Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-1995 NAHMINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COI JANUARY 4, 1995 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 4, 1995, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Gri staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:13 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Neff. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: NEFF, MATTHIES, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve the Minutes of December 21, 1994, as submitted, and to receive and file the Minutes of January 4, 1995. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 94 -2 Revised - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner De Gangs provided a brief history on the proposal explaining that City Council initiated ZC 94 -2 in order to establish zoning within the Hammerhead area where none has existed since the area was annexed to the City. The Planning Commission at their meeting of November 16, 1994, recommended approval to City Council; however, City Council at their meeting on December 13, 1994, denied the zone change request and instructed staff to revise the project. City Council requested the C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning proposed for the 12 parcels located at the northwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Machado Street be reconsidered as C -O (Commercial Office) or to Future Specific Plan Area, and the parcels north of Lakeshore Drive which had previously been proposed as R -2 (Medium Density Residential) be reconsidered as R -1 (Single - Family Residential). The proposed zoning for the rest of the Hammerhead area is still as previously proposed, a combination of R -A, R -1, R -2 and C -1. Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m., and noted for the record that written communication has been received from Elbert Smith, 5241 Marview, La Palma. He then asked for anyone interested in speaking on the matter. The following people spoke: Cappy Carpenter, 33160 Greenwood Drive, representing Ms. Neilsen owner of 375 - 250 -001, stated she attended a hearing on behalf of her client several years ago, at the time they were in the County and LAFCO wanted everything uniform. At that time, these people were told that they could keep their current zoning, which was C -1. My client wishes to retain the C -1 zoning. Ms. Carpenter commented on the proposed C -O and the vacancy rates, about 50% vacancy factor. We beg that you adhere to the statement that you would retain the C -1 zoning. Elbert Smith, 5241 Marview, La Palma, concerned about the zoning of the parcel of property located at the corner of Lakeshore and Machado, owns two parcels at this location. Attended the meetings or at least one meeting, at the time of PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 the proposed annexation. As per my letter, I felt that we were given assurance that the property would be left zoned com- mercial. Then in November, I appeared before the Commission and it looked like everything was going along fine- -there was no opposition - -staff had proposed that this property be community commercial. So when advised of another meeting in December, I did not attend. I don't know what the considera- tions were; what the premise was for the rezoning; or under- stand how there could be such a quick turnabout. To me this goes way back to the time that we were annexed. I as a property owner felt the zoning the County had given that property was a zoning that was going to be retained. I would like C -1, community commercial, at that location. Gary Allen, owns three parcels at the corner of Lakeshore and Machado. You may have on record, I was recorded as opposed to being annexed into the City, and started a campaign to oppose going into the City. I attended almost all of the meetings that were held through LAFCO and at everyone of those meetings we were assured that our zoning would remain the same. If that would not have been done our opposition to being annexed into the City would have proceeded. It did not proceed because of the commitment from the City to retain that zoning. When I received the notice that you are to down grade, I felt like I had been stabbed in the back and still feel that way. Hella Merrill, 2217 Whirlway Court, Canyon Lake, asked if the Commission received her letter that was hand carried into City Hall a couple of days ago. Ms. Merrill stated she used to own a commercial piece of property in that area, and attended all of the LAFCO meetings. Gary and Terri Pebley purchased the property, unfortunately they could not attend tonight. The reason we went along with the annexation was because like Mr. Allen told us we were assured that we would retain the status we had before. That is why I am totally baffled. Asked the Commission for answers.- Chairman Bullard informed Ms. Merrill that testimony is being taken now and they would answer during their comments. Ms. Merrill then stated she owns 379 - 250 -035, 006 and 007. The master plan has always been for that storage to be able to access from one street out to the other, Lakeshore and Machado. She stated the property was sold to Mr. Pebley, and she will be in breach of contract and open for a lawsuit if this zoning is pulled away. She stated that Mr. Pebley received clearance in November to start improving the site- - additional acreage out toward Machado Street. Chairman Bullard asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. The Secretary reported the following written communication received and included in the packet: Gary and Terri Pebley, 41820 Calle Cedral, Temecula; Hella C. Merrill; Gary Allen, 1070 Serene Drive, Corona; Duane Petrowske, 16395 Broadway Commissioner Metze referred to Ms. Merrill's comments, stating his understanding is there are major problems--C-0 or C- 1 - -the storage use is not permitted within C -1. Asked staff to address. City Planner Leslie explained that C -1 zoning in the City does not have mini - storage as a permitted use. Ms. Merrill stated they didn't in the County either, we got a variance from the County. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 City Planner Leslie explained that whether the property is zoned C -1, C -O or something else, the use as it stands now is considered a legal non - conforming use and can remain in perpetuity as long as someone is actively running a mini - storage. Although it is considered a non - conforming use the code does not allow a significant expansion of that non- conforming use. If Mr. Pebley has plans to expand the mini - storage there are going to be some problems because it is considered a non - conforming use. Regarding a variance, State Law prohibits a use variance; it allows for variances of setbacks and other types of development regulations. Commissioner Metze asked whether they could submit a zone change request along with a plan. City Planner Leslie responded in the negative, and explained that mini - storage is first permitted in a C -M zone and a C -M zone would not be consistent with the General Plan designation for that area; so the city could not accept a zone change to C -M. As far as C -O versus C -1, if the area is zoned C -O this would not prohibit anyone from requesting C -1 zoning at a later date, because the General Plan designation for the area is still Neighborhood Commercial, therefore C -1 would still be considered consistent. But C -1 would not allow for the expansion. Commissioner Metze informed Mr. Smith that he believes one of the reasons that Councilman Pape had brought up the C -O to start with was community concern regarding the possibility of commercial development on that corner. Believes there are concerns from the community residents with regard to this being C -1. Commissioner Metze stated he was opposed to specific plan for the area. Asked the Commission for their feelings. Believes that specific plan could leave us open to situations such as Lake Terrace and other areas that we have had problems with in the past. So if we are going some way, C -O is the way I would want to go. He then expressed concern with the four parcels shown as C -1 along Lakeshore Drive. Concurs with staff on the R -1 in the upper portion above there. Leaning toward agreeing with staff on the R -2 right below there as R -1 would have too many driveways onto Lakeshore Drive. Commissioner Neff asked about a map indicating the General Plan classifications. Associate Planner De Gange stated Exhibit "B" included in the packed illustrates the General Plan designations, and also referred to the General Plan Map displayed. Commissioner Neff referred to the northwest corner of Lake- shore and Machado - -this is Neighborhood Commercial, correct? Associate Planner De Gangs responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Neff stated this is a real general classification that could allow a variety of commercial related uses. City Planner Leslie stated it is not as general as General Commercial, which would be comparable to C -2. It is the next step down as far as intensity of use from General Commercial. Commissioner Neff asked for examples of what might be built in the Neighborhood Commercial. City Planner Leslie stated C -1 is identified as the most consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan designation. However, C -O is a less intensified use and still considered consistent. He then referred to Title 17 and provided types of uses listed in the C -1 and C -O zones. Discussion ensued on the types of uses listed in the C -1, C -0 and C -2 zones and compatibility of these categories with the General Plan, and density of commercial use allowed. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 Commissioner Neff commented that this is a holding zone until a specific project comes forward. Commissioner Metze commented that there is no zoning right now, right? City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative, and explained that the C -O zoning proposed could be somewhat of a holding zone. Commissioner Neff commented that the important thing is the General Plan sets the tone for the development patterns. The General Plan is general enough so that commercial uses are contemplated at the corner, and with something specific staff would scrutinize through the public hearing process, the notification of neighbors and everyone would have their say. Commissioner Neff inquired about the Mixed Use designation across the street and what that could provide for. Associate Planner De Gangs stated the General Plan calls out a specific zoning designation of Mixed Use which would allow for both commercial and residential uses, R -2 and C -1 would be considered consistent uses. But in the absence of a Mixed Use zoning designation we have come forward with commercial and residential. Once a Mixed Use classification is developed the City may do a zone change to be consistent with the General Plan and rezone those areas. Commissioner Neff inquired whether this could be sponsored by the City or property owner. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative, and explained that once the Zoning Code is updated the City would follow -up with an initiated zone change. Commissioner Neff commented on land use economics. He then inquired about transition of land uses and whether this was considered in "C" (commercial), having that mixed use. City Planner Leslie stated he could not answer this. He stated the Mixed Use zoning would not be consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan designation, and there would have to be a General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Metze asked if this is where you would get into specific plan. City Planner Leslie stated not necessarily and explained the mixed use zoning standards, which will be brought before the Commission in the future, will include specific standards to develop a mixed use project without having to go to a specific plan. Commissioner Neff commented that while it wouldn't be consistent necessarily the Mixed Use does provide for R -2 and C -1. He then commented on the intensity of use and value of land. Commissioner Wilsey stated he understands staff's perspective and why they would like to have the C -O zoning, as it gives more flexibility and control. However, these people were in the County under C -1 zoning prior to the annexation and they were led to believe that they would retain their zoning. Believes the City is obligated to retain the C -1 zoning, and work with applicants when they come in in the future. Commissioner Wilsey then inquired about lot depth for the north side, the R -1 /R -2 from Machado down, after the alley -way and dedications. Associate Planner De Gange responded approximately 92.5 feet. Commissioner Wilsey stated he wonders if the Mixed Use isn't a better idea, as it gives the property owners more flexibility. City Planner Leslie reiterated that once a Mixed Use zoning is completed it will be brought back before the Commission. Commissioner Wilsey inquired whether the property on the other side of Machado was still Specific Plan Area. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 Commissioner Wilsey asked for discussion from the Commission on the Mixed Use area. Commissioner Matthies commented that she feels the area needs to be zoned, C -O or C -1. If the property owners were promised C -1 then that is what we should do, it is our obligation. Chairman Bullard commented on the Mixed Use potential in the future and asked how will that affect the C -1 designation, along Lakeshore. City Planner Leslie stated that when we have a Mixed Use zoning designation we could come back to Planning Commission and City Council with a proposal to rezone that from C -1 to Mixed Use, or leave as C -1 and leave it up to the property owners with specific development proposals in a Mixed Use category to come back and request the change of zone that would be consistent with the General Plan. He further explained that once the Zoning Code is updated with these new designations staff would come back with a city -wide zone change for a number of areas throughout the city to bring the zoning more into conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner Neff inquired about the timing for the Zoning Code Update. City Planner Leslie stated the Zoning Code Update is in draft form now. However, we are waiting on the General Plan Clean -up as we want to get that through prior to the Zoning Code Update, and the General Plan Clean -up could come before the Commission as early as the second meeting in February, and before City Council in March; so the Zoning Code Update could come later this year. Chairman Bullard stated he would like to go back to lots in question from Ms. Merrill. C- 1 /C -0, can not understand why this was brought back for this one section. In the annexation, if Planning and Council said they were going to leave this a commercial 1 we should do that. Chairman Bullard commented on the R -2 residential, stating he would like to see this as R -2 as it is the best we have in the interim period for the new zoning changes and codes that will be forthcoming. On the other hand I've got to look at C -O as property owners can petition for additional things, it is going to be a tough decision, but leaning toward C -1. Commissioner Metze commented that consideration must be given to the existing and proposed R -2 and then sticking commercial in the middle. Is this what is best for the whole community? Are we creating another area that could be something along the lines of the bird tract? Believes that commercial office is a better for the whole community. Chairman Bullard commented on the commercial along Lakeshore, which is basically mixed use at this time, but we are also bringing C -1 back into that area. He then stated that he must go on the previous promises made to the landowners, and in order to get this going and on the books within the General Plan concept thinks we should go with C -1. Commissioner Neff posed a question on procedure. If we consider the C -1 is that a possibility given what is before us is C -O; so do we have procedurally the flexibility to modify that or do we deny the proposal C -O and come back later with C -1. City Planner Leslie explained that the notice said consideration of C -O or future specific plan instead of the previously proposed C -1. C -1 is still a possible option by the fact that we noticed that in the first go around. Associate Planner De Gange stated this is a reconsideration, the C -1 is what is being reconsidered, and that can be accepted or not. PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 Chairman Bullard inquired about the area for reconsideration -- if this portion is strictly the one area being reconsidered the C -O /C -1 or is it the additional R -2 /C -1 designation. City Planner Leslie explained the maker of the motion would have to move for zoning on the entire Hammerhead area, indicate C -0 or C -1 for that one corner, R -2 or R -1 on the northeast side of Lakeshore, the parcels fronting Lakeshore Drive. Also, the maker of the motion can include a new motion on the previous proposed zoning calling out any specific areas. Commissioner Wilsey stated it would be prudent to transmit, assuming C -1 is considered, to City Council the concerns of the property owners and our prior considerations at the time of the annexation and make all of this information available to Council in the minutes. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 94 -2 REVISED WITH R -A IN THE DESIGNATED AREAS AS PRESENTED ON EXHIBIT "A ", R -1 AS DESIGNATED, R -2 AS DESIGNATED, THE POTENTIAL C -0 WILL REMAIN C -1 AND THE LOTS DOWN ON LAKESHORE R -2. City Planner Leslie questioned whether these would be the parcels fronting Lakeshore north of Machado. Commissioner Wilsey responded in the affirmative and that the C -1 would remain the same on the other side. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES. Commissioner Metze stated he believes that C -0 was brought back for consideration and believes this is a better use. For the record, believes we are creating a potential problem area. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY A 4 -1 VOTE WITH COMMISSIONER METZE CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE. At this time, 8:15 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:25 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 2. Zone Chanae 94 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner De Gange explained this request is for a change of zone for the majority of the territory along Larson Street and two linear shaped parcels fronting Lincoln Street near the intersection of Terra Cotta from R -1, Single - Family Residential to R -A, Agricultural Residential. He explained that the purpose for this zone change is that many of the parcels in this area are greater than one -half acre and associated with horses, and it was felt that the R -A Zoning District would be more appropriate than the current R -1 Zoning District. He explained that the property was zoned R -1 when annexed into the City in 1985 and this was the only district appropriate, as the Zoning Code was not updated until 1986 which established an R -A District. Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m., and noted for the record that written communication has been received from John and Karmen Paulus, 15063 Larson Road; Ted E. Nelson, 32183 Machado; Harley and Christina Webb, 15040 Larson Road. He then asked for anyone interested in speaking on the matter. The following people spoke: Lee Tompkins, 15020 Larson Road, stated when he purchased the property 17 -18 years ago it was R -1, and that he was not opposed to horses but against changing the zoning from what it presently is and what it has historically been to what is proposed. The map indicates these properties run all the way PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 down Machado Street on the northeast side of the flood control channel. Does not understand what kind of access there is on the northeast side of the flood control channel as this is a fenced in area, and asked that this be explained. Pam Eriser, 15049 Larson Road, stated they own 2.5 acres which was purchased five years ago, and that they have lived in the area since 1975. Ms. Eriser stated she was in favor of the R- A zoning and commented on the property value with that usage. She referred to a letter dated July 6, 1989, from the City stating that horses are allowed on that property, Larson area, and that it would be rezoned later when the City had the proper zoning. Ms. Eriser stated she was glad to see promises kept, referring to the previous item and past commitments, because this is one of the things we were promised - -we would have R -A zoning. Jim Eriser, 15049 Larson Road, commended the R -A zoning as it does protect the rights of the animal owners. This is basic- ally what we were promised by the City in all the discussion about the R -A. The reason I would like to see this go R -A is because it does not limit the people if the property is sold. Rose Tompkins, 15020 Larson Road, agrees with the Erisers, it is important that property rights be protected and they be allowed to use their property in the way zoned. We were annexed into the City as R -1 and pleased that we retained that zoning. Mr. Eriser has the only horses on the street, no one else has ever had horses on that street. We are not opposed to horses, but we don't want to change the zoning. Referred to the map posted and commented on Larson Road, the flood control channel being fenced on both sides - -no access to trail, and other properties in the area where there are horses. City Planner Leslie explained the map was generated on the GIS and it picked up only public dedicated right -of -way. This map just indicates that Larson Road as it goes up becomes more of a private easement as opposed to a public dedicated right -of- way. Larry Van Dervort, 6372 Sheridan Way, Buena Park, owns two parcels on Larson Street and intends to build two houses like those on Crestview. Concern is that if this goes to R -A will not be able to build homes like the ones on Crestview. Not opposed to horses, but does not want someone to come in and start a hog or chicken farm. He then asked if trailers would be allowed in the R -A. Chairman Bullard asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. Commissioner Metze asked staff to explain the difference between R -1 and R -A. City Planner Leslie stated that R -A allows the keeping of horses under certain guidelines outright as an accessory use. Where R -1 only allows the keeping of horses on a minimum half -acre with the approval of a condi- tional use permit (CUP). Also, it is not just the keeping of horses it is other types of animals that is not necessarily permitted outright in the R -1 zone. As far as agricultural uses, other than the keeping of animals, R -A does not permit outright agricultural uses on a commercial basis. The other major difference is the lot size or density allowed. Commissioner Metze asked if a CUP could be renewed in 5 years. City Planner Leslie explained that a CUP is a discretionary approval and could be conditioned to be renewed or run with the land. PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 Commissioner Metze stated that if he is not mistaken with R -1 someone could take one of these parcels and subdivide it into 7,200 square foot lots. City Planner Leslie responded the potential for this happening is greater under the R -1. Commissioner Metze asked staff to address the horse trail- - fenced going across the drainage and how this is going to be opened up, assumes a bridge. City Planner Leslie stated the channel is fenced behind those lots on the one side, but without an agreement with Flood Control District this could not be used as a horse trail. Associate Planner De Gange stated the hope is to someday negotiate with County Flood Control to utilize part of that right -of -way as a horse trail, but at this time it exists merely as a flood control channel. Commissioner Metze stated he was referring to the multi- purpose trail, where it crosses the flood control channel. City Planner Leslie stated the end of Larson Road does connect to a dedicated horse trail. Commissioner Metze stated that he understands this all being fenced, but what we are looking at and looked at in the past is just that the horse people have access to horse trails. Associate Planner De Gange stated they would at the end of the street. Commissioner Metze asked what the County's zoning was prior to annexation. Associate Planner De Gange responded that he was unsure and would have to check. Commissioner Metze commented on his visit to the area and recalls more than one yard having a corral, barn or whatever. Associate Planner stated it is a more rural environment than R -1. Commissioner Metze yielded the floor to Ms. Tompkins who explained the composition of the area. Commissioner Metze stated he does not feel the City has enough R -A zoning. Believes the areas that we have and talked about tonight are some of the few that are within the City zoned R- A. Associate Planner De Gange stated this would be some of the first area in the City to have R -A zoning. Commissioner Metze stated that he was in favor of the zone change. Commissioner Matthies commented that she grew up in this area and rode horses all around Machado Street. She then stated that she was in favor of the R -A zoning and would like to see more in this area as it would be beneficial - -not only for property values but for the people. Commissioner Neff referred to Mr. Tompkins' statement that he doesn't mind horse, prefers the R -1 zoning and asked him why he prefers the R -1. Mr. Tompkins stated that is what is in the whole area - -its always been. The reason I bought in the area was because it was an R -1 zone. It was R -1 when in the County and when annexed into the City some of the City Council people assured me that it stay R -1. I don't know what benefit it had for us to be annexed into the City. Commissioner Neff asked Mr. Tompkins what detriment it would be to his house or property. Mr. Tompkins stated that with 2.5 acres you could have up to 8 -10 horses. He then stated he does not have a problem with 2 horses but has a problem with 8 -10 horses. Commissioner Metze asked what if the property were sold and they wanted to put in homes - -how many houses would fit on 2.5 acres. What would be more of a detriment? Mr. Tompkins PAGE NINE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 stated with flood control /sewer costs they would not want to put in any homes. But you are right it would be a detriment. Commissioner Neff asked Mr. Tompkins if he planned to develop or further subdivide his property. Mr. Tompkins responded in the negative. Commissioner Neff stated it seems to him that if the property were zoned R -A you would be able to preserve the density of the neighborhood, the existing character of the neighborhood better than if it is R -1 with larger lots. If it goes to R -A and you have over time infill development occurring, lot splits, parcels maps - -it goes down to half acre lots - -it will be somewhat cut up and access may be difficult; so this is difficult to say, depending on the layout but any one of those properties could have no more than 2 horses for each half acre; so that with the R -1 zone, setting aside conditions of economics, conceivably you could see a higher intensity of land use in this area. We don't know if the services could support that or not, but horses are allowed there now under an R -1, correct. City Planner Leslie stated if there is a CUP it goes with the property and they can sell the property with the CUP allowing horses. Commissioner Neff asked if there were any requirements in the R -A zone that there be a CUP for certain kinds of animal husbandry uses. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative and explained that commercial agricultural enterprises would require a CUP. Commissioner Neff asked what agricultural uses would be allowable and would require a CUP. City Planner Leslie referred to Code and provided definition of agricultural and the types of uses subject to a CUP. Commission Neff asked how many horses would cause a trigger to throw you into the agricultural enterprise. Associate Planner De Gange stated the key word is commercial purposes. City Planner Leslie stated there is a fine line - -it will be tough enforcement wise to distinguish whether the animals are being raised for personal use or commercial use. Commissioner Neff stated there is a nuisance factor, asked if there is there any part of the code that talks about carrying capacity of the land, animal units for example. City Planner Leslie stated that his assumption is that this is built into the maximum two animals per acre. In addition to that requirement there are other requirements about the keeping of those - -in a corral, a minimum distances from residential structures on adjoining property and minimum distances from structures on the property itself. A two acre parcel could potentially have 8 horses on it; however, having those 8 horses and physically being able to provide for them pursuant to the other regulations may be two different things. Commissioner Neff stated that he likes both zones because of the lot size and the flexibility to develop in the future that comes with the R -1 zone. On the other hand, thinks the ambience created by the R -A zone with a half acre minimum preserves a bit of a rural ambience and otherwise a built up area, and testimony has been offered that there is extra value because of that, and so it is almost like you have a little island there of extra value and kind of an estate neighborhood with the R -A with nothing less than half acre if you can control the number of animal units on the property. If there is some way to limit the number of animal units per parcel, maybe the issue goes away. He then commented on the nuisance PAGE TEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 of flies depending on the number, boarding and care and stated that .maybe consideration should be given to limiting the number of horses allowed to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood so that you can satisfy both needs; so you have the protection for the R -1 neighborhood, but the way this has been cut up already - -on one hand it doesn't really lend itself to a grid -iron type subdivision. I would expect that as people want to cut this up further -- presumes there is no limitations they could do a parcel map to create a couple or three parcels out of each one of these existing and that would probably be a better development pattern than an R -1 subdi- vision out there. Is there some limitation that we could impose; is it appropriate to consider that in terms of the number of animal units in the R -A zone, and; do we create a war by doing that, if that is the principal objection. The other issue is if there is a CUP requirement for commercial enterprises should there not be a CUP requirement for expansion of those operations, commercial or hobby. City Planner Leslie stated that a conditional zone change where you place conditions within the zoning district that are not the same conditions in place in that same district elsewhere in the City - -I don't know. Commissioner Neff stated he was not talking about that- - talking about amending the code, the R -A classification to impose certain guidelines for the application of that R -A zone throughout. City Planner Leslie stated there are guidelines under the R -A that allows the keeping of horses and other animals outright as an accessory use, these guidelines limit the number of animals and specify how these are to be kept. Now, what I hear you saying is to amend these regulations to further limit the number of animals or put additional restrictions on the way they are kept. Commissioner Neff asked what are those guidelines, for example if someone wanted to increase their herd can they just do that? City Planner Leslie explained that if they have an acre and two animals and want to increase by two more they can. If they have a half acre and two animals and want to increase they can not, because they are only allowed two animals per half acre. Commissioner Neff inquired whether this was good policy, stating this is a rhetorical question, but something the Commission and Council should think about. Commissioner Wilsey stated he believes these were adopted from the County. City Planner Leslie stated these were similar to the County's, and explained the difference. Commissioner Neff asked if there were a lot of areas in the City with R -A zoning where this is a problem. City Planner Leslie responded in the negative and reiterated Mr. De Gange's statement that the Hammerhead area would be the first place in the City with R -A zoning. We did some prezoning of R -A in some areas that was being considered for annexation in conjunction with the Laguna Heights project. Commissioner Neff commented that this project is surrounded by or connected with a number of horse trails, for all I know the Regional Trail System. Associate Planner De Gange stated that it would tie into the Regional Trail System. Commissioner Neff inquired as to whether there were any boarding facilities out there presently. City Planner Leslie stated the boarding of horses is illegal without a CUP in an R -A zone. Again, this would be hard to enforce - -how do you tell if the horse belongs to the owner of the property or is PAGE ELEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 being boarded there for a fee. Commissioner Neff commented on whether there is some way to respect both sides, if no objections, to limiting - -as perhaps what the County has - -the number of horses you could have within the R -A zone, two per half acre and one for additional full acre above that. Commissioner Metze asked if the Commission could recommend to City Council a zone code amendment, something more along the lines of the County. Associate Planner De Gange stated the Commission did something similar at their November 16, 1994 meeting. There was general discussion on property size and the number of horses that could be kept pursuant to County and City regulations. City Planner Leslie stated the General Plan designation remains Low /Medium Density which does not preclude this area from going back to R -1 at some time in the future. A brief discussion ensued on procedures with regard to initiation of a zone code amendment, type of recommendation to City Council, and continuing the proposal until the code language is amended or deny proposal until the code is amended. City Planner Leslie suggested the Commission recommend approval of the zone change to City Council but subject to the R -A standards being amended. The R -A zoning in this instance does not become effective until the R -A standards are amended, or if the R -A standards are never amended the zone change never becomes effective. Commissioner Neff yielded the floor to Ms. Barbara Priske. Ms. Priske stated she doesn't know if it is feasible, but this street is very isolated and unique probably to anything that is going to be zoned R -A because of the unusual configuration of the lots, and a reasonably low number of property owners involved. Suggested the item be continued and work with the homeowners to see if they would like to file CC & R's that would have certain restrictions. Believes this would also be beneficial to the people living on Danielle and Crestview in ensuring them that extensive cattle and other livestock might not be kept on those properties. Believes if all the property owners on Larson agreed to a deed restriction and CC & R's being recorded that might resolve the problem, without changing the R -A zoning that has already been designated for ninety some odd properties. Commissioner Neff asked for the total number of parcels within this area. Associate Planner De Gangs responded sixteen and that they range from .5 acre to 2.5 acres. Commissioner Neff stated with all due respect that it might be easier to get to the same result through an amendment of the code language, than sixteen different points of view. City Planner Leslie stated the adoption of the zoning and amending of the code does not preclude the homeowners from adopting whatever deed restrictions or CC & R restrictions they want, those are civil matters and enforceable by them. Commissioner Neff asked if the items being talked about are reasonably agreeable. Mr. Tompkins stated there are 10 parcels in this one area being discussed and 8 of the property owners are opposed to PAGE TWELVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 making the change, and you are talking about protection- - having more horses versus less. We don't have a problem with horses and if the people in there want horses they can go to the City and get a variance to have horses, so there is your protection. Plus the people on the north end are about the only ones that could develop. If they wanted they could put in'probably another 16 homes, which would bring tax base into the City. I think you have the best situation right now, right now you can develop that property or leave it R -1 with large lots and if the people in there want horses they can have them right now. Commissioner Metze asked if we amend the code, the R -A Code, if they would still be opposed to R -A zoning. Mr. Tompkins responded in the affirmative and Mr. Van Dervorta stated with the R -A you are limiting what can be built. There was general discussion on property values and the number of property owners in favor and those opposed. Commissioner Wilsey stated he would be abstaining. Chairman Bullard stated with the R -A zoning feels the property value will be greater. With the trail systems that are in place we need the opportunity for future growth and future sale of the area, to have the ability to use horses in that area, but I also do not want to see livestock - -farm animals other than horses within the area. MOVED BY CHAIRMAN BULLARD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 94 -3 BASED ON THE'FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND ALSO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL INITIATION OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT CHANGING THE R -A STANDARDS FOR LIVESTOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH COMMISSIONER NEFF CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE AND COMMISSIONER WILSEY ABSTAINING. 3. Zone Code Amendment 94 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner De Gange provided a brief history on the proposal explaining at its meeting on November 16, 1994, the Commission recommended that City Council initiate an amendment to Section 17.20.060. City Council at their meeting on December 14, 1994, adopted Resolution 94 -62 initiating this amendment. He further explained this is an amendment to Section 17.20.060 (Agricultural Residential Development Standards) to include specific criteria governing the subdivision of lots adjacent to lots larger in size and /or within a lower density zoning district. The verbiage is identical to Section 17.23. 060, subsection C and D. Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 9:34 p.m. and noted for the record that no written communication was received. He then asked for anyone interested in speaking on the matter. The following person spoke: Ms. Priske, 15015 Le Gaye Street, stated she was in favor of the amended language. Believes it is very important and that it would apply on Larson Road whether it stays R -1 or R -A. Believes all of this discussion would have been eliminated if the City had not allowed Fred Christensen to waive the prezon- ing required at annexation. We never considered ourselves not to have zoning but it was what we had been zoned in the County. She inquired about an R -E (Residential Equestrian) zone that was prepared but never presented that would have addressed some of the concerns brought up tonight about the PAGE THIRTEEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1995 keeping of livestock versus horses. She then stated there are inconsistencies in the zoning and General Plan, and it is not inappropriate for the Commission to suggest /prioritize the revision and addition of appropriate zones. Chairman Bullard asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 9:37 p.m. Commissioner Metze stated he thinks this will help eliminate problems in the future, and happy to see it. Commissioner Matthies concurred with Commissioner Metze. Commissioner Wilsey stated it has all been said. Commissioner Neff concurred. Chairman Bullard concurred with the recommendation. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 94 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURN AT 9:38 P.M. Approved, Richard Bullard, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Linda Gri "dstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1995 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 1, 1995, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, a- ezl jam, Gt' js� Linda Grind tai Ul/ Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: NEFF, MATTHIES, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Special Projects Planner Kemble, Senior Planner Morita, Associate Planner De Gange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Seconded by Commissioner Metze and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve Minutes of January 18, 1995 as submitted, and to receive and file Minutes of February 1, 1995. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 94 -1 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - City of Lake Elsinore City Planner Leslie explained that the General Plan was adopted by City Council in November of 1990, and clean -up was necessary to ensure consistency throughout the document based on the final changes to the Land Use Designations, Goals, Objectives and Policies. He further explained that amendment to the Housing Element is necessary to incorporate additional information in response to State legislation and input from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Amendment to the Circulation Element is based on an update of the City's Traffic Model and the need to upgrade various arterial highway classifications in response to projected development traffic demands. City Planner Leslie introduced Special Projects Planner Bo Kemble, Ralph Castaneda, consultant working on the Housing Element, and Senior Planner Duane Morita, whom are present to answer questions. He then stated that Wilbur Smith and Associates is the consultant for the Circulation Element, and a representative is not present this evening. Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m., asking for written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication received. He then asked for anyone interested in speaking in favor, opposition or on the matter. The following person spoke: Mariana Mohylyn, 305 West Sumner, commented on the Housing Element; preparation of the 5 Year Plan and the need for public particiation, asked staff for information on this but never received it. Asked which groups participated and what input they gave. What kind of analysis and assessment was reached to determine /decide what state our housing is in. What changes and contributions the city -- besides promoting through private enterprise- -how the city will participate and assist especially in low income housing. There was a notice about 30 homeless which is not true- -also the homeless shelter - -which I am championing here in Lake Elsinore. Asked how the number of 30 homeless was arrived at, the homeless shelter has not been facilitated throughout 5 years and now the future 5 years are not included in the plan. How is this going to be addressed? How Redevelopment money is going to go PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 1995 toward correcting the problem of housing and not destroying it and how it will be replenished? Chairman Bullard asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 7. IS p.m. Commissioner Metze commented on bikeways, Page VIII -34, would like to see more amenities added and tied in with the park systems, carpool lots, bus stops, restrooms and shower facilities. Understands there are grants when these types of improvements are included with the bikeway systems that help cover these types of things. Whatever is appropriate, whatever other cities have been doing that enable them to qualify for these grants. This would be a positive thing for the community. Suggested expanding this section, if possible. City Planner Leslie explained the General Plan identifies bike routes and part of that was based on roadway designations at buildout, where roadways have sufficient right -of -way width to allow for a dedicated on street bikeway. We could take it a step further and develop a more comprehensive policy. Special Projects Planner Kemble stated policy has been added and referred to Page II -28, Policy 3.1.5. We can add more relative to accommodating future bicycle use in the city. Commissioner Metze commented on item #71 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program with regard to the use of burglary - resistant hardware and fixtures in buildings. Suggested the development of a checklist, utilizing the appropriate agency to ensure that certain things are covered. City Planner Leslie stated the mitigation measures by adoption will be policy. We would need a checklist covering all mitigation measures, maybe with emphasis placed on #71. Chairman Bullard stated this could be addressed during the design review process, a condition addressing security. Commissioner Metze commented this is something that we can condition and stipulate; however, would we look for a list from the Sheriff's Department? City Planner Leslie stated that Deputy Hoffman, who does the review, may already have something, but if not we could work together. Commissioner Metze asked staff report back to the Commission at a regular meeting, or provide a copy of the list if available. Commissioner Metze referred to the Southern California Association of Governments letter, does not like the city being grouped as a region. He commented that the low income housing requirements for communities like Canyon Lake, Murrieta and Temecula would be astronomical if Lake Elsinore and Perris were removed. Would rather see this done on a city by city basis. With regard to the homeless, if this was done on a city by city basis maybe the city could receive more funds. Because they are grouping us in as a region and applying a number of 32, even though we may have more, this is all that we are being allowed. He stated that he agrees with the RDA's response with their stand on this. Commissioner Neff referred to Page IX -38 through IX -40, Processing and Permit Procedures, commenting on the amendment to the Subdivision Map Act extending the expiration date of a tentative map, and bonding requirements for maps. He then suggested that language be added to the second paragraph on Page IX -40 and presented the following verbiage for considera- tion: 10the developer, property owner or responsible party to post bonds for improvements or provide an acceptable alternative form of financial security such as a development lien against the property for said improvements." PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 1995 City Planner Leslie stated staff will take the Commission's comments directly to City Council either through the staff report or as a revision to the draft document. He then stated the requirements for posting securities on subdivisions for improvements comes directly from the Subdivision Map Act, it is not something that can be waived but some flexibility can be allowed in the type of securities required. Commissioner Wilsey commented on Highway 74 and Riverside Drive and the Circulation Element Map not illustrating a direct tie in, why? City Planner Leslie referred to the Circulation Element Map posted and stated ultimately we would like to see a new overpass on the freeway, a half interchange where Riverside would cross the freeway. The connection between Highway 74 could be Dexter or remain as Collier, but based on the amount of traffic anticipated the Traffic Model and the traffic engineer saw this as a way to relieve future traffic. Commissioner Wilsey asked why the other alternative of cutting through the Warm Springs area was not considered feasible. City Planner Leslie referred to the Circulation Element Map posted and stated that one option that had been considered in the past was the realignment of Riverside Drive, but believes this was eliminated due to the wetland constraints. Commissioner Wilsey asked why the alternatives are not being listed on the map as future alternate proposals, and discussed in depth in this document, referring to the freeway and a link back to 74. City Planner Leslie stated this is addressed; however, this plan and element does not anticipate a direct linkage. Commissioner Metze commented that the linkage is Collier or Dexter. City Planner Leslie addressed the right -of -way designation for Central Avenue, Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive; connection of Collier and Riverside and the potential for something more being done in the future. He stated that with this plan we have the ability to require dedication of the right -of -way needed. This is the plan now, as time goes by if other alternatives look like they are more possible we can amend the plan and address these alternatives. Commissioner Wilsey stated he does not look at Highway 74, potential 6 lane highway, with the traffic volumes anticipated at buildout as something that we want to bring down under the freeway. He commented that this has been a problem that we have lived with and something that should plan out. He expressed concern with a primary arterial highway coming to a stop sign and having two right turns and then going a mile and having two left turn pockets. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated this was discussed with City Council at a workshop. Some of the discussion was the volume of traffic when you go west past I -15 to Ortega High- way, which is a two lane mountainous road, and the volume of traffic anticipated between I -15 and I -215 would probably be greater than what would be going I -15 to Ortega Highway. He then explained the capacity difference between 120 and 130 foot right -of -way. He further explained that about five years ago Cal -Trans was approached regarding this "L" shaped intersection, we wanted it diagonal, but Cal -Trans did not want to deal with the wetland issue. He then referred to the General Plan which shows Central as a major street all the way down to Strickland and Strickland will be a major street; so some of the right /left movement will be eliminated. Believes the traffic engineer included this to address this issue, and to help alleviate some of the congestion. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 'FEBRUARY 15, 1995 Discussion ensued on the classification for Highway 74; Dexter, Collier and the Strickland options. Commissioner Wilsey commented that the bikeways listed on the map, Exhibit VIII -5, are nothing more than a painted sign down the side of the road. Would like to see the bikeways expanded into the multi- purpose trails and utilize this concept as well as the painted strips. Also, noticed that the multi- purpose trails, which have been dedicated but not constructed, are not included, particularly the one that runs by 888 Development, crosses Lincoln, goes down by Premier, up behind Woodhaven and intersects with Grand Avenue. He then asked that staff check the multi- purpose trail criteria and report back. City Planner Leslie stated the multi - purpose trail can be added to the plan, and will check on the multi - purpose trail criteria. Chairman Bullard requested clarification on whether this addresses GPA 94 -1 only. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative and reiterated this is a clean -up necessary to ensure consistency throughout the document. Chairman Bullard requested that staff look into the comments made this evening and these be incorporated into the Staff Report or document presented to City Council. He then suggested that staff start preparation for future amendment. He then asked staff to address the questions on housing as raised by Ms. Mohylyn. City Planner Leslie reiterated that the Housing Element was adopted in 1990; this proposal does not constitute an update, it is an amendment specific to the Housing and Circulation elements with clean -up revisions need to ensure consistency throughout the document. He further explained the Housing Element reflects revisions in response to State legislation and redevelopment law reform adding the new requirement for preparation of the 5 -year Housing Implementation Plan, which we are currently in. This Element must be amended again in 1996. The purpose of the 5 -year plan is to outline the City RDA's strategy for the use of set aside funds to eliminate blight and provide affordable housing. Special Projects Planner Kemble explained that the number arrived at in the Element is a dated number - -an estimate only. He then commented on the City /County programs contained within the Housing Element. There being no further discussion, Chairman Bullard called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GPA 94 -1 AMENDING THE CIRCULATION AND HOUSING ELEMENTS AND INCORPORATING TECHNICAL UPDATES OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE 1990 GENERAL PLAN, CERTIFI- CATION OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL EIR AND ADOPTION OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 95 -1, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94 -1 TO AMEND THE CIRCULATION AND HOUSING ELEMENTS OF THE LAKE ELSINORE GENERAL PLAN, INCORPORATE TECHNICAL UPDATES OF OTHER ELEMENTS AND CERTIFICATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 1995 Commissioner Neff asked whether this includes the suggestions. Commissioner Wilsey stated it does. City Planner Leslie asked if the Statement of Overriding considera- tion was included. Commissioner Wilsey responded it was. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE 2. Methods of Addressing the Downsizing of Units Within Existing Developments Associate Planner De Gange explained the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 21, 1994, requested staff study these concerns and explore potential ways of addressing them. More specifically staff was asked to look into the 75% rule, which is a restriction established within the R -1 development standards for the subdivision of lots which are adjacent to larger existing lots, and applying similar criteria for home sizes. He explained how the 75% rule could be applied to be most effective and equitable and provided examples. He then requested that staff be allowed to investigate these alternatives further. Chairman Bullard recommended that staff investigate further. Commissioner Wilsey stated that staff did a very good job of covering the concerns. Commissioner Metze stated he agrees and believes this can solve a lot of problems. Commissioner Neff requested staff prepare a table illustrating both methodologies discussed in the informational report, a comparison of the smallest model and a weighted average comparison. Chairman Bullard requested staff prepare a scenario on the current Tuscany Hills project utilizing the 75% rule. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairman Bullard closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:31 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Approved, L/inda Grin staff Richard Bullard, Recording Secretary Chairman MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1995 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. James Sands. OATH OF OFFICE Deputy City Clerk Bryning issued Oath of Office to James Sands newly appointed Planning Commissioner, filing the seat vacated by Don Neff. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner Villa, Associate Planner De Gange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Metze, Seconded by Commissioner Wilsey and carried by a vote of 4 -0 with Commissioner Sands abstaining to approve the Minutes of February 15, 1995 as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to the end of Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 95 -1 - Associate Planner Villa explained this is a request to operate a private day school, kindergarten through twelfth grade, at 31620 Casino Drive, Suites A & F pursuant to the requirements of Section 17.48.030.B of the Municipal Code. He further explained that this proposal is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., and noted for the record that written communication has been received from Walter and Melinda McCue and Mr. & Mrs. Dan Witcher in support of the project. He then asked for any additional written communication. The Secretary reported the following written communication received in support of the proposal and included in the packet, from: Charlie A. Smithson, 15721 Shadow Mountain Lane; Donna Ruton, no address given; Christine Ann Kirley, received via fax; Tracy H. Sandberg, 22778 Canyon Lake Dr. S., Canyon Lake; Claudia Stratton, P.O. Box 1046, Murrieta; Scott & Kim Alexander, 22900 Gold Rush, Canyon Lake; Mr. & Mrs. W. E. Elder II, 40401 Deluz Road, Fallbrook; Karen Glover, 13155 Haven Rock Court, Corona; Lamar Sepulveda, 41128 Mountain Pride, Murrieta; Chairman Bullard recognized Ms. Bonnie Dawson. Ms. Bonnie Dawson stated she concurs with most of staff recommendation. She then questioned the two year review period and suggested consideration be given to increasing the enrollment to over fifty at one year, since seventy students would be appropriate for the occupancy load of Suite "F ", or if it was proven that there were no traffic or foot traffic problems, or anything like that, maybe increase enrollment to PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 1, 1995 under seventy before the two year period, condition number 4. Asked if this is a possibility. Chairman Bullard asked for anyone interested in speaking in favor, opposition or on the matter. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff to address Ms. Dawson °s question about coming back for staff review prematurely. City Planner Leslie stated that within 1 year staff can review it and consider the 70 student limit and then after 2 years consider an even higher limit, up to 100 students. Will defer to Mr. Villa, but believes this would be acceptable to staff. Commissioner Wilsey asked if Ms. Dawson wished to come back and increase the enrollment to 100 students whether this would entail another CUP and costs, or could be done prematurely as well. City Planner Leslie stated anything could be done prematurely. All the condition does is set up an automatic time for it to come back, but she can come back with a request at anytime. Commissioner Matthies inquired about establishing a 25 mile an hour school zone designation, concern is safety. City Planner Leslie stated this would have to be worked out with the Engineering Department and the Police Department, and something staff would have to check into. Commissioner Wilsey suggested this be added as a condition and a traffic study done to see if a school zone designation is warranted, and the analysis of this study being left to the City's Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Metze asked who would be providing the study and the associated costs. Concern is passing unnecessary costs off onto the school, because condition number 12 covers a certain amount for controls. Commissioner Wilsey stated this would be a staff determina- tion, and condition number 12 addresses the potential need for crossing guards not signage and speed limit. Commissioner Metze asked whether enrollment could be increased to 70 to start with since the maximum occupancy for each classroom is 35 students and the applicant proposes to have only 25 students. This would eliminate her having to come back until she wanted to enroll over 70 students. City Planner Leslie explained the Building Code allows up to 70; however, staff was hesitant in allowing the maximum allowed by the Building Code as it was felt this was an experiment allowing a school in a commercial zone. Commissioner Metze inquired whether there would be any costs for Ms. Dawson to come back and request an increase from 50 to 70 students. He stated he would prefer, with concurrence, that the enrollment be increased to 70, condition number 3. City Planner Leslie stated there would be no cost on the automatic basis, one year for 70 and two years for 100. But a premature request involving modification of the CUP would involve costs. Suite "F" is being looked at and is split into two classroom spaces, so if enrollment were increased the area would have to be increased and the CUP does not cover any additional area. Commissioner Sands commented that the temporary occupancy in Suite "A1° expires on March 31, 1995, asked whether they hoped to be in Suite "F" before the expiration date. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 1, 1995 Ms. Dawson stated they are working to get this done and the owner has another tenant moving in, so we have to get this done. The only hinderance would be inspections and Larry Russell, Chief Building Official, is aware of the deadlines. Commissioner Sands referred to the County Fire Department's letter regarding future expansion of classroom "B ", Unit "F ", requiring full manual and automatic fire alarm system and asked whether classroom "B" is anticipated for use. Ms. Dawson stated at present there are 40 students - -there will probably be 20 students in each classroom, and in the process of acquiring an alarm system. A brief discussion ensued on the expansion with regard to fire alarm systems and the increase in enrollment having no effect since there is more than one classroom. Chairman Bullard stated his concern was with motel patrons using the parking areas in front of the suites, parking of large vehicles. Asked if the parking situation had been discussed with the motel owner. Ms. Dawson stated this has been discussed with the manager of the motel who also manages her building. Parking of these vehicles will only be allowed before and after school hours and on weekends. Chairman Bullard commented on the noise factor - -the amount of noise students will create during recess and the impact this may have on motel patrons, asked if this has been discussed with the motel. Ms. Dawson stated this was discussed with the owner and the manager of the motel. They did not think it to be a problem and it has not been and no one has complained. Chairman Bullard commented on student traffic between the suites and asked how this will be curtailed. Ms. Dawson stated that after March 30 they will only be in Suite "F ", which is located at one end and the playground is directly behind, so the students would not be walking down to Suite "A" and there would be no foot traffic going by the other businesses. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT "A" AND "Be' AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 3: The number of students shall be restricted to ___; _ �__, seventy (70) as a trial basis. Condition No. 13: A traffic study shall be done to see if a 25 mile an hour school zone designation is warranted in front of the school on Casino Drive. Analysis of this study shall be left to the City's Traffic Engineer. All traffic control devices shall be installed by the applicant if the speed zone is determined to be warranted by the Traffic Engineer. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PAGE FOUR — PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 1, 1995 PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M. Approved, Richard Bullard, Chairman Res ctfully s bmitted, Linda Grin staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner Villa, Associate Planner De Gangs and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve the Minutes of March 1, 1995, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to the end of Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 95 -1 - FoodMaker. Inc. - Oak Grove Ecuities Associate Planner Villa explained the proposal entails design review for the development of a 2,816 square foot Jack- in -the- Box restaurant with a drive through on Parcel 9 (approximately 1.31 acres) within the Elsinore City Center, located at the southeast corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. Mr. Villa explained that Parcel 9 is a long narrow parcel and only 70 percent is buildable. Mr. Villa highlighted staff concerns with regard to the building design and site plan design. Mr. Villa provided a brief history on the Elsinore City Center Specific Plan and associated projects. Chairman Bullard asked if the applicant or a representative was present and would like to address the Commission. Miki Golden, FoodMaker, Inc., Construction Project Manager, stated they have worked with staff to try and come up with something agreeable to both, FoodMaker and the City. Knows there has been concern about reorienting the building and the building was oriented to take advantage of visibility on the site, a lot of effort was put into providing a building that is nicer than the basic Jack -in- the -Box, referring to elevations posted. Ms. Golden stated there were concerns on the architectural features and that features from Wal -Mart were picked -up and incorporated. She stated a drive through canopy has been added to give interest and to accommodate concerns on visibility. Chairman Bullard asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. The following people spoke: Jon Myhre, Nasland Engineering, commented on the requirement for a pedestrian walkway from Grape Street (condition number 16), and explained that when plans were processed for the Wal- Mart center the condition for a pedestrian sidewalk was PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 15, 1995 removed, as indicated in the Staff Report. The shopping center is designed for complete pedestrian access from Grape Street. Mr. Myhre commented that installing a pedestrian walkway would be an extreme hardship to this development, ADA requirements with regard to steepness, landings required which would put the sidewalks below the grade of vehicle access, utilities and the exiAling retaining wall would have to be modified. Mr. Myhre stated they would be willing to discuss different alternatives, such as: signage or fencing to prohibit access and let people know that pedestrian access is available further along Grape Street, southerly. Mr. Myhre requested this condition be deleted, and stated he would answer any questions. Bernie Scaparro, Real Estate Representative, FoodMaker, Inc., informed the Commission of the reason for this location and commented on the visibility of this site with regard to the freeway and surrounding areas. Mr. Scaparro stated if there is a concern with stacking vehicles along the freeway the vegetation required to be planted, in a couple of years, will conceal this and it will take care of itself. Mr. Scaparro stated the building was oriented so the customers were seated at the south end of the building- -the most aesthetic part, so that customers coming into the center will not see the back end of the building they will see the front. The customers sitting in the restaurant will have a good view of the center and the south part of the Lake. Mr. Scaparro stated he would be available for questions. James Vance, 31 Corte Palazzo, commented on the number of fast food restaurants within the area, nine restaurants in two blocks. Referred to the number of fast food restaurants in the City of Banning and stated this is not what he would like to see Lake Elsinore turn into. Tom Davis, 24 Bella Caserta, commented on traffic flows in the area and stated that he hopes the Commission is considering this. When it gets to the point where you have no choice but to accept these fast food restaurants there should be some sort of stipulation that they contribute to our community regarding widening of roads and improving the looks of our exists and entrances onto the freeway. The view is too beautiful to waste on a Jack -in- the -Box, believes this is an optimum place for a sit down restaurant. Bob Falco, 9 Villa Valtelena, concurs with other statements, and concerned with the trash generated from fast food restaurants which deteriorates neighborhoods. Carl Voss, stated he talked with Councilman Bender who is against this and informed the people of Tuscany Hills and they were very appreciative. Concerned homeowner in Tuscany Hills and against fast food restaurants looking for better restaurants. The Mayor has said that Lake Elsinore has to be a first class City and we of Tuscany Hills are ready to help the Council get a better Lake Elsinore. William Ward, attorney for Oak Grove Equities, 685 East Carnegie Drive, San Bernardino, stated Oak Grove Equities obtained specific plan approval. The specific plan provided for a fast food operation on this project, it is a permitted use. The argument on whether or not there should be a fast food operation has already been taken up. After approval of the specific plan, my client invested substantial funds in the overall project incurring a tremendous amount of debit to finance the buildout of this project. Subsequent to adoption of the specific plan the Wal Mart facility among other improvements have been built. Oak Grove Equities has vested rights in that project and entitled to have a use that has already been preapproved. In addition, there is a condition PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 15, 1995 of approval that we noted about the pedestrian access, addressed in earlier comments. Again, that is a matter that came up in the context of the approval of the specific plan, it has already been addressed. This was not made a condition to the approval of the specific plan. The concept that we want a nice sit down restaurant is all well and good, but again its to my client's severe economic detriment. Ms. Golden stated that after listening to the concerns and objections of neighborhood residents she would like to emphasize that they spend a great deal of time trying to be sympathetic to surrounding uses. This was one of the reasons for its design, so we could blend in with the center. She stated roof equipment has been lowered so it will not be visible from up the hill and site studies have been done to ensure anything placed on the roof is not visible, and stated that photographs are available for review. Ms. Golden explained the reason for the design presented is in response to traffic concerns. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff if a traffic study has been done to determine the higher volume in fast food operations as opposed to sit down operations, and whether a pad was identified for a fast food. City Planner Leslie stated a traffic study was done in conjunction with the specific plan and this was taken into consideration. The specific plan did not identify a pad for fast food. Commissioner Wilsey stated that Jack -in- the -Box has done an admirable job of incorporating the design criteria from the rest of the project site. Primary concern with this project is traffic flows on Grape Street, particularity on the "A" entrance, where they would be located. Traffic impacts on this particular one, which is very steep, and close to Railroad Canyon would be very detrimental. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the view from this site, one of the most beautiful in the Valley, and stated he has no problem with Jack -in -the -Box or any other fast food chain in the City Center Specific Plan area, but does not believe he can accept one on this parcel, to close to.Railroad Canyon and that intersection. Further south would give a longer street width to deal with the traffic flows that will be incurred. Commissioner Wilsey stated he takes exception to Council as they did not specify fast food on which parcel, referring to the original site plan. The original specific plan discussed with the City and plans presented indicated a sitdown restaurant of approximately 6,500 square feet. This was presented as a viable option for that parcel. City Planner Leslie stated for clarification the exhibit is an enlargement of a portion of the site plan approved subsequent to the approval of the specific plan. The specific plan required submittal of a site plan when actual development proposals came in, and this was the site plan that came in originally with the Wal -Mart and other stores in the center. Commissioner Metze stated this is not consistent with the original site plan approved and asked staff if this was an amendment. City Planner Leslie explained this request is essentially an amendment. The previous site plan was approved through the design review process and we are now in another design review process. Commissioner Metze informed Mr. Ward that the City has a great deal invested in the center, under great controversy. Also, understands the walkway can be addressed again. Does not believe that you can enter this center without pedestrians being in traffic and public safety needs to be a concern. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 15, 1995 Commissioner Metze commented on the original conditions of approval for Wal -Mart and the landscaping not being met nor maintained and the ramifications there if the City decided to push the issue. Finds it difficult to believe that the drive - through lane is going to be covered in a short period of time and not visible. The Wal -Mart is prominent and the site visible from all over. Commissioner Metze commented that the City has made nothing but concessions for the area, the walkway was one, and has seen nothing coming back with regard to the amount of money committed. Believes some form of a walkway is a must. Commissioner Metze asked staff what signage was approved. Associate Planner Villa explained there is a Master Signage Program for the center and three identification signs 45 feet high on Grape Street were approved. Commissioner Metze asked if this was to accommodate visibility from the freeway and whether Jack -in- the -Box would be eligible for one of these signs. Associate Planner Villa and City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Metze stated the far south lot would be the one that we could most work with; walkways are in; the pad is close -- within a couple hundred feet square feet of what is being proposed. Believes a fast food restaurant is going to generate more walking traffic than a non fast food restaurant and that is going to directly impact the initial entry way into the center. Commissioner Metze reiterated that public safety is a major concern. Commissioner Sands asked staff if Exhibit "A" is the one being considered. Associate Planner Villa responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sands asked if the existing eight (a) parking spaces would be abandoned and the curbing reconstructed, so as to provide entry way into the south parking space. City Planner Leslie stated in this plan these spaces would be torn out and a new parking area designed. Commissioner Sands referred to the City's letter of February 16, 1995 and the developer's letter of March 1, 1995. It appears the developer has addressed the City's concerns on items 1, 2, 3, and 4. City Planner Leslie stated staff found the applicant's redesign better than the initial submittal. Staff still has concerns with a portion of the redesigned parking area and included a condition of approval if the Commission moves to approve this project. Commissioner Sands stated item #8 of the City's February 16 letter states the walkway will be a requirement, and Oak Grove indicating the City agreed to waive this requirement, has this been resolved? City Planner Leslie responded in the negative and explained that staff believes the specific plan was looking for adequate pedestrian access to this site. The site plan previously approved and submitted after the specific plan did indicate a sidewalk to be placed on that driveway. In the rush to try and get Wal -Mart open, when most of the improvements were completed, that sidewalk had not been put in. Staff was recommending the opening of Wal -Mart be held -up until that sidewalk was put in. In the interest of not holding up the opening of Wal -Mart, staff relented and did not require that sidewalk for the opening of Wal -Mart, and Council in their approval allowed Wal -Mart to open and did not require that PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 15, 1995 2. sidewalk. What staff is now saying is that we believe the proposal of this restaurant, at this particular side of the center, is representing new circumstances involved. We believe the restaurant will draw additional pedestrian traffic up this particular driveway due to this particular proposed site for this restaurant. Secondly, in staff's visits to the site we have noticed pedestrian traffic using that driveway, to what we believe is a great safety hazard. At this time, with the proposal of this restaurant on this site staff would recommend that we now require the sidewalk to be put in. Commissioner Sands stated the reorientation of the proposed restaurant would be cost prohibitive to the developer and unnecessary. The drive through area in the south parking area seems to be adequate when compared to similar areas, referenced In- and -Out Burger. City Planner Leslie explained the In- and -Out Burger drive -thru lane goes completely around the parking area. At no time does anyone parking in the parking areas need to cross over the entrance to the drive -thru lane. Commissioner Matthies stated her concerns have been addressed. Chairman Bullard commented on the previous request for a parcel split and at that time it was requested /suggested and basically told Oak Grove Equities exactly what is wanted for this site plan. Chairman Bullard commented on public safety with regard to pedestrians walking up /down that incline -- visibility, and no handicap access coming up that incline. Chairman Bullard stated that signage is higher than 45 feet from the street level at Grape Street. The wall itself is over 45 feet tall. With the approval of the previous site plan, at this point not inclined to make any changes in the site plan. If a fast food establishment was to be placed in this area would follow the recommendation of the other Commissioners and move it southward. Also, agrees this is an ideal view lot. Associate Planner Villa stated for clarification staff is not recommending denial of the proposal based on use. City Planner Leslie stated the recommendation of denial is not on the basis that this is a fast food restaurant, the specific plan allows for a fast food restaurant. Staff does not feel this particular site is of adequate shape or size to accommodate this restaurant, and staff would ask that the Commission deny on this basis. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO DENY DESIGN REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT NO. 95 -1 ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROPOSED SITE IS INADEQUATE IN SIZE AND SHAPE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE AND STRUCTURE. City Planner Leslie explained that in the case of Design Review a vote of the Planning Commission of denial is final unless appealed to the City Council. Associate Planner De Gangs provided a brief history explaining the Commission requested staff study concerns with respect to potential problems associated with downsizing in existing PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 15, 1995 developments, and the fact that the Code has no provisions to regulate. Staff was asked to look into the 75% rule, which is a restriction established within the R -1 development standards for subdivision of lots adjacent to larger existing lots, and apply similar criteria for home sizes. Staff presented the results at the meeting of February 15, 1995. The Commission requested staff prepare examples of how the 75% would work with respect to actual situations. This information was provided at the meeting of March 1, 1995, and staff was instructed to proceed with initiation of a zone code amend- ment to implement the 75% rule within the R -1 development standards pertaining to minimum dwelling unit size (Section 17.23.110). MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SANDS AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 95 -2, INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.23.110 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 19, 1995, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.23.110 OF THE ZONING CODE (MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE WITHIN THE R -1, SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT) - ZCA 95 -2 Commissioner Wilsey explained to the audience that in order to implement the minimum dwelling unit size within the R -1 (75% rule) adoption of Resolution 95 -2 is the first step. The specifics will be coming back in the form of a public hearing on April 19th. City Planner Leslie stated this amendment, if adopted, will not necessarily have any affect on specific plan areas. Because specific plan areas have their own standards, except where the specific plan refers back to the Zoning Code. Commissioner Metze asked if this would affect new specific plans and whether staff can be directed to make sure that it does affect new specific plans. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative and explained that in any review of a specific plan that can be specifically looked for in the specific plan. He then reminded the Commission that this discussion should take place at the upcoming hearing. PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. ADJOURNMENT THE REGULAR PLANNING Respectfully s±abmitted, Linda Grir. staff Recording Secretary MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:05 P.M. Approved, / Richard Bullard, Chairman MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1995 The Study Session was called to order at 8:53 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner Villa and Associate Planner De Gange. It was the consensus of the Commission to take items 2 and 3 out of sequence and discuss them concurrently. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. Residential Project 94 -1 - Colrich Homes (formerly National Home Builders) - Tract 17413 -3 [Tuscany Hills] (formerly Montalcino, Woodcrest Development) 3. Residential Project 95 -1 - Sunridge Homes - Tract 17413 -8 [Tuscany Hills] City Planner Leslie stated copies of reports prepared for items 2 and 3 have been distributed to representatives of the Tuscany Hills Homeowners Association (HOA) . Staff has worked on this for a while and the developers have made presentations to the HOA. Staff has had numerous discussions with representatives of the homeowners, builders, City Manager's office and City Attorney. The City Attorney has advised that the scope of staff's design review, as called for in the specific plan, is to be focused on a finding of compliance with the specific plan. Based on this advise, staff has found the projects as proposed and submitted consistent with the specific plan; therefore, recommended approval to the Community Development Director and the Community Development Director has signed off on the projects. Consequently, these reports are being presented to the Planning Commission for informational purposes only. City Planner Leslie highlighted requirement for architectural treatments, upgraded garage doors, color variations, the distribution and mix of units. He then provided worse case scenarios for the plotting of both Sunridge and Colrich with regard to mix and the maximum number of the smallest units. City Planner Leslie stated the City Attorney has advised staff that because the specific plan calls out that design review is at staff level and provides no other provisions staff's approval is final, there is no appeal. City Planner Leslie stated he would take any comments the Commission may have to the City Manager. Commissioner Wilsey stated the City Attorney has indicated the number of units or percentages with regard to the smaller square footage could be conditioned, what is the difference between doing this and dictating the square footage? City Planner Leslie stated he believes the City Attorney is indicating that staff can not preclude the builder from building what he wants, but can try and limit. Commissioner Metze asked if you could say one percent of the 1,626 and one percent of 1,755 and make up the difference on the other ones. City Planner Leslie stated staff could try, but does not think the City Attorney would advise staff to do this. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - MARCH 15, 1995 Commissioner Wilsey stated there are a lot of legal ramifica- tions, asked if we could get a determination from Council to let staff know how much they would back them. Council could give staff direction on what they would like to see, since staff has the ultimate responsibility for approval. Discussion ensued on providing direction to staff and comments being presented to the City Manager and City Council, if necessary. Commissioner Wilsey stated the smallest square footage does not meet the 75% rule and would like to see staff push real hard to drop the smallest unit. City Planner Leslie stated the comparisons made were to the Zellner product, which along with Woodcrest is some of the largest products built in Tuscany Hills. Commissioner Wilsey stated verbiage is needed for protection so someone does not come in and downgrade 75% and then 75% of that and so on. Chairman Bullard asked if we could say 75% of the average size home built by the previous or original developer. City Planner Leslie stated with regard to Tuscany Hills we have a specific plan that states the minimum size can be 1,000 square feet and sets no further restrictions. The downsizing ordinance has been discussed; however, something is yet to be brought forward including what it would be compared to. The 75% rule applied to minimum lot size applies to immediate adjacent lots; however, staff realized this would not work with houses. Staff is working on comparisons, unsure whether it would be within the project being approved or to adjoining developments. This is something that staff will have to look at and bring back. Commissioner Wilsey stated he gathers this flexibility is what is being built into the Code change. City Planner Leslie stated it is unlikely that the 75% rule could be applied to Tuscany Hills. Hearing from the Commission that the comparison is not only on a tract by tract basis, but also overall. Commissioner Wilsey stated this would only have to be dealt with on projects that have gone through what Tuscany and some of these other ones have gone through. Commissioner Metze stated the architectural enhancements, garage doors and condition 22 were all good. He stated this is one of those instances where the City has a loop -hole. If staff informs the City Manager that we want to go 5% on the 1,626 and 5% on the 1,755 instead of 20% of the total number of units, and if developer doesn't like it then they appeal to Commission or Council; this gives us a chance to hold to it. Commissioner Wilsey questioned availability of the appeal. Commissioner Metze stated he was informed today that if the developer wanted to appeal conditions then we go through the public hearing process. If staff holds firm on the conditions then go ahead and do it, because compatibility in scale and mass to me says size. Commissioner Metze commented on the original selling points of the proposal and believes the homeowners were steadfast at 2,000. When Colrich came in not everyone was pleased, but it seemed to be a workable /liveable situation with the 1,800; that was a concession. We can condition and suggested a way be found through conditions. A stand should be taken as far as that community goes, make them drop the two smaller units and start at 1,800 square foot, like Colrich has done. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - MARCH 15, 1995 Commissioner Wilsey reiterated that conditioning should be more stringent, plotting sizes or square footage minimums, if the City Attorney is comfortable with placing conditions on those projects. Commissioner Metze reiterated that protection is needed. He commented on the original proposal for Tuscany Hills and the money invested in the area of Main Street to Malaga. Chairman Bullard recognized a lady from the audience, who requested to speak. Terri Davis stated the Zellner tract was developed and built according to the plan approved. Why couldn't we take a stand to maintain that integrity? If they choose to build a smaller home somewhere else in the community they should submit plans after securing the property. Discussion ensued on Ms. Davis's comment and whether this is something that could be looked at. A gentleman from the audience stated they are suggesting not even within the tract they chose, which has already been approved for larger homes, but in tracts away from the central perimeter, around the perimeters of the property where there are actually smaller lots that a smaller home could fit. Commissioner Metze suggested compatibility in scale and mass be utilized. Reiterated that he likes condition number 22. He then commented on condition number 12, pertaining to fencing, and stated this is not the standard condition. Commissioner Wilsey stated fencing is part of the specific plan. City Planner Leslie stated these avenues were explored with the City Attorney, whether mass and scale could be utilized since the specific plan doesn't get into detail about the scope of design review, other than conformance with the specific plan, and the City Attorney indicated it could be used for size. But there are other provisions of the specific plan that say a minimum 1,000 square foot homes are allowed. Also, it encourages a mix of one and two -story homes. Commissioner Metze commented on the utilization of 1% and play the same game. City Planner Leslie reiterated that he can take any comments to the City Manager, and he can direct staff to prepare reports for City Council. Commissioner Wilsey commented that it would depend on how far the City Manager and City Council want to push. But the Commission's contention is compatibility, to get the square footage and massing up to what we feel is adequate. Commissioner Wilsey asked if there is a development agreement for the other specific plan (Ramsgate) approved in that area, and if the same problems could also occur. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative stating there could be the same problems. He stated that in going back and reviewing the specific plans a majority of them set 1,000 square feet as the minimum. Commissioner Wilsey commented that the 1,000 square foot was taken from the County; so we as a community really need to look at this and see if it is viable even for our low income housing. Joyce Hohenadl referred to a statement in the specific plan indicating the City and developer would meet once a year and review the specific plans or agreements and every ten years PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - MARCH 15, 1995 there will be a review of the agreement. Asked when was the last time the City met with the master developer and reviewed this specific plan. The City Attorney, City Manager City Council and Planning Commission could all get together and review and determine if this is an equitable plan. Discussion ensued on what happens if this review hasn't occurred; reviewing the terms and agreements of the specific plan to determine effects, and provisions within specific plans requiring annual reviews. Chairman Bullard referred to the petition submitted and asked if staff has received a copy. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative. Tom Davis, homeowners representative for Tuscany Hills, encouraged the Commission to take a strong stand, the 1% as suggested. If a strong stand is taken that will be an impetus for the master developer to take notice and be more apt to negotiate the issues. Asked if there was an agreement on the Zellner property, acceptance by this committee in the past, and whether the Sunridge proposal is an amendment. City Planner Leslie explained the agreement was between Homestead and the City, but the provisions of the agreement extended to Homestead's successors. Discussion ensued on whether or not there were plans in place for certain square footage that had been accepted. These proposals being an amendment and whether they have to be accepted. Mr. Davis suggested the Commission send Mr. Leslie back with a strong message supporting the homeowners of Tuscany Hills in their efforts of maintaining the integrity of the community. Commissioner Metze stated it is not a matter of what the City Attorney will accept. Staff will take direction given by the City Attorney and the City Council. Chairman Bullard stated the message is to maintain the integrity and force them through the conditions. Asked staff to relay the Commission's comments to the City Manager and the City Council. Commissioner Metze stated if they want to fight it then let the City Attorney fight it. Jorge Folgner, Sunridge Homes, stated he would like to provide some clarification after listening to the comments made this evening regarding this project, from Sunridge's point. He stated they are not trying to pull something over, railroad something through or go around the methods and procedures established. Mr. Folgner stated they designed homes that are very nice and will add to the community. He stated there was a home adjacent to them which Homestead did below 1,670 feet with a 2 car garage, and explained that their home is with a 3 car garage, a bigger size home. Thinks the look of the homes give the impression of a larger sized home. He stated the lot size prohibits the front of the house from being any wider, Colrich's lots are larger. He explained they investigated the design and what could be built and followed procedures and tried to comply with both the intent of the development agreement and •che City's requirements, and submitted plans in a timely manner. Understands the home- owners are concerned about this and believes the amenities, quality of the homes will be high and that they will add value to the neighborhood, sure this was their concern loosing value by the "downsizing" issue. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - MARCH 15, 1995 1. Zone Code Amendment 95 -1 (Amendment to Section 17.20.040 and 17.20.120 of the Zoning Code, type and number of animals permitted within the R -A, Agricultural Residential Zoning District) Associate Planner De Gange provided a brief history on this proposal explaining this deals with modifying sections within the R -A development standards that deal with the number of animals allowed, restrictions to the type of animals allowed, and clarification to the section which describes commercial uses, and proposes a change in the title of this district, as raised at past Commission Meetings. City Planner Leslie stated there are several questions in the report where staff is looking for specific direction; however, comments should not be limited to these questions. These questions pertain to the number of large animals that should be allowed; whether there should be different regulations on the number of animals based on the type of animals; limiting regulations; commercial uses of R -A property, and renaming the R -A District. Commissioner Wilsey stated this was one of his concerns. He commented that the Code, as it reads now, is probably allowing too many animals. We need to restrict more. our suggestion to staff was two horses for the initial half acre, two more for the next half acre and then after that two per full acre. Provided an example utilizing his property stating six animals would his maximum. Commissioner Metze asked if this was the County's standard. Commissioner Wilsey and City Planner Leslie responded in the negative and explained that it is similar to the County. Commissioner Wilsey stated with regards to keeping of other animals (swine, goat, sheep) would suggest adding verbiage that would allow the keeping of these types of animals specifically in conjunction with FFA or 4 -H Projects. Suggested the following: Bovine animals two per half acre, maximum two. City Planner Leslie asked Commissioner Wilsey if he was suggesting that the person keeping this animal must be involved in one of these programs, as opposed to someone raising two cows for slaughter or as pets. Commissioner Wilsey stated it may not be necessary and asked for further discussion. He then explained, from his experience, most of these have primarily been associated with the FFA or 4 -H Projects. Commissioner Matthies stated people raise farm animals for their own purpose and does not feel it should be limited to an FAA or 4 -H group. Discussion ensued on not limiting the number of animals; limiting certain animals as an outright use but allow under a conditional use permit. Commissioner Metze commented on the number of poultry or small domesticated animals allowed, the Code would allow 48 of these types of animals on two acres. Asked if this number is excessive and whether people who keep these types of animals want that many, or with this number are we talking commercial. Suggested 12 be the permitted number for chickens, rabbits etc., and if they wanted more they would have to apply for a conditional use permit and justify. Commissioner Wilsey asked what would be a good number for the keeping of sheep, swine, etc. Commissioner Metze suggested 2 with a conditional use permit. PAGE SIX — PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - MARCH 15, 1995 Discussion ensued on establishing a number for the keeping of these types of animals (sheep, swine, etc.) and the acreage required, and whether the guidelines for equestrian would suffice. Commissioner Wilsey referred to clarification of commercial uses and stated he has no problem with a property owner boarding an individual's horse provided they do not exceed what is allowed. Associate Planner De Gangs stated the Code does not make any provisions nor does it address this issue, and staff does not know how to address this issue. City Planner Leslie explained staff has suggested the boarding of animals not be prohibited as long as it does not exceed the maximum number allowed. Although, there is still the question on whether the boarding of animals for profit should be allowed. Discussion ensued on boarding of animals for profit, what is considered profit and how proof would be provided. City Planner Leslie stated staff could try and use the home occupation requirements. However, with the home occupation there should not be any commercial traffic and if you are boarding someone's horse they are going to come there. Staff is looking for direction on standards that would better define this section. If the boarding of animals, even for profit, is going to be okay then lets say that. Commissioner Wilsey stated he did not believe this to be a problem because in most instances it will be controlled by the number of animals allowed. Commissioner Metze agreed and stated that as long as verbiage is used which prohibits advertising. City Planner Leslie stated his understanding of what is being suggested is the growing of crops for commercial purposes is allowed as long as stands, displays or signage is not involved. Discussion ensued on the growing of crops with regard to parcel size and significance; use of pesticides and involvement of Air Quality when there are complaints; whether growing of crops for commercial purposes is an appropriate use for R -A; advertising and selling of crops on the premises and eliminating signage to control traffic and if this becomes an issue notifying Code Enforcement. Commissioner Wilsey stated he was adamant about changing the name. Staff has suggested R -E, Residential Estate, but would recommend R -1 Estate. He stated the guidelines of R -1 are still being followed just larger lot sizes, minimum on square footage of home sites and some animals keeping in this R -1. Commissioner Metze inquired whether this would eliminate R -A all together. Commissioner Wilsey responded it would. Commissioner Metze asked staff to explain the difference between the R -E -1 and R -E -2. City Planner Leslie explained that in the Zoning Code Update staff has to create a new zoning district for the General Plan classification of Low Density, 3 dwelling units to the acre. Currently, there is no classification consistent with this, R -1 is too high and R -A is too low of a density. Before renaming of the R -A District came up, staff's thought was to call the new district R -E. Now, we have to come up with something for R -A and Low Density and we came up with R -E -1 and R -E -2. PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - MARCH 15, 1995 Commissioner Metze stated the designation for Low Density would not allow for horses, correct? City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative, stating this is the intent. Discussion ensued on the potential confusion between designations, R -1, R -E -1, R -2 and R -E -2. The following titles were suggested: R -1 -E, R -E -E and R -E, R -E -1. Considerable discussion ensued on the suggested titles with regard to retaining the tie in to R -1 and lot size /acreage to be associated with designations. Commissioner Metze suggested as an option a straight R -E and R -E -1, with R -E -1 to be estate. Commissioner Wilsey suggested R -E and R -1 -Low Density. Discussion ensued on the suggested titles of R -E and R -1 -Low Density to eliminate potential conflict yet retain the tie in to R -1. It was suggested that the titles of R -E, estates size lots, and R -1 -L, Low Density, be utilized. Commissioner Wilsey commented that one way to eliminate some of these problems is to change the R -1 zoning to read, if you have over two acres you are allowed animal keeping without a conditional use permit. Asked staff whether the number of lots that would be effected has been looked into, as directed. He then informed the Commission of the city of Yorba Linda's process. Commissioner Metze commented on the problems associated with the keeping of animals and that new residents would just have to come in an complain, whether the conditional use permit is free or not. City Planner Leslie stated he did not know how the City of Yorba Linda did that, unless there were provisions in the conditional use permit that stated the city would have that ability in the future, if problems developed. We put these types of things in our own conditional use permits if it is something staff is not to sure about. Chairman Bullard asked how many two acre lots are in town. Commissioner Wilsey responded no more than a half dozen. City Planner Leslie stated a zone is needed where horses or animals like that are not allowed outright. Because there are people who want to live in that zone and not worry about that. Discussion ensued on topography of lots with regard to hillsides; building pad sizes and meeting criteria for keeping of animals. City Planner Leslie provided the following summary on the consensus reached. Beeping of Horses: Will be something similar to the County. Two for the initial half acre, two for the next half acre and two for each additional full acre. For other large type of animals it would be the same as for horses. No limitation based on involvement with FFA or 4 -H. Poultry: Twelve on minimum half -acre, anything over this requires a conditional use permit. Swine: No further limitations than on other types of animals. Commercial Uses: To be worded so people can not have stands, signage or displays. City Planner Leslie stated staff may come back with language stating that the boarding of horses is okay, does not want this to be a gray area in the future. PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION - MARCH 15, 1995 Renaming R -A: Rename to R -E for estates size lots, and R -1 -L for Low Density. ADJOURNMENT THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ADJOURNED AT 10:28 P.M. Richard Bullard, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Linda Gri staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present-were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner Villa, Associate Planner De Gange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Seconded by Commissioner Metze and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 15, 1995, as submitted. Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Seconded by Commissioner Metze and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve Minutes of the Planning Commission Study Session of March 15, 1995, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to the end of the meeting. At this time, 7:10 p.m., it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to adjourn to DRC and take up the item listed prior to conducting the hearings scheduled before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 95 -2 and Commercial Proiect 95 -2 - Dino Foutris (Douglas Burgers) Associate Planner Villa referred to the memorandum distributed and requested the addition of the following conditions: 53. Developer shall pave the existing Caltrans easement from Dexter Avenue to Old Dexter Road for two (2) travel lanes (28' wide). 54. Grading and improvements for the site cannot interfere with access on the Caltrans easement to the Caltrans park and ride facility. Associate Planner Villa explained the request is for a Condi- tional Use Permit to operate a drive - through and Design Review for a 2,800 square foot fast food restaurant to be constructed at the southwest corner of Central and Dexter. He then high- lighted staff concerns with regard to the building and site plan design. Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak. The following people spoke: Dino Foutris, 24570 Avenida De Marcia, Yorba Linda, stated he agrees with most of the conditions. He then questioned the rear planting area that abuts the I -15 off -ramp (condition #17) ; monument sign along Dexter (condition #18 and #38) ; redesign of the rear elevation with regard to architectural enhancements as listed in the Staff Report. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1995 John Matson, 3820 Ulla Lane, referred to the statement, in the Staff Report under Site Plan Design, that "the Zoning Code requires a landscape buffer a minimum of 15° with an average of 201 between parking lot areas and public right -of -way ". Mr. Matson stated the intent of the Code, when it was passed, was along main street thoroughfares. In addition, along the freeway, the In -N -Out, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Chevron all have 51 median landscape buffers and the only one that has a block wall is In -N -Out, and it is more to support the drop off there. Mr. Matson stated they have a concern with the 100 although not an overriding concern, but if it is something the Planning Commission insists on then we will definitely do it. Mr. Matson stated their major concern is the monument sign, and explained that when this project was first proposed the street was not dedicated or widened. The General Plan Circulation Element has just been adopted, a few weeks ago, and includes this property along Dexter. He explained that this would require dedication of 11° more on the front of the property and by dedicating the il° the building must be set back another 111 because of landscaping, parking and monument sign requirements. What we would like to do is maybe dedicate it but not necessarily have the City accept it, and allow the monument sign, landscaping and maintenance of the landscaping until the City accepts it or records the deed, and notifies us that they have done this and then the applicant will move the monument sign at his cost. Suggested condition #38 and #18 be modified to say the applicant is to work out a legal way to do this with the Engineering Department and the City Attorney. City Planner Leslie asked if there was a reason why they would be opposed to doing the landscaping in the back. Mr. Matson stated they were trying to be consistent with Chevron, and if the Commission insists they would go ahead and do it. City Planner Leslie commented that the rear parking area was a difficult design because the dimensions are insufficient for extra rows of parking. Basically, there is parking all around the edges and a large expanse of pavement in the center. Staff's intent for additional landscaping was to try and cut down on the pavement. Mr. Alvarez, Alvarez Design Studios, Inc., architect for the project, stated they have a concern in regards to the foam molding designs listed in the Staff Report under Building Design. He stated the top cap foam molding cannot be the same design as the foam cornice and explained the difference between them, and that a metal cap is required above the parapet to drain moisture and water away from the walls to keep it from staining the walls. As far as the wall facing I -15, this design was implemented to be consistent with the entry and carport. Also, once the landscaping at the rear, facing the I -15, is mature it will be hidden from view. City Planner Leslie explained that in complying with condition 3 and 4 staff would be looking for something to address bullet item 2 and 4 listed under Building Design of the Staff Report. He stated conditions would not have to be added or modified, staff is looking for Commission's thoughts /guidance on these two architectural features. Hearing no further requests to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter the public hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the use of foam molding and this not being a concern as condition #3 allows staff and the applicant to work out specifics. He commented on the 10° buffer in the rear stating he does not have a problem with 5°, because it was not required of the gas station and that way it PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1995 will be consistent, condition #17. He then asked staff to elaborate on the parking lot design -- whether staff is trying to get a better balance of the center asphalt area because of perimeter parking. City Planner Leslie explained there is a large maneuvering area in the parking lot, all asphalt, landscape planters can not be placed there as it would adversely effect the turning movements of these parking spaces. Staff was looking for additional landscaping to try and cut down on the asphalt and it was thought that the parking spaces could be moved further back off the property line and the size of that landscaped area increased. Commissioner Wilsey stated since the applicant does not have any concerns, nor are there additional costs involved that he would always go with the extra landscaping. He then commented that an addendum to the landscaping might be considered that would require more mature landscaping to help defray concerns. Commissioner Wilsey then inquired about condition #10, meeting Caltrans requirements for outdoor advertising. Associate Planner Villa explained Caltrans requires businesses utilizing a freeway or state highway to advertise to pay a tax. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the lit front setback and stated that he does not believe the gas station had to deal with this, correct? City Planner Leslie explained the 11' is not a setback requirement it is a dedication. He explained that when the gas station was built the ultimate right -of -way width for Dexter was different, the ultimate width is now 11' wider and the applicant is being required to dedicate that 111. At some point in the future, when the street is widened, the City will have to acquire the 11' off the Chevron property since it was not required to be dedicated. Commissioner Wilsey asked Engineering Manager O'Donnell if there is a time frame for the widening of Dexter, and if it is going to be a long time whether staff can work with the applicant. Mr. O'Donnell stated it will be a while before Dexter is widened, and the monument sign can be placed within the public right -of -way with an encroachment permit issued by the City, provided it does not obstruct any vehicle site distance, and with the stipulation that it be removed within 30 days with notice from the City when the street is to be widened. All costs associated with the removal of the monu- ment sign shall be borne by the applicant. Commissioner Wilsey suggested condition #18 be amended to reflect this. Commissioner Matthies stated she agrees with Commissioner Wilsey that condition #3 covers the concerns and allows staff and the applicant to work together. She commented on the starkness of the building and agrees with the use of another color to enhance the building. She commented on condition #17, with regard to the parking lot and understands the need, but if it is cost effective to bring that in a little and have extra landscaping; condition #18, agrees with allowing the monument sign and moving it when Dexter is widened. Commissioner Sands stated he concurs with Commissioner Matthies on condition #18, and with Commissioner Wilsey on the cap, condition #3. He stated that he viewed the site and it is a good location and would recommend that the plan be consistent with the Police Department's recommendation for security and that the windows remain free of obstructions, signs. Commissioner Metze commented on the starkness of the rear elevation and architectural pop -outs, agrees with Commissioner Matthies on another color to enhance the building. Suggested PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 5, 1995 a stripe or design that could be worked out with staff. He commented on the Police's Department letter with regard to crime prevention and would like to see the City press it more to keep these windows free of obstructions. He then suggested a condition be added requiring security lighting for the drive -thru area or that the applicant work with staff on an appropriate lighting plan. Discussion ensued on security lighting for the drive -thru area with regard to safety concerns and amending condition #23 to require the submittal of a lighting plan or reflect security lighting for the site on subsequent building plans subject to the review and approval of staff. Commissioner Sands inquired about the hours of operation. Mr. Foutris stated the hours are from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Commissioner Metze asked staff how Chevron was able to get by with the 5' feet. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated the Dexter Street classification was just changed last month. Believes it was a secondary when the Chevron station went through. Commissioner Metze then referred to the rear landscaping for Kentucky Fried Chicken and In -N -Out Burger and asked if the river running behind had anything to do with this. City Planner Leslie stated this was what was required at that time or it was a different interpretation of the Code. Discussion ensued on condition #17 with regard to landscaping and if not cost prohibitive additional landscaping to be provided, and whether this condition should remain. Mr. Foutris stated they were hoping to have a large parking lot to accommodate motorist with motorhomes rather than having them park on the street or at the gas station. Mr. Matson referred back to the interpretation of the Code and reiterated that the intent was for thoroughfares. Chairman Bullard asked staff whether parking requirements are still met by losing the two parking spaces for a larger median in the back. Associate Planner Villa stated that he does not believe any spaces will be lost. City Planner Leslie stated it appears on the plan that the row of parking spaces along the back is actually set in and that these spaces can be aligned with the other spaces. Discussion ensued on the parking lot with regard to maneuver- ability, whether the larger spaces should be designated for recreational vehicle parking; the park and ride vehicles currently utilizing this area, and whether there should be a time limit on the rear parking spaces. Chairman Bullard stated concerns were raised on the possi- bility of installing a median in the middle area for aesthetic and water absorption. City Planner Leslie stated staff looked at this and thought that circulation would be hampered, plus it may encourage parking along it. Commissioner Wilsey recommended that condition #17 stay at 51. Commissioner Metze suggested deleting condition 17. Chairman Bullard stated it was mentioned that there was a concern with condition #19 and this has not been addressed. Discussion ensued on whether signage would come back before the Commission, and past policy of the Planning Department being to bring signage before the Commission for review and approval, condition #19. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1995 Commissioner Wilsey suggested condition #19 be amended to reflect a sign program encompassing all signage be prepared and brought before the Commission for approval. Chairman Bullard stated he agrees with the statements made by the other Commissioners and asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the discussion and changes. Mr. Matson stated their concerns have been addressed. He then provided an overview of the changes: accepted 5' landscaping in the rear; a color or stripe to be provided on the rear elevation and this to be worked out with staff; monument sign allowed on the property up front until the street is widened. Chairman Bullard stated a sign program is to be prepared and submitted to the Commission. City Planner Leslie asked for clarification on the rear elevation, stating instead of foam add -ons a painted stripe would be another option. Now, another issue regarding the rear elevation is the architectural add -ons, and no one has suggested only paint rather than what is shown. Commissioner Metze stated he was thinking about what has been shown and colors added and this to be work out with staff. Chairman Bullard stated no additional add -ons just a color change. Discussion ensued on the rear elevation with regard to adding color, architectural add -ons and foam moldings, providing more mature landscaping, removing architectural add -on and provid- ing reveals or other design features and color variations, and this to be worked out with staff. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -2, AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 95 -1 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 95 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT "A" THRU "F" AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 17. The site plan seta -_ be redesigned _- -.. a minimum 191 landseaped buffer with berms shrubs and between the k let and the publie right of way (adjaeent te the 1 1 _ao__..mp) DELETED Condition No. 18: The monument sign can be placed within the 11' dedicated strip with an encroach- ment permit issued by the City, provided it does not obstruct any vehicle site distance, and with the stipulation that the monument sign will be removed within 30 days after notice from the City is given for the widening of Dexter Street. All costs associated with the removal of the monument sign shall be borne by the applicant. Condition NO. 19: A Sign Program encompassing all signage shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Condition No. 23: All exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. Applicant shall submit a lighting plan or PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1995 reflect on subsequent building plans security lighting for the site, subject to the review and approval of staff. Condition No. 53. Developer shall pave the existing Caltrans easement from Dexter Avenue to Old Dexter Road for two (2) travel lanes (28' wide). Condition No. 54. Grading and improvements for the site cannot interfere with access on the Caltrans easement to the Caltrans park and ride facility. 2. Zone Code Amendment 95 -1 - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner De Gangs provided a brief history explaining this item was discussed at length at the Study Session on March 15, 1995. He stated this amendment will apply City -wide and proposes to modify Sections 17.20. 030, 040 and 120 by limiting the permitted number of animals; to clearly define what is considered a commercial use, and; to change the title from R -A (Residential Agricultural) to R -E (Residential Estate). He further explained the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City's General Plan certified November 27, 1990 addresses any environmental impacts. Chairman Bullard asked for clarification on Subsection F of 17.20.030, whether this is for boarding horses or animals, and Subsection A.2. of 17.20.120 exclusion of roosters. Associate Planner De Gange responded that animals could be used. He then explained why roosters have been excluded from resi- dential areas and that the Code prohibits them all together. Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Mr. Paul Sandgren, 15019 Zieglinde, stated he has a mare that will foal in June, understands that a CUP is needed to drop a foal on the ground. There was no age specified as to when you have to get rid of the baby, six months, a year, three years. Hearing no further requests to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter the public hearing was closed at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Sands complimented staff on the work done. He referred to Mr. Sandgren's comment regarding newborn animals and stated language should be added to address this. Commissioner Metze asked if staff was in a position to respond to Mr. Sandgren. City Planner Leslie stated Mr. Sandgren is correct in his interpretation. Under accessory uses it specifically states it does not include products derived by animal husbandry, which would only be permitted by a CUP. Believes a new foal counts an animal in the overall count. Commissioner Wilsey suggested language be added to Subsection A.1 of Section 17.20.120 to deal with new foals on the grounds up to a yearling. Discussion ensued on the keeping of newborn animals with regard to acreage needed and whether all other criteria could be met, allowing foals up to yearling provided born on the property, feasibility of a CUP; sale of foal /yearling for profit and prohibiting booths or signs for advertising, time line -- weaned age or up to yearling, definition of weaned and problems associated with adding terminology "to weaned age" to existing verbiage. PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1995 City Planner Leslie suggested the existing language stand. Believes no one will complain until the foal become bigger and is more like the other horses on the site. At that point, the property owner could be informed that they would have to board one of the horses (animals) as they are over the limit. Commissioner Wilsey stated this issue has never been addressed and referred to the research done and the communities contacted that have animal keeping and equestrian zoning. City Planner Leslie commented on the commercial aspects with regard to someone constantly bringing their horse into foal for profit and whether this is to be allowed in the R -E, and whether this would apply to other animals sheep, swine, etc. Discussion ensued on the commercial aspects and this not believed to be a problem, as they will come up with a foal every other year, and other zones being silent about the handling of litters, such as puppies and kittens in the R -1. Commissioner Metze inquired about the R -1 -L. City Planner Leslie stated this will be dealt with in the Zoning Update. Commissioner Wilsey suggested the word "full" be added before the word "acre ", in Subsection A.1 of Section 17.20.120. Commissioner Matthies suggested the word "horses" in Sub- section F of 17.20.030 be changed to "animals ". She then suggested language be provided on the keeping of newborn animals to a weaned age, due to the opposition received. Commissioner Wilsey asked if she was looking to amend Sub- section A.1. of Section 17.23.120 by adding language that would allow newborns on the property up to a generally accepted weaned age. Commissioner Matthies responded in the affirmative, but unsure of the wording. City Planner Leslie inquired whether this would encourage people to have more animals. Discussion ensued on the amendment with regard to there being general acceptable standards on weaning animals; existing standards /procedures on handling a complaint; not being able to utilize a specific time line due to the multitude of species, and immediate attention if health and safety issues arise. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 95 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND THE CHANGE TO SECTION 17.20.120.A.1 AND SECTION 17.20.030.F. City Planner Leslie referred Section 17.20.040.A.6 and asked if the motion included deletion of the language in parenthesis (not including products derived by animal husbandry which would only be permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit [CUP]). COMMISSIONER WILSEY AMENDED HIS MOTION WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE SECOND TO DELETED THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED WITHIN THE PARENTHE- SIS OF SECTION 17.20.040.A.6. MOTION CARRIED BY A 5 -0 VOTE. I1034ZIDF&n4044F 3. Extension of Time for Industrial Project 92 -1 - Norman Industries Associate Planner Villa explained the applicant has requested a two year extension of time on the Design Review approval for this project. He stated the Zoning Code does not indicate the maximum amount of time a project can be extended, Condition #1 for this project provides for a one year extension. PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1995 Chairman Bullard asked about the number of extensions granted. Associate Planner Villa responded this is the first. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the project being hampered by flooding and delays in completion of the outflow channel, and would suggest a two year extension for these reasons. Commissioner Metze asked if there were cost associated with the extension, and whether there were new requirements that need to be addressed. Associate Planner Villa explained there is a fee for the extension and there are no new requirements needing to be addressed. Klause Mickul, 32371 Corydon, coordinator /supervisor of the building occurring at Norman Industries, explained their goal for this project is the Summer of 1996, and stated they would appreciate a two year extension. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO GRANT A TWO (2) YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 92 -1. INFORMATIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS City Planner Leslie commented on the following: 1. Nuisance Abatement Hearings. Staff is looking at holding one hearing a month. The hearing would be held on the first Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m., at City Hall. There is a hearing scheduled for April 6th, but staff will be used for this hearing. The April 20th hearing will not be held and the next hearing is scheduled for May 3rd. Commissioner Metze asked how busy these hearings will be with only conducting them once a month. City Planner Leslie stated they could be busy. He then explained the reason for the change to once a month being lack of agenda items and budgetary constraints. 2. Nuisance Abatement Orientation Meeting. Asked the Commission about establishing a day and time. It was indicated that this meeting could be at staff's convenience. City Planner Leslie stated he would work with Code Enforcement Officer Gordon and set -up a date and report back to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner /Committee Member Metze Commented on the following: 1. Inco Homes seems to be ignoring the conditions of approval. Does not know if they have been before Council and gotten past the block wall situation. The fencing being installed is not our standard steel uprights, set in cement. These are on raised lots and even with the block wall along the street wood fencing will be visible. This is the second time something has been flagrantly ignored in regards to conditions of approval, and if it does go before City Council would at least like to see them doing the wood fencing with the condition we have required in the past. City Planner Leslie stated Inco received permission to install that fencing on the models, under an explicit condition that PAGE NINE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1995 if their appeal fails at City Council they will have to remove the fencing prior to final occupancy of the models. If in Council's waiver of fencing requirements, meaning block walls, they allow wood fencing and state it must be of that standard then Inco will have to replace what was put up with that standard. Commissioner Metze asked staff to relay to Council his desire. 2. Police Department letter regarding crime prevention and keeping windows /doors free of any obstruction. Inquired about sending a letter to the fast food places informing them they are in violation of the 25% standard, and see if anyone complies. Commissioner Wilsey stated this should be turned over to Code Enforcement, this is one of our PR Programs. Code Enforcement should go out and take notification of the standards that are not being met and explain why these standards were adopted. City Planner Leslie explained the standard procedure for issuing a notice of violation. Commissioner Metze asked if there was a business license category these would fall into where a letter could be sent and then follow -up. City Planner Leslie stated this could be done. He then informed the Commission that a similar program was done for banners. People received notices of violation and came before City Council complaining how this was unfair and hurt their business. City Council did not take any action and suggested a study session. Commissioner Metze referred to policy and public safety, incorporating safety issues into a mitigation check list, and asked if something happens and it hinders the Sheriff's response whether the City is liable. City Planner Leslie stated he would defer to the City Attorney, but will get with Code Enforcement and see about getting something out. Commissioner /Committee Member Wilsey Commented on the changes to the R -A zoning, thinks it is a positive step forward. The clarifications are long past due and the R -E zoning will send a clear message to property owners who do not live in the community. Commissioner /Committee Member Sands Commented on the "Lake Gunnerson" area, and inquired about the opening of this area, Riverside and Gunnerson. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated no specific date has been set but Caltrans is working in this area. Commissioner /Committee Member Matthies Commented on the following: 1. Alley off of Langstaff behind Graham, would like to see lighting there, inquired about procedures to get this accomplished. City Planner Leslie stated Frank Tecca, City Engineer, has provided some direction /ideas on how to proceed. He then asked that she contact him during business hours to obtain this information. PAGE TEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1995 2. There is boarded -up house and garage behind the alley on Langstaff that people are occupying again. Asked if this should be taken up with Code Enforcement. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative. Commissioner /Committee Member Bullard Commented on the following: 1. Agrees with Commissioner Metze on the direction to let City Council know the Commissioner's feeling on fencing. Feels the Commission's direction is being overlooked by letting a contractor come in and build a fence that does not meet code, especially letting it go to occupancy permit for the display models. Most likely, we are looking at a non - conforming fence for several years; even though it is going before Council, we let them go ahead and install fencing. They should receive their waiver first. Commissioner Metze commented that another thing would be the completion of Broadway, and before one Certificate of Occupancy is issued Broadway has to be complete. 2. It's Storm season again and we are playing ball. ADJOURNMENT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:17 P.M. Approved, Richard Bullard, Chairman Re ctfully,- submitted,_ 'nda Gin s�Eaff��L Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, WILSEY AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: METZE Also present were: Associate Planner Villa, Associate Planner De Gange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Seconded by Commissioner Sands and carried by a vote of 4 -0 to approve Minutes of April 5, 1995, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 95 -2 - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner De Gange explained staff is requesting this item be continued based on the City Attorney's opinion that the verbiage proposed be modified and that Section 17.82.060 also be amended. The public notice did not indicate that Section 17.82.060 would be part of this amendment; therefore, this item will be renoticed for a future meeting. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO CONTINUE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 95 -2 TO A FUTURE DATE. 2. Variance 95 -1 - Inco Homes Associate Planner Villa explained the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback for Lot 4 (806 Napa Court) and Lot 7 (805 Alameda Court) , within the Town of Lucerne Tract, from fifteen feet to ten feet to allow flexibility in plotting the proposed dwellings. He further explained that the proposal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15305, Class 5a. Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak. The following person spoke: Mr. Fred Farr, representing Inco Homes, stated these lots are restricted to their narrowest plan and the variance would give more flexibility and allow plotting of different plans. He then stated he would answer any questions that arise. Hearing no further requests to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter the public hearing was closed at 7:06 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the block wall around the perimeter, particularly the phasing associated with the out- skirts of Grand Avenue. Asked Mr. Farr to elaborate. Mr. Farr stated the first construction phase would be Broadway and the area south of Broadway. We will be constructing the block wall on Lakeshore within the next few months, the area PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 19, 1995 along the sales office has already been done. There are four Edison power poles on Lakeshore that have to be relocated, out of the future street, so until these are relocated the block wall cannot be built. As far as a schedule, it is expected this will follow in the next 3 -4 months. Grand Avenue the same thing. South of Broadway the block wall is in and the area north of Broadway would follow. We would probably build Lakeshore and Grand at the same time, and the block wall would be constructed independent of the housing. Commissioner Wilsey asked if the variance would be a good vehicle in which to condition fencing. Associate Planner Villa explained that a condition would have to be related to the variance itself. Commissioner Wilsey stated he would like to emphasize that fencing not be done piecemeal, particularly Grand Avenue. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SANDS, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN BULLARD, AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO APPROVE VARIANCE NO. 95 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND EXHIBIT "A" AND "B" LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Steel Monopole Cellular Antennas /call Rtatinnc - Associate Planner Villa explained the request is Design Review for the construction /erection of two cellular antennae pursuant to Section 17.82.100.H.3 of the Municipal Code. Antenna #1 will be located on a vacant parcel within the Alberhill Specific Plan area north of the I -15 Freeway, approximately one -half mile from the intersection of Lake Street and I -15. Antenna #2 will be located at the top of Prospect Street adjacent to the existing EVMWD water tank overlooking the Downtown area. He explained the proposal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303, Class 3. Chairman Bullard asked if the applicant or a representative was present. John Petke, The Planning Associates, representing AirTouch, stated they worked with staff on the issues, constraints and proposed design solutions. We have reviewed the staff report and understand staff's concern with the appearance and place- ment of conditions. He stated that he would answer any questions and can provide a background on the services. He stated they would not be here if service could be provided otherwise, but cannot keep up with the demand for service in telephone communications. He then stated the area has some geographical attractiveness that also impedes the ability of line of sight communication facilities to fully serve the area, thus the need for these two proposed sites. Commissioner Sands asked about security around the base. Mr. Petke stated security is a fundamental concern and has been provided in the design proposal. He explained their security measures and stated they also have regular maintenance visits. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 6 and suggested verbiage be added requiring 36" box trees. Mr. Petke stated he understood the revision and 36" specimen trees will be provided. Chairman..Bullard asked if the trees would impede the line of sight transmission required, condition number 6. Mr. Petke stated he does not expect interference from the proposed landscaping, and they try to screen their facilities and look for sites among trees. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 19, 1995 Associate Planner Villa suggested a minimum of 36" trees be used, condition number 6, and explained the reasoning for this requirement. Mr. Petke stated this condition is acceptable. Chairman Bullard asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, he called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE ERECTION /CONSTRUCTION OF THE CELLULAR ANTENNA OR CELL SITE AT APN 390 - 120 -007 AND AT APN 373 - 142 -006, BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT "A" AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 6: The Cellular Antenna or Cell Site located on APN 373 - 142 -006 (terminus of Prospect Street) shall be landscaped to conceal it from view of the Downtown Area and the Lakeshore Drive vicinity to the satis- faction of the Community Development Director or Designee. A minimum of 36" box trees shall be used. INFORMATIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:24 P.M. Approved, Richard Bullard, Chairman F ectfully ubmited, L' da G i R cording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 1995 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR MAY 3, 1995, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully `submitted, *L., , Grinddtaff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Bullard. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner Villa, Associate Planner De Gange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Commissioner Metze abstaining to approve Minutes of April 19, 1995 as submitted. Minutes of May 3, 1995 were ordered received and filed. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 95 -3 - Patricia Holmes Associate Planner Villa explained this is a request to allow the operation of a church and related activities pursuant to Section 7.2.8 (religious facilities) and 7.5.3.b of the East Lake Specific Plan, at 96 Eleanor. The proposed use is not of the type and size to require environmental clearance; there- fore, not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. He then explained that the typical hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for Sunday meetings and an occasional one hour "holiday" mass. The interior of the building will be improved to provide a restroom, lobby, stage, and assembly area with no more than ninety (90) fixed seats. The site will remain unpaved with some grass clearing occurring between the proposed church building and Lakeshore Drive to accommodate approximately thirty (30) parking spaces. Access will be via Eleanor Street, and no access is proposed to the parking lot via Lakeshore Drive. He then highlighted staff's concern with regard to the parking lot and the need to re- evaluate the project in three years to determine whether site improvements are warranted. Associate Planner Villa stated a temporary church identifi- cation sign along Lakeshore Drive was not included in the Staff Report, but is part of Exhibit "A ". The applicant is requesting that the Commission consider this sign along with the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Bullard asked if the applicant was present and would like to address the Commission. Ms. Patricia Holmes stated she concurs with staff recommendation and will answer any questions that arise. Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Hearing no request to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter the public hearing was closed at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Sands stated he visited the site and concurs with the use of railroad ties, condition 2. Commissioner Matthies stated she has no problem with the proposal; however, would like further discussion on signage PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 1995 and that said signage be brought back before the Commission for approval. City Planner Leslie explained that in staff's presentation it was suggested that consideration of the Conditional Use Permit also include signage, and eliminate the need for the applicant to come back. The applicant would have to obtain a building permit for the sign and staff would review the plans submitted for the permit and ensure compliance. This staff review would be all that is required if the Commission gives the authorization along with the Conditional Use Permit. A brief discussion ensued on authorizing approval of signage at staff level. Commissioner Metze asked if one of the parking spaces should not be designated for handicap, pursuant to ADA requirements. He then inquired about the number of parking spaces to be provided and asked at what point would additional handicap spaces be required. Associate Planner Villa responded that thirty (30) parking spaces will be provided with one (1) space designated for handicap. Two handicap spaces would be required for 32 spaces or over. Also, the Building Department will require the facility to be accessible for the physically challenged. City Planner Leslie stated that this may require one of the spaces to be paved. Chairman Bullard stated he concurs with staff recommendation, and believes signage is adequately covered by condition 3. He then commented on the importance of handicap parking. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SANDS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT A (WITH MARKED CHANGES) AND SUBJECT TO THE TEN (10) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND AUTHORIZATION TO STAFF TO REVIEW AND APPROVE A TEMPORARY CHURCH IDENTIFICATION SIGN ALONG LAKESHORE DRIVE WHEN THE APPLICANT APPLIES FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. 2. Conditional Use Permit 95 -4 -Ali Sevedgavadi Chairman Bullard noted for the record the faxed letter dated May 17, 1995, from the applicant requesting withdrawal of this application. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SANDS AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO ACCEPT WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -4. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING *Res ctfullystaf cubmitted, n f Recording Secretary MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M. Approved, /L Richard arm" Chairman MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 71 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, METZE, WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BULLARD Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner Villa, Associate Planner De Gange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Metze, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Commissioner Wilsey abstaining to approve the Minutes of May 17, 1995. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 95 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore. Associate Planner Villa explained that the City of Lake Elsinore is proposing an amendment to Section 17.14.130.D.5 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. He noted that this code had been amended 2 years ago which set action that "Only the City Council may approve alternative materials or waive fencing requirements, especially in hillside areas for large lots ". Mr. Villa noted that since the adoption of Ordinance No. 962, the City Council has considered a number of requests from Developers currently building homes, and have approved the requests establishing a pattern of acceptable wood fencing construction styles on certain areas that are not significantly visible or adjacent to the public right -of -way (street) . He explained that City Council approved Resolution No. 95 -27 which was a resolution of intention to allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to initiate proceedings to amend Section 17.14.130.D.5 of the LEMC and develop more specific guidelines and /or standards for wood fencing construction and placement. He further explained that the proposed amendment will be to develop specific wood fencing construction standards and setting (placement) criteria based on the recent City Council approvals. Mr. Villa stated that it is recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Zone Code Amendment No. 95 -3 based upon staff's findings. Vice Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item to address the Commission. Hearing no one the public hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. He then called upon the Commission to speak. Commissioner Metze asked if this amendment would eliminate the block wall and allow the Community Development Director to make that decision. City Planner Leslie gave an overview of the proposed amendment to Section 17.14.130.D.5 and stated that this section is to set standards and better define this issue. He noted that it is the intent of this section that each issue will be heard on a case by case basis and acted upon by the Planning Commission with the Community Development PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1995 Director implementing their wishes. Commissioner Metze asked about a change in the design of the fence. City Planner Leslie stated that a change in design would be heard at the Design Review level. Commissioner Metze questioned the ability of the Community Development Director to approve alternative fencing material without the item being taken before the Commission because of the pressures that could be brought to bear on him /her. City Planner Leslie stated that the decisions would be made by the Planning Commission and that the Community Development Director would implement them. Commissioner Metze stated that he would like to have the section stating "(or Community Development Director as an alternative)" removed since it is the job of the Community Development Director to implement the wishes of the Commission anyway. Commissioner Metze asked for clarification regarding a galvanized steel post versus a pipe column. City Planner Leslie explained that the pipe column was added to allow use of materials that are more accessible and cost effective. He noted that the column is much the same as the galvanized steel post. Commissioner Metze stated that he has no preference one way or the other as long as it is pipe used. Commissioner Matthies concurred with Commissioner Metze. Commissioner Sands concurred with Commissioner Metze and stated that additional cost is not necessary as long as the requirements are met to provide a type of steel post. Vice Chairman Wilsey asked if there would be an exhibit provided which would clarify the type of material which can be used. City Planner Leslie stated that the type of material found acceptable will be available in a public hand -out and not in the code itself. Vice Chairman Wilsey stated that he saw no need to include pipe column in the text. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY SANDS TO APPROVE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 95 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED BELOW: MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO AMEND THE FOREGOING MOTION TO STRIKE (OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AS AN ALTERNATE) IN SECTION 5, STRIKE (OR PIPE COLUMN) IN 5.A AND STRIKE (OR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AS AN ALTERNATE) IN SECTION 6 AND APPROVE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 95 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND AMENDED TEST. FINDINGS 1. As stated in the adopted Environmental Impact Report for the City's General Plan, any project consistent with this said document will not create any significant impacts on the environment or any potential impacts will be mitigated. 2. This proposal will not be: a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, or b) injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. The proposed action is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and as amended will be consistent with the standards established in the Municipal Code. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1995 Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.14.130.D. 5 & 6. 5. The Planning Commission at Design Review may approve alternative fencing materials along interior lot lines where a block wall is required (per item 3 above) provided the proposed wood fence is a minimum of six feet (61) in height and incorporates the following construction design style and setting characteristics: a. a galvanized steel post at least at every eight feet (81) on center with appropriate foundation; b. a box - framed wood fence style with overlapping vertical (or horizontal) members (planks) to avoid gaps in the fencing; C. wood fence shall be painted (a neutral color) or treated on both sides to protect from weatherization; d. wood fence shall not be significantly visible or adjacent to the public right -of -way; i. except fencing between dwellings visible from the front yard which may be permitted; ii. on hillside development (terraced or layered development), year and side lot lines with slopes in excess of six feet (6') and significantly visible from right -of -way shall not be permitted to use wood fencing; iii. any fencing that would normally be out of view on interior side and rear property lines but due to development phasing will be in plain view from a public right -of -way for a period longer than ninety (90) days shall be either masonry or wrought iron style construction or a combination thereof. 6. The Planning Commission may waive fencing requirements in hillside areas where side and /or rear lot line slope is extremely severe and it can be shown that fencing will serve no purpose. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Residential Project 91 -5 Amendment #1 - Centex. Associate Planner De Gange explained that this is a request for Design Review approval of Amendment #1 to Residential Project 91 -5. He further explained that the applicant has purchased the 35 lots which make up Tract 24490 and is proposing to continue to construct the product approved for the lots within Tract 24624. 'He noted that the main consideration in this case is the use of previously approved single- family residential designs on lots (Tract 24490) that were not considered in the previous approvals. Mr. De Gangs stated that this amendment proposes to utilize Plans 1 and 4 from Residential Project 91 -5 and Plan 5 which has a 3 -car garage variation to this plan, which was an additional model added in an amendment to R 91 -6. He noted that Centex Homes has divided its Northshore Project into two project areas; Summerlake Project and Spinnaker Point Project. Mr. De Gange gave an overview of the models proposed to be used and explained that in the interest of upgrading the residential neighborhoods within the City residential projects which have been approved subsequent to the approvals of Residential PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 7# 1995 Projects 91 -5 and 91 -6 have included two new conditions of approval which are as follows: 1) a condition which requires the provision of 3' X 9' concrete area for the storage of the garbage cans out of view of the public right -of -way; and 2) a condition which requires all fencing to be concrete block or decorative masonry unless an alternative is approved by the City Council. Mr. De Gange stated that it is his recommendation that these two conditions be added to the Conditions of Approval for this project. He further stated that it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve a Design Review of Amendment #1 of Residential project 91 -5 based upon the findings and conditions. Vice Chairman Wilsey then called upon the applicant to speak. Jim Bolton, representative of Centex Homes, 2280 Wardlow Circle, STE 150, Corona, spoke in favor of the project and expressed his company's desire to continue using the fencing contiguous to the other project. He gave a brief overview of the project and the surrounding projects and explained that his company would comply with the conditions of the wood fences as well as painting them as they have with the other projects. Commissioner Sands asked if Centex is going to continue to mix the smaller homes with the larger as was done with Residential Project 95 -1. Mr. Bolton stated that they will. Commissioner Sands noted that in the plans that there seems to be additional footage added and he was in favor of that. Vice Chairman Wilsey asked if Centex was in agreement with the findings and conditions. Mr. Bolton stated that they were. City Planner Leslie stated that the third car garage would be adequate for trash bin storage, since the storage of the current trash bins has created a problem. He explained that with the new bins that have been provided by CR & R that there has been a problem with residential storage since they are too big to store in side yards and as a consequence have been left in the front of homes or in the driveway area. Commissioner Metze stated that if the third space in the garage was to be used for this purpose, then there should be some type of barrier to prevent the space from being used to park cars. He recommended steel posts to be added to the condition for fencing since that was not part of the previous Tracts conditions. City Planner Leslie stated that only the City Council can allow anything other than block wall. He noted that the applicant will have to go before Council to address the fencing since the Zone Code Amendment has not been before Council nor has it been approved. He explained that this would take several months and in the interim anything besides block wall will have to be a City Council issue with recommendations from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sands stated that he was in favor of the project and approved of its design. Commissioner Matthies concurred. MOVED BY SANDSj, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -5 BASED UPON THE FOUR (4) FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE SIX (6) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOUND IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO USE THE NEW STANDARDS FOR FENCING. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 7l 1995 Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7540 P.M. APPROVED, � L ERT WILSEY VICE CHAIRMAN Res ctfully s witted, dria Bryning, D puty C' y Clerk MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present was: Associate Planner De Gangs MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 4 -0 with Chairman Bullard abstaining to approve the Minutes of June 7, 1995, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC BEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. ADJOURNMENT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:01 P.M. APPROVED, Richard Bullard Chairman Resp ctfully ubmitte/d,,aaa,����j L nda Gri staff -" Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING C JULY 5, 1995 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSIC SCHEDULED FOR JULY 5, 1995, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully s�bmitted, Linda Grindstaff Recording Secretary REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, METZE AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BULLARD Also present were Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Metze, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 4 -0 to approve the Minutes of June 21, 1995, as submitted, and to receive and file the Minutes of July 5, 1995. PIIBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PIIBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 95 -1 - Roy Terrebonne Associate Planner De Gange stated this is a request for a change of zone from R -1 (Single - Family Residential) to R -2 (Medium Density Residential) for three parcels along Chaney Street, 215 Chaney Street. In addition to the zone change, the applicant is requesting reconsideration and reapproval of Design Review for the proposed duplex (Residential Project 93- 3). He provided a brief background explaining that Design Review for the proposed duplex was approved by the Planning Commission on June 16, 1993. Following this meeting, neighboring residents filed an appeal and City Council, acting on that appeal, overturned the Planning Commission's decision and denied Residential Project 93 -3 on July 13, 1993, on the basis that the project as proposed is not sufficiently consistent with the General Plan and does not necessarily comply with the design directives of the Zoning Code. The City Council on November 9, 1993 and again at a special meeting on November 18, 1993 adopted a resolution initiating consideration of a zone change in the area involving the subject site. On December 15, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council who subsequently approved Zone Change 93 -6 on February 8, 1994 (Ordinance 971) changing the zoning for the area along the east side of Chaney between Lakeshore Drive and Treleven Avenue from R -2 to R -1 on the basis that R -1 zoning is more consistent with the intent of the General Plan. He stated that if this proposed Zone Change is to be considered consistent with the City's adopted General Plan any environmental impacts associated with this project could be considered adequately addressed by the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 1990 General Plan, certified November 27, 1990. Vice Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., and asked if the applicant was present and noted for the record that the applicant was not present. He then asked for those wishing to speak on this item. The following people spoke. Denise Tompkins, 218 Chaney Street, stated she does not believe a duplex belongs in between single - family homes. She commented on the property owner residing in Orange County and PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 19, 1995 no one to watch over these duplexes, and that these units would never be sold, so we would potentially have a homeowner and get better results than having tenants living there. Ms. Tompkins stated she submitted a petition to each Commissioner and inquired whether they had received it. Ms. Tompkins then stated concern on the existing traffic problems on Chaney, and that it is septic on the side of the street where this is proposed. Asked that the proposal be denied and the zoning remain as single- family residence only. Vice Chairman Wilsey informed Ms. Tompkins that the petition was received and included in the packet. Diana Kramer, 611 West Heald, provided a brief history on their meeting with the property owner two years ago, in which he indicated the architecture would be changed to be more conducive to the neighborhood. But it comes down to home ownership over renters and there is a different feeling toward your property. Hopes this request will be denied. Niddo Ryal, 223 Chaney Street, stated he opposed the project when it was first proposed. He stated the design of the building had to be changed due to concerns raised, and archi- tectural changes were required to make it fit into the neigh- borhood scheme, and the driveway access onto Chaney Street had to be readdressed. More property had to be purchased to put the driveway access for two duplexes on to Frederick Street. Mr. Ryal outlined the events that occurred to his home in February 1989, which still has not been addressed by the City, nor corrected. A petition was started the last time and no one wanted any type of structure out there other than single - family dwellings. Mr. Ryal expressed concern with the property owners being out of the area, and provided an example of where an out of town property owner was victimized by the tenant. He commented on a previous statement that this might become low income housing and that the residents spoke out with a petition stating they did not want this. He expressed concern with spot zoning, and the traffic problems associated with Chaney Street, and the plan to realign Chaney being held up. He stated he would like to see this project denied. Albert Martinez, 213 Chaney Street, stated that he wants the environment to remain the way it is. Concern is safety for children. Stated he would like this denied. There being no further requests to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Sands commented that although the previous residential project (R 93 -3) was legally correct for the R -2 zone, as in the records, the City Council acting on the appeal overturned the proposal and effected the zone change back to R -1, because the R -2 zoning did not fit the General Plan's intent for Medium Density Residential development-, so no need for the spot zoning and no need to bring back the Design Review proposal on Residential Project 93 -3. Commissioner Matthies stated she concurs with Commissioner Sands, that it was legally correct; however, not correct as far as the General Plan is concerned. The public and City Council have spoken out on this and concurs with denial. Commissioner Metze stated he concurs with Commissioner Matthies. The citizens and City have spoken and could never go with spot zoning like that in residential. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SANDS AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 95 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 19, 1995 2. Conditional Use Permit 95 -6, Variance 95 -2 and Commercial Project 95 -3 - Holmes & Narver (Unocal 76) Associate Planner Villa explained the request is for a Condi- tional Use Permit to allow a gasoline dispensing establishment with a food -mart in the General Commercial (C -2) Zoning District and to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the proposed food -mart, in accordance with Section 17.44.030.F and 17.38.090.0. A Variance to allow reduction in setback for the pumps and pump islands and canopy, in accordance with Section 17.38.090.B & C, and a Variance to reduce the width of the required landscape area adjacent to the street, pursuant to Section 17.48.070.A. Design Review for the construction of a gasoline dispensing establishment with approximately 6 pumps and a 2,343 square foot food mart, in accordance Sections 17.38 and 17.82. The site is located at the corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. Vice Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak on this item. The following people spoke. Mr. Ray Benboali, representing Unocal 76, stated Mr. Villa has expressed in detail what the project entails and we have worked extensively with staff to come up with a solution. We had difficulty with the size and configuration of the site, thus the request for variances. Mr. Benboali stated they are in the process of developing a new marketing strategy to add an element of convenience. This site offers us the possibility of providing large landscaped areas and also giving clients ready access to home or work, and a number of items and staples needed thus avoiding an extra trip. Mr. Benboali stated the lighting, littering and loitering prevention programs are all conceived to make this facility inviting. We will not have any video games, coin operated machines or adult magazines. Our staff will have to be trained in order to be approved to operate on this site and follow a very strict program: check littering and maintenance of the site twice a day, inspection of landscaping twice a month, and every one of our new sites under this new agreement with the operators will be inspected once a year by top management. If we find any variances with our guidelines that could lead to lease termination. Mr. Benboali stated he did not know if the Commission had a chance to review the CUP Handbook, but we have listed in detail numerous restrictions and sees them reflected in the conditions of approval and happy to say that we agree with all of the conditions. Mr. Benboali stated that he would answer any questions that arise. Community Development Director Leslie stated the CUP Handbook adds to the Conditional Use Permit application and explains part of their operation; so we as staff would view this as an obligation on their part to abide by the program contained in this Handbook. He then referred to the off premise beer and wine permit section and would suggest to the Commission that this is a highly responsible program and would commend the applicant on that. Vice Chairman Wilsey asked if staff would recommend this be added as a condition. Community Development Director Leslie stated he did not believe this to be necessary, but may be added if the Commission desires. Mr. Benboali stated they would welcome these conditions included in the conditions of approval. Very concerned about the quality of service delivered at their sites. Anything that will help us enforce the quality control over our product, our product being the service in general, would be quite welcomed by Unocal. Commissioner Metze inquired about including this as condition number 37.a. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 19, 1995 There being no further requests to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner Metze stated he would like to commend the applicant on working with staff with regards to the design of the building. Understands the problems with the site restrictions. He then expressed concerns with the aesthetic appearance of the canopy's supporting steel post, and asked if these could be more of a pillar, incorporate decorative features, so as stay with the Spanish theme and similar in architectural style to the other structure. Larry Taylor, architect, Holmes & Narver, explained the column illustrated is a painted metal shroud. We have been using this on all the gas stations and it has been well received. He stated they could do a stucco column that would fit in with the motif and aesthetics of the building provided Unocal was agreeable. Mr. Benboali stated they were agreeable to that; however, the base of the column will have to remain with metal. Discussion ensued on the columns and type of material that could be utilized, and adding condition number 37.b. to address redesign of these columns to keep with the Spanish theme. Community Development Director Leslie suggested the following wording for condition number 37.b.: Prior to the release of building permits that the applicant submit designs for redesign of the columns in a motif that is more in keeping with the overall Spanish Mission architectural style, and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Matthies commented on the unique shape of the property and glad to something going in. Complimented the applicant for working closely with staff. Commissioner Sands referred to the CUP Handbook and the indication that single can container will not be sold. Asked if this is part of the conditions. Vice Chairman Wilsey stated the CUP Handbook has been added as condition number 37.a. Commissioner Sands complimented the applicant for working closely with staff, because of the proximity of the area. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 95 -2 AND APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL PROJECT 95 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 56 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 37.a.: The applicant shall comply with the format program outlined within the CUP Handbook proposed by Unocal 76 as submitted to the City and date stamped July 19, 1995. Condition No. 37.b.: Prior to the release of building permits, the applicant shall redesign the sheathing around the columns supporting the proposed pump island canopy in a motif more in keeping with the Spanish Mission architectural style of the rest of the proposed structures and the goals of the City's Community Design Element of the General Plan. Design PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 19, 1995 and color shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SANDS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -6 AND VARIANCE 95 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 95 -2. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:45 P.M. APPROVE , C Al Wilsey Vice Chairman Respectfully s bmitted,, inda Grindstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1995 w**, t, t, r* w*+ v* re****** �#*******,+*, t, t, t, t *,t *w,e,e,►� * * *,w * *,t,t *ww,e :,e ,e * *+rw,rwww• The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 6:59 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: MATTHIES, METZE, SANDS, WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planner Villa, Associate Planner De Gange. NOMINATION OF OFFICERS Vice Chairman Wilsey stated that since Chairman Bullard has resigned it is necessary to appoint new officers for the Planning Commission. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY METZE AND APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPOINT AL WILSEY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPOINT DAN METZE AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Matthies, Seconded by Commissioner Metze and carried by unanimous vote of 4 -0 to approve the Minutes of July 19, 1995. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit 95 -4 - Ali Sevedgavadi. Associate Planner De Gange explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the sale of alcohol (beer and wine) in conjunction with a gasoline dispensing establishment located at 424 N. Main Street which requires a CUP for this proposal pursuant to Section 17.38.090 of the Zoning Ordinance. He further explained that the addition of beer and wine sales also indicates the re- establishment of a mini -mart in conjunction with the gasoline dispensing establishment, which pursuant to Section 17.38.090.D of the Zoning Code also requires a CUP. Associate Planner De Gange stated that this application came before the Planning Commission at its May 17, 1995 meeting, where the applicant requested a withdrawal which was based on staff advising the applicant of a letter submitted by the Lake Elsinore Police Department which stated that under Business and Professions Code Section 23958 and Assembly Bill 2897 they reserved the right to deny an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license at this location. He noted that the applicant, however, has since requested that staff follow through with the processing of this application and replace the item on the agenda even through the Police Department is still recommending that this CUP be denied. Associate Planner De Gange explained that the Police Department's request for denial was based on research which generated data indicating that 15 to 20% of the crimes in Lake Elsinore originate within PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1995 the Downtown area and a high proportion of the arrests made in this area are related to public intoxication or abuse of alcoholic beverages. He further explained that staff has a concern regarding parking areas for this site which are not clearly defined, though there is evidence that adequate parking could be provided. He further stated he would recommend that if the proposal were approved the landscaping requirements in Section 17.66 be met. He noted that it is staff's recommendation that Planning Commission deny this proposal to allow the sale of alcohol in conjunction with a gasoline dispensing establishment at 424 N. Main Street based upon the concerns raised by the Elsinore Police Department and findings as follows: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use will be detrimental to the general health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed use of the City or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the City. 2. This use will create adverse effects on abutting property or the permitted and normal use thereof. 3. The proposed use, within the context of its setting, is not in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning district in which the site is located. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:08 and ask for persons in favor of the project to speak. Ali Seyedgavadi, Applicant, stated that the previous owner of the business was a Mr. Ferguson who operated the business as a Gas Station Garage /Mini Mart with the sale of alcohol and when he opened the business to continue in the same manner he was cited by Code Enforcement. He explained that there was a permit in process with ABC. He stated that he closes his Station at 8:00 p.m. He also noted that his location is less than one (1) minute walk to the Circle K which sells alcohol and he does not see the difference. He noted that his business will employ seven persons and this action will affect seven families in the City. He asked that the Planning Commission approve his CUP. Chairman Wilsey asked for those persons who wished to speak in opposition or in regard to this matter to speak. Hearing no one, the public hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey asked for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Sands stated that he is not in favor of this project and noted that certain areas of the City are impacted by certain elements and this impacts the local businesses and residents. He stated that he felt that the sale of alcohol in this area would expose the owner and his employees to armed robberies due to the element of the area. Commissioner Matthies stated that she has sympathy for the employees and their families, but that she is in opposition to the project due to the findings of staff and the Police Department. Commissioner Metze stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners and asked staff if the City had the right to pull the CUP from Circle K if they are found to sell liquor to minors, since they were recently fined and had their liquor PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1995 license pulled for three (3) weeks by ABC for the sale of alcohol to minors. Community Development Director Leslie stated that the City does not have a CUP with Circle K and that ABC has that jurisdiction and he is not sure if the City could pull the CUP since there is nothing in the Code to allow this action. Commissioner Metze stated that he did not feel that ABC took a hard enough stand in regard to this matter and that he would not like to see this occur in any other store as well. Commissioner Sands questioned how the ree system was structured. Community Development Director Leslie stated that the applicant was informed of the Police Department's letter and tht they had the authority to deny his ABC license. Staff advised that the applicant may wish to withdraw his application based on the eminent denial of the ABC license and the fact that he would be entitled to a partial refund of his fee deposit if the project were stopped at this point in the processing. At that time the applicant agreed. He explained that the applicant later made the choice to have the project go forward. He further explained that the deposit is required as part the City's cost recovery fee program and at this point there would be very little left of the original $2,000 deposit. Chairman Wilsey asked if a CUP would be necessary if the business were not to sell beer and wine. Community Development Director stated that it would not. Chairman Wilsey asked if Planning Commission denied this project if the applicant could still do business. Community Development Director Leslie stated that the applicant's current operation which only includes the sale of snack items as accessory to the gasoline sales, this would not be considered a mini -mart and this could continue without a CUP. Chairman Wilsey asked the applicant if would still wished to operate a Gas Station /Mini Mart without the alcohol. Mr. Seyedgavadi stated that he would and that in conjunction with the Gas Station/ Mini Mart he would like to open a ARCO Smog Pro operation. Community Development Director Leslie stated that the zoning does not allow for a garage. Chairman Wilsey stated that he felt that a Smog Pro would not necessarily be a full blown garage and potentially a finding could be made that this is compatible and would like to continue this item for two weeks. Commissioner Metze clarified the request and the fact that Mr. Seyedgavadi would do business without the sale of alcohol. Chairman Wilsey stated that the use of the garage would have to be small in scope and that it would have to be limited to the smog service only. Community Development Director Leslie stated that the item would have to be noticed and brought back before Planning Commission. He noted that this item could be heard at the September 6, Meeting. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 95 -4 WITHOUT PREMMICE. ALSO, THIS ITEM CAN BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION AT A FUTURE DATE WITH A MODIFIED APPLICATION DELETINGF THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AND THE ADDITION OF A ARCO SMOG PRO OPERATION. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Fencing Plan for Residential Project 92 -5- Revised - K. Hovnanian Companies of California. Associate Planner Villa stated that this is a request for approval of a Fencing Plan to deviate from Condition No. 6 PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINtTTES - AUGUST 2, 1995 of R 92 -5 revised, for the use of alternative fencing materials at the Northlake Tract pursuant to Section 17.14.080.D.5 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. He explained that on October 21, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Design Review for Residential Project No. 92 -5 and the action approved the design of 5 model homes to be constructed within the 187 lot subdivision. He noted that since then, ownership of the property has transferred from the original developer to K. Hovnanian Companies of California. Associate Planner Villa explained that on April 25, 1995, K. Hovnanian obtained an administrative design review modification and part of the approval was Condition No. 6 which requires the builder to construct a six (61) foot high block wall on all side and rear property lot lines. He noted that the applicant requests to use alternative fencing materials such as wrought -iron on side and rear property lines where views to the lake exist and treated boxed framed wood fence that incorporates a galvanized steel post in rear and side property lines not adjacent to the street in compliance with the requirements of Section 17.14.130.D.5. He further noted that the applicant proposes a block wall adjacent to the street as required by Code. Associate Planner Villa stated that the proposed fencing plan has been found to be in compliance with the construction design style and sitting characteristics outlined within the newly adopted fencing standards and staff recommends approval of the fencing plan as shown on Exhibit "A". Chairman Wilsey then asked the applicant to speak. Don Neff, representative of K. Hovnanian Companies, presented an exhibit (enclosed) and explained that the current homes under construction are in the center of the project and noted that Condition No. 11 of Tract Map No. 22912 states that the entire tract perimeter block wall must be built before the Certificate of Occupancy for the first home is issued. He stated that due to the location of the homes being built that this would cause a burden on the builder. Community Development Director Leslie stated that typically the walls are built in phases and used to screen the homes from the street as they are built. Chairman Wilsey asked if this could be handled through the Community Development Director and pointed out the importance of the trail system and asked if that was part of the exterior wall requirements. Community Development Director Leslie stated that it was and pointed out on the Exhibit where the trail is located. Commissioner Wilsey stated that.the Trail maintenance system is minimal and he would like to see the trail done at the same time as the tract perimeter block wall construction. Commissioner Metze asked Mr. Neff if it would be possible for the builder to provide the completed trail system including the perimeter block wall and then do the rest of the walls in other parts of the tract in phases. Mr. Neff stated that he was not sure, but that as the condition stands it is very expensive to do the entire block wall before the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and he feels that this would be more acceptable to the builder. Commissioner Metze and Chairman Wilsey made comment that the trail system would enhance the project on the entry to the tract. Mr. Neff agreed. There was general discussion regarding the location of the phases of the block wall and how it will tie to the project. PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1995 Community Development Director Leslie stated that there has been complaints from neighboring property owners regarding the construction of the tract. He stated that if the entire wall along Terra Cotta Street (eastern tract boundary line) is not complete there will be no benefit from the construction of a small section of wall. The perimeter slump stone (tan) block wall along the east side of Terra Cotta Street within the vicinity of Le Gaye Street was discussed and it was suggested by the Commission to at minimum require the perimeter wall to extend from Lincoln Street all the way to Center line of Le Gaye Street. Community Development Director Leslie pointed out that the block wall would only benefit the south side properties on Le Gaye Street and therefore not the north side, this would cause problems. There was general discussion in regard to the above issue. Community Development Director Leslie stated that what he is asking for is direction from the Commission regarding how far the wall along Terra Cotta should extend to better answer the concerns of the public. Mr. Neff pointed out the development of dwellings in phases and proposed construction period of the block wall. He noted that he would inform K. Hovnanian's people that Planning Commission wishes to have the required perimeter slump stone block wall along the vicinity of LeGaye Street completed as soon as possible. Commissioner Metze noted that it would be the block wall on the vicinity of LeGaye as well as completion of the multi - purpose trail. Community Development Director noted that the initial construction of Terra Cotta Street is not proposed to be extended beyond Etienne Street. Chairman Wilsey stated that he would like to see the trail done in conjunction with Terra Cotta Street when it is fully constructed contiguous with the asphalt with the block wall going on. Commissioner Metze clarified the time frame that Terra Cotta would be done. Chairman Wilsey pointed out that it is necessary to construct the block wall since there is a construction chain link fence in place which is blocking off the Trail and if people wished to use the trail and ride into the rough the chain link fence would prevent it. Community Development Director Leslie stated that it is the purpose of not taking the trail to that point since K. Hovnanian Company would want to leave the chain link fence in place for safety reasons. Commissioner Metze complimented Mr. Neff and all the people from K. Hovnanian's Company for the way that they worked with staff and responded to Planning Commission's concerns regarding the interior and how the project has progressed. He stated that he would like to see the motion incorporate the block wall, horse trail and the entire perimeter fencing. Chairman Wilsey asked for staff direction in regard to conditions. Community Development Director Leslie stated that conditions should be placed in number order and to the desire of Planning Commission. Chairman Wilsey asked if Commissioner Sands had any suggestions. Commissioner Sands stated that he felt that the Commission should clarify phasing of the project. Commissioner Metze stated that he agreed with the sections that are presented on the exhibit map (enclosed) provided by the applicant and should be completed by the first Certificate of Occupancy and the fifth Certificate of Occupancy should see the block wall completed to the property line farthest on LeGaye. PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1995 Chairman Wilsey stated that he did not want to set unrealistic time lines by setting the completion on certain Certificate of Occupancies. He asked for direction from staff. Community Development Director Leslie stated that he is comfortable with the phasing of the block wall and fencing and does not want to see it tied to Certificate of Occupancies other than regarding the horse trail and LeGaye Street. Mr. Neff stated that the developer was expecting to get their first Certificate of Occupancy in the next thirty (30) days and he was not sure how long it would take to build the wall and lay in the trail. He explained the phasing map and noted that where the project is going in there is no contiguous block wall and therefore would not have to be built at this time, however in good faith it was decided that they are willing to build some portion of the wall to aid the neighborhood. He suggested that an alternative could be a condition that the block wall be started by the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy and finished by the end of the first phase. Chairman Wilsey stated that Condition No. 1 could read that perimeter block wall along Terra Cotta Street shall be completed by second Certificate of Occupancy to a point past the first entry street (Etienne Street) which is giving them the benefit of extra time. Mr. Neff stated that he would not have a problem with this condition if he knew how long it would take them to build the block wall. Commissioner Metze stated that he would not be opposed to have the second component of the wall to be completed at the end of the first phase. There was general discussion in regard to where the block wall would extend to on the first phase and it was decided that it would be to the farthest property line on lots fronting LeGaye Street. Commissioner Metze stated that the remainder of the perimeter wall to be phased as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director. Community Development Director Leslie clarified the wishes of the Commission by pointing out the sections on the Exhibit. He noted that the Planning Commission could approve the phasing with a condition that K. Hovnanian could return to Commission if there was a problem with the time schedule. Mr. Neff agreed with that because he would like to keep the item flexible. He clarified the wishes of the Commission. Chairman Wilsey stated that Condition No. 2 should state: The equestrian trail will be improved concurrently with the improvements of Terra Cotta Street. Community Development Director Leslie pointed out that until Terra Cotta is brought to the City for acceptance, the Planning Department has no way of being assured that the trail will be done, but if it is tied to a Certificate of Occupancy, then Planning staff will have the ability to be sure that the trail is done. He clarified the time frame that it could possibly take. Chairman Wilsey stated that the trail system must go in at that same time as the street, therefore it should be done at the same time. Community Development Director Leslie stated that he would like to see a Condition that states that the trail shall be completed in conjunction with the paving of the adjoining street (Terra Cotta Street), no later than the Certificate of Occupancy of the final home in the phase taking access from that street. He noted that what this means is that the City would like to see the trail in up front with the paving of Terra Cotta and will be required before the City will award a Certificate of Occupancy for the last home in the proposed adjacent phase. He explained that down Terra Cotta the City would like to see them put the rest of the trail in, in conjunction of the paving of the rest of Terra Cotta and will be an absolute requirement when they ask for the Certificate of Occupancy in the last phase which will need PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 1995 access from Terra Cotta. He pointed out that the trail is multi - purpose trail and will benefit the people that will be moving into the tract. Mr. Neff clarified the type of trail and the construction which will be necessary to complete it. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE FENCING PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -5 - REVISED WITH EXHIBIT "A" AND EXHIBIT "B" AND THE FOLLOWING TWO CONDITIONS: CONDITIONS: 1. The developer shall complete the construction of the required tract perimeter slump stone (tan) block wall along the east side of Terra Cotta Street (formerly Soissons Street) or east tract boundary line beginning at the intersection of Terra Cotta and Lincoln Streets and continuing north up to the end of the intersection of Terra Cotta and Etienne Streets prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy permit for the 2nd single family home in the 1st home construction phase (the first 14 homes) within the subject tract. The required multi- purpose trail between Etienne Street and Lincoln Street along Terra Cotta Street shall be completely constructed as approved by Planning Staff and shown as Lot "A" of Tract Map No. 22912 prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 14th single family home in the 1st home construction phase as proposed. The remaining of the required tract perimeter slump stone block wall along the east tract boundary continuing north (from where it was left -off up to Washington Street and as shown on Lot "A" of Tract Map No. 22912) shall be completely constructed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 14th single family home in the 1st phase of construction. Other tract perimeter block walls shall be constructed concurrent with adjacent single family home -- construction (refer to exhibit map enclosed). 2. The developer shall complete the construction of the required multi- purpose trail along the east side of Terra Cotta Street and /or the east tract boundary line (from where it was left - off to Washington Street) as it is shown on the approved plans for Lot "A" of Tract Map No. 22912 concurrent with the construction of Terra Cotta Street and prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for adjacent single family homes. PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:40 P.M. APPROVED j ALBERT WILSEY VICE CHAIRMAN Res ectfully u it d, Adria Brynin , Deput City v —W -- — N i T N N x U - 2 H. LL I 0' C 0 m 111 IAA 1L o W z w 0T i e o lK 0 Ell EN . V as in SI Q - S �h R L4 p H a V ku Ell EN . V as in SI Q - S U Z eG g 3 41 u t? O oa '♦ f Bpi - LIA � Lgy V 6 -201 1 Few eA ®eae� loop IT N a Jan :n4 � iI Uql I I to to a f- 4 FE _1 4F N O 2s �O �U II �a u ® ®� R3 V ® ®I\ �Im y a® in U Z eG g 3 41 u t? O oa '♦ f Bpi - LIA � Lgy V 6 -201 1 Few eA ®eae� loop IT N a Jan :n4 � iI Uql I I to to a f- 4 FE _1 4F N O 2s �O �U II �a u MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 161 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: MATTHIES, METZE, SANDS, WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planner Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell, Associate Planner De Gange. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by unanimous vote of 4 -0 to approve the Minutes of August 2, 1995. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 95 -7 - Cheng & Kuay Saechao. Associate Planner De Gange explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit a strawberry growing operation and an associated on -site sales stand, as a temporary use on a parcel at the location of Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue (State Highway 74). He further explained that the on -site sales stand is an 80 square foot prefabricated temporary structure. Associate Planner De Gange stated that, if approved, the applicant plans to start growing crops in September or October with sales to occur after the first harvest. He noted that the hours of operation for sales would be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with a maximum of two employees on site. He explained that staff does have two concerns with the project which are: 1) The project is located on Highway 74 and after contacting Cal -Trans with this proposal, they informed staff that an encroachment permit would be required for approval. Therefore, as a condition of approval staff is proposing that the applicant obtain the necessary encroachment permit from Cal -Trans prior to activation of the permit; and 2) As proposed the applicants parking and circulation plan is a concern. Staff has an alternative plan ( "Exhibit D") which moves the strawberry stand 350 feet east of the intersection and redesigned the applicants parking and circulation plan to meet City standards. Associate Planner De Gange stated that approval of the project has been conditioned with the insertion of staff prepared exhibits. He further stated that staff recommends that Planning Commission approve CUP 95 -7 allowing a strawberry growing operation as a temporary use and associated on -site sales operation with the findings and conditions. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:06 and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in 'favor of the project. The following person spoke. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 16� 1995 Carolyn Whorff, representative of the applicant, 42795 Pheasant Hill Place, Hemet, spoke in favor of the project and stated that she would request reconsideration of the placement of the stand that staff has suggested. She explained that the sales stand needed to be closer to the road for visibility to promote sales and suggested that 150 feet would be more acceptable and is a standard amount with Cal Trans. She further explained that if the stand is placed in a location of 350 feet from the intersection it will cut into the amount area to be utilized for cultivation of the crops. Chairman Wilsey asked if anyone else wished to address the matter. Hearing no one the public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m. Associate Planner De Gange stated that there was one piece of correspondence from Elsinore Valley Cemetery District which includes a letter stating that there is a three party agreement between the applicant, EVMWD and the Cemetery District in regard to water. The letter is in favor of the project but the Cemetery District stated their concern regarding the use of water. Deputy City Clerk Bryning stated that there was no other correspondence. Commissioner Metze noted Exhibit "D" and asked how many feet from Highway 74 and the stand were exhibited. Associate Planner De Gange stated that the exhibit shows 120 feet from the Highway. He stated that after the Traffic Engineer reviewed the site plan that it was his recommendation that the actual location of parking and location of stand be moved 350 feet from the intersection and as the exhibit shows the parking is 350 feet from the intersection. Commissioner Metze asked that it be explained why it makes such a big difference in where the stand is located. Ms. Whorff stated that it is a matter of attracting customers and 350 feet is just too far. She explained that 150 feet has been standard with Cal Trans in the Fresno area which she is knowledgeable about. She stated that the stand could be no less than 50 foot from the road, and 120 feet will be somewhat of a problem, but they would really like to be closer to the corner. Commissioner Metze stated that they would be allowed signage and he is familiar with Fresno, but this intersection is a different situation and he has seen the corner backed up quite a bit. Ms. Whorff explained that there is an agreement was made between the Water District, Cemetery District and themselves and that they would be given a schedule of watering times and that they would water around those times. Commissioner Sands questioned Exhibit "A" which is the original plan and asked what the proposed distance would be. Ms. Whorff explained that it would be approximately 80 feet from the intersection. Commissioner Sands stated that he had visited the site he felt that 150 feet would be the bare minimum. He questioned the water rights and asked what would happen if the well goes dry. Ms. Whorff stated that if it goes dry then it would be their problem and that there is extensive testing that will be done to the well. Commissioner Sands asked about the restroom facilities. Ms. Whorff stated that this would be handled by using portable restrooms. Commissioner Matthies stated that the amount of land is the same and the only difference between the exhibits is the location of the stand. Commissioner Sands asked how the applicant would prevent people from cutting across the property. Ms. Whorff stated that they would have to place rocks on the edge to prevent that action. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1995 Chairman Wilsey asked if Mr. O'Donnell would address the set- backs. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated that after review by the Traffic Engineer on site found that there would be a problem with the left hand turn lane and 150 feet would place it at the left hand turn pocket and to prevent people from turning left out from the stand. Community Development Director Leslie asked if the stand were closer it would inhibit people from making proper exit from the stand. Mr. O'Donnell stated that this would be a real problem during the shopping season since it is close to the Outlet Center. Community Development Director stated that moving the stand closer to the intersection would create a problem entering and exiting from the area of the stand and moving it away from the intersection would make it easier to get to the stand and merge with traffic. He stated that if the stand were moved closer to the intersection, there would be no way to stop people from making illegal turns in and out of that site. Chairman Wilsey made note of the letter from the Cemetery District and asked if a condition should be included that requires that the City receives a will serve letter from EVMWD. He stated that he would like to see the requirement for a will serve letter from EVMWD as Condition No. 10. Community Development Director Leslie stated that the City did receive a letter from EVMWD stating that there is a three party agreement and that the use of the water is between those three entities. However, it is more than acceptable condition to require a will serve letter. He brought attention to Condition No. 1 and that this would allow the City to do a review that would address any problem. He stated that the CUP is only good for three years unless there is an extension. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -7 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITION: 10. Submit a "will- Servell letter to the City from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District stating that water arrangements have been made for this project prior to the Conditional Use Permit going into effect. 2. Conditia Teh...s�h I Associate Planner Villa explained that this is a request for conditional use permit (CUP) approval to allow a church facility to operate religious services in the Res. 1 District. He further explained that the construction of the building is in the Lake Edge Specific Plan located at the corner of Palomar and Corydon. He noted that the church is proposed to be 4,100 square feet and will serve 231 members and the seating capacity would require approximately 77 parking spaces and currently the site provides 86 parking spaces therefore, it exceeds the minimum by 9. Associate Planner Villa stated that staff analyzed the site development and found that the site plan has met all applicable requirements of the Lake Edge Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that there is only one major concern and that is pursuant to the Lake Edge Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report the site appears to be located within the Special Study Zone of the Wildomar Fault. He further explained that this means that prior to grading or construction, the applicant is required to prepare a geotechnical study to delineate the precise location if a fault is located on the site. He stated that staff recommends that Planning Commission approve the CUP and that Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve the PAGE FOUR - PLANNING MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1995 Design Review based on Exhibit °A, B, C, D & E", subject to the condition of approval. Chairman Wilsey asked that staff is recommending two different motions in regard to this item. Associate Planner Villa confirmed. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. and asked for those persons who wished to speak in favor of the project to come forward. The following person spoke: Robert Spencer, 23250 Baxter Road, Wildomar, thanked staff for their time and effort and explained that the existing churches have been impacted by the growth of their organization and stated that they have built 20 churches in the area in the last 3 years. He stated that he was looking forward to dealing with the City and that they have built some of their churches in the last three years and that it takes them approximately 3 days once construction of the building begins. Mr. Spencer stated that were unaware of the Wildomar Fault Study until Mr. Villa drew it to their attention and provided a map for them. He explained that they will pursue the Geotechnical Study since they wish to know what is involved before they proceed further with the project. Chairman Wilsey called for any person wishing to speak on the subject. Hearing no one the public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Metze stated that he was happy that he was happy that the project would retain the mature trees that are on site. Commissioner Sands asked if the Planning Commission is required to take action on the Environmental Impact Study in regard to the findings. Community Development Director Leslie stated that if there is a fault there it has a potential to have a significant impact on the project, but the Mitigated Negative Declaration requires that a potential impact will have to be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance and basically, if there is something there the building would have to be repositioned and the project would then come before Planning Commission again or they might not build at all. He explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is set up to address the issue, whatever the outcome is and if there is some serious fault problems the mitigation could be serious in itself since it would mean no building. Commissioner Sands questioned the fact that by the Commission granting approval it will not affect the project one way or the other. Community Development Director Leslie confirmed this. Commissioner Sands questioned if there was a vacant building on site or not. Mr. Spencer stated that there had been an old building on site which had been condemned, but it is gone and his group is currently breaking up the debris and moving it off of the property. Commissioner Sands asked for clarification regarding Condition No. 4. Associate Planner Villa stated that staff felt that it would add aesthetic value to the site to carry the ceramic tile band throughout the four building elevations. Mr. Spencer stated that they agree with the condition. Chairman Wilsey stated that he felt that it would be advisable to have a Avigation Easement as part of the conditions. He explained that the site is near the airport and this should be a consideration. Community Development Director Leslie stated that he is not familiar with a Avigation Easement and asked PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1995 if it would be appropriate to direct staff as part of the condition to look into the need for a Avigation Easement and if found appropriate, then require an easement for the project. Chairman Wilsey stated that the airport is in place today, but the Eastlake Project may change that. Community Development Director Leslie stated that the Eastlake Project shows another use for where the airport currently is, but an airport is provided for and it would be placed where Mentor Aviation is located. He explained that the City has received an CUP application from Mentor to expand the airport operation to what is permitted in the Eastlake plan. Commissioner Metze asked if a condition should be made to state that they are aware that there is an airport in that location. Chairman Wilsey stated that the City should have a Avigational Easement on file. He stated that possibly staff should confer with the City Attorney and check with surrounding cities to see how they have handled this since it would be recorded and appear with a title search. Associate Planner Villa explained that staff has the time to research this and enter it as part of the conditions, since the project must appear before City Council. Community Development Director Leslie stated that he would recommend that Commission instruct staff to research the need to require a Avigation Easement and be prepared to report this to City Council with the recommendation to have it entered as part of the conditions if it is deemed appropriate. Chairman Wilsey stated that a condition does not need to be made now since staff is instructed to follow up on a Avigational Easement. Community Development Director Leslie confirmed. Commissioner Metze stated that in his experience organizations such as this make great neighbors. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant understood the Commission's concern regarding the Avigation Easement. Mr. Spencer stated that he loves airplanes and does not have a problem with this. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 2: 2. The applicant shall prepare a soils /geotechnical study and a grading plan, to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The study shall delineate the precise location of the Wildomar Fault, further evaluate seismic - related hazards, and establish sufficient setback areas in accordance with ' fSpecial Publication 42: Fault Ruptures Hazard Zones in Californial' and policies and criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board and the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act. The Study shall evaluate the site's geologic stability and surface soil conditions. This study shall be approved prior to the Conditional Use Permit going into effect. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW TO CITY COUNCIL. BUSINESS ITEMS None. PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 16p 1995 Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONERPS COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:40 P.M. APPROVE G ALBERT ILSEY VICE CHAIRMAN Res tfully submit d, A ria Brynin , Deput City MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Vice Chairman Metze. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands. OATH OF OFFICE Deputy City Clerk Bryning issued Oath of Office to Daniel Allenbach newly appointed Planning Commissioner, assuming the seat vacated by Richard Bullard. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, ALLENBACH AND METZE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie and Associate Planner De Gange. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Matthies, Seconded by Commissioner Sands and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Commissioner Allenbach abstaining to approve the Minutes of August 16, 1995 as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to the end of Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS NONE INFORMATIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. ADJOURNMENT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:13 P.M. Approved, XZP Daniel Metze, Vice Chairman Re ectfully ubmitted, Linda G i staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Allenbach. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, ALLENBACH, METZE AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MATTHIES Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Metze, Seconded by Commissioner Sands and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Chairman Wilsey abstaining to approve the Minutes of September 6, 1995 as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to the end of Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS R F5 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 95 -3 (Tract 24856) - Jenna Group (Newcomb Development) Associate Planner De Gange explained the request is for Design Review of 3 models ranging in size from 1,340 to 1,904 square feet, to be constructed on 75 lots in Tract Map 24856. The project will be constructed on an 18.5 acre site located off of Rolando Road between Mountain Street and Running Deer Road. Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 -5 adopted by City Council on July 9, 1991, addresses environmental impacts anticipated for this project. He then provided a brief history explaining the current proposal supersedes two previous proposals for this site, R 91 -7 and R 90 -4, and that neither applicant preceded any further than the Design Review stage and no building permits were ever issued. He then highlighted staff's concern with regard to the architecture and fencing. Chairman Wilsey asked the applicant or representative to speak. Mr. John Newcomb, Jenna Group, stated he concurs with the Conditions of Approval with the exception of conditions 24, 29 and 32, and provided the following clarification /modifications: Condition 24, presented an exhibit illustrating where the block wall will be constructed, and requested that the balance of fencing be wood. Condition 29, requested that window treatments apply only to lots visible from the front and sides. Condition number 32, presented an exhibit on the fencing for the northeast perimeter boundary, and explained the problems associated with the rear slopes of Lots 32 -41. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak. Lois Knight, 16504 Mango Way, spoke in favor commenting on the compatibility between the proposed and existing homes. Commissioner Metze inquired whether they were being asked to include a fencing plan. He asked if a block wall was not required on Rolando, and about the improvements for Mountain Street. Asked if the plotting plan would come back before the Commission. He asked if the applicant was aware of the fencing standards. He then commented on the applicant's alternative for the retaining wall, condition number 32, and expressed a concern with the height of the wall varying from 4 to 7 feet. Commissioner Sands commented on compatibility with the existing homes. He then commented on conditions 24 and 32 with regard to fencing, and suggested condition 32 be deleted and condition 24 modified to reflect applicant's proposed alternative fencing and this subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. He inquired whether a condition was needed to address the three -car garage. Commissioner Allehback inquired whether the interior fencing was visible, and inquired about drainage with regard to the retaining wall, conditions 24 and 32. He then commented on the window embellishments and the applicant's request. Chairman Wilsey provided a history on the establishment of the fencing standards. He commented on the insufficient time to review the fencing exhibit submitted and the off -site agreements required. He stated his concern is with the retaining wall and suggested laterals be provided for enforcement, should someone try and back -fill this area. He suggested condition 32 remain as written. Discussion ensued on condition 32, with regard to fencing and whether a clause can be included when a home is sold preventing alteration to the retaining wall and slope. Mr. Newcomb stated a provision preventing alteration to the retaining wall and slope could be included in the CC & R's. Chairman Wilsey inquired whether there would be a Homeowners Association (HOA) commenting that CC & R's without an HOA is worthless as there is no one to enforce. Community Development Director Leslie commented that the condition could be amended to approve the alternative fencing exhibit submitted by the applicant and have Building /Engineering Departments approve the retaining wall. Considerable discussion ensued on fencing, and adding verbiage to condition 32 requiring the applicant and staff to work together to come up with an alternative plans. Commissioner Sands suggested deletion of the wording "if the applicant is able to secure an off -site grading agreement with the adjacent property owner" from condition 32. Chairman Wilsey commented on condition 29 and suggested this apply to all lots visible from the public right -of -way. He then commented on condition 24 and the applicant's request. Community Development Director Leslie suggested condition 24 be amended by including verbiage that the Planning Commission has approved the use of alternative fencing material on perimeter and interior lots. Alternative material shall meet the standards of Sections 17.14.130.a -d and be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Mr. Newcomb stated he concurs with the amendments. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 95 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 Condition No. 24. The Planning Commission has approved the use of alternative fencing material on interior rear and side property lines. Alternative material shall meet the standards specified in Section 17.14.130.D.5.a -d and be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition No. 29. All windows greater than one (1) square foot and visible from the public right -of -way shall be framed with stucco or wood surrounds to be consistent with the front elevations and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. Condition No. 32. Fencing for the northeast perimeter boundary shall be a combination of 3' retaining wall, 2' of block and 4' of wrought iron or tubular steel as approved by the Planning Commission. If the applicant is able to secure an off -site grading agreement with the adjacent property owner the applicant shall meet the requirements of Section 17.14.080 and 17.14.130. Minor alterations to the engineering and /or design of this wall may be approved by the Community Development Director or designee. PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:09 P.M. Appro � l� Wilsey, Chairman Res ctfully ubmitted, L nda Gri,dstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4, 1995 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 4, 1995, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. YRes ectfully submitted, i L�sa;���Z Linda Gri tf Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS, MATTHIES, METZE AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLENBACH Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Metze and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Commissioner Matthies abstaining to approve the Minutes of September 20, 1995 as submitted. The Minutes of October 4, 1995 were received and ordered filed. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to the end of Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 95 -9 - Bread of Life Fellowship /Apostolic Assembly Church Associate Planner Villa explained the request is to allow Bread of Life Fellowship to operate religious services in the C -2 Zone pursuant to Sections 17.48.030.D of the Municipal Code. The proposed church site address is 31733 Suite "B" Riverside Drive, within the Brookstone Landing Shopping Center. The proposed church would use the facility for general worship, bible study, and Sunday school activities. Hours of operation would be between 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays for occasional bible studies and family prayers, and 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. for Sunday meetings. The use is not of the type and size to require environmental clearance therefore not subject to the requirements of CEQA. Commissioner Allenbach arrived at 7:13 P.M. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Hearing no one he asked if the applicant was present and noted for the record that the applicant was not present. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Sands asked whether staff had been appraised of the approval from the owners for use of additional parking spaces, condition number 3. Mr. Villa responded there has been no response from the applicant, but it is a condition of approval and the church will not be allowed to operate unless submitted. Commissioner Metze commented on the vacancy within this center and that churches have proven to be good neighbors in these centers. Chairman Wilsey stated he has no concern, and tries to accommodate churches in our community as they are vitally important. He then commented on the vacancy in the center. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -9 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT "A" AND "B" AND SUBJECT TO THE 10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1995 BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Commercial Project 95 -4 - Oak Grove Eauities_(Craia Schleuniaer Associate Planner Villa explained the request is for development of a sit -down restaurant building on Parcel 8 (Phase I) of the Lake Elsinore City Center. The proposed Denny's restaurant is approximately 4,590 square feet in building area. Design Review also entails review of the site plan which includes internal circulation (pedestrian and automobile), parking, landscaping, and trash enclosures to ensure consistency and compliance with the Zoning Code, the Elsinore City Center Specific Plan, and the previously approved site plan for the center. It has been determined that this project is consistent with the approved Specific Plan 91 -1 and certified EIR 92 -3 prepared for this site. Chairman Wilsey asked the applicant or representative to speak. Mr. Gene Miles, architect for the project, stated they feel the trash enclosure needs to be moved onto that particular piece of property. He then commented on screening of roof top equipment and explained their concern is with the hills above as it is not known what can go up there or what is planned, but there is no way to shield this from those hills. He then stated that the top of the air - conditioning units would be visible for about 50 yards as you come over the hill on Grape Street. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak. Hearing no further request to speak he asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Allenbach asked whether they just did not want to screen air - conditioning units. Mr. Miles explained the equipment is such that it has to be open to the air, and if enclosed they will heat up and not function properly. Discussion ensued on screening of roof top equipment and the screening plan being subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Metze commented on handicap spaces and stated that striping would be an issue brought up at City Council. He then commented on security and asked if there is a way to combine security where all tenants participate. Mr. Schleuniger stated the security issue has not yet been approached. It has been in the back of my mind that we would do something like that, expand the services or make sure it covers the center. Commissioner Sands commented on the orange adobe color and asked if Wal -Mart used this color. Community Development Director Leslie stated that Wal -Mart used this color as an accent. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 95 -4, BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT "A" THRU "E", AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. INFORMATIONAL PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1995 THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:29 P.M. ��G- �'Flilse - Chairman Re ctfuXdstaff submitted, nda Gri Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1995 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, MATTHIES, METZE AND WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: Community Development Director Leslie, Associate Planners De Gange and Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve the Minutes of October 18, 1995 as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to the end of Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Tract Map 28198 and General Plan Amendment 94 -3 - Golden Castle Plaza Ltd. /Unitech Building Systems Associate Planner De Gange explained there are issues still unresolved therefore the applicant and staff have requested a continuation. 2. Commissioner Sands asked whether the previous one -year extension had been exceeded. Associate Planner De Gange responded that this item was tabled indefinitely the last time it was before the Commission. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28198 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94 -3 TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1995. Associate Planner Villa explained the request entails Design Review for the development of a gasoline dispensing establishment with twelve (12) mechanical gasoline pump dispensers under a 1,705 square foot, 22 feet in height canopy, and a 3,245 square foot mini -mart building to provide 24 -hour retail sales of gasoline, beer, wine, and groceries. A Zone Change from C -P (Commercial Park) to C -2 (General Commercial) . A Conditional Use Permit to allow a gasoline dispensing establishment with a food - mart in the C -2 Zoning District and to allow the sale of alcohol beverages (contingent upon approval of ZC 95 -2). A variance to reduce the setback required from the proposed canopy to any property line, from twenty feet (201) to fifteen feet (151), a variance to reduce the required setback from the proposed pumps and pump islands to any property line, from thirty feet (301) to twenty -five feet (251), a variance to reduce the width of the required landscaped area /buffer adjacent to a street (Riverside Drive), from the required fifteen feet (151) minimum to approxi- mately five feet (51) at the widest area next to the proposed handicap parking space, and no setback between the proposed canopy to the property line adjacent to the right -of -way and north of the Riverside Drive entry driveway, and to ten feet (101) adjacent to the Lakeshore Drive driveway. Mitigated Negative Declaration 95 -4 evaluates impacts resulting from the development. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1995 Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. asking for those wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Fred Crowe, The Keith Companies, stated with him this evening is Mr. & Mrs. Satter and the architect, Tom Riggle. He stated that Mr. Riggle has considerable experience in service station architecture. He then stated the conditions placed on the project are reasonable and they will answer any questions. Chairman Wilsey asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Hearing no further request, the public hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Sands stated he has no questions or comments. Commissioner Metze stated the Staff Report addresses the issues, and believes the acquisition of the two adjacent parcels will be beneficial for additional parking and circulation turn - around. He then commented on the variance and hardships imposed on this site. Commissioner Matthies concurred with the statements made. She then commented on restricting the age of the people selling alcohol after specific hours. Commissioner Allenbach stated staff did a very good job. He then asked about the trim colors, column paint and material schedule. Mr. Riggle, Robert Lee & Associates, 1201 South Beach Blvd., La Habra, stated there was an adjustment to the color made with staff in going through the process, after the initial submittal. He explained that they would like this project to stand out and the nautical colors work very well on this building. There is a certain identifiable factor from a marketing level that Arco would like to see, and Mr. Satter has gotten that attachment to a franchise for Arco; so there is a certain benefit there having that be white with a blue trim. Also, a comment in the Staff Report and conditions was that graffiti removal be addressed and the Arco paint use is called AM /PM white, a paint that they developed, its urethane paint, and is fairly graffiti resistant. The intent is to have three colors gray, white and blue trim. The wedgewood blue is similar to the colors seen in the area; the dark gray is intended to tie together the wood shakes and wood beams supporting the front canopy area and the rock below. We are going to try to reuse the existing rock, clean it up and paint it where it would be similar to the columns and off -set that material. Community Development Director Leslie stated staff relied heavily on the colored rendering, and would like to inform the applicant that when the building is built, before staff signs it off, we will be looking for a building that resembles the rendering. Chairman Wilsey stated staff did an excellent job. He then commented on the cooperation between the applicant and staff. There being no further discussion, he called for a motion. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 95 -2 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 95 -5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBITS "A" THRU °1F" AND SUBJECT TO THE 58 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95 -10 AND VARIANCE 95 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBITS "A" THRU "F1° AND SUBJECT TO THE 58 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOVED BY METZE, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95 -4. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1995 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:20 P.M. App .0 , Al Wi se , Chairman Ree ctfully ubmitted, Li da staff Recording Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 1995 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1995, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1995 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:02 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: Community Development Director Leslie and Associate Planner De Gange. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sands, Seconded by Commissioner Matthies and carried by a vote of 4 -0 to approve the Minutes of November 1, 1995 as submitted. The Minutes of November 15, 1995 were received and ordered filed. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deferred to the end of Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 November 1. 1995) Associate Planner De Gange explained the applicant is requesting an indefinite continuation based on the improvements /conditions proposed for this project which makes it infeasible at this time. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A 4 -0 VOTE TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28198 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94 -3. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Residential Project 95 -4 - USA Properties (Elsinore Hills Apartments) Associate Planner De Gange explained that at the workshop held on November 27, 1995, surrounding residents voiced concerns with respect to traffic and pedestrian safety. Based on the testimony received, the applicant's desire to meet with the residents, and staff's requirement for the preparation of a traffic study, it is requested that this item be continued to January 17, 1996. Chairman Wilsey stated there is a request from Marjorie Hunnewell to speak on this item. He informed the audience that staff's recommendation to the Commission is to continue this item to January 17, 1996. He then recognized Ms. Hunnewell. Ms. Hunnewell, 320 Avenue 9, stated she was not completely against affordable housing. Affordable housing is a must and to put it in one area is not a good idea, scattering it is a very good idea. Ms. Hunnewell stated she read the material supplied by the applicant, and requested the Commission look at certain items carefully, because these are situations we have in our area, particularly Lake Elsinore, which could make this a very negative development. This is 126 -units versus 72 homes and a few homes on the other side, this is overpowering to us and they will become the dominant factor in our area. She then commented PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 1995 on the material supplied by the applicant (Myths & Facts About Affordable Housing and The Effects of Subsidized and Affordable Housing), as follows: Traffic, does not know if the traffic will pan out -- whether this will cause that much more traffic to go through there. As far as traffic, there is not that many people that have cars - -fewer cars to households - -this means those children will be walking to school. We do need to have sidewalks all the way over the top of Franklin for these children to get to middle school. It does say that local government must intervene with programs and additional concessions which means that this will cost the City some money. Higher retail sales, they do not have that much money; doesn't know how this is going to benefit retail sales. The examples of affordable housing in Irvine and Rancho Santa Margarita provided. They can slip a unit in the city of Irvine because there are so many homes, very well diluted. Again, diluted into that environment and the city has heavy standards. They also used the city of Rancho Santa Margarita, a bedroom community, and said that it worked there but they built 48 units. High density affordable housing increases crime, they say these types of things are myths about affordable housing. Suggested the Commission pay special attention to page 8, Myths and Facts, their wording is very careful. She then quoted the paragraph and stated the following sentence could be a statistic that is worded in such a way that it sounds good: "once residents' incomes are taken into account, the effect of density on non - violent crime decreases to nonsignificance." Even more important, is the phrase "scattering affordable housing helps check crime." It also states, which I believe exists in the City of Lake Elsinore, "In areas comprised mostly of low- income housing - particularly those areas lacking jobs, responsive police, and community services -crime can be higher." Then it says that local govern- ments can help the effect of such concentrations of low- income housing in any one place by accommodating their share of state's need for new affordable housing, by encouraging the development of affordable apartments in scattered locations. Take the percentage of homes in the area, take 10 percent, build a small place there, that we can absorb. We cannot absorb 126 - units. They found that it does not effect property values if the housing project is in the 9 -10 percentile of the adjacent homes. 9 -10 percent means, in our area, that you could put in 10 -units and it would not effect property values. If you put in more than that it will effect property values, this is in the Introduction. Basically, they are saying that you need to dilute it; it is better to spread it around, but it needs to be diluted and this area is not a well - diluted area. Also, a statistics I found, they did find that in 7 percent of all the situations that 7 percent of the time it did effect resale values. Community Development Director Leslie stated the studies referred to by Ms. Hunnewell were sent to staff by the applicant. When this material was received, efforts were made to make it available to the residents in the area, through Commissioner Sands. Because the intent was to continue this item the material was not included in the packet. Chairman Wilsey asked for comments from the table. There being none, he called for a motion. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 -0 WITH ALLENBACH ABSTAINING TO CONTINUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 95 -4 TO THE MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 1996. SPX vyr �, 5ti�: PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 1995 PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:20 P.M. /�A4Wi % v 4, Chairman Re�fully submitted, Linda Gri dstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 1995 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 20, 1995, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grin staff Recording Secretary