better perspective. He commented on the previous fencing presentation and feels the applicant has come up with a good design. But on the other side, the standards have been reviewed thoroughly and implemented to bring the homeowner a high quality fence that will look good and withstand the forces of nature. Stated he does not feel this is the time to vary from the present standards. Chairman Wilsey referred to the cost analysis and questioned the $5.75 per lineal foot premium for metal post, this equates to $46.40 per post premium. In other words, you are paying $46.40 over and above a 4 x 4 wooden post. Mr. Cummings responded in the affirmative and stated there were four bidders and this was the lowest bid. Chairman Wilsey referred to the areas constructed in the Northlake project and asked if the metal posts enclosed in wood had been installed on those units. Mr. Cummings stated that all existing wood fencing has steel posts enclosed in wood. Chairman Wilsey commented on the condition of existing fencing on projects in the area, done 10 -12 years ago, and expressed disappointment with the dilapidated fencing. He stated the fencing standard is not for the aesthetics of the tract itself, but to stand the test of time, and would be open to looking at alternative metals that might work on the fence posts. He stated that someone has to start the new upgraded standards and, at this time, would not want to change them. He then asked for further discussion on reaching a compromise on treating/painting the fence. Commissioner Schiffner stated he has mixed feelings on whether the fence should be painted. If there is to be painting/treatment it should he applied to both sides. Commissioner Sands stated concurrence. Chairman Wilsey stated that other builders, Centex, Citation, Lakestar, etc., are painting the wood fences between the homes, but could not determine if they were painted on both sides; however, the PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1996 fence runs on the side yards were not painted. Also, noted that Centex is using 2 x 6 posts, the top rail is 2 x 4, and this makes a structurally sound fence. Commissioner Schiffner stated he would be willing to give up treatment on the interior fences for steel posts. Commissioner Barnes stated that redwood or cedar must be treated on both sides. If just one side is treated whether redwood, cedar or douglas fir it is going to deteriorate faster. Believes that both sides have to be treated /painted or in the case of redwood/cedar not treated or stained at all. Mr. Cummings stated agreement and explained the rears of the returns should be stained to protect the front because there is differential shrinkage. Chairman Wilsey asked Mr. Cummings if this is a compromise they could deal with. Mr. Cummings stated that he is unsure what they are getting on their request for variance. Chairman Wilsey stated the discussion is with regard to painting the fences that front the streets, between the homes, and whether to forego through the variance process painting the return lines down the property lines between homes. Mr. Neff referred to Exhibit "C" the current fence detail and stated he is pondering the issue of double coating. The top detail illustrates a steel post covered by wood all the way around, but in effect it is still exposed to the weather. Asked if the Commission was suggesting that these members be treated on all sides before assembly. Where do we draw the line? Commissioner Schiffner stated the intent was not to treat the parts, but after construction treat the exposed surfaces. Also, there has been discussion about eliminating any painting or treatment on the interior lot lines, but require the steel posts and detail. There being no further discussion, Chairman Wilsey called for a motion. MOVED BY SCHM -NER TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN DETAIL AND CONTINUE TO REQUIRE THE CURRENT FENCING DETAIL; HOWEVER, RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY PAINTING OR TREATING OF THE NON VISIBLE INTERIOR, SIDE AND REAR YARD FENCES. Mr. Neff stated that given the economic reality faced by the builder they would just as soon take a denial on the variance rather than the compromise. Mr. Cummings stated the 2 x 2 rail is something done voluntarily and believes they would be paying more. Chairman Wilsey stated he does not follow the reasoning, and explained the Commission is saying that the applicant does not have to paint /treat both sides of the interior lot fences and this has to be a considerable cost savings. Commissioner Schiffner stated the savings would be $394.00 per house. Commissioner Matthies stated the applicant is saying that they do not want this fencing approved because they will be removing the 2 x 2 middle rail and not treating. Commissioner Schiffner stated he was referring to the fence being built according to the current fencing standards and the only exception is the applicant does not have to paint either side of the interior fences. Commissioner Matthies asked about treatment of fencing that is visible. Commissioner Schiffner stated that any fencing visible will have to be painted on both sides. Commissioner Matthies asked whether interior fencing on slopes visible from the street would need treatment, just for clarification. Chairman Wilsey referred to the tract map and stated that there are so few homes that it is not worth it. Commissioner Sands asked about the number of homes remaining in the tract. Chairman Wilsey stated this could be directed to the applicant. Chairman Wilsey asked staff about the comment made by Mr. Neff that the new standards had not been approved and implemented when the Design Review of the project came before the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Leslie explained that City Council was debating the fencing standards when K. Hovnanian was coming forward, and their fencing plans were submitted after the new standards were established, but the new standards were established after the approval of their new revised models. Chairman Wilsey stated if a definitive answer cannot be found then maybe this item should be tabled and the approval dates of the project and the new standards determined, as it sounds like the timing was really close. Community Development Director Leslie stated the timing was very close PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1996 and K. Hovnanian's project was the first the new standards were applied too. Chairman Wilsey asked about postponing this item to the next meeting so the information can be provided, provided the applicant concurs. Mr. Cummings stated he recalls from the conditions placed on the Design Review the language "must comply with the to be adopted fencing standard" or words to that effect. Commissioner Matthies asked whether the applicant could appeal the condition to City Council. Chairman Wilsey stated there is a time and cost factor involved and has the impression the applicant is comfortable with the new fencing standards with regard to implementation. Commissioner Schiffner asked Mr. Neff if he still wanted to accept the denial. Mr. Neff stated he would like to retract that statement. Chairman Wilsey asked the Secretary to read back the motion on the table. The Secretary read the motion. THE FOREGOING MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SANDS CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. Mr. Neff asked for a clarification on the motion. Commissioner Schiffner stated the applicant will be required to build a fence in accordance with the current fencing detail; however, on the interior fences the applicant will not be required to do any painting or treatment. Community Development Leslie stated the Variance as requested was denied; however, a modified variance was approved relative to the treatment of the interior, side and rear fencing. Commissioner Schiffner stated that if the figures are accurate then this relieves the applicant of about $445.00 per unit. Community Development Leslie stated there is no requirement for the middle rail; it is at the discretion of the applicant. Mr. Cummings stated he will probably put in the middle rail. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 8:19 P.M RECONVENED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 8:25 P.M. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie informed the Commission of the following: 1. City Council Study Session scheduled for August 8, 1996, at 8:30 a.m., at City Hall. One item that may come up for discussion is giving more responsibility to the Planning Commission. 2. A Tattoo parlor opened on Riverside Drive without benefit of a business license. They have been notified of the need to obtain a business license. A tattoo parlorlbusiness is not listed in the Zoning Code as a permitted use. He explained the Code allows the Community Development Director to make a determination on uses not listed as permitted, but similar to other permitted uses. If the Community Development Director cannot make that finding the use could be considered under a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has informed the applicant that a Conditional Use Permit will be required and this could come before the Commission in the future; however, staff is dealing with the fact that the tattoo parlor has opened without a business license and is in violation of the Code. Commissioner Matthies asked what the property owner has to say. Community Development Director Leslie stated he assumes the property owner is aware of the business. Again, the tattoo parlor was tied in with the Levi shop that has a business license. Commissioner Matthies asked if they were located in the same unit. Community Development Director Leslie stated they started in the same unit, however, has since moved into the unit next door. Chairman Wilsey suggested the PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1996 inclusion of comments from law enforcement and neighboring business owners should this application come before the Commission. Commissioner Schiffner asked if this type of operation was under any regulation or control by the Health Department. Associate Planner Villa stated that a license from the County Health Department has to be obtained. Associate Planner Villa stated staff has received inquiries about opening another tattoo parlor on Casino Drive. There are no regulations covering tattoo businesses and staff is looking at amending the Zoning Code to include tattoo parlors. 3. World Savings, currently located in the old Vous Center on Lakeshore Drive, is looking at moving to the Elsinore City Center. A meeting was held today and a preliminary design for their bank building was submitted. 4. Staff is continuing to meet with the property owners and proponents of the Raceway project on an average of once every two weeks. Currently, technical studies are being done on noise, traffic, biological and geological issues. These studies will form the basis of environmental analysis on the project. Commissioner Matthies stated that a dance club with outdoor entertainment in this area was denied because of noise. Asked if there could be repercussions if a raceway is approved. Community Development Director Leslie stated that he was unfamiliar with a dance club proposal, but staff is waiting for the noise study. A reputable acoustics engineer with raceway experience is being used and confident that impacts will be identified, and mitigation measures are being looked at to help deflect the noise. 5. Staff met this week with the Outlet Center, Horizon, and they are moving ahead with their plans for an expansion on the other side of the freeway that would double the size of the Outlet Center. A Specific Plan would be coming before the Commission in the future. 6. There are two developers interested in building a supermarket at Four Corners, and discussions continue. Commissioner Schiffner Commented on signage referring to the window signage approved for Tootsie's Stuff at 112 North Main Street. Asked what effect the curtain backdrop has on coverage. Community Development Leslie explained that window curtains do not fall under the requirements for window coverage. Commissioner Schiffner stated the Conditional Use Permit approved for O'Pool's included a condition that window areas could not be obscured; however, these windows are about 8 feet from the ground and police patrols will not be able to see into the restaurant. Asked if this was relevant or if it was a standard condition. Community Development Director Leslie stated there are always circumstances in which visibility is hindered. The windows are up high but the dinning room floor is also elevated which allows visibility. Chairman Wilsey stated the requirement is a standard condition. Commissioner Sands Welcomed Commissioner Barnes. Commissioner Barnes Nothing to report. Chairman Wilsev 1. Congratulated reappointed Commissioners Matthies, Sands and newly appointed Commissioner Barnes. PAGE NINE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1996 2. Asked about the status of Inco's exterior block wall along Grand Avenue, as they are in the process of constructing houses that abut Grand Avenue and some of the interior block wall is done, but nothing started on the exterior. Associate Planner Villa stated the houses cannot be released without the construction of the block wall. Chairman Wilsey inquired about the time frame, and stated he recalls this was brought up a year ago, and adamant about Inco completing this block wall and landscaping at the earliest opportunity. Chairman Wilsey stated anything that can be done to get Inco to complete this decorative block wall and landscaping would be greatly appreciated. 3. Asked staff if there was any information on when the developer of Lakestar intended to start the entryway and tot park at the corner of Lincoln and Terra Cotta. Community Development Director Leslie stated it is his understanding that Lakestar (888 Development) would start this immediately; however, there is a debate going on between Lakestar and Community Services Parks and Recreations as to the level of improvements required for this park. Chairman Wilsey asked if there were approved plans. Associate Planner Villa responded in the affirmative and explained that the developer is willing to construct the park up to a certain dollar amount; however, Community Services believes the developer has to do more than what they have proposed. Chairman Wilsey suggested the inflation factor be looked at and used as a partial formula to calculate the additional costs. Chairman Wilsey asked if the developer had grading permits for the initial grading being done on the other side of the channel. Community Development Director Leslie responded in the affirmative. Chairman Wilsey asked about the CID in this area and whether it addresses this park, or if it was left separate for the developer, because it is at the outer border of the original CID. Community Development Director Leslie stated that he believes the park was a requirement of that developer and not part of the CID. Commissioner Matthies Commented on the Diamond Sports Bar with regard to cleanliness and clientele, and for the record they are complying with the standards imposed as they were limited to the number of tables permitted in the establishment due to parking. Also, understands the Conditional Use Permit can be amended to allow for shared parking. Associate Planner Villa explained the use was approved with a lesser number of tables than anticipated, and the applicant was informed that a parking survey could be done in the future to determine whether more tables could be supported. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:49 PAL AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted, �dstAff Recording Secretary REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21,1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:58 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, BARNES, SCHIFFNER, WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MATTHIES Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie and Associate Planner Villa. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Schiffner and carried by a vote of 4 -0 to approve the Minutes of August 7, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 96 -5 - California Do It Center (Mutual of New York Authorized Agent: Ares, Inc.) Associate Planner Villa explained the request is to allow utilization of an area to the rear of the existing building, proposed to be fenced in with chain link fencing, for display of merchandise and additional storage, pursuant to Section 17.48.030.G of the Municipal Code. The project site is located along Mission Trail Road between Malaga Road and Campbell Street. He stated staffs concerns entail visual impacts, circulation for delivery trucks, loading /unloading in drive aisles and pedestrian safety; however, these can be addressed through conditions of approval. The proposed use has been determined not to be of the type and size to require environmental clearance therefore not subject to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act, and staff requests the Commission consider the request. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Tim Knox, representing California Do It Center, stated there should not be a problem with traffic as 90 % of the receiving will be done at the loading dock area, which is up against the building; however, lumber is the only department that cannot unload at the loading dock and these loads come in once a week, Thursday or Friday. He stated there will he gates at both ends and does not see a problem with unloading in the drive aisle area as the flow will not inhibit any other delivery vehicles. Mr. Knox stated that insufficient storage and security was a problem for Builders Emporium, in talking with their executives, and also concerns us. He stated there will not be much displaylselling in this back area, it will be primarily for storing bag goods -- concrete bags, nursery goods and lumber. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Sands stated he was pleased with the security measures proposed by the applicant. He commented on the fencing/screening material being subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee, condition 7. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 21, 1996 Commissioner Barnes referred to the exhibit and asked about elimination of the existing parking stalls, asked about maneuvering semi - trucks and whether there will be an impact to any of the parking area. Mr. Knox responded in the negative and stated there were no plans to change the parking, everything remains the same. Commissioner Barnes asked if additional security lighting would be provided in the back area. Mr. Knox stated there are security lights on the building and will talk to the property management company as there is perimeter lighting in the back, but blocked by trees. Mr. Knox then commented on traffic safety and this area being used as a raceway, and stated this will be improved from a safety standpoint with the fence. Chairman Wilsey suggested Mr. Knox consider talking with the property management company about speed berms. Commissioner Schiffner commented on condition 7, believed the intent is to screen the area from Diamond Drive. Maybe permanent landscaping could be planted along the exterior (property line) fence that would totally screen the area. Mr. Knox stated he did not have problem with this, and this was to be a suggestion to the property management company. Commissioner Schiffner stated speed berms may be a benefit to everyone and suggested working with the property owner, as suggested by Chairman Wilsey. Chairman Wilsey asked if some decision on the type of fence product to be installed had been reached, condition 7. Mr. Knox stated they would prefer chainlink and could add screening material, but did not want to do wrought iron because of the expense. Chairman Wilsey commented on the use of portable planters and stated this is not a good idea because of vandalism. Mr. Knox stated they could probably do landscaping on the property line fence to make it look good, flexible on this, and asked what type of screening material the Commission was looking for. Chairman Wilsey stated this will be left to staff, but envisions slats that slide into chainlink; however, there are probably better aesthetic materials. Community Development Director Leslie stated the specifics of screening materials was one reason why staff left it to work with the applicant. Also, staff was looking at nylon mesh rather than slats for screening material and wrought iron was included, but this is more for the front of the building. Chairman Wilsey asked about installing a standard chainlink fence and then planting a vine that would grow through the fence for aesthetics. Community Development Director Leslie stated planter beds would have to be created and irrigation determined, but this is probably a superior alternative to any other landscaping. Community Development Director Leslie stated staff was looking at chainlink with screening and additional landscaping along the back planter. Mr. Knox stated he did not have a problem with this. Community Development Director Leslie referred to the outside storage area and asked if there would be a shed or any protection over the lumber, or if anything would be stacked higher than the fence line. Mr. Knox stated there would be no cover and nothing stored over the 8' fence line. Commissioner Schiffner asked if the entrances on the north side of the building would be used for loading. Mr. Knox responded in the affirmative and explained the north side can be used for parking and people can pay for their lumber and exit. Commissioner Barnes asked if deliveries are anticipated during off peak times or weekends. Mr. Knox stated there is no receiving after 4:30 p.m. and explained that plant deliveries are staggered for Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday morning. Chairman Wilsey asked about warehousing and delivery of products. Mr. Knox stated this is done during regular receiving hours. Commissioner Schiffner asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Knox stated the hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sunday 9:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 21, 1996 Commissioner Sands stated he and Mr. Knox discussed the possibility of barbed wire on the bull-pin area and aesthetics would prohibit this, not necessary. Chairman Wilsey stated he would start out that way, but if there was a problem the applicant could come back and talk to staff. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY COMM64SIONER SANDS, AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONER MATTHIES ABSENT TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 13 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 7:24 P.M. RECONVENED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7:25 P.M. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie informed the Commission that the meeting of September 4, 1996, may be called for lack of agenda items. Associate Planner Villa reported that staff contacted Inco Homes with regard to the exterior block wall along Grand Avenue. The developer informed staff that they would start the construction of the block wall and landscaping within a reasonable time. Chairman Wilsey asked staff if there was a report on Lakestar's entry statement and tot lot. Associate Planner Villa stated staff is in the process of scheduling meetings with Community Services to determine improvements required, and may have a status report at the next meeting. Commissioner Schiffner The First Annual Mayor's State of the City Address, held August 21, was very enjoyable and impressed with the Mayor's presentation and the turn -out. Commissioner Sands Nothing to report. Commissioner Barnes Nothing to report. Chairman Wilsev The Mayor's State of the City Address, impressed with the program put together —the positive attitude and presentation for our community. It was very uplifting, and would like to see this done more often. Commissioner Mattbies Absent. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 21, 1996 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:30 P.M AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN Respectfully bmitted, mda Grindstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 04, 1996 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 04, 1996, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, } finda Grindsta Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 18, 1996, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. AS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-6 - JACK MARTIN (INK SANITY TATTOO, 31681 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, SUITE "F ") WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. Respectfully submitted, id, Gnndstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 1996 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 2, 1996, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff vv Recording Secretary REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16,19% sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Barnes. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, BARNES, SCHH TNER, MATTHIE,S, WI SEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners DeGange and Villa. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Schiffner, Seconded by Commissioner Barnes to approve the Minutes of August 21, 1996, September 4, 1996, September 18, 1996 and October 2, 1996 as submitted. Motion carried by a vote of 4 -0 with Commissioner Matthies abstaining on the Minutes of August 21 and October 2, 1996. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Lou Garcia, 592 Quail Drive, stated she would like to comment on the tattoo parlor. Chairman Wilsey asked Ms. Garcia to defer her comments to the public hearing on this item. There being no further request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 96 -6 - Jack Martin (Ink -Sanity Tattoo) Community Development Director Leslie explained the request is to allow the establishment of a tattoo studio within the General Commercial Zoning designation pursuant to Section 17.48.030.I of the Municipal Code. The proposed location is in the Lake Front Shopping Center on Riverside Drive, specifically 31681 Suite "Y' Riverside Drive. Community Development Director Leslie explained the requirements contained within the Zoning Code pertaining to permitted uses and uses permitted subject to a conditional use permit. He explained staff's concerns pertaining to a use that is being proposed in an area frequented by minors, and health and safety regulations as this type of use is not regulated by the Health Department or State Consumer Affairs. He then stated that correspondence has been received from the Pizza Bowl and A &S Sportscards indicating they do not have a problem with the tattoo studio, and a letter from New Song Community Chapel stating some opposition to the tattoo parlor. Also, a letter from Mr. Martin was received after submittal of the application. Staff recommends the Commission consider the request. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Jack Martin, 17451 Ryan, stated that he spoke with New Song Chapel regarding their letter and has received no direct opposition from the church. Mr. Martin stated he promised to keep it quiet and clean and has done that by discouraging loitering, and does not work on minors and this is posted. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Hearing none, he asked for those opposed. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1996 Ms. Lou Garcia, 592 Quail, submitted a petition opposing the tattoo parlor. The petition cited a newspaper article about a drive -by attack outside a tattoo parlor in Los Angeles. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Sands asked whether the restroom facilities were accessible for the handicap, condition number 4. Mr. Martin stated this was not required, but could install handrails- -this is all that is lacking. Community Development Director Leslie stated that meeting ADA requirements would only be required if substantial improvements were being done to the building and does not believe this is the case. Commissioner Sands commented on posting signage prohibiting minors on the premises, condition number 6. Mr. Martin stated it is difficult to go anywhere in the city where there is not going to be kids and that he is careful about who goes into the studio and that he will not work on anyone under the age of eighteen. Commissioner Sands then informed the Commissioners of the signage posted. Community Development Director Leslie explained the reasoning for prohibiting minors on the premises even if accompanied by an adult. Commissioner Sands recommended condition 13 be added, which would read: "The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to periodic review by the Community Development Director or his designee to determine if there are any issues which would require reevaluation of this project." Chairman Wilsey stated that condition number 2 meets the intent of the proposed condition 13. Commissioner Sands stated he was looking for periodic review. Chairman Wilsey stated condition number 2 could be modified to address the concern. Commissioner Barnes asked if piercing was offered at the studio. Mr. Martin responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Barnes asked staff if any of the trash would be considered bio- hazard, concern is disposal. Community Development Director Leslie stated he did not know. Mr. Martin stated the waste is considered bio - hazard and he has containers for this reason, and will probably be taking the waste to Inland Valley for disposal. Mr. Martin explained the chemicals to be utilized are vaporsterile, batadine and topical solutions and any needles for piercing and tattooing would be placed in a "Sharps" container and disposed at the hospital. Mr. Martin stated if necessary, he could get a receipt and keep records or call CR &R to have a special pick -up. Commissioner Barnes asked staff whether the Fire Department requires a hazardous material permit for disposal of bio - hazardous waste. Community Development Director Leslie stated that staff was unsure, but could check. Commissioner Matthies stated that she does not have a problem provided the applicant agrees to prohibit minors on the premises and this is posted, and; is willing to dispose of the bio - hazard waste at the hospital and keep receipts. Mr. Martin stated he has dealt with 30 shops throughout the State and Arizona and never had a requirement for bio - hazard disposal, and reiterated the procedure for disposing of bio - hazardous material. Mr. Martin reiterated that the waste will be taken to the hospital for disposal, or arrangements made with CR &R for disposal, if that is the desire of the Commission, but to get a hazardous material permit would bury him. Commissioner Schiffner referred to the Findings and stated these cannot be met. He commented that Finding #1 requires compliance with the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the General Plan and this is not met; otherwise, this would have been a specified use. Finding #2, states there will be no adverse effect on abutting property and this will probably have an adverse effect. Finding #3, states it must not be detrimental to the general health safety and persons residing in neighboring areas, and there is no control by health organizations nor licensing required to guarantee health and safety. Commissioner Schiffner stated he opposes the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, but sympathizes with the applicant's intent to make an honest living. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1996 Chairman Wilsey referred to condition number 2 and the time frame listed and asked for discussion. Community Development Director Leslie suggested condition 2 be modified as follows: "Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -6 shall be subject to re- review by the Planning Commission in twelve months or sooner as may be determined by the Community Development Director from the Planning Commission approval date (prior to 10- 16 -97). At that time, the Planning Commission shall determined if the use will be allowed to continue, provided no adverse impacts occur and if that occurs there shall be continued periodic review after that as to be determined by the Community Development Director or designee." Commissioner Sands withdrew is request for the addition of condition 13. Commissioner Barnes suggested a condition be added requiring the applicant to get a receipt from the hospital when disposing of bio- hazard material, needles. Community Development Director Leslie suggested the condition read: "All bio- hazard waste, such as needles, shall be disposed at a hospital or equivalent facility licensed and willing to accept this waste and the operator of the tattoo parlor shall keep receipts showing proof of this appropriate disposal." Chairman Wilsey suggested this condition be expanded to meet any applicable hazardous material requirements. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARNES, AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 41 WITH COMMISSIONER SCHIFFNER CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-6 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. Condition No. 2: Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -6 shall be subject to re- review by the Planning Commission in twelve months or sooner as may be determined by the Community Development Director from the Planning Commission approval date (prior to 10- 16 -97). At that time, the Planning Commission shall determine if the use will be allowed to continue, provided no adverse impacts occur, and if that occurs there shall be continued periodic review after that as to be determined by the Community Development Director or designee. Condition No. 13: All bio - hazard waste, such as needles, shall be disposed at a hospital or equivalent facility licensed and willing to accept this waste and the operator of the tattoo parlor shall keep receipts showing proof of this appropriate disposal. Also, any applicable hazardous material requirements shall be met. 2. Conditional Use Permit 96 -7 - Dorothy and James Maltbev Associate Planner De Gange presented a request to renew a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a day- care \preschool operation at 30001 Riverside Drive. He provided a brief history on the proposal explaining that on April 23, 1985, City Council approved the conversion of the building from a residential use to a commercial day- care /preschool facility for a three -year period (CUP 85 -1). The permit expired April 23, 1988, and the use was abandoned and the building vacant. In September 1991, CUP 91 -3 was approved with a five -year time limit and has expired. He then highlighted the concern with the previous proposal on fencing, appropriateness of entry way gates, landscaping, trash enclosure and duration of the permit, and stated these items were addressed through conditions. The applicant met the conditions and, at this time, staff feels those items are still being met by the facility. However, the trash enclosure needs to be revisited since the City began a recycling program and entered into an agreement with CR &R for trash collection services. A condition has been included to require the applicant to expand the size of the trash enclosure or move the trash enclosure to another location on site, out of public view. With regard to the duration of the permit staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1996 approve CUP 96 -7 in perpetuity with the stipulation that if at any time any issues associated with this operation or the project site arise, the project is to be brought back before the Planning Commission for the attachment of additional conditions of approval or the revocation of the CUP, and the inclusion of a provision that directs staff to conduct periodic reviews of the site and /or the operation. Staff would recommend approval of the CUP based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. James Maltbey, 15650 Lakeview, urged approval of the Conditional Use Permit and stated the operation is good for the City and youths. Ms. Debbie Pratt, 33365 Stoneman, stated she has ran the daycare for the past four - years and the operation serves children from various communities. She stated this operation is needed and urged approval. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Hearing none, he asked for those opposed. Ms. Elena Ray, 17380 Shrier, stated her property adjoins the preschool and she has no opposition against the preschool. The concern is the dust created by vehicles accessing the facility, its access is on a dirt road, and that Caltrans has been called out three times to grade the road. She stated that AQMD (Air Quality Management District) was contacted and they will conduct a test on the area when the preschool is open and closed and results will be sent to her. She stated the dirt road is the only reason she is challenging the proposal and asked if this road could be paved, as it is approximately 200 feet. Ms. Ray stated that dust samples were taken to the County of Riverside to be checked, and they said there were traces of asbestos and rat droppings in the dust, which could adversely effect health. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on this matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Matthies asked staff what can be done with regard to the dust problem, and possible paving /treatment of the road. Community Development Director Leslie stated this is something staff could look at and explained the treatment the City uses to limit dust, such as gravel, D.G., ground asphalt, chemical treatments and periodic watering. As far as paving the road, there are no funds in the Capital Improvement Program to pave any section of the road in question. Chairman Wilsey asked if this was a dedicated road. Associate Planner De Gange responded in the affirmative. Chairman Wilsey asked if there was an ordinance prohibiting a property owner from disturbing the public right -of -way if they wanted to lay rock or something. Community Development Director Leslie explained that an encroachment permit would be required if it were public right -of -way, but unaware of any instance where a property owner has not been allowed to lay down material to keep dust down. Chairman Wilsey stated it was not the Commission's prerogative to require the people running the operation /property owner to makes these types of improvements. But obviously it is concern enough to neighbors that they oppose the continued operation, and suggested laying down pea gravel or another material to control the dust problem and work with the City, as he would not want to see this as a condition. Commissioner Matthies stated this is not a private road and suggested getting with the neighbors and have them help with the cost. Mr. Maltbey stated there is no one directly opposite his property and that he would have to assume full responsibility. Mr. Maltbey stated he would like to do this if he can, but the cost could prohibit and will not say that it will be done. Mr. Maltbey stated that numerous improvements have been installed, and right now it will be very hard to do this, but will talk this over with Mr. De Gauge. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1996 Commissioner Schiffner commented on the dust problem and the difficulties in correcting, as these are the only two people involved. He explained that an assessment district could be done and paid for by all the property owners, but it probably would not pass. He stated that he was in favor of approving the permit, and would suggest working with the City to resolve the dust problem, as he would not want to make this a condition of approval. Commissioner Barnes asked about current enrollment. Ms. Pratt stated that 35 children are presently enrolled and licensed for 42 children per day. Commissioner Sands stated he visited the site and noticed there are some palm shrouds that had not yet been removed. Ms. Pratt stated this is to be removed, the work has been contracted out and not yet completed. Commissioner Sands commented on the wooden fence facing Riverside Drive and stated fill repair is needed on a portion of this fence. Ms. Pratt stated that no one can get out of the school without their watching, and the fence will be checked and repairs made. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCHWFNER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-7 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 7:50 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 7:52 P.M. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie stated a workshop on the auto dealership plans will follow the adjournment of the Planning Commission meeting this evening. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sands Nothing to report. Commissioner Barnes Nothing to report. Commissioner Matthies Nothing to report. Commissioner Schiffner Nothing to report. Chairman Wilsey Attended the Riverside /San Bernardino County Planning Commissioners Meeting on October 9, 1996, hosted by the city of Corona. The turnout was excellent with seventeen (17) cities represented. He stated this meeting was very informative, and has information on planning and refurbishment of downtown should anyone wish to see it. PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1996 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:58 P.M. AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN —_ Respectfully Submitted, inda Grin staff Recording Secretary I171IMF SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1996 szzsszsssssszssszsszzssssssssszssz sssssssssszsszssssszssssssssszz The Special Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Barnes. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, BARNES, SCHIFFNER, MATrHIFS, WIISEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planner Villa and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. Chairman Wilsey stated Ms. Elena Ray has requested to address the Commission on a CUP that was previously considered, and that she will be allowed to address the Commission at the end of the meeting. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial 96 -2 - Robert Gregory (Whitfield Associates) Associate Planner Villa referred to the memorandum distributed as an Addendum to the Staff Report requesting amendment to Conditions 17, 18.b, 18.h, 26, 46, 53 and deletion of Conditions 18.e and 31 of the proposed Conditions of Approval. He then explained the project entails Design Review for a commercial building (building and site plan design) to be used for an automobile dealership (Paradise Chevrolet) pursuant to Chapter 17.38 and 17.82 of the Municipal Code and the commercial development standards of the Canyon Creek Specific Plan, of which the site is a part. The project is located on the west side of Casino Drive between the intersection of Casino Drive and Franklin Street. The site is approximately 6 -acres and part of an eleven -acre holding, which will be separated by lot line adjustments and lot mergers to form a single 6 -acre parcel. The parcel will be improved to include a 33,400 square foot building that will house a showroom, office /administration, parts department and storage, service areas, and body shop, and provide 386 spaces for display of automobiles and 180 parking spaces. The proposed building exhibits a modern contemporary design that is typical of modern auto dealership prototypes. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Commercial Project No. 96 -2, based on the Findings, Exhibit A, and the Conditions of Approval as amended, and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 96 -4. Community Development Director Leslie stated the applicant will be requesting that City Council not require a raised median on Casino Drive, and is available to explain the reasoning. He further explained that the conditions relative to the median have been worded to allow flexibility, should Council waive the raised median requirement. Chairman Wilsey asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. Mr. Gary Whitfield, Whitfield Associates, 1100 South Coast Highway, Suite 201, Laguna Beach, presented a rendering of the site and stated this is a computer simulation that illustrates the layout. Mr. Whitfield stated that he would answer any questions that arise. Chairman Wilsey asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on the matter. There being no request to speak, he asked for discussion at the table. PAGE TWO - SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 30, 1996 Commissioner Sands asked about the number of employees. Mr. Whitfield stated he believes the number of employees is between 40 -50. Commissioner Sands asked what restrictions were being placed on the calling system (PA system) throughout the hours of operation. Mr. Robert Gregory, 3996 West Pacific Coast Highway, Ventura, stated that external PA systems are almost extinct, and explained that a pager is used at his other facilities. Although the PA system is still available if there is an emergency, but during the day, 7:00 a.m. to 9 -10:00 p.m., you hardly ever hear this. Commissioner Sands stated he would go along with the painted median on Mill and Casino to start with and see how it works, but believes there is a possibility for much traffic in this area and wouldn't care to see that unless it is controlled. Suggested the addition or consideration of a condition to restrict employees from parking in residential areas, Avenue 12, Mill Street and Avenue 11. Mr. Gregory stated that 60 -65 spaces have been designed for employee parking and does not want employees parking anywhere except on the premises. Chairman Wilsey asked staff if there were plans or consideration given to prohibiting parking on Casino Drive, in front of the facility. Community Development Director Leslie responded in the affirmative, and explained that the ultimate design of Casino Drive is no parking, emergency parking only. Mr. Gregory stated he would like parking allowed on Casino Drive until it becomes a problem. Commissioner Wilsey stated that a condition may not be warranted to address this and would like to see staff and the applicant work it out. Commissioner Schiffner commented on the median and explained that with his involvement with other jurisdictions a painted median is an advantage, because this provides an emergency lane for emergency vehicles if there is heavy traffic. He then commented on the architecture and expressed disappointment that the Mission style architecture was not continued - -would not want to make this a condition, but would hope that something can be done that will conform with the existing theme in the area, even if it is just a color scheme. Commissioner Barnes stated all of his questions have been answered. Commissioner Matthies stated concurrence with the comments made by the other Commissioners. Chairman Wilsey stated he concurs with Commissioner Schiffner and that his primary concern was the transition from the Spanish architecture to the contemporary design. This is a nice looking project and addition to the community, but would like to see a comfortable transition from the Spanish theme. Chairman Wilsey then asked the applicant if the conditions and proposed amendments had been reviewed and if there were any concerns. Mr. Gregory questioned the double- striping of parking stalls. Community Development Director Leslie explained that the double- striping is to better define the parking space and that additional area is not required for the parking stalls, condition 26. Mr. Gregory then questioned the landscape bond requirement. Community Development Director Leslie explained the landscape bond is a policy requirement to ensure survival of the landscaping installed during the initial period, and can be released after one -year, condition 18.h. Mr. Gregory stated he does not understand the requirement to post a bond and this is just another cost and aggravation that is not needed. Discussion ensued on the landscape bond requirement and whether this could be deleted. The consensus of the Commission was to delete the landscape bond requirement. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96 -4 AND APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL PROJECT 96 -2, BASED ON THE PAGE THREE - SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 30, 1996 FINDINGS, EXHIBIT A, AND SUBJECT TO THE 65 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 17. The parking lot landscaping designs shall provide at least one (1) fifteen (15) gallon tree for every ten (10) parking spaces required by Code (161 spaces for customer, employee, and service parking), and subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Architect and Community Development Director or designee. Condition No. 18b. Applicant shall plant street trees at a ratio of one (1) tree per each thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage. Street trees shall be a minimum of 24" box size trees and may be clustered. Street trees shall be selected from the City's Street Tree List. Condition No. 18e. Landseape planter-s shall be planted with an appropriate par-king lot ..Lade t...... top . ide f.... GAO/_ ..ar4iing lot ..1....1in in fifteen (15) yeaFs. Delete Condition No. 18h. All landseape improvements shall be bonded 100% for material and labor for one (1) year from installation sign off by the City. Release of the landseaping bond shall be requested by the applieant at the end of the required year. Delete Condition No. 26. Parking stalls as required by Code (161 spaces for customer, employee, and service parking) shall be double - striped with four -inch (4 ") lines two -feet (2') apart. Condition No. 31. The Final Site Landseaping —Plan shall inelude more landseaping/landseape planter-s in f-Fent of all proposed buildings. This plan shall meet the approval of the Community Development Direeter or designee and the City's "rest. Delete Condition No. 46. On -site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility (such as a street and /or storm drain facility) or accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement. Condition No. 53. Applicant shall make good faith effort to drain roofs to landscaped areas where feasible. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Elena Ray, 17380 Shrier, referred to the preschool on Riverside Drive and stated she expressed concern on the dust generated at the site a few weeks ago. If 100 -200 feet of Richard Street can't be paved what about having the Fire Department come out and wash the street down, as there is existing pavement underneath. Also, was informed that numerous children at the preschool have allergies due to the dust problem, and this could come back to the City. Ms. Ray stated that Caltrans has laid gravel on the side -strip of the road to try and keep the dust down, but on Richard Street the gravel has been pushed aside by the ingress /egress of vehicles. Asked what she needs to do to get pavement. Chairman Wilsey informed Ms. Ray that during the hearing on the conditional use permit for the preschool this issue was discussed with the property owner and recommendations made to resolve the dust problem, and that it has only been a short time since the conditional use permit was granted. Community Development Director Leslie stated that as far as pavement, a Capital Improvement Project of the City, a petition would need to be submitted to City Council PAGE FOUR - SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 30, 1996 requesting this be included in a future Capital Improvement Program, and suggested Ms. Ray write a letter to the City specifically requesting this. Ms. Ray asked about Shrier and Illinois and stated that when Highway 74 is closed that traffic is diverted onto Shrier and they are out there with waterhoses watering down the street to try and keep the dust down and this is not their responsibility. If the City needs to divert traffic onto our streets then the City should provide watering or pavement. Community Development Director Leslie suggested Ms. Ray come into City Hall and talk to staff about possible solutions to the situation. None STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie reminded the Commissioners of the following: Grand Opening for California Do It Center on Friday, November 1, at 8:00 a.m. 2. Temescal High School Groundbreaking ceremony on Friday, November 1, at 11:30 a.m. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY MATTBE ES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:40 P.M. AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted, P I l s � � �/ . �, i Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 1996 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 6, 1996, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, *in � Lda Grmdstaff Recording Secretary REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1996 sssssssss:ssssssssssss:sssssssssss s:sssssssssssssssssssssssssssss The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Barnes. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, BARNES, SCHIFFFNER, MATTffiCS, WI SEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners DeGange and Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Matthies, Seconded by Commissioner Barnes and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of October 16, 1996, October 30, 1996, and November 6, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Tract Map 27617 - Dyer /Wynn Associate Planner Villa explained the proposal is to subdivide approximately 20 acres into 71 single - family residential lots with lot sizes ranging from 7,130 to 20,890 square feet and an average lot size of 9,900 square feet, for an overall project density of 3.55 dwelling units per acre. The subject site is vacant land located in the northeast part of the City, north of the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan area. The applicant has stated that the proposed subdivision is not anticipated to be developed as a stand alone project, because it is dependent on the development of TTM 25830, TTM 25074, and the rest of the north Tuscany Hills development for infrastructure improvements. He then highlighted the environmental concerns regarding the Stephen Kangaroo Rat, Coastal Sage Scrub, and blue line stream which traverses through the project area. He stated the proposed subdivision meets the development standards of the Municipal Code and density requirements of the General Plan. Therefore, it is recommended the Planning Commission recommend to City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 96 -5, and approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 27617 based on the Findings, Exhibit A, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Doug Shakelton, J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc., 1777 Atlanta Avenue, Riverside, representing the applicant, stated they concur with the recommendation, mitigation and Conditions of Approval, but would ask the Commission consider adding the following verbiage to Condition 66: "or an alternate design equally acceptable to the City Engineer." Mr. Shakelton stated this verbiage was reviewed with the City Engineer and he indicated it was acceptable. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Hearing none, he asked for those opposed. Hearing none, he asked for anyone else wishing to PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1996 speak on the matter. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Barnes stated the presentation was complete and has no questions. Commissioner Schiffner commented on flood hazard conditions and asked for the flood zone, and whether the grading would change the flood zoning or if provisions have been made to modify the map. Asked if the requirement for flood insurance had been addressed. Chairman Wilsey asked that staff also address the proposed amendment to condition 66. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated the applicant's amendment to condition 66 is fine. He then stated the tract is not within the 100 - Year Floodplain and explained the reason for condition 66 is to raise the pads on the south and east boundary of the tract above the flow lines so if there were any problems it would not flood. Commissioner Matthies referred to Page 2 of the Staff Report, DISCUSSION, and the statement that the proposed subdivision is not anticipated to be developed as an individual stand alone development. She requested that a condition be added to ensure that this project is developed in conjunction with TIM 25830 and TIM 25074. She then stated that she believes this project is within the two -mile radius of the Tuscany Hills Elementary School and public safety is a concern. Chairman Wilsey asked if Commissioner Matthies was saying this tract has too be developed at the same time as the other two tracts. Commissioner Matthies stated she does not want to see the children walking in the street and suggested development in conjunction with the other two tracts, somehow. Commissioner Schiffner stated there will not be access until the other two tracts are developed. Chairman Barnes asked whether Commissioner Matthies was suggesting the word "anticipated" be removed, and say the proposed subdivision is not to be developed as an individual stand alone development. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated this concern has been addressed with condition 68. Commissioner Sands stated the project is in the first stage, reviewed it and visited the site, and has no questions. Chairman Wilsey inquired about the time line. Mr. Shakelton stated a drainage, grading and engineering study was done some months ago of all the adjacent properties. There have been changes of ownership and changes with the recession, so there is no time line. Mr. Dyer stated there has been much communication, tried to contact the owners and got some response back - -they are a group of investors, T.T. Group, and at such time they are ready to develop we will probably join them. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-5 AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 27617 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EDIT A, AND SUBJECT TO THE 71 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 66: The building pads of lots along the south and east boundary of the tract must be graded at least one foot above the flow line of the drainage channel along the tract boundary, or an alternate design equally acceptable to the City Engineer. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 7:17 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 7:50 P.M. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1996 STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie informed the Commission of the following: 1. An application has been received for a golf driving range at Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive. 2. Council adopted an urgency interim ordinance prohibiting residential projects at a density greater than twelve dwelling units per acre. A report is being presented to City Council next week on the studies staff has performed relative to multi - family residential projects as required by the Government Code. Chairman Wilsey asked if a Planning Commission or Joint Study Session was anticipated. Community Development Director Leslie stated this could be a possibility and dependent upon Council. The Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Council that they are interested in a Joint Study Session on the matter. Commissioner Sands Commented on the Elsinore Classic Grand Prix event held November 9 -11, 1996, and commended the City for allowing GFI to come in. Commissioner Schiffner 1. Asked for status on the Zoning Code update, reference strawberry stands. Community Development Director Leslie provided a status report on the Zoning Code update and stated the update should come before the Planning Commission in January 1997. 2. Asked for status on the Arco AM /PM development at Four Corners. Community Development Director Leslie provided a status report on the project. 3. Commented on the signage at Four Corners, Arco development and various signage, and stated that something should be done about this signage. Commissioner Barnes Nothing to report. Commissioner Matthies Nothing to report. Chairman Wilsey Nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS P.M. TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANK DI S; E, G AT 8:04 Respectfully Submitted, Linda Grin staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 04, 1996 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, BARNES, SCHIFFNER, MATTHIES, WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by unanimous vote to approve the Minutes of November 20, 1996, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Gary Craig, 39610 Medina Court, Murietta, stated he was before the Commission in January and had proposed to place a strawberry stand at the old swap meet site. He stated the season will start in a couple of months and asked for the status on the Zoning Code Update regarding strawberry sale's stand (Temporary Outdoor Activities). Chairman Wilsey informed Mr. Craig that he would ask staff for an update at the end of the meeting, if he wanted to stay around; otherwise, he could contact City Hall during the week and speak with Community Development Director Leslie. There being no further request to speak the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section was closed PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Development Agreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and First Financial Group, Inc. (LEA) Community Development Director Leslie explained the proposal is for a Development Agreement for 80 -acres within the East Lake Specific Plan Area generally located on the southwesterly corner of Mission Trail and Malaga Road. The development proposal within this 80 -acres by the developer is for 400 single - family dwelling units. This Development Agreement has been brought forward by the City Attorney and he has for several years been working on litigation brought by the developer of this project against the City relative to some issues regarding East Lake. A Settlement Agreement was crafted regarding this litigation and it went to City Council in January 1996. City Council approved the Settlement Agreement and since then certain things have been done to try to carry out the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The City Attorney, John Harper, prepared a Supplemental Staff Report, which was distributed tonight, further explaining the intricacies of the Development Agreement and how it relates back to the litigation. Community Development Director Leslie stated the Staff Report and Supplemental Staff Report recommends approval on the basis that it is in line with the Settlement Agreement approved by City Council in January. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Hearing none, he asked for those opposed. Hearing none, he asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 1996 Chairman Wilsey stated this is the first Development Agreement to come through without tentative tract maps illustrating the layout nor do we know what the housing product will be. He stated that everything in the Agreement favors the developer and does not see much that favors the City. He then commented on the Development Agreement as follows: Page 6 Binding Effects of Agreement - terms and conditions of the Agreement will run with the land. This is fairly common but we have seen many development agreements done in the past come back and haunt us now, time and things change. We have seen several properties with development agreements go into foreclosure and taken over by the RTC or other agencies and we have new players and no way to know how we are going to interact with the new players. Would like to see some method added that it could run with the land but subject to renegotiation under new ownership. Page 7 Conflicting Enactments. 9.1- basically, this says that everything that we have in our Code book today would stand for the 15 -year term of this agreement. As you know, we have had several changes in our Code over the years and yet the agreements done in years past are bound to our old standards. Would like an addendum to this that would allow us to bring forward changes and modernization as they come forward within the 15 -year period. Page 7 Hold Harmless By City. 8.2 - City agrees to and shall defend Developer if there are lawsuits. Why are we doing this? Page 9 and 10 Financing of Public Facilities and /or Services and Public Services and Facilities 10.5 - this calls for the City to take actions necessary to establish a Mello -Roos District for this project, and the City not the Developer would be responsible for putting in infrastructure necessary to complement not only this project but projects above this project. Normally, this is what you do and you get pay back from the other developers as they have to tie on to that infrastructure. City agrees that Developer shall not be required to participate and shall not be included in any existing or future public financing arrangements. Do not agree with this particularly in East Lake, as there are serious flooding and other issues that will have to be dealt with and it may take the entire community to resolve those concerns and would not want to preclude this development from having to pay their fair share. 10.6.1.c - calls for the City to cause an agreement to be reached with the School District. This is not the purview of the City to negotiate with the School District. The normal course is to have the developer come back with a School District Agreement. Chairman Wilsey stated a Joint Study Session is needed with City Council, as done on all previous development agreements, and work out all the details. Commissioner Sands stated that most of his comments are repetitious. He then commented on the Development Agreement as follows: Page 2 Section H - finds this to be completely in favor of the developer, and would like to see an article included regarding the City's need for certainty at the time of reorganization. Page 6 Binding Effects of Agreement - terms and conditions of the Agreement running with the land have already been covered. Page 10 Public Services and Facilities. 10.6.1.a -e - why should the City waive the fees for Eastlake Community Builders? Also, thought the school fees were a mandatory item for the developer. Questioned the $600,000 credit and who is PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 1996 responsible, and with the additional off -site improvements and other items, if the City was given this credit then it is all gone before they can use it for their own purpose. Asked for clarification on the developer's obligation to construct any additional off -site improvements. Page 12, f - who will pay for the marketing signage. It appears the City will pay for marketing signage for the development. Page 13, Assessment of Fees. 10.7 - This section favors the City. Page 13, Litigation. 10.9 - asked if the City was still in litigation with anyone, not privy to former reports on the litigation. "City shall not stipulate to the issuance of any such order" this means primarily they are not able to insist upon anything as part of an agreement. Page 14, Design/Development Standards 10.1l .c - should be amended to terminate all verbiage after the word security in the first sentence, as all the verbiage following is unnecessary. Page 18, Specific Performance Remedy, 15.3 - what about damages for the City in the case of developer default; however, this was supposedly answered in item 16 Institution of Legal Action. Page 21. Transfers and Assignments 21.1 Right to Assign - the City should have their right to assign. 21.2 Liabilities Upon Transfer - "City agrees to look solely to the transferee for compliance by such transferee" the City should have the opportunity /right to review the new buyer or transfer agent and the opportunity to accept or reject. Asked if there were any legal roadblocks standing in the way of this development agreement that need to be resolved or processing during third party litigations. Commissioner Sands referred to the Staff Report and the 10 -acres outside the development area and asked if the City lost the opportunity to use that as an Alternative Use area or if it reverted to the developer under a Residential site. He stated there is no mention in the Development Agreement to mitigation measures on the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Fee. Also, there are discrepancies in the report whether the site is within or outside the SKR boundary. He then stated that without further study and considering the time frame the Commission has had to review the Development Agreement cannot see justifying a recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Schiffner stated he understands that it is not the prerogative of this Board, or as an individual, to approve or disapprove the agreement, but there is a purpose for bringing it before the Commission and that it to make a recommendation. Therefore, it is our right to make a recommendation and to state some of the reasons behind our recommendation. Noticed an item about density, 14 units per acre, and keep in mind that all of the provisions of this requires all these things to be held true regardless of other ordinances that may come up, and we are in the process of possibly changing the ordinance for density in the City to a maximum of 12. So, there is a conflict with an ordinance that we are planning to change and the agreement says that anything in here is good for the next 15 years or so. Also, they mention residential lot sizes of 3,500 square feet and think this is something that we would probably not normally allow. If this is approved then we are stuck with it for 15 years. Commissioner Schiffner then stated he agrees with most of the things mentioned and there is no point of going through them one by one. Noticed the benefits to the City as spelled out in the agreement and the benefits are the typical ambiguous benefits that would apply to this City or any other city by any development that takes place with in their boundary. In my opinion, nothing that would in any way obligate the City for any cost of anything to do with this tract. However, in many parts, which I am not going to reiterate, the City is going to be obligated for costs and many of them for an unknown quantity. It would be PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 1996 bad enough if we had a specific amount of money. I don't feel we should be obligated for any cost and especially for a cost for infrastructure that we have merely estimates and here we have even established a certain fund and say money in addition to that will be the City's obligation, talking about over sizing structures and for serving the property outside. Normally, a piece of property is obligated to take care of drainage that passes over that property when it is developed and I would think this still holds true. But there is a statement that says the City will be obligated and not the developer for any of that sort of problem outside its boundary, which to me means that adjacent streets now drain on this property at the present time, which they have a right to do, they are not going to be responsible for that someone else is going to have take care of that and drain it away somewhere else. So, of the many items in this agreement that require financial participation by the City regardless of the source of the money and they spell that out here that it will be the City's obligation regardless of what other fund the money comes from. I disapprove of the City making any obligation and realize that much of this agreement has already been done. But since it was brought to us, I feel it is my right to send a message to City Council that I do not approve of those things and for all of the various items that require financial approval or participation of the City I disapprove of and see no reason why we should participate in any financial costs. I am told we are receiving money in excess of what it is worth for some of our property. Personally, I would feel that we should get what the property is worth and that money belongs to the City and this developer takes care of his own construction and based on those general things I am certainly going to be in favor of recommending to the City Council that they do not approve this agreement. Commissioner Barnes stated his colleagues have hit upon many good points; however, wants to get more detailed because it is good for the record and for the public to know. This shouldn't be called a development agreement so much as a developer's agreement. This is a classic agreement written for the benefit of the developer. He then commented on the Development Agreement as follows: Page 5. Benefits to City 3.1.a - "Fulfilling long -term economic and social goals for City and the community." This is only going to happen if their sales are strong. 3.1.b - "Providing short -term construction employment or permanent employment within City." This is not necessarily so there is nothing binding that says they are going to hire local contractors to do any of this work. 3.1.c - "Coordinating phasing of public facilities with private development." What does this mean? It has to be done no matter what. 3.1.d - "Providing housing which helps to satisfy City's obligation to meet City's share of regional housing needs." We have many unsold homes in the new developments now and many houses on the market for sale that are not selling, and can't see where another new development at this time is going to help anything. 3.1.e - "Stimulating and encouraging the development of the Specific Plan property." Well possibly, although not so sure that it is needed at this time because the current new developers in the City are just barely making it as it is, their sales are not what they call strong but refer to as adequate. However, they are also giving many concessions and incentives to buy and that is never in their best interest. I am not so sure it benefits the City other than just something to fill paper. Page 7, Hold Harmless Agreement, 8.2 last sentence - "City agrees to and shall defend Developer and its officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees, partners and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of City activities in connection with the Project." The previous section on Hold Harmless by the Developer, the wording in that section does not specifically state the phrase "caused or alleged to have been caused" and he will only be held harmless based on things he actually does not allege to have done. This is poorly written. It is not in the best interest of the City. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 1996 Page 11, Public Services and Facilities, 10.6.e - Prior to expending any portion of the $600,000 Credit, City hereby agrees to expend such portion of the $600,000 Credit as shall be required as shall be required to construct Additional Off -Site Improvements, etc." Asked if all these improvements have been identified before we agree to do it. Thinks this goes along with what was said before, as stated by Commissioner Wilsey, we have not seen plans, tentative tracts or anything of that nature. Page 12, Utilities. 10.6.3 - "City shall be obligated, at its sole cost, to provide underground electrical, gas, water, sewer, drainage and storm drain facilities to the Property boundary." City never has obligation to put in electrical, gas, water or sewer that is other utility companies. Storm drains, yes. But not other utilities not at our obligation, talking about our money. Page 16, Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. 14 - review every 12 months. I think at a minimum it should be 6 months, not more than 6 months at a time especially during the times we are having now with development. Page 17. Events of Default, 15.2 last sentence, if the City defaults - the developer can seek damages and /or specific performance as set forth in Section 15.3. Notice that this is not in the last sentence of what if the Developer Defaults. I think we have seen that before where the City has been hung out to dry as developers have defaulted - -we have streets unpaved, landscape undone, not completed. Page 18, Specific Performance Remedy, 15.3 - "For the above reasons, City and Developer agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement." The City and Developer agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy, well what is? It doesn't explain what is going to be adequate it just leaves it hanging. The last sentence, "The City's right to specific performance shall be limited to those circumstances set forth above, and City shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause Developer to otherwise proceed with the development of the Project in any manner." In any manner. Commissioner Barnes then commented on the Negative Declaration with regard to fire and police protection. He stated the developer deems that his development will be of less than a significant impact to fire and police protection, and if he is going to build 400 homes the first thing he should do is build a new fire station, at minimum. Commissioner Barnes then stated that from what he has read that he would have to vote against this agreement and advise the Council not to approve it. Commissioner Matthies stated she concurs with the other Commissioners, does not feel comfortable with this agreement. Feels a study session is in order and wishes one were held prior, and that she would have to pass on a negative vote. Chairman Wilsey noted the City Attorney's letter sent, but that he was not present tonight. He then called for a motion. Community Development Director Leslie asked if it was the desire of the Commission for him to comment on the issues; however, some issues raised are legal issues and cannot respond. Chairman Wilsey stated the desire is to have a Joint Study Session to work out the details and concerns at the very least. Community Development Director Leslie suggested this agreement be forwarded on to City Council with a recommendation of denial, if that is the Commission's pleasure, with an added comment that the Commission is interested in a Study Session on this matter. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY DO NOT APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 1996 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AT 7:40 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 8:00 P.M. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Leslie addressed Mr. Craig's inquiry about the update to the Temporary Outdoor Activities pertaining to strawberry stands, and stated changes to this was discussed in the past and that Mr. Craig had not initiated an amendment. He further explained that staff is working on numerous Code amendments, some of these include: antennas, Planning Commission authority, standards for boat docks and camping. Staff had hoped to bring the Code amendment on antennas, Planning Commission authority and Temporary Outdoor Activities in December; however, work was delayed on these items due to the urgency interim ordinance on multi - family residential projects, as directed by City Council, and staff hopes to bring these amendments forward in January 1997. Chairman Wilsey asked whether Mr. Craig's request could be processed with the amendments concurrently and for the time line. Community Development Director Leslie reiterated that staff anticipates bringing the amendments before the Commission in January. He then explained that after Planning Commission the amendment must go to City Council; therefore, Council action could not be until February, and a Code Amendment requires an ordinance. At Council's initial hearing the ordinance could receive first reading and then two weeks later receive second reading and become effective 30 days after, assuming it is approved. Chairman Wilsey stated that assuming the amendment is approved it goes past the season and Mr. Craig will loose another year. He asked if there is anyway in our Codes - -if this were approved and just going through the formality - -we could do a special dispensation. Community Development Director Leslie stated this is a good point, but hasn't given it any thought. He explained that temporary uses are limited to 30 days and this was an issue in the past. Mr. Craig could get a Temporary Use Permit to operate for 30 days and by the time it is expiring the new ordinance would be taking affect. Mr. Craig stated he usually starts February 15; however, it is dependent upon the quality of the fruit. If there is a bad rainy season, January and February, then this is postponed until March. Commissioner Schiffner asked Mr. Craig if he would have to start before March 1. Mr. Craig responded in the negative. Commissioner Schiffner explained that if the scheduled start date was March 1 then Council's action would be known and a Temporary Use Permit could be applied for and know exactly when the ordinance would become effective or if not approved there would be no need for the permit. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sands Nothing to report. Commissioner Barnes Wished fellow Commissioners and citizens a Happy Holiday and New Year. Commissioner Matthies Wished fellow Commissioners and citizens a Happy Holiday and New Year. PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 04, 1996 Commissioner Schiffner Referred to the Development Agreement heard earlier this evening and asked where the 3,500 square foot lot size came from. Community Development Director Leslie explained the adopted East Lake Specific Plan calls out 400 - single -family homes on a variety of lot sizes with a variety of product types. He further explained that a Development Agreement is in place regarding East Lake that affects what is referred to as the Lehr Option Property, 600 acres around the Stadium and actually includes this property. So, this 80 -acres in effect already has a Development Agreement on it and this Development Agreement replaces it. Also, there was a question pertaining to density and this is contained within the approved East Lake Specific Plan and these densities are protected by the existing Development Agreement, at least for the Lehr Option Property at the present time. The changes to the Code regarding multi - family standards that Council is contemplating would not affect any of the Specific Plan areas that currently have Development Agreements. He then stated most of the Specific Plans in the City have Development Agreements in place. Chairman Wilsey asked if the Ramsgate Specific Plan was about to run out. Community Development Director Leslie stated he would have to check, but has heard that the Specific Plan for Ramsgate, North Peak and Alberhill Ranch will change drastically. These changes will bring up complete reevaluation of the Specific Plan and Development Agreement. Commissioner Schiffner asked how some of the concerns discussed this evening are addressed by the Development Agreement. Community Development Director Leslie stated that in some ways it is very different because that Development Agreement wasn't using as its basis a litigation settlement agreement. He then explained the pledges contained in the Development Agreement and Disposition and Development Agreement in place on the East Lake area. Chairman Wilsey reiterated that a Joint Study Session is needed on this Development Agreement. Chairman Wilsey Nothing to report. MOVED BY SCHIFFNER, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:24 PAL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted, inda Grind taff Recording Secretary -:N -, ��. MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 18, 1996 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 18, 1996, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Recording Secretary