Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-1994 NAHMu�Y�l1l�Y��i�y LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 5, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, *id Gri ndstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 19, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 2, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully sf mitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1994 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Bullard. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Neff, Wilsey, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Neff and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve the Minutes of December 15, 1993, as presented. Received and ordered filed were Minutes of January 5, 1994, January 19, 1994, and February 2, 1994. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 94 -1 - Calvary Chapel Chairwoman Brinley stated a letter has been received, this evening, from the applicant requesting a continuance. City Planner Leslie explained the reason for the continuation to March 2, 1994, is the church has acquired the adjacent property and wishes to move some of the functions from the main sanctuary into that dwelling, so they can enlarge the main sanctuary area. The modifications to the main sanctuary have not been provided, and the applicant was advised to do this all with one Conditional Use Permit (CUP). MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -1 TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1994. 2. Conditional Use Permit 94 -2 - Raj & Santosh Kumar (Main Street Texaco) Associate Planner De Gange explained this is a request to allow the sale of alcohol (beer and wine) in conjunction with the operation of a gasoline dispensing establishment (Texaco) at 301 North Main Street. He then provided the following background information: this proposal has been presented to the Design Review Committee (DRC) ; at that meeting, the applicant stated plans to refurbish or completely reconstruct the station and add a mini mart. The applicant suggested to the Design Review Committee that if not successful in obtaining a CUP the plans to refurbish the station would be abandoned. The Alcoholic Beverage Control board (ABC) has approved an application, subject to conditions, for an off - sale beer and wine license pending the City's approval of this CUP. Associate Planner De Gange then detailed staff concerns: expansion of a legally non - conforming use; inadequate parking Planning Commission Minutes February 16, 1994 Page 2 Conditional Use Permit 94 -2 Continued and circulation - -the Sheriff's Department submitted a letter, distributed this evening, explaining their concerns, which are echoes of staff's concerns, and; proximity to existing residential uses and operations already selling alcohol. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication was received. Chairwoman Brinley asked that the letter from the Police Department be entered into the record. "February 15, 1994 City of Lake Elsinore John De Gange, Associate Planner RE: Conditional Use Permit 94 -2 Cup for the Sale of Alcohol in Conjunction with a Gasoline Dispensing Establishment (Texaco) at 301 N. Main Street Dear Mr. De Gange: At this time, the Lake Elsinore Police Department has certain concerns about the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit #94- 2 to the applicant, Main Street Texaco for their facility at 301 North Main Street. This department does not oppose the sale of alcoholic beverages by the Main St. Texaco as long as the applicant can meet the six conditions set forth by the Alcohol Beverage Control board as noted in a letter dated September 21st, 1993. Under condition #3, the Alcoholic Beverage Control board stated the applicant shall maintain 6 off - street parking spaces for use for their patrons. Currently there are two separate businesses operating at the location, 301 N. Main St., the Texaco and an automotive repair garage. The two businesses share a common parking lot and structure. The parking plans submitted by the applicant depicts a total of 8 designated off - street parking spaces with 5 of the spaces in front of the automotive repair garage. In physically reviewing the site, it was noted by this department that the 5 spaces in front of the automotive repair garage were being used by that business. Other parking spaces were being used by employees and staff. Without further clarification and specific designation of the parking spaces by the applicant for their patrons it is unsure whether condition #3, set forth by the Alcoholic Beverage Control board can be met. Please contact the Crime Prevention Unit of the Lake Elsinore Police Department at (909) 674 -3131, if further assistance or information is required. Submitted, COIS Byrd, Sheriff Randall Yankee, Captain Lake Elsinore Station" Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor. Planning Commission Minutes February 16, 1994 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit 94 -2 Continued Raj Kumar, applicant, informed the Commission of their plans to reconstruct the station and add a mini mart. Santosh Kumar stated they want to obtain the permits in order to decide whether they want to spend a lot of money to improve the gas station -- demolish and make a bigger gas station. Our main concern is whether we can get all of the permits. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, she asked for those wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley inquired whether the DRC addressed the changes, architectural modifications, and landscaping. Why the proposal is before Planning Commission prior to DRC review and recommendation? Associate Planner De Gangs stated the only thing brought to the attention of DRC was the applicant's intent to refurbish or reconstruct the station, there were no plans. He further explained that the applicant indicated if they were not successful in obtaining a CUP the plans to refurbish the station would be abandoned. Chairwoman Brinley inquired about interior modifications for coolers /refrigeration units. She then stated that parking is extremely limited and inquired whether the applicant owns the lot in the back. Mrs. Kumar responded in the affirmative. Chairwoman Brinley stated her concerns are the same as stated by staff and the Police Department, speaking to the problems in the area. She then inquired about evening hours of operation. Mrs. Kumar stated they are open until 10:00 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley commented on security lighting. Commissioner Bullard inquired whether there were two separate operations, Texaco and automotive repair garage. Mrs. Kumar responded that it is only one business. City Planner Leslie explained the Staff Report was written to reflect another use not necessarily two separate businesses. Commissioner Bullard commented on the sale of propane. He stated he is concerned with the parking and circulation. Asked in the event or future redesign of the station the unpaved area behind the station, also part of your lot, can be utilized for the other types of business. He inquired whether the U -Haul would be a continuing service. Mrs. Kumar stated the U -Haul will be discontinued after the station is refurbished, and probably the propane. Commissioner Metze referred to the Design Review Standards which states no gas station. Asked staff if they demolish the structure, under regulations, can they erect another station? Associate Planner De Gange responded in the negative, explaining if they were to reconstruct it would not be a permitted use any longer. However, if they were to refurbish the exterior of the station that might be considered an exterior upgrade. Planning Commission Minutes February 16, 1994 Page 4 Conditional Use Permit 94 -2 Continued City Planner Leslie stated the applicant may not be aware of the ramifications of demolishing the station and reconstruct- ing. Suggested the applicant meet with staff and discuss. It is possible that they could do some superficial improvements to the property to make it look better. But, any substantial expansion or alteration pursuant to the Code and under the non - conforming use section is prohibited. Commissioner Metze asked as it stands now, in staff's opinion, could it be brought into line where staff would recommend approval versus denial? Associate Planner De Gange stated there are Conditions of Approval included which would alleviate staff's concerns. City Planner Leslie stated he would not say alleviate the concerns. If this were to be allowed on an interim basis the Conditions of Approval shown are just the minimum. Removing the automotive repair would help; however, more parking is needed and parking in the rear, where they have U -Haul, is not going to help. Right now, the building sits too close to the street to provide adequate parking and circulation. Does not believe there is any way they could make it work where staff could recommend approval. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the age of the building. Commissioner Bullard stated the building has been upgraded since 1954, estimates it has been in its current condition for 25 -30 years. Believes it might be historic if put back to its original condition. Commissioner Wilsey stated this was his thought. Commented on the refurbishment of downtown and if this can be refurbished to its original, near original, condition it might be an asset to our downtown community. Chairwoman Brinley gave a brief history on the previous owner's attempts to refurbish the building, explaining the City had no problem with the refurbishment; however, the corporate headquarters would not approve the deviation. Commissioner Wilsey stated he has a problem Iwith the sale of alcohol and liquor products in gas stations. He commented on new gas stations being fast food gas stations and not service oriented. If this gas station did not have the service department and other uses, might look at it more favorably, because you have to be well rounded in a small business. He stated he was not comfortable with putting beer and wine into a gas station; unless it is done in such a way where there are no service departments and uses that go hand in hand. Neff stated he applauds the applicant for trying to expand his operation. However, from a land use standpoint, has the same comments and concerns as Commissioner Wilsey. If we could see our way clear to accomplishing a refurbishing of the station to a historic theme that would be great. Concerned primarily with the non - conforming nature of the existing uses. Chairwoman Brinley stated she too applauds the applicant for trying to expand his operation, and would like to see him go forward with the refurbishing and working with staff and bring forth a new concept. She then reiterated her concerns. Planning Commission Minutes February 16, 1994 Page 5 Conditional Use Permit 94 -2 Continued Commissioner Neff asked if there weren't two Texaco stations on Main Street not too long ago. Chairwoman Brinley responded in the affirmative, the one off of Flint closed. Commissioner Neff commented with the competition gone this would be a better argument with Texaco headquarters, that if they want to remain in town, that perhaps refurbishing the station to reflect historic design elements, might convince them to come around this time, it may be worth pursuing. Commissioner Metze asked Mr. and Mrs. Kumar if they understood the discussion. Mrs. Kumar responded in the affirmative, and explained they have spoken with the Texaco representative, Bill Track, and he suggested we go along with the City's requirements and they would be willing to cooperate with putting up a new station. Commissioner Neff questioned whether the DRC should initiate a letter of conceptual support. Chairwoman Brinley explained the applicant would have to initiate this letter to their representative. They can request a meeting with DRC and staff to discuss any plans. She explained that a letter of support was sent for the previous owner and several architectural renderings were prepared and submitted to corporate headquarters. Commissioner Wilsey commented that the consensus is that we would like to see you go through and upgrade /refurbish your facility and we would like to work with you in that respect. We would not, regardless of what happens with the current application, want to dissuade you from continuing on with that, we would like to support you in that. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. City Planner Leslie reiterated that it is really important that staff sit down with the applicant and possibly someone from the Texaco Corporation, so we have a good understanding of what is going to be complying with the Code and what may be going a little too far. I am advising this before you get too far down the road with any plans and you are not spending a lot of money on something that may not be in conformance with the Code. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Single - Family Residence - 29503 Nichols Street - Maadalena Salazar Assistant Planner Villa stated the proposal is to construct a, two - story, single - family residence, and explained that an application for the same design and structure was approved by the Commission on February 7, 1990; since then, design review approval has expired. There being no one present representing the applicant, Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion at the table. Planning Commission Minutes February 16, 1994 Page 6 Single- Family Residence - 29503 Nichols Street Continued Commissioner Neff questioned whether window trim is to be placed on side and rear elevations. He then commented on fencing stating is a good idea to require overlapping material and treatment against weatherization. He then commented on trash enclosures and suggested a fenced enclosure adjacent to the garage as a viable alternative to having space set aside in the garage, not on this project but perhaps on others. Commissioner Wilsey inquired whether staff is going to make design changes as far as wood fencing standards are concerned. If we are going to update the standards this would be a good time to adopt some of the new modern techniques. City Planner Leslie explained the existing standards, and stated with the Zoning Code Update we could look at codifying these requirements. Commissioner Wilsey stated we can not be too rigid some flexibility has to be provided. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the roofing material, and requested that Presidential Shake be added to condition number 7, in case the applicant decide to utilize material other than concrete tile, as indicated, the upgraded material would have to be utilized. She then requested the standard condition modified to reflect this. Commissioner Bullard commented on condition number 12, stating masonry fencing is in the area and questioned whether this should be continued. Discussion ensued on Council direction with regard to fencing, and fencing requirements pursuant to the Code. Commissioner Bullard questioned the 8 foot setback indicated on the plot plan. Assistant Planner explained the setback. Commissioner Metze questioned whether this was a septic area. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29503 NICHOLS STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 31 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 7: Applicant shall use roofing materials with a minimum of class "B" fire rating. If asphalt roofing material is used on sloped roofs it shall be of the quality of Presidential Shake three dimensional shingles. Roofing material to be used shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee, prior to issuance of building permits. INFORMATIONAL 4. Change in Planning Commission Meeting Location Effective, Wednesday, March 2, 1994, Planning Commission will conduct meeting at the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 North Main Street. Planning Commission Minutes February 16, 1994 Page 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Community Development Manager Shear announced: 1. The Lake Elsinore Cultural Center will be ready for the City Council Meeting on February 22, 1994, and there will also be a dedication at 1:30 p.m. 2. Resignation effective March 11, 1994. Chairwoman Brinley commented that the Planning Commission will be moving their meeting to the Cultural Center and the date will remain the first and third Wednesday of the month. City Planner Leslie thanked Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) for use of the facility and Miguel for his assistance. He then itemized proposals scheduled for the March 2nd meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Attended a Brown Act review and there will be a lot of changes coming. Inquired whether legal counsel will be required at Planning Commission Meetings. Chairwoman Brinley stated at this point, this is why the Commission Meetings are remaining on the first and third Wednesday, because legal counsel will be available on that day. I will report back once more information is available. Commissioner Metze Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Thanked Miguel for his assistance and EVMWD for use of the facility. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:10 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Metze. Approved 5 -0 Chairwoman Res ctfull Submitted, *Linda Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 1994 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:10 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairwoman Brinley. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Wilsey, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. Commissioner Neff arrived at 7:11 p.m. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Second by Commissioner Metze and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve the Minutes of February 16, 1994, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 94 -1 - Calvary Chapel (Continued from February 16, 1994 Assistant Planner Villa explained this is a request to allow the existing Calvary Chapel to continue church operations in a commercial zone; to rehabilitate and convert an adjacent residential dwelling unit to office and classroom use; to expand the sanctuary area within the church at 107 North Riley. The public hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for written communication. The Secretary reported written communication was received from Roy Hallard, 113 North Poe Street, included in the packet, stating no objection provided ample parking off street is provided and noise is kept at residential level. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor. Jeannine Martineau, 29042 Mango Court, urged the Commission to approve the usage of the land adjacent to Calvary Chapel and also to continue church operations. Dave Morrow, Assistant Pastor and Administrator, 24980 Cheyenne Circle, Wildomar, stated he was in favor and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, she asked for those wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Bullard asked staff, with the church purchasing the residence, whether the dwelling would be taken off the tax rolls. City Planner Leslie explained that the property is still on the tax rolls, and any normal assessment (property tax) would not be charged only special assessments would be charged. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 2 Conditional Use Permit 94 -1 Continued Commissioner Bullard stated he was going to recommend that a condition be added requiring the parking lot be paved and marked with parking spaces; however, this concern is addressed in the Staff Report under Special Project Concerns, and we can look at this in a couple of years. He commented on fencing, condition number 11, and asked Mr. Marrow if they would go solid masonry, if required. Mr. Marrow stated they have considered all of the Conditions of Approval and this was one, it did say wood or masonry. Because of the expense it would be better for us to go with wood, but we are aware that this might be a condition. Commissioner Metze stated his concerns have been addressed by the conditions. Commissioner Wilsey stated he would support anything in this community to further the church base in the community. He then commented on condition number 11, fencing; to make the applicant aware, as written in the conditions, this is an option that you have to go either way at this point unless this condition is altered. We are in the process of upgrading our wood fence standards. He stated that in some of the infill and downtown area feels this is an unjust and un- necessary burden, and would prefer to see condition number 11 remain as written by staff; however, would like to impose some of the new theories of wood fence construction. Chairwoman Brinley stated she agrees with Commissioner Bullard, as there is a concern with noise levels. She then commented that if the condition remains as written it should have upgraded wood, steel posts and weatherization. City Planner Leslie stated the condition as written requires everything but the steel posts. There being no further discussion Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 27 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 11: A six -foot (61) high wood fence or masonry wall shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines where property is adjacent to residential dwellings. Wooden fencing where allowed shall have an overlapping construction to prevent gaps from forming due to shrinkage and weathering. All wooden fencing shall be painted or treated to protect against weatherization and staining from irrigation over - spray, galvanized steel posts shall be used, subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee prior to issuance of building permit. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 3 2. Conditional Use Permit 94 -3 and Industrial Project 94 -1 - Norman Industries Assistant Planner Villa explained the project entails con- struction of an addition to the existing 45,000 square foot metal warehouse building, of approximately 23,990 square feet, and associated site/ infrastructure improvements. The project requires issuance of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Eastlake Specific Plan. The site is located at 32371 Corydon Road. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m., asking for those in favor. Mr. Fred Crowe, Keith Companies, representing the applicant, gave a brief history on the expansion of the operation. He then stated they are in agreement with staff recommendation with the exception of a portion of condition number 25. Chairwoman Brinley informed Mr. Crowe that he would be brought back to the podium at the close of the hearing to address this condition. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Receiving no response, she asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. The public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Metze yielded the floor to Mr. Crowe. Mr. Crowe questioned the construction of a sidewalk along the frontage of Corydon. He stated they are in favor of repair and possibly moving the catch basin location so it won't be damaged in the future. He explained they are not proposing to build the front buildings at this time, and the sidewalk construction itself should go in when the front portion of the property is developed, for two reasons: the possibility of damage during future construction, and according to some of the advance planning done on the property it appears that we will need to change some drainage structures and other things, and add a driveway, so we would ask for relief of that part of the condition. Engineering Manager O'Donnell explained the ordinance requirements. Mr. Crowe stated the existing building is on the front parcel. The expansion of the building is on another parcel and we will be adjusting the property lines. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the time frame for construction on the front parcel. Mr. Crowe stated he was unsure, but believes Mr. Brody would like to do the expansion now; then build the building that is approved in the back, once the outflow channel is functional. Unsure of the timing on the next two buildings. Commissioner Metze questioned whether this property was affected by the East Lake Project. Mr. Crowe stated it is in the East Lake Specific Plan. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff whether the sidewalk aspects is a mute point if the lot line adjustment is done now, condition 25. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 4 Conditional Use Permit 94 -3 and Industrial Project 94 -1 Continued Engineering Manager O'Donnell responded in the affirmative, explaining that it would have to be a condition and the lot line adjustment processed and approved before any permit could be issued. Commissioner Wilsey suggested this verbiage be deleted if the sidewalk portion is mute, condition 25. Engineering Manager O'Donnell explained that the catch basin is damaged because the driveway is too small, and repairing the catch basin without enlarging the driveway will not do any good. Chairwoman Brinley suggested a condition be added requiring a lot line adjustment. Discussion ensued on the verbiage for said condition. Assistant Planner Villa suggested the condition read: Prior to building permit issuance applicant shall file a lot line adjustment or parcel merger. City Planner Leslie suggested rather than filing the lot line adjustment or parcel merger it be recorded. Commissioner Bullard stated he would like to see some improve- ment along the side by the Quonset huts next to the trailer park. Chairwoman Brinley stated she concurs. Mr. Crowe stated there is a landscape condition. Chairwoman Brinley inquired about the removal of the Quonset huts, as indicated a year ago. These were not going to be a permanent fixture they were being used for storage. Mr. Crowe stated he believes this is planned for the future, and thinks they need these extra buildings in place before giving up that storage. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER METZE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -3 WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION 21.A AND THE MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NUMBER 25 AS DISCUSSED, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF. Discussion ensued on whether the foregoing motion included the design review portion. COMMISSIONER METZE AMENDED HIS MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -3 AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 94 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 36 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NUMBER 21.A. AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NUMBER 25, AS FOLLOWS: Condition No. 21.a: Prior to building permit issuance applicant shall have filed and recorded a lot line adjustment. Condition No. 25: Developer shall , repair the catch basin and enlarge the driveway approach on Corydon. COMMISSIONER NEFF AMENDED HIS SECOND TO REFLECT SAID AMENDMENTS. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 5 Conditional Use Permit 94 -3 and Industrial Project 94 -1 Continued THE FOREGOING MOTION WAS APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT. (An addition over 500 square feet to a commercial or industrial building only requires Planning Commission action (Minor Design Review) without need for City Council action pursuant to both the East Lake Specific Plan and the Zoning Code; therefore, Planning Commission's action is final.) 3. General Plan Amendment 94 -2 and Zone Change 94 -1 - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner De Gange explained that this is an amendment to the General Plan changing the land use designation of an area located at the northwest intersection of Lake Street (formerly Robb Road) and Lakeshore Drive from Specific Plan Area N to Low Medium Density Residential, approximately 18 acres consisting to two nine acre parcels. The zone change from C -2, General Commercial, to R -1, Single - Family Resi- dential is composed of one of the nine acre parcels which is adjacent to Terra Cotta Junior High School and south of Orange Grove Way. The public hearing was opened at 8:01 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for written communication. The Secretary reported written communication was received and distributed this evening from: Donald C. & Kathleen H. Foster, 29256 Northpointe Street, in support of the proposal. Glenn Jordan, 29236 Northpointe, Street, in support of the proposal. Marc Manason, law firm of Lim, Kim & Andrews, legal counsel for Komerica Land Development, raising the following legal objections: Taking with Just Compensation and CEQA Violations. Chairwoman Brinley then called on those persons who wished to speak on the matter as follows: Russell Burns, indicated that he did not wish to speak at this time. Jeannine Martineau, President of Lake Elsinore Unified School District Board of Trustee, 545 Chaney Street, gave a brief history on documents submitted to the City opposing commercial development adjacent to the Terra Cotta Site, which included letters from school districts stating that when there are commercial shopping centers adjacent to middle schools or high schools acts of violence and truancy are increased by almost 400 percent. Ms. Martineau stated the district will be sending a letter supporting the R -1 zoning for the site next to Terra Cotta middle school, and urged the Commission to adopt the resolution. Marian Stofle, 29058 Forest View, stated she was opposed. At this time, Chairwoman Brinley asked for those wishing to speak in favor. The following people spoke: Chris McColley, 29072 Palm View, stated for the past four years, their committee members have requested the City Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 6 General Plan Amendment 94 -2 and Zone Change 94 -1 Continued designate the Tee Pee Ranch site as R -1, Single - Family Residential, in order to correct a series of errors and /or ambiguities in prior zoning of this property. Ms. McColley provided a history on the property highlighting the action taken by City Council on April 24, and June 12, 1984, regard- ing annexation, commercial zoning of one parcel because of the pre- existing farmer's market use, and removal from the West Elsinore Agricultural Preserve. Ms. McColley stated that Lake Terrace is a Hillside Planned District and any higher intensi- ty development jeopardizes the hillside district adjoining it. Ms. McColley stated during the last General Plan process City Council designated this property Specific Plan and withdrew the phrase for commercial purposes. The General Plan language pertaining to this site guarantees no specific uses; we would like this issue resolved. We must be concerned with setting a precedence for the rest of the city. Ray Knight, 16504 Mango Way, stated he addressed the safety aspects of the project put forward and will not reiterate. This is an opportunity to resolve this situation, and asked that the resolution be adopted. Lois Knight, 16504 Mango Way, agrees with the R -1 proposal. Does not think it is compatible with the homes or school, and the safety of the children should be the main consideration. Jack McColley, 29072 Palm View, stated the General Plan Amend- ment involves land use compatibility and referenced the General Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies and Title 17 provisions. In this case, the subject site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods consisting of low density single - family homes and two adjacent schools. Developing this site commercially or with higher intensity housing will create a pocket or island of inconsistent land uses. We must also be concerned with setting a planning precedence for the rest of our city. The welfare of the residents, integrity and quality of the community are of utmost concern rather than the profits or lack thereof of a developer. Jack Hennessy, 29052 Forest View, not against development, but thinks it is more important that development be done in proper locations. Does not believe this is the proper location. Ron Hendrix, 29074 Palm View, concerned with the safety of his children with commercial development. Thinks that residential is more in line with the surrounding area. Pat Hendrix, 29074 Palm View, stated she was in favor of the zone change to R -1. Agrees that we could use more commercial, but against it at this site. Concerned for family and way of life. Douglas Moffitt, 29080 Tangerine Way, in favor of the R -1. Gary Jefferson, 29067 Palm view, urged approval of the R -1. Anita Wilhite, 29056 Palm View, in favor of the project. Tom Ginnetti, 29069 Palm View, urged approval of the R -1. He then commented on the location of school bus stops and the children in the neighborhood and stated this would be right for the kids and good for the community. Ross Thomas, 16523 Mountain Avenue, urged approval of R -1 for this property. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 7 General Plan Amendment 94 -2 and Zone Change 94 -1 Continued Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. The following people spoke: Marc Manason, representing Komerica, stated this would constitute a multi million dollar penalty to a developer that has been sensitive to the needs of the community; that has proposed a project that would bring jobs to the community. He then provided a history on the previous submittal which proposed residential along the western boundary, a dense green wall, a ten foot drop in elevation as a buffer between the existing residential and commercial uses, and; along the southern boundary, adjacent to the school campus, a child care facility and residential, and small office buildings and office related retail at Orange Grove Way. He then stated that Komerica relied on the existing General Plan designation which provides for commercial uses, and stated the matter cannot be resolved by restricting the site to R -1. If this were to happen Komerica would be compelled to take legal action. Mr. Manason stated that Komerica has taken steps and will take even more steps to accommodate any concerns from the residents or the school. He stated that Komerica has been deprived of any use of this property for the last three and a half years because the General Plan precludes any development of the property prior to the approval of the Specific Plan. Mr. Manason then questioned the environmental determination- - shifting of use from commercial to residential is not just a "de- intensification" it is a change in use that has adverse impacts such as: jobs and housing imbalance, increased demand on schools, parks, and increased traffic due to the absence of local shopping amenities. These impacts need to be addressed. Gary Barker, 15014 Notnil Way, commented on the previous petitions submitted from the Lake Terrace tract who are in favor of this project. Lake Elsinore is growing and business is being brought in and this is something that needs to be continued for our development and growth. Kim Boehm, 33170 Zellar Street, stated the facts of the project as proposed by the applicant were presented to the people of the community. Ms. Boehm submitted a Petition of Favor with approximately 2,226 signatures. Feels that there is overwhelming support for this project. Inga Hughes, 18474 Brightman Avenue, in favor of Komerica's plan to develop. To change the zoning from Mixed Use to R -1 would be unfair to the developer. Urged disapproval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Barbara Romano, 15004 Vista View, opposed to the Zone Change, would like to see a shopping center. Would like to see this resolved. Marion Stofle, 29058 Forest View, opposed to the Zone Change. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Jeannine Martineau, speaking on behalf of the School District, stated for clarification the conditions for building a public Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 8 General Plan Amendment 94 -2 and Zone Change 94 -1 Continued building for public use is much different than that for commercial or residential. When Dr. Dave Long spoke to OLA they said had the adjacent usage been commercial they would not have approved this site for the school, and this is in the Council Minutes. Also, when the site was purchased for Terra Cotta it was an Agricultural Preserve with no past history or problems and OLA would not have approved it had they known that it was designated for commercial uses. Chairwoman Brinley then called on the following people, who submitted a request to speak: John McCann, 29256 Northpointe, indicated that he did not wish to address the Commission. Marie Fariell, 29082 Palm View, stated she opposed the Zone Change. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Russell Burns, 15032 Vista View, stated his major concern is the vacancy rate in commercial buildings in the city. If they have a concern for the sensitivity of the people in that area would they be willing to guarantee that there will not be a vacancy rate. Urged approval of R -1. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. Commissioner Neff inquired about the schedule for general plan amendments. Asked if there were any other applications received in the last few months and whether it would be appropriate to consider those with this one, and if it was necessary to consider the re -zone concurrently. City Planner Leslie explained that state law allows a city to consider general plan amendments four times a year. The City considered a general plan amendment in January. He explained there were no other requests to go with this one, and that a re -zone does not have to be considered concurrently. Although it was the direction of Council in the resolution of intent. Commissioner Neff commented on the City Council Minutes which indicate this was debated quite a bit, controversial issues with testimony on both sides. There are difficult issues and difficult land uses to deal with. There are land use changes that go along with the community's development and growth. Commissioner Neff commented on the letter from Lim, Kim & Andrews, legal counsel for Komerica, making strong statements about taking without just compensation, arbitrary and capricious action, and CEQA violations. These are all serious matters and the City could be sued. Commissioner Neff stated he has not made up his mind on this, doesn't have a conclusion. Appreciates the interest of the school district. He commented on the previous plan submitted which illustrated buffers and compatibility between uses. But it is more than compatible land uses, it has to be a successful development, experienced leasing and acceptable by the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 9 General Plan Amendment 94 -2 and Zone Change 94 -1 Continued Chairwoman Brinley stated that her feelings are the same as previously stated, the land use mix is not compatible with the existing surrounding uses. She then commented on the letter from Lim, Kim & Andrews, stating the legalities of this has to remain a decision with Council. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the zoning and land use problems for this proposal stating years ago mistakes were made in long term planning and for various reasons never dealt with. Concurs with some of the statements made by other Commissioners. We have to decide what is to be done for the future of this area and at this point the tough decision is to make it R -1. Commissioner Bullard stated he has mixed feelings. Concurs with the statements of Commissioners Wilsey and Neff. Believes this can be made workable by Komerica and the residents, and Komerica could come up with a plan that takes the school at least 1,000 feet away from any commercial business. In reviewing the map, would like to see the C -2 and R -1 swapped, equal property. This is an option that could be taken with the zoning today. Commissioner Metze stated he doesn't like C -1 next to the school. Does not see this as arbitrary with the denial of two previous commercial projects. He stated there are no guarantees that medical offices will be there or that the building would not be vacant. Commissioner Wilsey stated that regardless of the feelings about the previous projects, this is not an option that we are looking at this evening. We are looking at only the options before us this evening. Chairwoman Brinley reiterated that this is a hard decision to make. Agrees with Commissioner Neff, buffering is a main concern and this is a very sensitive area with the school right there. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER BULLARD CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94 -2 AND ZONE CHANGE 94 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS BULLARD AND NEFF CASING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 94 -1, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 94 -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94 -2 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 1994 Page 10 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Inquired about the replacement and timing of the Community Develop- ment Manager position. City Planner Leslie stated this is being looked at by management. Commissioner Metze Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey At the next Planning Session or Study Session with City Council would request that the fencing standards, wood fencing, be placed on the agenda. Chairwoman Brinley stated she would set up a date with staff and the Commission would then be notified. Chairwoman Brinley Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:03 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Metze. Approved 5 -0 Pamela B i.nley, Chairwo an Respectfully Submitted, Linda Grindstaff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 16, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 1994 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were City P] Assistant Planner Villa, MINUTE ACTION led by Commissioner Metze. Bullard, Wilsey, Metze and Brinley Neff anner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Second by Commissioner Bullard and carried by a vote of 4 -0 to approve the Minutes of March 2, 1994, as submitted, and to receive and file the Minutes of March 16, 1994. COMMISSIONER NEFF ARRIVED AT 7:08 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ace Vallejos, 15231 Cobre Street, commented on Laguna Heights Specific Plan Amendment, stating after two considerations by LAFCO and a third one on the way here we are again. The information given to us by the developer has not been a good faith effort, in my opinion. Believes this is to change condition number 2.a. He urged neighbors to write to LAFCO and ask that they all be in one annexation or that condition number 2.a be upheld. There being no further request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance 94 -1 - Lake Elsinore Resort & Casino Assistant Planner Villa explained this request is to vary from Section 17.94.170.E and.I, to change the face of an existing 80 foot high freestanding sign, located at 20930 Malaga Road. He further explained the proposal has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The public hearing was opened at 7:11 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor of the proposal to speak. William Barker, ACME Wiley Corp, sign contractor, stated that he sold the existing sign to the Casino some time ago. He further explained that they feel the 3rd sign is important for visibility. He then stated he would answer any questions that may arise. Larry Regis, representing Lake Elsinore Resort, stated the signs requested are critical for continuing business at this site. He requested the Commission take into consideration the fact that Casino Drive and Malaga is one of the main thorough- fares for ingress /egress with the existence of the Baseball Stadium. He then explained that the 3rd sign lies on the building and becomes almost a picture view of the location of the Casino and it is very distinguishing and lets people know which building is the Casino. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 2 Variance 94 -1 Continued Commissioner Neff commented on sign #3, roof sign, whether there has been another location proposed for this sign, lower that would take it off the roof. City Planner Leslie stated staff could look at the possibility of an additional directional sign at the corner of Casino Drive and Malaga. Chairwoman Brinley asked if they could have a directional sign at Mission Trail and Malaga. City Planner Leslie stated that the Code does not allow off -site signs, and this would be an off -site sign. Commissioner Bullard commented on sign #3, and this being a pre- existing sign in place prior to the ordinance taking effect. Since the sign is proposed to be repainted and the shape or size will not change would like to see it remain with the new changes. Chairwoman Brinley asked Commissioner Bullard whether he would be in favor of screening all other roof mounted equipment as recommended by staff, if the roof sign is allowed. Commissioner Bullard responded in the affirmative. He then stated that if this were a new sign he would be against it, but it has been there for years and it should be grandfathered in. He then asked staff if this would require a Conditional Use Permit. City Planner Leslie responded in the negative. Commissioner Metze stated that he has no problem with the three signs, and asked the applicant if he was agreeable with condition number 5. Mr. Regis stated they were agreeable. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff what other options we have available to offer the applicant; i.e., thinking about a monument sign near Malaga and maybe replace sign #3, is this an option we could work with? City Planner Leslie stated there is a freestanding sign on Malaga, believes it is sign #2, and one on Casino Drive. Believes there are 3 parcels, we could look at allowing one freestanding sign per parcel. But the current Code only allows a 6 foot high monument sign, so there may be a possibility for another freestanding sign. Commissioner Wilsey stated he would be in favor of leaving sign #3 if the applicant is willing to screen, per condition number 5. Chairwoman Brinley commented on freeway visibility and stated that as long as there is no problem with screening she has no problem with the freestanding sign. Mr. Regis gave a brief overview on the rehabilitation of the former Lake Elsinore Inn and Casino. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF TO APPROVE VARIANCE 94 -1 ALLOWING REFURBISHMENT AND ALTERATIONS TO SIGN #1, #2 AND #3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. City Planner Leslie asked for clarification, stating that condition number 3 indicates that sign #3 will be removed. COMMISSIONER WILSEY AMENDED HIS MOTION TO DELETE CONDITION NUMBER 3 WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE SECOND, AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT. Condition No. 3: Sign #3 shall be remeved te } eenfem "e requirements e€ the Sign gn ordinanee signs by the Building Department. DELETED. v, Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 3 2. Variance 94 -2 - Chevron % Hohn Chairwoman Brinley stated it has been requested that this item be continued and called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE VARIANCE 94 -2 TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1994. 3. Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) - Good Land Investment (The Western Company) Associate Planner DeGange gave a brief history on the original approval of the Laguna Heights Specific Plan and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . He explained the Addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared and concludes that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in any additional impacts beyond those identified in the previous EIR, except for a possible increase in noise along Laguna Heights Drive South; however, a mitigation measure has been recommended to reduce this particular impact to a level of insignificance. Associate Planner DeGange explained the Amendment does not change the maximum number of residential dwelling units previously allowed (888 dwelling units) . The proposed Amend- ment modifies the approved Specific Plan by: 1) rearranging the densities and placement of the residential units by removing and clustering development along the ridge lines, increasing the amount of open space, and reducing densities adjacent to the existing residential areas, such as Brookstone Ranch; 2) committing approximately 68% of the dwelling units for senior housing; 3) increasing the total amount of non - recreational open space, and; 4) identifies an alternative primary access from Grand Avenue, which was part of condition number 47 requiring the Amendment. He then highlighted staff's concerns as follows: Senior Housing Implementation; Multi -use Trail System; Consistency of Equestrian Lot Districts (SFD -1 and SFD -2) with Zoning Ordinance, and; Alternative Access Roads. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor of the proposal to speak. Rick Stevens, The Keith Companies, Planning Consultant for the project, explained the applicant directed them to modify the plan to decrease impacts associated with the project and address some of the concerns raised by staff and neighboring residents. He then highlighted the following modification: 68% of residential units converted to retirement community and associated reductions on traffic impacts, population, school facilities and municipal service; buffering by 1/2 acre and 1 acre equestrian lots; relocation of clubhouse and multi - family residential units to project interior; ridgeline units reduced and clustered; grading and visual impacts reduced; open space increased, and; closure of Toft and Amorose, at some stage determined by staff, during the course of the project. City Planner Leslie asked Mr. Stevens to clarify, the clustered units on the ridge. Mr. Stevens explained the clustering of these units referring to the exhibit posted. Tom Nievez, The Keith Companies, stated he would answer any questions from a technical standpoint. He addressed staff's Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 4 Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) Continued concern on consistency of equestrian lots and stated that reference will be made to the document to ensure consistency with the regulations for the keeping of horses. He commented on the closure of Toft and Amorose, explaining there is language in the document now that identifies that these streets will be closed to through traffic and only open for emergency access upon the construction of the secondary access point. He commented on the restriction to retired households, explaining that some language is contained in the Specific Plan Amendment; however, he agreed to the condition proposed by staff to develop more concrete mechanisms to assure compliance. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Lee Bulen, 14949 Toft Drive, representing the Brookstone Homeowners Association, President of the Board of Directors, commented on condition number 52, pertaining to Laguna Heights Drive. A problem that still has not been addressed is the two lots that are proposed for Laguna Heights South, these lots are under the jurisdiction of Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association. If a road were approved up those two lots, half would be in the County and half in the City. Mr. Bulen expressed concern with the equestrian lots, in the middle of this project, being designated for senior /retirement and the only stipulation is square footage. Mr. Bulen reiterated that they were not opposed to development of the property, but asked for consistency with the existing use neighborhoods. He stated the issues are still density, traffic, access, and services. There has been no change in this project from the first hearing to now. We do not see this to be consistent with the existing use neighborhoods nor with the General Plan. We are opposed to this and ask that you do not approve it. LAFCO has also put some conditions on this project and the area which have not been addressed. Al Knight, 30570 Brookstone, asked why the developer submitted a revised document without incorporating staff recommendation/ conditions of approval. Why the City directed Centex to redesign their ingress /egress points removing them from Grand Avenue, and reducing the number of points on Lincoln. He commented on Grand Avenue being a major thoroughfare and the City not wanting additional intersections on Grand, referring to the City /County Codes for major roads. He expressed concern on the average daily traffic, referring to Sections 4.1.1 and 4.5, stating the City Council reduced this to 1,300; increase of water flow and flood control improvements, referring to Section 6.3 and the EIR; conflicting statement with regard to the location of SFD -2 equestrian housing, Specific Plan Amendment page 3 -5, and the steep slopes; toxic run -off issues from the golf course, streets and other sources of contaminants which have not been addressed; no access to the Cleveland National Forest and no internal hiking /riding trails, Section 2.2.2; Section 5.1, states a 15 acre riding club in Mc Vicker or is it Dickey Canyon; a statement from the Mitigation Monitoring Program issued August 3, 1993, developer will only remove 200 live Oak Trees, the Mitigation Monitoring Program states that 543 will be removed. Marie Locke, 15025 Monty Court, stated she spoke before the City Council on September 14, 1993 on the General Plan, specifically the Hillside Development Ordinance; no such ordinance existed at that time and no efforts have been made to adopt an ordinance. Approval of the Laguna Heights Specific Plan or any amendment is a direct violation of the Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 5 Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) Continued General Plan. The presumption that the developer's representatives are working with residents is erroneous. If approved, the Laguna Heights development will set the standard for hillside development and the City will have failed in its obligation to guide and direct such development. David Locke, 15025 Monty Court, suggested the document be revised before bringing it back before the Commission as there are a number of errors and omissions -- Figures are referenced but not included; figures are incorrect and pages of text do not correlate, examples: Page 1 -1 states the primary entrance proposed is between Toft and Amorose. Page 3 -4 says that Toft and Amorose will serve as secondary access points. Page 4 -1 states the major community entrance will be off Grand, secondary will be Toft and Amorose, and a fourth access just north of Patrick Court. Page 4 -2 states the primary entry into Laguna Heights is Toft Drive. Figure 11 shows the major community entry on Patrick Court not on any other existing or proposed access point. At no point, in the text, is Patrick Court referred to as a major entry; in fact, Patrick Court is either not mentioned at all or listed as a minor access point. Requested a condition be added to exempt the 1 acre estates which act as a buffer between the existing and proposed homes from any density transfer unless it is a further downsizing of that density. Dave Buchanan, 30831 Plumas Street, stated his concern is with the impact on schools. Asked with the senior /retired citizens does this impact what the developer has to pay toward the schools. Asked why the developer was paying money toward Mc Vicker Park when LAFCO directed this project be included in the Ortega Park and Recreation District. Also, concerned with the impact on police and fire services. Requested a condition be added requiring the developer to pay mitigation fees after 200 units are built and the fire station come on line a lot faster. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for those wishing to speak on the matter. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Cobre Street, reiterated his earlier comments on condition number 2.a. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked the applicant's representative to address condition number 52. Mr. Stevens stated that he is unsure of the concern here, as the condition states that construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Toft or Amorose at any time. Commissioner Wilsey stated the original conditions stand. City Planner Leslie stated he believes that Brookstone Homeowners Association still feels there is an issue regarding the use of that property for that drive, and the Specific Plan still indicates other potential alternative accesses into the project. Thinks the City recognizes that the Homeowners Association has certain CC & R's and the developer is going to have to come to an agreement. The condition remains. Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 6 Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) Continued Chairwoman Brinley asked Mr. Stevens to address the senior /retirement units. Mr. Stevens stated the equestrian buffering is a response to concerns, so we have designations, referring to the posted exhibit to explain. The retirement component is to address the concern for traffic, essentially that requirement is to reduce traffic counts, believes a minimal of 30 %. The products and types may be altered and if it has to be altered then we would come back for an amendment. At this time, the orientation is to have a retirement community with the option for equestrian lots. The project includes an equestrian center which would be open to the public. City Planner Leslie stated the project does not include an equestrian center, it is outside the project area. The developer has indicated, in the document, that he does intend to build the equestrian center. Chairwoman Brinley stated the issues regarding municipal services and taxes brought up this evening can be better addressed at a meeting scheduled for April 21, 1994, (6:30 p.m.) at the Cultural Center, the developer, City Attorney and at least two Councilmembers will be in attendance. Chairwoman Brinley asked Mr. Stevens to address the park and recreation issue. Mr. Stevens stated LAFCO conditioned this project to participate in both City Park and Ortega Trail Park and Recreation Fees. The City in -lieu fees will go toward the McVicker Canyon Park. The fees paid to Ortega Trail will go toward establishing and maintaining trail connections. Chairwoman Brinley asked Mr. Stevens to address the questions raised by Mr. Bulen. Mr. Stevens explained the rush to meet the deadline for schedules and 'hearings, and stated that all of the conditions put in place by the Commission /City Council are still in effect. He stated the issue of run -off has been discussed several times. There is going to be a retention basin on site and that basin can be monitored, this is a requirement by the State of California; therefore this issue has been resolved. As far as the trees, obviously there is a conflicting number, cannot say how this happened. The exhibit shows 3 cut out areas, which are natural areas, these areas reflect the large stands of trees. Those areas are in the center of the golf course and are not impacted by residential development, so these trees are being preserved. City Planner Leslie stated the draft document before the Commission does reflect /address some of the issues. Chairwoman Brinley stated she recalls that some of the trees being removed were to be used as buffers. Mr. Stevens stated the Mitigation Program provides for removal and replacement of trees. Would suggest that staff include a condition to this effect, as this is a highly beneficial approach. He then explained the replacement ratio is 10:1 and typically the California Department of Fish & Game has a replacement ratio of 5:1. Discussion ensued on the removal/ replacement of trees, this being added as condition number 63, and verbiage for the proposed condition. Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 7 Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) Continued City Planner Leslie suggested the following verbiage: As to be determined by a qualified biologist those trees that can be moved and have a high rate survivability shall be relocated to the east perimeter of the project to act as a buffer. 200 of the replacement trees at 10:1 shall also be planted along the eastern perimeter to act as a buffer. Commissioner Wilsey suggested that 24 inch box trees be utilized. Chairwoman Brinley asked Mr. Stevens to address the concern on drainage. Mr. Stevens explained they are required by conditions to provide a design manual, which in a since would be a hillside grading ordinance. Prior to and concurrent with the tentative map you will have an opportunity to review the development manual for the site. Chairwoman Brinley asked Mr. Stevens to address Mr. Locke's comments regarding errors and omissions. Mr. Stevens stated that access to the project has been a primary issue all along. The alternatives that remain in the document are part of the issue brought up by Mr. Locke. We are talking about entries versus entry statements. The figure identified discusses entry statements, landscaping and arrival to the community, as opposed to primary entry, meaning the number of vehicles coming in and out of the project. As discuss earlier Amorose, Toft and Patrick Court are proposed to initially be the access points to the Laguna Heights community. Upon construction of the secondary alternative, as approved by the City, Amorose and Toft will be closed. Commissioner Neff commented on the circulation system, a condition was added to remove all construction traffic to Laguna Heights South. There is still a connection, that connector could be designed in such a way, to restrict any type of traffic flow; perhaps even a gated access point, emergency access point. He stated the T- intersection that Laguna Heights makes coming into the project could be re- designed so as not to bottleneck traffic and make an easier flow of traffic into the project. Recommend this be looked into for the benefit of Council. Commissioner Neff stated the project is improved from before, relocating the clubhouse away from existing residences, relocation of higher density, improved hillside design. He stated he was concerned that there hasn't been more dialogue between the residents and the developer. Commissioner Neff commented on the document submitted earlier on the distance setbacks between intersections on Grand; stating he to was confused as to whether these are defined to be major or local. In my mind, Grand and Lakeshore is a major intersection. Is Toft a major intersection? City Planner Leslie stated condition number 58 requires Laguna Heights Drive South to intersect Grand opposite of where Plumas now intersects Grand. Although it would go from a 3 to a 4 way intersection, and mitigation measures require that intersection be signalized when traffic warrants. Mr. Stevens stated conditions 47 and 53 address redesigning the project to meet that loop. Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 8 Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) Continued Commissioner Neff commented on density transfer, stating his interpretation is, if the 1 acre estates that we are proposing to buffer the existing residences did not provide for density transfer that would effectively reduce the number of units overall. Mr. Stevens stated currently the buffer is one acre lots, and the request is that the Specific Plan not be allowed to transfer units into that to increase the density of a buffer. Commissioner Neff asked for the number of units with the 1 acre buffer. Mr. Stevens responded 63 units. Commissioner Neff stated he would like to add condition number 64 addressing the density transfer, and deferred verbiage to staff. City Planner Leslie suggested the following verbiage: In the SFD -1 category, or the 1 acre estate lots, the maximum number of units will not exceed 63, and there will be no density transfers allowed within this district. Commissioner Metze asked staff whether condition number 54 was worded as strong as it can be worded, explaining experience with CC & R's being ignored. City Planner Leslie stated the condition could be worded stronger if we had a good idea of what mechanisms are in order to implement this. Commissioner Neff stated an example might be a deed restriction and explained how this works. He stated staff might look at the Presley project in the Banning /Beaumont area, which is a seniors project, or the Colony in Rancho California. City Planner Leslie asked Commissioner Metze whether he would consider the following verbiage stronger: that this will have to be done prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or possibly issuance of building permit. Discussion ensued on condition number 54, and the condition to contain language strong enough to ensure compliance. Commissioner Metze stated he agrees with Commissioner Neff it seems that the developer is not working closely with the residents. He commented on the size of lots and square footage for the retirement homes. He commented on the closure of Toft and Amorose and stated major problems could be avoided with Laguna Heights South. Mr. Stevens reiterated the concern about traffic impacts on Amorose and Toft. He stated that Toft and Amorose will be closed upon reaching the threshold of daily trips and once the threshold is met that secondary access has to take place. Commissioner Bullard commented on Figure 12, entries, Specific Plan Amendment. Believes there was an agreement not to have a gated community. Would like this deleted from the Specific Plan and any other document. Mr. Stevens stated this will be removed. He then referred to the posted exhibit and explained the reason for the gating is to limit access to higher density areas. He further explained that the daily trips on Amorose have been reduced from 1,400 to 400, and Patrick Court reduced from 3,700 to 1,500 daily trips. Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 9 Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) Continued Commissioner Bullard commented on cuts and fills, noting concerns are addressed in the EIR. On cuts and fills that will take place wants to ensure that appropriate geology studies take place. Mr. Stevens stated a 15% reduction to grading is estimated because of the hillside clustering, and a geotechnical specialist will be on -site, as required. Commissioner Bullard stated his concerns on biological resources have been addressed. He then referred to Section 7.3.1, page 7 -4, would like to add condition number 65, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy the fire station at Machado and Lincoln will be completed and maned. Mr. Stevens stated that development of Laguna Heights does increase fire protection. As part of the requirements for the project the hillside or design manual has to provide fuel modification planning. Commissioner Bullard referred to Section 7.4.2, page 7 -6, asked for definition of gravity sewers. Engineering Manager O'Donnell provided definition of gravity and force sewers. Commissioner Bullard inquired about the construction of sewer lines down Toft; whether there would be better access for flow at a different location. Discussion ensued on construction of sewer, and whether this determination would not be up to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Commissioner Wilsey suggested the following be added as condition number 66: wherever feasible, the backbone utility system will be directed down the main entry, which is Laguna Heights South. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated he has a problem with wherever feasible, its a question of money. They could put pump stations in and put it any where they want. It has to be gravity and the district has to assume the responsibility of maintenance, and it is going to be their call. Mr. Stevens stated the provision for sewer lines through Toft and Amorose would give an opportunity to the residents to connect to sewer. Discussion ensued on proposed condition number 66 with regard to adding street repair should the street be torn up for sewer construction. Repair shall be from centerline to curb, or curb to curb should Toft, Amorose or Patrick Court be used. Mr. Stevens stated the Commission will be reviewing this project in more detail at the tentative map stage, and suggested that site specific issues be addressed at that time. Chairwoman Brinley stated she would like to have it as a condition now, and refined later if necessary. Commissioner Neff asked Engineering Manager O'Donnell whether the City or Water District has policy that requires this. Engineering Manager O'Donnell explained the City's policy for trench resurfacing. Commissioner Bullard asked staff for definition of net /gross acreage, setbacks and easements. City Planner Leslie provided definitions. Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 10 Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) Continued Commissioner Bullard commented on Section 8.4.5.h, page 8.32, setbacks, front yard minimum 15 feet staggered and garage minimum 20 feet. Mr. Stevens explained the intent of the setback ordinance is to provide visual variation along the street. Commissioner Bullard commented on the Environmental Impact Report, page 3.28, paragraph number 5. This project is only 888 units; therefore, would like this changed in the EIR to read: Before the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for more than the first dwelling unit within the proposed project, the proposed Prototype II fire station shall be built and fully operational. Commissioner Wilsey asked how the various product sizes are going to correlate to the percentage, concern is the buffer area. Mr. Stevens referred to the Land Use Summary, Table 2, page 3- 3 of the Specific Plan, which identifies the specific areas that will be restricted to retirement, these areas are SFD -2, SFD -4 and approximately 15% of SFH -1. Commissioner Wilsey stated his major problem with the project is the impacts on the surrounding neighbors. This is why I will not support the project. Chairwoman Brinley stated that she agrees with Commissioners Bullard and Neff. Inquired about the number of times this project had been before LAFCO. City Planner Leslie asked if there was a condition recommended which would preclude any gated areas within the development. As the project was previously approved with a portion being gated, internal gated area. Chairwoman Brinley stated she does not want to see a gated community and a condition can be added. Commissioner Neff asked if the purpose of the gate was to limit traffic going into existing neighborhoods. If this is the purpose, then people may prefer to have that gate. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated from a public works and engineering standpoint we do not want gates on public streets, they would have to be private streets. Discussion ensued on the intent of the gate and whether there would be private streets. Mr. Stevens stated the gating is for one portion of the project to restrict access; however, it will accomplish diverting traffic away from that community. The golf course, clubhouse, tennis club, swimming club are all public facilities, and all public streets to those facilities will remain open. The gating is to separate one of the planning areas, the Fairway Lots. Engineering Manager O'Donnell requested a condition be added, which requires any gates or gated community be on private streets and the entrance shall be private streets. Chairwoman Brinley suggested the following verbiage for condition number 67: any gated areas or gated streets will be private streets only. � 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 11 Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) Continued MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -3 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 94 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONS 63, 64, 65, 66, AND 67. Commissioner Bullard requested the Environmental Impact Report be take separate from the Specific Plan Amendment. CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AMENDED HER MOTION WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE SECOND AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BASED ON THE FINDING LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS BULLARD AND WILSEY CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -3 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONS 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 94 -2. Commissioner Bullard explained he voted no because he feels the applicant has not been fair and has brought back a draft specific plan without the previous conditions and all context previously approved. Feels this is not what was voted on. Commissioner Wilsey stated the project as amended has some merit and value over and above the original plan. But until this project stands on its own with its own entry way to handle those impacts, won't support it. RESOLUTION NO. 94 -2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #1 FOR GOOD LAND INVESTMENT (THE WESTERN CO.) Condition No. 63: As to be determined by a qualified biological consultant and /or arborist, those trees that can be moved and have a high survivability rate shall be relocated to the east perimeter of the project to act as a buffer. 200 of the replacement trees required at a ratio of 10:1 shall also be planted along the eastern perimeter to act as a buffer. Minimum 24 inch box trees shall be utilized for the replacement Oak Trees placed on the easterly project perimeter. Actual oak replacement sites will be determined by a revegetation biologist and will occur in areas that contain the microclimate conditions necessary for successful establishment, for example, in areas with the proper slope exposure and soil. Condition No. 64: In the SFD -1 category, 1 Acre Estate Lots, the maximum number of units will not exceed 63, and there will be no Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 12 Specific Plan 92 -3 Amendment Number 1 (Laguna Heights) Continued density transfers allowed within this district that increase the density as might otherwise be allowed pursuant to Section 11.3 of the Specific Plan. Condition No. 65: Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy the proposed fire station at Machado and Lincoln will be completed and operational. Condition No. 66: Wherever feasible, the backbone utility system shall be directed down the proposed main entry, which is Laguna Heights South. If the parking lane on a street has to be torn up for utility construction, street repair shall be from centerline to curb, if utilities are placed anywhere else in an existing street, repair shall be curb to curb. This includes, but is not limited to, if Toft, Amorose or Patrick Court are used. Condition No. 67: Any gated areas or gated streets will be private streets only. Gated areas will only be allowed as shown in the approved Specific Plan. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Single - Family Residence 16984 Ulmer - Anderson /Ludwig Assistant Planner Villa explained the proposal is to construct a, one- story, 1,418 square foot dwelling with a 647 square foot garage. There being no one present representing the applicant, Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Metze commented on condition 12, fencing and requiring galvanized steel post set in concrete. Discussion ensued on fencing; this being deferred to a study session; whether this was applicable to commercial and subdivisions as opposed to single - family, and modifying the standard condition until a study session is held. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16984 ULMER BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 12: A six -foot (61) high wood fence or masonry wall shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls) . Wooden fencing where allowed shall have an overlapping construction to prevent gaps from forming due to shrinkage and weathering. All wooden fencing shall be painted or treated to protect against weatherization and staining from irrigation over - spray. Also galvanized steel posts set in concrete shall be used for the fence vertical support. Compliance with this condition is subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee prior to issuance of building permit. Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 13 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Metze Requested that staff modify the standard condition on fencing to reflect galvanized steel posts set in concrete, and this be added to the list for study session topics. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinlev Excited about the opening of the Stadium. Thanked staff for their efforts put forth on the Laguna Heights project. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:40 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Chairwoman Brinley. Approved 5 -0 T M a Brinl Chairwoman Respectfully Submitted, Linda Grindstaff, Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 1994 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Bullard. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Neff, Wilsey and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Metze Also present were City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Neff and carried by a vote of 4 -0 to approve the Minutes of April 6, 1994, with the following correction to Page 10, 3rd paragraph, the word "units" to be singular. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance 94 -2 - Chevron % Hohn (Continued from April 6, 1994) Assistant Planner De Gange gave a brief history on the existing signage. He then explained the proposal is to vary from Section 17.94.180.E.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow two, seven -foot high freestanding signs with 39 square feet each of sign area, located at 16830 Lakeshore Drive. He further explained that the proposal is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The public hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor of the proposal to speak. Mr. Jerry Holmquist, Chevron representative, stated this project is an effort to bring the signage into compliance with Chevron's Hallmark 21 Image Standards. He then stated they were in agreement with the Staff Report and Conditions. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Neff inquired about the location of the 7' signs. Associate Planner De Gange explained the existing 10' signs would be replaced with the 7' signs, same location. Commissioner Wilsey suggested the word "monument" be inserted after the word "freestanding ", condition number 3 and 4. Commissioner Bullard asked if 1' would make that much of a difference from the street, referring to the photographs included with the report. Mr. Sellers, dealer /owner, explained the additional foot in height would make the signs more visible to the motoring public. Chairwoman Brinley inquired about berming. Commissioner Wilsey stated the existing signs are placed on a berm. Associate Planner De Gange stated the signs are below the berm. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1994 Page 2 Variance 94 -2 MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE VARIANCE 94 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 3: All free - standing monument signs shall include the address of the business in numerals and /or letters at least six inches (611) high. Addresses shall not be obscured by landscaping or other obstructions. Condition No. 4: The erection of these free - standing monument signs shall conform to what has been proposed on the plan submitted by the applicant, labeled "Exhibit A ", (date stamped March 8, 1994) and /or as modified by the Planning Commission subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or designee. 2. Conditional Use Permit 94 -5 - Alpha Project City Planner Leslie stated the applicant indicated that a written request for continuance would be submitted; however, staff has not received the written request, only a verbal request. Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -5 TO THE MEETING OF MAY 4, 1994. City Planner Leslie explained for the benefit of the audience why the public hearing has been continued. 3. Conditional Use Permit 94 -4 and Commercial Project 94 -1 - Chevron /Ouan Mac Assistant Planner Villa explained the proposal consist of Design Review for the expansion of the existing self serve gasoline station, which entails the construction of a 1,612 square foot mini -mart, a 840 square foot car wash, additional parking and landscape improvements, and a Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing use to operate a car wash and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, at 31640 Mission Trail. The public hearing was opened at 7:25 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor of the proposal to speak. Mr. Jerry Holmquist, Chevron representative, stated this is an attempt to upgrade and comply with Chevron's Hallmark 21 Image Standards. He stated since their 1987 attempt to expand the existing service station that additional property to the north of the site has been acquired, approximately 14,810 square feet, on which the car wash and food mart building would be located. He explained that an acoustical analysis was submitted, as requested by staff. Although staff did not have sufficient time to review as it was submitted shortly before the preparation of the Staff Report. He stated they were receptive to any sound walls, any mitigation that staff deems appropriate, to eliminate the noise from nearby properties. He asked if staff had a chance to analyze it and had any recommendations, and suggested the project be conditioned as Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1994 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit 94 -4 and Commercial Proiect 94 -1 Continued such. He then explained their concerns with the walls being: the potential to defaced with graffiti, the long term maintenance and initial cost of installation. Mr. Holmquist commented on the architectural design, stating that elements were added where possible and compatible with Chevron's nationwide design, and detailed the features. He then explained that retaining the Chevron image was very critical if he is to receive Chevron's approval for funding. He requested approval of the project as submitted and subject to the condition of the sound mitigation study. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley stated she was on the Commission back in 1987 and recalls this project, a primary concern was the noise level. She commented on the development of this corner and it being a major entry into the City. She inquired about the hours if operation, whether it would be open 24 hours. She suggested this item be continued to May 4 or May 18, if agreeable with the other Commissioners, and staff work with the applicant on architectural design and noise mitigation. Commissioner Wilsey suggested Commissioner's discussion continue and then a decision made. He then commented on the architectural design stating that he feels this is too much of a standard "cookie cutter" Chevron design, this area is a major entry into the City. Noise abatement, believes that block walls may be required, concern is the car wash exit- - blower. Suggested deeper landscape buffering to create a noise barrier when exiting the car wash. He then asked staff for an analysis on the noise mitigation report. Assistant Planner Villa provided an overview on the noise study. Commissioner Bullard stated he has the same concerns. He commented on the office building adjacent to the property and asked what affect this is going to have on that office space, high concentration levels of noise going back and forth. He commented on the removal of the current bay station or office space and the addition of two pumps. He stated that a sound buffer is needed for adjacent property and future development of the area. Compliance with current plans for the area is a must. Commissioner Neff stated he was in favor of the project, generally; however, would like to see additional architectural detailing. He stated noise was also a concern, but could add nothing further to the discussion. Discussion ensued on continuing the proposal to allow sufficient time for staff and the applicant to work together to resolve the concerns on noise and architectural design. Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Holmquist if a continuance to May 18, 1994 was acceptable. Mr. Holmquist responded in the affirmative. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -4 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 94 -1 TO THE MEETING OF MAY 18, 1994. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1994 Page 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS City Planner Leslie informed the Commission that an amendment to Section 17.11, of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, to transfer the authority to implement the Design Standards from the Design Review Committee to the Planning Commission has been initiated by City Council and will be presented to the Commission on May 4, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Went to the opening night game of the Lake Elsinore Storm. Now, Storm start winning. Received a letter from Dr. Chen, discussed this with Mr. Leslie, available to meet with Dr. Chen to discuss the concerns expressed. Commissioner Wilse Went to the opening night game of the Lake Elsinore Storm, and everyone I have spoken with is positive about the Stadium. Now, lets win some games. Notified recently that the Santa Rosa project is coming back, and suggested that a workshop be initiated. Commented that a problem with DRC is, where in a standard commercial application in the downtown area, the DRC has the authority to say yea or nay to various businesses that would otherwise be approved in that general zoning. Suggested that as soon as possible staff initiated some guidelines, and whatever it takes in zoning, to apply a different set of standards other than our standard commercial zoning to that area. City Planner Leslie responded that the downtown plan has its own land use classifications, but there are land use classifications comparable to C -1 or C -2. Commented on free enterprise and business, and requested a workshop with City Council. Commissioner Neff Concurs with Commissioner Wilsey's philosophy about free enterprise and business. Chairwoman Brinley Commented that she sat on the committee and the decisions were very hard to make. Commented on the intent when the document was prepared and the direction received from Council. Suggested that Commissioners receive a copy of the Design Standards. Requested that a workshop with Council be scheduled in the latter part of May or first week of June. Commissioner Metze Absent. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:15 p.m., motion by Commissioner Neff, second by Chairwoman Brinley. Approved 4 -0 ectfully ubmitted, A ro ed, �v ��T /Linda Gr' dstaff, P mela rinl y, Secretar Chairwoman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Metze. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MEETING MAY 1994 Bullard, Metze, and Brinley Neff, Wilsey Also present were City Planner Leslie and Associate Planner De Gangs. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Chairwoman Brinley with Commissioner Metze abstaining to approve the Minutes of April 20, 1994, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 94 -5 - Alpha Proiect (Continued from April 20, 1994) Chairwoman Brinley commented on the number of continuations and suggested staff advise the applicant of the Commission's policy on continuations. She then called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 -0 TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -5 TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1994. Commissioner Wilsey arrived at 7:05 p.m. 2. Zone Code Amendment 94 -1 - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner De Gange detailed the proposal explaining this is to amend Section 17.11.050 of the Municipal Code, changing the membership of the Design Review Committee to that of the Planning Commission. He explained that the Commission is in a better position to comply with the new requirements of the Brown Act, and since the Commission meetings are bimonthly it would be more convenient for applicants. He pointed out that staff is requesting the Commission consider recommending to Council that a section be added to this Ordinance which would establish the right to charge a fee. He further explained this action is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The public hearing was opened at 7:11 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for those wishing to speak on the proposal. There being no one wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley stated she spoke with a couple of Council members and they mentioned scheduling a Joint Study Session to discuss the DRC Guidelines the end of May or the first week of June. Commissioner Metze stated he was not in favor of fees at this time; should continue to try and help Downtown. Commissioner Wilsey commented on receiving the Design Guide- line booklet, and whether the workshop would be confined to the DRC or if other topics could be brought up. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 2 Zone Code Amendment 94 -1 Continued Commissioner Neff arrived at 7:15 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley stated the Council members she spoke with wish to keep it strictly to DRC; however, it was mentioned that another Study Session needs to be scheduled, but this is being postponed until the new Council is seated. City Planner Leslie explained that a notice will have to be posted regarding the Study Session, including a list of topics, and at this point it is just DRC. He explained that if the Commission recommends approval it will go to City Council on May 24, have second reading on June 14th and become effective July 14th; therefore, the Commission would assume responsibility July 20th. He informed the Commission that staff is working on finalizing the Design Guidelines booklet, which should be available prior to July 20th. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the change setting a formal agenda and the appeal process. There being no further discussion she called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 94 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Bullard inquired whether the motion was with staff recommendations. Chairwoman Brinley responded in the affirmative. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0. City Planner Leslie stated, as he understands it, it is approved. Staff will report to Council that the Planning Commission took no formal action on fees. Chairwoman Brinley stated that fees will be discussed at the Study Session. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS City Planner Leslie informed the Commission that the following proposals have been scheduled for May 18, 1994: 1. CUP 94 -4 and C 94 -1, applicant requesting continuance to June 1, 1994. 2. Residential Project 93 -2 Amendment #1, Elsinore Homes 3. Lake Terrace Plaza Specific Plan, Komerica. Chairwoman Brinley asked if Komerica is coming back with a whole new project. City Planner Leslie stated the Specific Plan that has been submitted basically has the same commercial configuration. The main change is residential, where they have gone from an attached unit to a detached unit, and the unit number slightly reduced. Commissioner Neff inquired about the lot size. City Planner Leslie responded that the lot size is roughly 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Wilsey asked if the Commission would be afforded a workshop to meet with the applicant and work out some of the issues. City Planner Leslie stated that he could notify the applicant of the Commission's desire for a workshop. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 3 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Discussion ensued on a date and time for said workshop with Commissioner Wilsey suggesting this be held during business hours in one of the Conference Rooms at City Hall. Chairwoman Brinley suggested 3:00 p.m. City Planner Leslie stated that the workshop is open to the public and requires posting of a notice, and that the applicant is not obligated to agree to this. Staff was directed to contact Komerica to try and schedule a workshop prior to the hearing. Commissioner Neff stated that he had previously met with Komerica and would pass on this workshop. City Planner Leslie informed the Commission that the General Plan Clean -up has been scheduled for hearing on June 1, 1994. Commissioner Wilsey stated that when the General Plan was drafted an R -A or R -R zoning was not in place, asked if these designations are now on the books. City Planner Leslie responded that there is an R -A zoning, but there are other zoning classifications that are still not on the books. This is a General Plan Clean -up and what is being talked about is a zoning consistency issue and this is not going to address that. However, staff is working on an amendment to the Zoning Code and it is expected to be brought before the Commission in August. City Planner Leslie informed the Commission that the Adult Business Ordinance, Zone Code Amendment 94 -2, has been scheduled for the meeting of June 15, 1994. Commissioner Neff inquired as to whether applications or interest on the part of operators have been received. City Planner Leslie stated staff has received a lot of interest from people; however, no one is rushing to submit anything yet. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Metze Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:29 p.m., motion by Commissioner Metze, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Res ctfully submitted, / A proved inda Gri staff Pamela rinley, Secretary Chairwoman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 1994 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Neff. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Neff, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wilsey Also present were City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Metze, Second by Commissioner Bullard and carried by a vote of 4 -0 to approve the Minutes of May 4, 1994, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 94 -4 and Commercial Project 94 -1 - Chevron /Ouan Mac (Continued from April 20, 1994) Chairwoman Brinley asked staff to provide a brief report on this proposal. City Planner Leslie explained that staff is continuing to work with the applicant on the design. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the request for continuance to the meeting of June 1, 1994, stating that this item will have to be continued to the meeting of June 15, 1994, as the meeting of June 1, will be called for lack of a quorum as Commissioner Neff, Commissioner Metze and myself will be out of town. She then called for a motion. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -4 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 94 -1 TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1994. Chairwoman Brinley reiterated that the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 1, 1994 will be called for lack of a quorum, and will reconvene at the next regular meeting scheduled for June 15, 1994. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Residential Project 93 -2 Amendment No. 1 - Elsinore Homes Assistant Planner DeGange explained the request is for Design Review approval of Amendment #1 to Residential Project 93 -2. The amendment entails the introduction of one additional model (Model Plan No. 3) to the existing (2 model) Model Home Complex for a total of 3 models. The new proposed model is 1,934 square feet and has a two -story loft option which can increase the total square footage to 2,322. This model will be introduced for production within the remaining 44 vacant finished lots within Tract 24138 and 59 vacant finished lots within Tract 24139. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Wes Keusder, Elsinore Homes, stated he has no problem with the staff report. He commented on the proposed color schemes Minutes of Planning Commission May 18, 1994 Page 2 Residential Proiect 93 -2 Amendment No. 1 Continued and roofing material. He commented on the concerns from neighbors regarding the size of homes and stated that their homes would be compatible with what was originally proposed by Osborne and highlighted the mix and plotting for the proposed model and that of the existing Osborne Development. He then stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Chairwoman Brinley referred to the letter received from Frank and Jennifer Alu, 32440 Beechwood Lane, and requested that their concerns on quality, size of homes and their request that no homes under the proposed 1934 square feet be allowed to be built within 500 feet of the Lago del Oro tract, and their request that at least 60% of the Reflection homes be of the larger square foot homes (1934 & 2309) be entered for the record. She then stated that she received a telephone call from Mr. Robert Magee expressing concern on the plotting for this proposal. Associate Planner De Gange stated that he spoke with Mr. Magee today and he did have some concern on the plotting -- future plotting and being able to have some input as to how these homes are plotted. There is concern on his part and some of the neighboring residents that too many of the smaller units will be plotted adjacent to them and concentrated in one area. Chairwoman Brinley inquired whether staff could work with the applicant on plotting, and this added as a condition. Mr. Keusder stated that staff is very easy to work with, and he would work with staff on plotting of the homes. A brief discussion ensued on whether to add this as a separate condition or amend condition 4. City Planner Leslie suggested this be added to condition 4, as this condition addresses plotting and mix. City Planner Leslie referred to the request of Mr. & Mrs. Alu, explaining this request would be nearly impossible to meet. They would basically require every home in the tract to be a Plan 3 because anything within 500 feet is about the entire tract. Plus the 60% requirement would make most of the homes in the Elsinore Homes tract bigger than homes in the Osborne tract. Commissioner Metze inquired about the square footage range of the Osborne tract. Mr. Keusder stated that Osborne originally started at 1100, 1500, 1750, 1900 and 2200 and now building 1500, 1700, 1900 and 2200 square feet. We will be building 1304 1635, 1934 and 2322 square foot homes. Commissioner Bullard commented on the plot plan and stated according to the mix this is pretty much built out against the Osborne tract now. Mr. Keusder referred to the plot plan and explained the layout of the Osborne and Elsinore Homes tracts. Commissioner Neff inquired about the prices ranges. Mr. Keusder provided a price range for the various plans. Chairwoman Brinley stated that her concerns were covered when the concerns of the neighbors were addressed. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE, AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 93 -2 AMENDMENT #1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE Minutes of Planning Commission May 18, 1994 Page 3 Residential Project 93 -2 Amendment No. 1 Continued STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 4. Subsequent plottings to the initial 17 homes (15 production plus 2 models) shall be distributed to avoid the concentration of too many of the same model in the same area or adjacent to each other. The applicant shall maintain a 25% minimum with a 37.5% maximum construction mix of each model based on the total number of lots (120) in the development throughout the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or Designee. However, subject to the Planning Commission's direction, a higher concentration of Model Plan No. 3 shall be placed adjacent to the Lago del Oro (Osborne) Development to be approved by the Community Development Director or designee. PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Announced that due to a made the June 1 meeting extra baseball tickets, Commissioner Metze Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley conflict with meetings he would have not Also, will be out of town and may have if anyone is interested. Thanked staff. It is nice to hear compliments and glad that you receive them. She then reminded the Commission of the following: 1. Stadium dedication Friday, May 20, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. 2. Workshop, Thursday, May 19, 1994, at 3:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center. Commissioner Wilsey Absent. There being no further business, Commission adjourned at 7:30 p.m., second by Commissioner Bullard. Approved 4 -0 Res ctfully bmitted, tea° nda Grin staff, Secretary the Lake Elsinore Planning motion by Commissioner Neff, MINUTES LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1994 THE WORKSHOP WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 3:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Wilsey, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff Also present were City Planner Leslie, Senior Planner Morita, Associate Planner De Gange, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. Will Buck, Kim Boehm, Mr. Kim and Steve Kyle representatives for the applicant were present. Norm Tanguay, Jeannine Martineau and Jeanie Corral representatives for the School District were present. 1. Lake Terrace Plaza Specific Plan (Komerica Land Development) Mr. Steve Kyle of Architects Pacifica gave opening presentation on the current changes to the Specific Plan. Commissioner Wilsey asked for clarification on issue on west property line. It was indicated by staff that it now appears that the property line is at top of slope. Commissioner Bullard suggests including condition for a mix of single and two -story homes, or single story only in order to help preserve views of existing residents to the west. Commissioner Bullard requested an accuracy check of elevations on Section "B" on Page V -4 of the Draft Specific Plan. Commissioner Wilsey suggested R -1 Standards as minimum for residential areas in Specific Plan. Commissioner Wilsey recommended streets in the residential area to be R -1 Standards. The need to clear up what residential streets will be public or private was expressed and delineate them in Specific Plan and on Tentative Tract Map. Architect said he thought residential streets would be public. Concern was expressed about when the signal was going to go in at Mountain and Lake. Engineering Manager O'Donnell said he doesn't think they are currently proposed to have a signal in up front just contribute fair share of funds for it. Engineering Manager O'Donnell also indicated that Specific Plan required sections for all public streets Commissioner Neff arrived at 3:45 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey asked can we condition them to put a signal in up front and then they can be reimbursed for anything beyond their fair share. Engineering Manager O'Donnell responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Wilsey and Planning Commission are concerned about type of uses allowed in the commercial office use district. It was suggested by the Planning Commission to restrict any type of uses that might attract school kids. Discussion was held on what could be sold at gas station, mini - mini -mart (snacks and drinks, but no alcoholic beverages). Minutes of Planning Commission Workshop May 19, 1994 Page 2 Commissioner Bullard was concerned about potential gas spills at gas station and how spills may be contained. Commissioner Wilsey wants text in the Specific Plan that would allow retail only in the northern section and office /public only in the southern section. Suggested by Planning Commission that they be conditioned to have the West End Fire Station built and operational prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Brinley expressed an interest in seeing a steering committee of residents formed to further review the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission concluded that they wanted the applicant to take time and meet with neighborhood groups and School District again and then get back together with the Planning Commission for another workshop on July 7th. Members of the neighborhood, Chris McConalley, and School District representative Jeannine Martineau said they were agreeable. The applicant said they are willing to get together with these people, but not wait until July 7th to get back with Planning Commission. School District representative Jeannine Martineau said they would not have time to meet with the applicant until June 23rd or after. The workshop adjourned at 5:00 p.m. t ved, e Brin eY, woman Respectfully submitted, Chip Leslie, City Planner MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMI SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 1, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF A QUORUM. Respectfully sliabmitted, i L'nda Gri dstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 1994 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Wilsey, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff Also present were City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, Assistant Planner Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Metze and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Commissioner Wilsey abstaining to approve the Minutes of May 18, 1994 and May 19, 1994 as submitted, and to receive and file the Minutes of June 1, 1994. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC BEARINGS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO TAKE THE AGENDA ITEMS OUT OF ORDER AND CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING #3 FIRST. 3. Chairwoman Brinley read a letter from the applicant's representative requesting a continuance as recommended in the Staff Report and at the Workshop held on May 19th. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -2 REVISED, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27415 REVISED, ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT 91 -3 AND ADDENDUM. Chairwoman Brinley asked that the affected residents of the project and the School District representative inform City Staff of all meetings held between them and the applicant. She stated that it was important to inform staff due to the sensitive nature of the project and the necessity for cooperation between the residents, School District, and applicant prior to any action of the Commission. Jeannie Martineau, President of the Lake Elsinore Unified School District Board, stated that Komerica had appeared before their Board on June 7th and submitted the minutes of said meeting. COMMISSIONER NEFF ARRIVED AT 7:10 P.M. 1. Conditional Use Permit 94 -5 - Aloha Project (Continued from June 1. 1994) Discussion was held on the number of continuations this proposal has received with staff explaining the nature of continuations. There was general discussion regarding the date of continuance. Chairwoman Brinley then called for a motion. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -5 TO THE MEETING OF JULY 6, 1994. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 2 2. Conditional Use Permit 94 -4 and Commercial Project 94 -1 - Chevron /Quan Mac (Continued from June 1. 1994) Assistant Planner Villa explained the proposal consist of Design Review for the expansion of the existing self serve gasoline station, which entails the construction of a mini - mart, car wash, and a Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing use to operate a mini -mart, car wash and allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, at 31640 Mission Trail. He explained that the proposal is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15303, Class 3(c). He further explained the reason for continuation and the modifications made to the site plan and architecture. The public hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for written communication. The Deputy City Clerk reported no written communication. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor of the proposal to speak. Mr. Jerry Holmquist, Chevron representative, stated that he felt that certain conditions placed a burden on the developer. He noted the several items that his firm agreed to comply with to meet staff's recommendations in order to upgrade the project. He objected to condition number 4 and stated that this condition did not meet with the criteria of Chevron's Hallmark 21 Image. He then questioned the costs associated with conditions 35 and 36 and the purpose of condition 26. Dan Bender, Councilman elect, questioned the sale of alcoholic beverages on site and asked if it was beer and wine or included hard liquor. Chairwoman Brinley stated that it was for the sale of beer and wine only. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley pointed out that there was no blue band at Chevron gas station in Mission Viejo that staff had provided a photograph of and that is the look that the City is seeking with Condition Number 4. There was general discussion by the Commission regarding Condition Number 4 and determined that the blue band was not necessary since the signage would give proper identification. Chairwoman Brinley asked that Engineering Manager O'Donnell address conditions 26, 35 and 36. Mr. O'Donnell explained the purpose of condition number 26, and stated that condition 35 is for a marbelite light standard to conform with the area and may cost the applicant approximately $2,500.00.. He explained that the purpose of Condition Number 36 is to extend the street and storm drains on Mission Trail to conform with the Municipal Code. He stated that these conditions were necessary. Commissioner Metze stated that he agreed with Condition Number 4. Cited that it is a corridor of commerce and will create an advantage to the project. He asked the applicant if he had a problem with limiting the operating hours of the car wash from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and conditioning the applicant to remove graffiti. The applicant stated that he did not have a problem. Commissioner Metze asked that they be made conditions. Mr. Holmquist reviewed the photographs of various gas stations submitted as examples of the type of architecture that the City is seeking for this area. He stated that one of the gas stations presented was built around 1968. That style has not been built since the conception of Chevron's Hallmark 21 Image. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 - Page 3 Conditional Use Permit 94 -4 and Commercial Project 94 -1 Continued Chairwoman Brinley explained that this is a heavily traveled corridor and the Mission style architecture is the criteria for that area. Commissioner Metze questioned the monument sign and asked if an arch could be added and questioned the size of the columns in the service areas. Mr. Holmquist stated that sign Exhibit "F" matches the tile on the building and is most compatible with the project and the columns were designed to place proper focus on the service areas. Commissioner Neff stated that the design is a matter of personal taste and that he had requested that the applicant dress the project up. He noted that he was satisfied with the results and that he approves of the blue color stripe for easy identification. Commissioner Wilsey stated that there should be an easy transition in architecture from McDonald's to the gas station. He explained that a number of the surrounding buildings were of Mission style architecture and should blend. He asked if the applicant could soften the blue stripe and make it less wide to facilitate the transition. Commissioner Neff inquired about the width of the stripe. Mr. Holmquist responded the stripe is 18 inches in width. Mr. Holmquist suggested that the "eyebrow" of the fascia be blue and the band be off -white with blue lettering. It was the consensus of the Commission that this would be satisfactory. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the signage and the monument height. City Planner Leslie stated that the height of the monument sign would be no more than 6 foot high from curb level. Commissioner Bullard stated that he agrees with the modification to Condition Number 4. He then commented on berming being used as a buffering technique. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, AND CARRIED BY A VOTE 4 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER METZE CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -4 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 94 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 41 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 4: The upper fascia band on the mini -mart, cashier's and car wash building shall be off -white stucco with a heavy hand troweled texture on all sides of the building. The use of the color blue on the front elevation of this building as shown on the plans as submitted is not approved. Blue may be used for the "eyebrow" surrounding the top and sides of the fascia band on the front elevation of the building. Condition No. 24.a: Hours of operation for the car wash shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., 7 days a week. Condition No. 24.b: The property owner and /or station.manager shall make every effort> to remove any graffiti from the premises within thirty - six (36) hours of when it appears. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 4 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Reminded the Commission of the Joint Study Session scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, at 3:00 p.m., at City Hall Conference Room A -B, to discuss the DRC. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Thanked the City and the Chamber for their participation and cooperation with the Frontier Days Rodeo. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Metze Congratulated Kevin Pape and Dan Bender on being elected to the City Council. Commissioner Wilsey Congratulated Kevin Pape and Dan Bender on being elected to the City Council. Chairwoman Brinley Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:05 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 5 -0 Ap r ved, Pamela "B r i e , Chairwoman p ctf�ul /ly s mi ed, , ria Brynin , Deputy City Clerk MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING C JULY 6, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSIC SCHEDULED FOR JULY 6, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respe tfully su mitted, LindaG Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING C( JULY 20, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JULY 20, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Li da Grin staff��U!/ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING CC AUGUST 3, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 3, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respe tfully s mitted, L'nda Grin staff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1994 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:02. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Neff. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BULLARD, NEFF, WILSEY, METZE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BRINLEY Also present were: Assistant Planner Villa and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. Being as Chairwoman Brinley was absent Vice Chairman Bullard conducted the meeting. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Metze, Seconded by Commissioner Neff and carried by a vote of 4 -0 to approve the Minutes of June 15, 1994 as submitted, and to receive and file Minutes of July 6, July 20 and August 3, 1994. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Vice Chairman Bullard closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Proiect 94 -2 - Inco Homes Assistant Planner Villa explained the request is for Design Review of four models homes for the Town of Lucerne Tract Map (Reunion Development), 178 residential lot subdivision approved by City Council on June 21, 1994, and plotting for Phase One (59 lots). The Model Home Complex is proposed to be located at the northerly terminus of California Street adjacent to Lakeshore Drive, and temporary access through Lakeshore Drive to the models via City owned property. He stated the applicant proposes to develop the subdivision in three phases and explained that the first phase will involve the construction of 63 dwellings ranging in size from 1,322 square feet to 1,890 square feet, and that plotting for Phases 2 and 3 will be approved by the Community Development Director. He then detailed staff's concerns with the compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, and the proposed temporary access to the Model Home Complex through Lakeshore Drive. He then informed the Commission that the applicant intends to appeal to City Council the fencing requirements, condition 28. Vice Chairman asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Fred Farr, Land Development Manager for Inco Homes, stated they have worked closely with staff to develop a nice product. We have built this product before, in other markets, and it has been very well accepted. We think it is consistent and compatible with the adjoining neighborhood. He commented on the product itself explaining the proposed roof variations, architectural detailing and color schemes to ensure that the street scene is not monotonous. He then commented on the PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1994 following conditions: Condition No. 6, use of City owned property, I want to go on record as saying that we are working with staff to address the concerns. All of our parking will be on our private property. The access drive will be moved to the eastern edge of the City owned lot. Condition No. 7, need clarification, asked if two units back to back would be considered adjacent. Assistant Planner Villa explained the intent of the condition. Mr. Farr then requested that the word "smaller" be changed to "smallest ". Condition 8, Exhibit "A" has been modified as staff requested. Condition 9, window treatment, requested this condition be modified to what we proposed in our submittal, that all the fronts are detailed with stucco pop -out, masonry or brick veneers. That all second -story units be detailed and that single -story units be detailed along the right -of -way. Condition 18, park in lieu fees, we have Conditions of Approval from the City Council that address this issue. Condition 19, school fees, we will be meeting with the School District. Condition 20, need clarification on the trash storage area, asked if this area has to be concrete. Assistant Planner Villa explained the intent is to provide an area to make it easier for the homeowner to store their trash barrels away from the public view. Condition 26.a., 24" box trees, we have a Condition of Approval on the Final Map (condition number 21) from the City Council that specifies 15 gallon trees. Stated they would like to stay with the 15 gallon trees. Condition 28, block wall requirement, we would like to construct masonry along right -of -ways and between the houses on the front and where not visible use the box -frame construction on the rear /side yards. It is our intention to go forward to City Council and appeal this condition. Condition 33, temporary parking lot and driveway entrance, asked that this be deleted as it conflicts with condition number 6. We are working with staff to address their concerns regarding liability and the temporary access. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated that since the condition was written he has had discussion with the City Attorney and the Traffic Engineer. Suggested this condition be changed to read: "The Model Home Complex temporary parking lot shall be relocated off the City owned lot. The driveway entrance location on Lakeshore Drive shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. If the access is on City property then the developer will provide the City with an indemnification agreement and add the City as an additional insured on their liability coverage." Commissioner Wilsey asked Engineering Manager O'Donnell if condition number 6 could be deleted. Mr. O'Donnell stated that it still references a sales trailer, but it could be deleted. Commissioner Neff inquired about the stucco surrounds illustrated on some elevations, condition number 9, and the stucco colors. He then asked about interior /side yard fencing and whether it would be painted or raw and whether the fence was 5 or 6 foot in height, and if the block wall would be split -faced or stucco. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1994 Mr. Farr explained their proposal for the stucco surrounds. He then detailed the wood fence construction explaining that they use box -frame construction, and stated the fence would not be painted, and typically wood fencing is 516 ". He stated they have not decided what material will be used for the block wall, masonry with stucco or colored slumpstone. Commissioner Neff then commented on the construction traffic and where this is proposed to be brought in. He then inquired about the extent of improvements for California Street, half - width, and whether St. Clair would be constructed to full width right -of -way. Mr. Farr stated they have proposed a temporary access from Lakeshore for the models and would block off through access. We would probably bring construction traffic off Broadway, this is really our access point. Access off Grand and Lakeshore is very limited, it is limited to one access point off Grand so that is where we would bring in the construction traffic. As the project develops out then we would hopefully access differently, off Washington or something like that. Mr. Farr then explained that they would construct half of the street and install curb, gutter and sidewalk on their side of California Street. Construction of St. Clair will probably not be done as part of Phase One; however, this is something that we will have to work out with staff. Commissioner Neff stated that he would like to emphasize that there are families with children living on Torn Ranch Road. Concern is public safety, would like to limit construction traffic on Torn Ranch Road and Terra Cotta, which serves the future phases of the project, suggested a condition be added to address this. Suggested consideration be given as to how construction traffic will enter the site. The Broadway /Grand Avenue access point is very good. Mr. Farr stated they will do everything that they can - -work closely with staff, to address the issue of construction traffic access and make sure that construction traffic does not filter out into the adjoining neighborhoods. Commissioner Metze commented on condition number 9 stating that it should stand. Condition 26.a. 24" box has been a standard and should stand. Condition number 28 opposed to anything 5 -1/2 feet believes 6 foot should be a minimum. If wood fencing is allowed would like to see steel post set in cement. Suggested a condition be added that all construction traffic shall not utilize Torn Ranch Road and Terra Cotta, condition number 35. Mr. Farr reiterated that they will do everything they can to make sure that construction traffic does not use these streets. Discussion ensued on verbiage for proposed condition 35 to restrain construction traffic access with the suggestion that the condition read: Construction traffic shall be prohibited from using Torn Ranch Road, existing Broadway and Terra Cotta for access to the tract, subject to the City Traffic Engineer's approval. Commissioner Metze commented on dust control measures. He then inquired about the completion of Broadway. Mr. Farr stated they anticipate the construction of Broadway with the first phase of improvements. Commissioner Metze requested a condition be added requiring the construction of Broadway by the completion of the first phase, number 36. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1994 Discussion ensued on the verbiage for proposed condition 36, whether bonds would be posted for the entire project or separate phases and timing for improvements. It was suggested that the condition read: Broadway shall be completed to Grand Avenue at the first Certificate of Occupancy for Phase One production. Commissioner Metze commented on the architectural design suggesting that the siding treatment be carried further down the sides of the homes, referring to the posted renderings. Discussion ensued on the architectural treatments and fencing for corner and interior lots. Commissioner Wilsey commented on fencing, condition 28, suggested the Commission make a recommendation to City Council that should they consider an alternative for the interior fencing of wood that we advise them to look into the wood fencing standards that have been discussed with staff and at workshops i.e., the galvanized post instead of wood, and this information be made available to them when this item goes before Council. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition 6 stating it should stay - -it is a mute point. Suggested the following verbiage "if visible from adjoining properties or adjoining right -of- ways" be added to condition number 9. Mr. Farr commented on the proposed modification to condition 9, suggested this state all second -story units be detailed and that single -story units be detailed along the right -of -way. Discussion ensued on condition number 9 with regard to treatments and the standard being right -of -way; cost of treatments per unit; adding language to the condition to reflect if visible from right -of -way subject to the Planning Manager's approval. Commissioner Wilsey suggested the following verbiage "subject to the Planning Manager or designee approval" be added to condition 20. He then commented on condition 26.a., 24" box trees, stating this should remain, this has been our directive on everything for the past several years. Vice Chairman Bullard asked Mr. Farr if they would consider decreasing the quantity of smaller units, to bring the average size to 1,642 square feet. Mr. Farr stated they spent much time developing this mix, it is a good mix, it is reflective and compatible with the adjoining property. It is possible that the market conditions may dictate fewer plan ones, but would hate to tie our hands at this point. We would like to stay with this mix. Vice Chairman Bullard commented on adding roof dormers, false window or attic vents to the front elevations of the one story units. Discussion ensued on the architectural elevations and mix. Vice Chairman Bullard inquired about access to the models coming off Lakeshore rather than Broadway, and the entry being 300 feet or less from a major intersection. He suggested the walls along Lakeshore /Grand Avenue be installed as soon as possible. Commissioner Neff commented on the landscaping along Robb Road (Lakeshore Drive) and Grand Avenue and the landscaping being consistent with existing on Grand Avenue /Lakeshore Drive, condition 25. Mr. Farr explained that the block wall would be constructed PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1994 with the phases, and believes there is a Council condition that requires the block wall and landscaping to be consistent with existing. With regard to the landscaping along Broadway believes there is a Council condition that requires the landscaping to be consistent with existing. Discussion ensued on timing for construction of the block wall and landscaping requirements. It was suggested the following verbiage "landscaping and hardscaping shall be consistent with existing" be added to condition 25. There being no further discussion, Vice Chairman Bullard called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 WITH CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY ABSENT TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW FOR FOUR MODELS, RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 94- 2 FOR THE TOWN OF LUCERNE TRACT MAP, AND THE PLOTTING FOR PHASE ONE BASED UPON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "D" AND SUBJECT TO THE 34 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION 35 AND 36, THE MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS 7, 9, 20, 25, 33 AND THE RECOMMENDATION AS DISCUSSED REGARDING WOOD FENCING. Condition No. 7: The applicant shall scatter the plotting of the smaller smallest units throughout the development making sure that they are never directly adjacent to one another. Condition No. 9: All windows larger than one foot (11) by one foot (11) on all side and rear elevations with the exceptions of those windows already utilizing treatments such as ledges or mullions shall incorporate stucco surrounds, where adjacent and visible from right -of -ways, subject to the Planning Manager's approval. Condition No. 20: Provide a flat concrete pad or area a minimum of 3'- 0" by 71- 0" adjacent to the dwelling or within the garage (separate from the required vehicle parking area) for the storage of the City trash barrels. The storage pad or area shall conceal the trash barrels from public view, subject to the approval of the Planning Manager or his designee. Condition No. 25: All landscaping and hardscaping shall be consistent with existing along the Lakeshore Drive and the Grand Avenue frontage and shall be properly landscaped with automatic irrigation prior to the release of occupancy permits for adjacent units. Condition No. 33: The Model Home Complex temporary parking lot shall be relocated off the City owned lot. The driveway entrance location on Lakeshore Drive shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. If the access is on City property then the developer will provide the City with an indemnification agreement and add the City as an additional insured on their liability coverage. Condition No. 35: Construction traffic shall be prohibited from using Torn Ranch Road, existing Broadway and Terra Cotta for access to the tract, subject to the City Traffic Engineer's approval. PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1994 Condition No. 36: Broadway shall be completed to Grand Avenue at the first Certificate of Occupancy for Phase One production. Vice Chairman Bullard asked for a motion to place Conditional Use Permit 94 -5 for the Alpha Project on the Agenda explaining that this item was continued to July 6th and this meeting was called, and we have not had a meeting since. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO ADD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -5 FOR THE ALPHA PROJECT TO THE AGENDA. Vice Chairman Bullard explained this is a housecleaning matter, the idea is to bring this back and table the project rather than leaving it open. The applicant will have to repetition to get back on the Agenda. MOVED BY VICE CHAIRMAN BULLARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -5 FOR THE ALPHA PROJECT INDEFINITELY OR UNTIL THEY REPETITION FOR THE AGENDA. PLANNING COMMENTS Assistant Planner Villa informed the Commission of the following: 1. National Home Builders has proposed to build some homes in Tuscany Hills area and currently Design Review for this is handled administratively via the Community Development Director. The Tuscany Hills Homeowners Association will make a recommendation to the Director, and the Assistant City Manager has recommended that one member of the Planning Commission attend this meeting, which has been scheduled for September 7th. Commissioner Metze volunteered to attend this meeting. Vice Chairman Bullard stated that he would attend if Commissioner Metze could not, and asked that the time of the meeting be provided. 2. APA Planning Commissioner's Workshop scheduled for October 1, 1994, at Fontana City Hall. If you wish to attend, please complete the registration forms and turn in to Linda. 3. League of California Cities Conference, October 23 -25, 1994. If you wish to attend, please complete the registration forms and turn in to Linda. 4. City Council has scheduled the following Study Sessions/ Workshops that the Commission may be interested in attending: September 1, 1994 General Plan Clean -up, Housing Element and Circulation Element September 20, 194 Lake Edge Specific Plan PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Reported that he will be on vacation September 1 through the 17th and will not be present at the meeting of September 7. Commissioner Metze Would like to see something done with the City's three acre parcel on Lakeshore Drive adjacent to the Inco Homes development, preferably a passive park or something like that. PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1994 Commissioner Neff Received as a gift a board game called "Land Use Planning" published by the University of Oregon. Maybe this is something that we can have a workshop around, it is an educational tool to understand the community development process and maybe the new Council would be interested in something like this. Commissioner Bullard Hope Ms. Brinley gets well quickly and we have her back at the next meeting. Suggested everyone support our Storm ball team. ADJOURNMENT THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. Approved, Richard Bullard Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Respectfully ubmitted, Linda Grindstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bullard. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BULLARD, METZE AND BRINLEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY AND NEFF Also present were: Senior Planner Morita, Associate Planner De Gange, Assistant Planner Villa and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Seconded by Commissioner Metze and carried by a vote of 3 -0 to continue minute action to the meeting of September 21, 1994. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 28037 - Oak Grove Equities Assistant Planner Villa explained that the proposal is to subdivide Parcel 9 of Parcel Map 27659 consisting of 1.31 plus /minus acres into two parcels. Newly created Parcel 1 is approximately .78 acres and Parcel 2 is approximately .52 acres. The applicant has indicated that they wish to establish a drive - through restaurant on Parcel 1 and a service station on Parcel 2. The project site is located at the intersection of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. Environmental impacts associated with this project have been addressed with the preparation of Environmental Impact Report No. 92 -3, certified on September 8, 1992. Assistant Planner Villa referred to condition number it and requested that the word "Camelot Center" be replaced with "Elsinore City Center ", as this is a typographical error. The public hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m., with Chairwoman Brinley asking for written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor of the proposal to speak. Mr. John Myhre, Nasland Engineering, stated that he will answer any questions that may arise. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor, Chairwoman Brinley asked for those opposed. There being no opposition or anyone wishing to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Metze inquired whether a revised site plan or Specific Plan Amendment was required. Assistant Planner Villa explained that at this time the request is to subdivide Parcel 9, an amended site plan would be submitted in the future; and, Elsinore City Center has built in criteria and standards that allow this type of change without a Specific Plan Amendment. Commissioner Metze stated he likes the conceptual plan which was approved, and has a hard time with a fast -food and gas PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 station on this particular corner. Commissioner Bullard stated that Commissioner Metze has expressed his concerns. He stated that he visited the site and with this lot split cannot see a feasible way of building anything of high standard and quality. Opposed to a gas station on this parcel or even on this project, due to the number of existing service stations in the vicinity and the safety factors associated with this type of use, such as potential seepage and proximity to the crib wall. He stated that he likes the original concept which was approved. Chairwoman Brinley stated that she feels the same way, likes the original concept. She stated that she would not like to see a gas station at this corner for the same reasons as stated by Commissioner Bullard. If this were to go would like a workshop to see how this is going to be revised - -would like to see the whole scale. She stated that she would like to see an upgrade from fast -food, such as: Cocos, Baker's Square, etc. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD WITH DISCUSSION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28037. Commissioner Bullard yielded the floor to Mr. Myhre. Mr. Myhre stated the lot split is being proposed now. He stated that a lot of detail was not shown as they are unsure of the uses that will be broungt in. The Commission would still be able to approve /disapprove whatever site concerns at a later time. Right now, we are doing everything in conformance to the Specific Plan -- rights within the Specific Plan. He stated that the shopping center is big enough to support the square footage of two separate smaller parcels. Chairwoman Brinley explained that due to the location and size the Commission does not wish to see this parcel split at this time. Commissioner Bullard stated that in splitting this parcel you have created too small of a area for any major /large concession to come in and build a good project. He stated that most of Parcel 1 is unusable land - -slope area. There was general discussion on this parcel being prime property, and the desire to stay with the original concept. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 -0. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Housing Progress Report - City of Lake Elsinore Senior Planner Morita explained that the City retained Ralph Castaneda to prepare the Housing Progress Report, who is also preparing the City's Housing Element for the General Plan. Unfortunately, this report is not complete. We thought it would be finished which is why it was placed on the agenda, but Mr. Castaneda telephone and informed us that it was not yet ready. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE TO CONTINUE THE HOUSING PROGRESS REPORT TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1994. CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AMENDED HER MOTION WITH CONCURRENCE FROM THE SECOND AND APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 3 -0 TO CONTINUE THE HOUSING PROGRESS REPORT TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1994. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 -0 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:25 P.M. pp oved, Pamela Bri ley Chairwoman Respectfully submitted, Linda Grind staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Metze. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BULLARD, NEFF, WILSEY, METZE AND BRINLEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Planner Leslie and Associate Planner De Gange. I a$ ZOO Q MX44 *to) �] Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Seconded by Commissioner Neff to approve the Minutes of August 17, 1994 and September 7, 1994, as submitted. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the attendance at said meetings and suggested separate motions. Commissioner Bullard amended his motion to approve the Minutes of August 17, 1994, as submitted, with concurrence of the Second, and carried by a vote of 4 -0 with Chairwoman Brinley abstaining. Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Seconded by Chairwoman Brinley and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Commissioners Wilsey and Neff abstaining to approve the Minutes of September 7, 1994, as submitted. Commissioner Metze commented on the Inco Homes project regarding the block wall and 24 inch box trees and the Commission's recommendation to Council. City Planner Leslie explained that an appeal is going to City Council on September 27, and included in the Staff Report is a detail of the fencing and a requirement for the larger 24" box trees, based on the Commission's recommendation. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS PCONN BUSINESS ITEMS 0070 PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:10 P.M. a�Ap pro ed, Brin ey Chairwoman Respectfully su mitted, Linda Grin taff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1994 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:23 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Neff. Oath of Office City Clerk Kasad issued oaths of Office to reappointed Commissioners Wilsey and Metze and newly appointed Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: MATTHIES, NEFF, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. NOMINATION OF OFFICERS Selection of Planning Commission Chairman Vice Chairman Bullard opened nominations for the position of Chairman. Commissioner Metze nominated Commissioner Bullard. Hearing no further nominations, the nominations were closed. Commissioner Bullard was declared Chairman by unanimous vote, and assumed the chair. Selection of Planning Commission Vice - Chairman Chairman Bullard opened nominations for the position of Vice - Chairman, and nominated Commissioner Wilsey. Hearing no further nominations, the nominations were closed. Commissioner Wilsey was declared Vice - Chairman by unanimous vote. Selection of Design Review Committee Chairman and Vice -Chair Chairman Bullard opened nominations for the position of Chairman of the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Neff nominated Commissioner Metze. Hearing no further nominations, the nominations were closed. Commissioner Metze was declared Chairman of the Design Review Committee by unanimous vote. Chairman Metze opened nominations for the position of Vice - Chairman of the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Bullard nominated Commissioner Matthies. Hearing no further nominations, the nominations were closed. Commissioner Matthies was declared Vice - Chairman of the Design Review Committee by unanimous vote. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Metze, Seconded by Commissioner Wilsey and carried by a vote of 4 -0 with Commissioner Matthies abstaining to approve the Minutes of September 21, 1994, as submitted. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 5, 1994 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairman Bullard closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 94 -3 and Tentative Tract Man 7.79oR - uolaen c:asr.ie (unitecn Buiiaing systems. Inc City Planner Leslie explained the applicant requested a continuance to October 19, 1994, to allow time for the resubmittal of a revised traffic study. MOTION BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27908 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94 -3 TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 1994. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Single- Family Residence - 29093 Gunder - Recktenwald City Planner Leslie explained the request is for Minor Design Review of a 2,894 square foot single- family dwelling to be constructed on two parcels, totaling 9,000 square feet, located approximately 100 feet north of the intersection of Gunder and Ingall Circle. Chairman Bullard asked if there was anyone representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. J.N. Recktenwald stated he agreed with staff recommenda- tion, with the exception of increasing /replacing the windows on the front elevation, condition number 20. He stated the master bedroom is along this elevation and concerned with any change that would jeopardize security or privacy. City Planner Leslie explained that staff recommended enhancements that would be at the applicant's discretion and subject to review and approval of staff. Commissioner Wilsey informed Mr. Recktenwald that condition number 20 requires him to work with staff and come to a mutual agreement. Commissioner Neff commented on window enhancements, Title 24 requirements and associated costs from a production stand- point, condition number 20. Chairman Bullard commented on grading and asked if fill would be used from the cut -outs or imported. Mr. Recktenwald stated the soils engineer's preliminary grading plan calculates using fill from the cut -outs. Chairman Bullard inquired about the location of the gas main and asked whether natural gas or propane would be used. Mr. Recktenwald stated he has not researched it, but does not believe natural gas is available in that area. Chairman Bullard stated that he would like staff to make note of this and finalize the type of heating to be used, natural gas or propane. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY A 5 -0 VOTE TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29093 GUNDER BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 5, 1994 PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. ADJOURNMENT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:40 P.M. Approved, Richard Bullard, Chairman Respectfully s bmitted, Linda Grin staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1994 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: NEFF, MATTHIES, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange and Associate Planner Villa. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Seconded by Commissioner Neff and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve the Minutes of October 5, 1994, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Bullard deferred the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section to the end of the Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. October 5, 1994 Chairman Bullard stated there is a request to table this item and called for a motion. MOVED BY METZE TO TABLE INDEFINITELY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94 -3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27908, SECONDED BY WILSEY WITH DISCUSSION. Commissioner Wilsey defined the motion to the audience, explaining that the map is being revised and will be rescheduled and renoticed. 2. Variance 94 -3 and Sign Program Amendment - Depasguale Family Trusts (Camelot Property Counselor) Associate Planner Villa explained the Variance is a request to exceed maximum sign area permitted per building frontage (Section 17.94.170.0) by 101 square feet, and to exceed maximum permissible sign area on the Phase II pylon freestand- ing sign from 60 square feet to 153 square feet in area. Condition No. 21 of Commercial Project 93 -4 requires the Camelot Center Master Sign Program to be amended to reflect the design changes to ensure coordinated proportional exposure for all tenants. He stated the proposal is exempt, Section 15311, Class II, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m., with Chairman Bullard noting that written communication has been received from Hary & JoAnn Dykstra, 21700 Cedar Street, Wildomar, expressing opposition to the variance due to blocked views, traffic flows, noise and visual /light pollution. He then asked for those in favor of the proposal to speak. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1994 Mr. Leonard O'Byrne, Camelot Property Counselors, gave a brief history on the Master Sign Program for the Camelot Center site highlighting the freestanding pylon signs, one for each phase. He addressed staff's concern on the use of neon lighting, stating that neon lighting will not be used on the side adjacent to Malaga nor will there be excessive glare emanated to neighboring residential areas, and the neon lighting will be done tastefully. He then stated they are in agreement with staff recommendation. Commissioner Neff commented on the variance, confused with the additional square footage. Staff provided clarification on the variance request. Commissioner Neff inquired about retail space signage. Commissioner Metze complimented the applicant for working closely with staff. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the signage being appropriate and the site specific sign criteria. Chairman Bullard commented on the use of neon lighting. He inquired about the square footage at buildout and whether there will be sufficient signage. He; then inquired about the marquee advertising and whether any other type of advertising would be used. Mr. Neil, representing Krikorian,..T.heaters, addressed the signage issue with regard to the,!,' 'marquee and box.office signage, explaining that the marquee would delineate the movie title only. Mr. Frank, San Pedro Electric Sign Company, referred to Exhibit "B" package and detailed the proposed theater signage, in -line tenant signage and the pylon sign with regard to construction and location. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor, Chairman Bullard asked for those opposed. There being no opposition or anyone wishing to speak on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. MOTION BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY A 5 -0 VOTE TO APPROVE VARIANCE 94 -3 AND AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR THE CAMELOT CENTER BASE60N THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, 'EXHIBIT "A" OF C`'87 -3 AND EXHIBIT "B" PACKAGE. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Joe Bayless, 33275 Westly Street, Box 568, Wildomar, stated that he did not received notice of the hearing` on Tentative Tract Map 27908. He expressed concern with the layout of Running Deer Road and requested that this street remain a straight thoroughfare. He stated that he would wait to see the revised map since this map was tabled. PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1994 PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUED Joyce Hohenadl, 27 Corte Palazzo, representing Tuscany Hills City Government Laison Committee, expressed concern with developers proposing to build smaller homes in Tuscany Hills than what has been previously built. Requested that the Master Plan for Tuscany Hills be amended to reflect a 2,000 square foot minimum. James A. Vanek, 31 Corte Palazzo, commented on the square footage of proposed smaller new homes for the Tuscany Hills area, property values, and requested that the square footage be changed to a 2,000 square foot minimum. THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:43 P.M. Approved), Richard Bullard, Chairman Respectfully submitted, �indstaff Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 2, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grin staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994 ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: NEFF, MATTHIES, WILSEY, METZE AND BULLARD ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, Associate Planner Villa 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 the Minutes of October 19, 1994, as submitted and to receive and file the Minutes of November 2, 1994. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairman Bullard closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 94 -6 - New Song Community Church (Dean Murphy) Associate Planner Villa explained this is a request to allow New Song Community Church to operate religious services at 31691 and 31701 Suite "D" Riverside Drive (Lake Front Shopping Center) , and to allow shared and reciprocal parking within the center. He further explained that Negative Declaration 94 -7 has been prepared to address environmental impacts. The public hearing was opened at 7:09 p.m., with Chairman Bullard asking for written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication received. He then asked for those wishing to speak on the proposal. Mr. Dean Murphy, applicant, stated he would answer any questions that arise. There being no further requests to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey commented on previous approvals for churches in retail /commercial centers being granted for two - three years and coming back for review. He inquired about adding a time limit and having it come back for review. Commissioner Metze stated he feels the same as Commissioner Wilsey, and suggested a time limit of two years with a one year extension, explaining the time limit is to encourage commencement and then find a more suitable location. He then asked if there would be a daily bible study. Mr. Murphy responded the request, pursuant to the application, is to allow for periodic bible studies. At the current time, we have one day time study that is being held, but we often do have other service times and that is why we applied for general use during the day. But we do not expect a day care center, child care use, etc. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 Commissioner Metze asked Mr. Murphy if he had any concerns with the conditions and referred to condition number 9, "Church services can not be expanded on days other than Sunday, except as proposed in this original application ", what is proposed on the application is the extent of it. Mr. Murphy stated what they listed on the application was mid- week bible studies, Sunday evening bible studies as well as occasional mid -day ones. According to the application we would have the opportunity to hold other services. Commissioner Metze informed Mr. Murphy that the extension would be granted based on their showing a good faith effort to acquire a more suitable location for a church. Mr. Murphy stated this is their express purpose. Chairman Bullard stated he concurs with the two year time limit, and this coming back to staff for review with a possible one year extension. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 94- 7 AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94 -6 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT "A ", AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 11. The Conditional Use Permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of approval. The Community Development Manager may issue a one (1) year extension if the applicant demonstrates that a new facility is progressing toward development. If use at the currently proposed site has not commenced within one (1) year of the date of this approval, then the approvals as indicated by this Use Permit shall be expired and require resubmittal. 2. Zone Change 94 -2 - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner De Gange explained City Council initiated consideration of a designation of zoning for all territory within the "Hammerhead" area to establish zoning that is in conformance with the General Plan, that is generally consistent with the zoning which existed for the area when it was part of the County prior to annexation and to preserve equestrian rights. The area being proposed for zoning comprises approximately 152 acres and includes approximately 323 parcels. The zoning designations to be established in the area include R -A (Agricultural Single - Family Residential), R -1 (Single - Family Residential), R -2 (Medium Density Residential), and C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial) for territory generally located south of Lash Avenue, north of Lincoln Avenue, west of Machado Street, east of Dryden Street, Clement Street and the termini of Zieglinde Drive, Le Gaye Street and Pierre Lane. He explained that environmental impacts have been addressed by the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the update of the City's General Plan certified on November 27, 1990. Associate Planner De Gange stated there is another contiguous equestrian area currently zoned R -1 and considering the City's desire to maintain equestrian uses in this area, it should be considered for a zone change to R -A. This area is south of Lincoln Street, outside of the "Hammerhead" annexation area and consists of 2 parcels with access on Lincoln Street and a PAGE THREE - PLANNING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 majority of the parcels taking access on Larson Road (Exhibit "C "). It would have been logical to combine these two zone changes; however, the existence of this other area was discovered too late to include with this zone change. It is suggested the Commission recommend to City Council that they adopt a Resolution of Intention initiating a zone change for this additional area. Associate Planner De Gange announced that the notices mailed to the area residents indicated the area for R -A zoning would allow for 3 dwelling units per acre, this was a typographical error. It only allows for 2 dwelling units per acre. Chairman Bullard asked for written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication received. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. The following people spoke. Nancy Roberts, 15049 Le Gaye, commented that most of the homes on that street are on one acre parcels. Stated her concern is lot size and does not want to see half -acre parcels. Pam Johnson, 15025 Zieglinde, asked the Commission to vote in the affirmative to restore the zoning to Zieglinde, Le Gaye and St. Pierre. Urged the Commission to re- affirm the General Plan in that Zieglinde should not be a through street to preserve the integrity of the equestrian trail planned to parallel both Shirley /Washington Streets. When Premier Homes filed the original tract map for Torn Ranch we were told that the property to be developed immediately abutting the existing half acre to three acre properties on Shirley, Le Gaye and St. Pierre would be required to be at least 75% the size of the property they abut. Encouraged the Commission to maintain this approach so the integrity and value of the large lots with R -A zoning is protected. Elbert Smith, 5241 Marview, La Palma, in support of the proposed Neighborhood Commercial zoning for the area along Lakeshore Drive. Stated the property had County zoning of commercial when purchased and wants to retain this zoning. Robert Ponce, 31297 Machado, in favor of zoning the entire area, was in favor of this back in 1991 and at that time we came to an agreement that my parcel and others at the corner of Machado Street and Broadway were to be zoned R -3. He stated that he does not understand why his zoning was down zoned to R -2. Mr. Ponce stated he has spent two years trying to put together a senior's project on his parcel. The zoning density on that project if approved would be 27 units. Paul Sandgren, 15019 Zieglinde, stated he would like their area to remain equestrian, R -A. Reminded the Commission that they were promised an equestrian trail. Pam Eriser, 15049 Larson Road, stated she purchased the property in 1989 and it was not zoned as horse property because there was no zoning. Ms. Eriser commented that she has a letter 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. She then spoke in favor of the R -A zoning, and stated there is definite property value with that usage. Barbara Priske, 15015 Le Gaye Street, commented that she is within the area to be designated R -A, and believes all the parcels are developed with the exception of four vacant parcels on Le Gaye, the minimum size on Le Gaye is 1 -1/4 acre. Mrs. Priske expressed concern with the half acre minimum and how that might be applied as those four lots develop. Mrs. PAGE FOUR - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 Priske stated she would like to see the ordinance have verbiage added to help protect the consistency of the lots on Le Gaye, and referred to Paragraph "C" and "D" of the R -1 Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.213.060, Lot Area), stating the 75% rule would be appropriate to be added to the R -A zone. Gene Fines, 31857 St. Pierre Lane, spoke in favor of the R -A zoning. There being no further requests to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Neff commented that he heard no one in opposition and stated this is a rare event. He referred to Mrs. Priske's comment and asked staff if it is possible to include that language, or if there is an alternative to the R -A with a half acre minimum, can we come up with an R -A one acre minimum? City Planner Leslie stated this is something staff can look at and report back, as it was not considered in the original proposal. This would have to come back as a subsequent change of zone. Associate Planner De Gange stated this could be addressed when the Zoning Code goes through its update, which should be done within the next year. Commissioner Wilsey asked if this language could be added at this juncture. City Planner Leslie responded that staff should look at this further and bring it back. Commissioner Metze stated there will be areas in the R -A that will be half acre. Commissioner Wilsey stated the R -A deals with half acre minimums for equestrian and animal keeping use, that was the intent. Does not think it would be a problem to include the buffer rule. City Planner Leslie stated staff could look at this and then come back to the Commission. Concern is discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code that was not anticipated in our noticing, nor noted on the agenda. Commissioner Neff commented on another issue brought up and not being considered this evening, the Larson area, and suggested recommending to City Council that these areas be handled. This was not noticed either, correct? Commissioner Metze referred to staff's recommendation, which includes recommending to City Council adoption of a Resolution of Intention initiating a zone change for this area. Associate Planner De Gange stated these items could be done concurrently. A zone code amendment which would implement a 75% rule in the R -A Zone and zone change for the Larson area. Commissioner Neff referred to Mr. Ponce's comment regarding the R -3 to R -2, stating he may want to investigate this with staff. He then asked staff to address this. City Planner Leslie explained the General Plan designates this property as Medium High Density Residential and sets a maximum allowed density of 18 dwelling units per acre. The R -3 zoning is not consistent with the General Plan designation, and we are precluded by State Law of zoning that property R -3 as long as R -3 indicates 24 units per acre. He explained the need for the City to identify a new zoning classification that would be PAGE FIVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 more consistent with the General Plan, and that the Zoning Code Update will include a zoning classification that is consistent with the 18 dwelling units per acre. He stated that when Mr. Ponce is ready to move ahead with development, hopefully before then, we would have a zoning classification that would help or we would work with him. Commissioner Metze asked staff to address comments on the trails. City Planner Leslie explained that developments along the boundary of this area are required to reserve easements for trails and they are conditioned to make improvements to the trail. As far as getting the trail up to Grand Avenue we haven't had development proposals where we could require additional trail easements, so we have to work on this. Commissioner Metze referred to the Staff Report and the creation of conforming zone classes. Asked how these areas would be identified and brought back to be properly zoned. City Planner Leslie explained staff is working on the Zoning Code Update that will create the zoning classifications. As a follow -up or possibly in conjunction, city -wide zone changes will be proposed to implement the new classification, and they will be implemented according to consistency with the General Plan. Commissioner Matthies stated she would like the trails worked on, and Mr. Ponce's problem solved; would like to see the senior housing project come in as it would benefit the general area. Chairman Bullard stated he believes Mr. Ponce's questions will be answered in the near future. Requested verification that the R -A does allow horse use on half acre or larger, and that the R -2 will only be utilized for this area on an interim basis. Requested the discussion on the buffer be included so City Council is aware. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about separate motions. A brief discussion ensued. The consensus was for separate motions. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 94 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER WILSEY ABSTAINING TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL INITIATE ZONE CHANGE PROCEEDINGS ON PROPERTY ALONG LARSON ROAD AND OTHER PARCELS AS APPROPRIATE AND INITIATE A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE VERBIAGE REGARDING THE BUFFER RULE AS STATED IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 17.23.060 SUBSECTION "C" AND "D" (R -1 DISTRICT) IN THE R -A DISTRICT. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Residential Project 94 -3 - Shannon Development Prior to the actual commencement of this item Commissioner Metze expressed a concern he had with respect to the plotting information received on the 1,836 square foot home, which was referenced in the memorandum to the Planning Commission from staff and distributed this evening. He questioned whether this should not be continued, stating he would like a complete package, plotting and mix of the 1,836 square foot home included. PAGE SIX - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 City Planner Leslie stated staff was contacted by the applicant and they indicated they are prepared to add an additional model. Believes the applicant is prepared to address this proposal tonight. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the number of people present this evening for this item, and understands there was a community meeting Monday, November 14th. Obviously, there are still a number of concerns. As a courtesy testimony should be taken and continue if necessary. Asked for the consensus of the Commission. The consensus was to proceed with testimony and continue if necessary. City Planner Leslie explained the applicant is seeking approval of three new models to be constructed on 127 lots remaining in the Prestonwood development, originally developed by McLeod. Since the meeting on Monday, November 14th, the applicant has informed us that they intend to propose a fourth model. The size of the original three models are 1,355, 1,442 and 1,677 square feet. City Planner Leslie provided background information explaining the original tract map was approved in 1985 and recorded in 1989, and at the same time the developer came in for approval of four models ranging in size from 1,688, 1,879, 2,100 and 2,419 square feet. McLeod built 44 of those homes and then on three different occasions sough revisions to their approval. In each case, the models were going to be smaller than the original ones. The final revision superseded the previous revisions and in that revision they proposed and received approval for 1,000, 1,327 and 1,638 square foot models; however, these were never built. City Planner Leslie stated staff is concerned with the size of the units in that the units proposed in the original application are all smaller than the smallest home built by McLeod. An issue is the McLeod approval of the smaller units being an entitlement that is transferable to Shannon and whether or not those approvals have expired. He then referred to the memorandum distributed which indicates the City Attorney's opinion that Shannon could build the smaller units approved within R 89 -11 Revision #3. He stated the applicant has attempted to create an elevation that is comparable to the existing homes, and staff has found the architectural style to be comparable with the exception of embellishment of second - story windows on side and rear elevations and lack of variation in the proposed color schemes. Another concern is the drainage issues identified at previous meetings. City Planner Leslie stated staff's recommendation was to approve the proposal with conditions regarding the mix. However, with the introduction of a new model would suggest continuing to allow time to review and come back with some recommendations, or that the Commission look at the mix and consider requirements should they desire to take action this evening. Chairman Bullard noted for the record written communication received from Nita Vanheast expressing concern with the size /mix of proposed units and financial impacts, and; Bryan Leger, 33162 Leeward Way, expressing concern with the size of the units and loss of views. Chairman Bullard asked the applicant to make his presentation. Mr. Thomas Dobron, President of Shannon Communities, stated the City Planner summed up the history of this project. He informed the residents of Prestonwood, "had we known, and we did not know, that you did not know that in many cases we PAGE SEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 could build a 1,000 square foot home or a smaller home we would have come to you much earlier." Mr. Dobron stated they looked at the site and decided that a 1,000, 1,100 or 1,200 square foot home was not appropriate. He commented on the real estate market with regard to market values and the economy. Believes building this project will enhance property values not diminish them. He then stated that he wants to be reasonable and that it has to come from both sides. James Hatter, Senior Vice President Shannon Communities, commented on the discussion with staff regarding an additional plan and the recommendation in the Staff Report to add said plan. Asked the Commission to approve the original submittal. He commented on staff's recommendation to build 15% of the larger product, and that is what we are agreeing to do. Mr. Hatter stated renderings of the 1836 plan have been posted for review. He then commented on the street scene of their product and McLeod's product. Chairman Bullard called upon the following people: Carlo Sturino, 15188 Anchor Way, stated that Prestonwood is an up scale community and wants it to remain that way. David Walsh, 33129 Windward Way, stated Shannon does build good homes, but does not feel they are what should be in the Prestonwood area. The Commission cannot be concerned with the property values. The impact of Shannon's development on current residents needs to be looked at carefully. Mr. Walsh then stated that at the end of Compass Court there are old tires, an abandoned vehicle, mattress and boulders, it looks to be County, asked if the Commission could look at this and maybe see if Shannon would put a couple of homes in there. David and Charmion Sellers, 33113 Leeward Way, concerned with the size of homes proposed. Commented on the loss in property value and the concern that smaller homes may again affect property values. Asked that Shannon not be allowed to build the smaller homes or at least compromise. Gene Urdiales, 33142 Leeward Way, feels Shannon should be given the opportunity to develop the property with certain conditions: proceed with the three building plans but reduce the amount of homes for the 1,355 and 1,442 plan and increase the plans for 1,677 along with the added model. The plan 1,355 and 1,442 be built on the perimeter lots, and the building integrity be maintained throughout the development. When the entire development is completed the roads should be given an asphalt finish cap, and the frontage property to Prestonwood be maintained throughout Shannon's development. David Hocott, 33117 Windward Way, referred to Mr. Leger's letter stating he is here this evening on the behalf of Mr. Leger to rescind this letter. Mr. Leger has been informed of the proposal and accepted the additional fourth model. Also, speaking on behalf of a number of Prestonwood residents, in support of this fourth model. Believes Shannon has shown goodwill faith and willing to work with us and will come back with a fair amount of reduction in the 1355 and 1442 plans. Peter Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, presented photographs of the area and stated this is the third time he has addressed this issue, the McLeod development now Shannon. He explained that his property is located in the County area; however, impacted by the development. Mr. Dawson expressed concern with the density and flood mitigation measures of the development. He then provided a history on flooding problems dating back to 1989 and inquired about future problems and stated that Shannon should know about this problem. PAGE EIGHT - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 Sergio Padilla, 33150 Leeward Way, commented on the loss of property value and the long term impact the smaller homes will have overall. He stated the 1,300 square foot home should not be in their development. Shirley Ramshaw, 33170 Leeward Way, commented on market values and associated losses. Stated she was not opposed to the smaller units, and commented on Shannon's legal right to build the original proposal. Asked for a compromise and pleased that they came up with the larger model. Urged approval. Dale Buckridge, 16037 Via Sola, stated there needs to be a buffer around the agricultural properties: Via Sola, Via Norte and Via Oeste. Concerned with flooding and privacy issues. He stated there are no bars on the sewer pipe and expressed a concern with safety of children playing inside that sewer area. He then commented on the need for weed control. Albia Miller, P.O. Box 1377, requested Shannon and all California developers form a coalition that recycles all development plans that introduces new housing to California and replace those plans with the integrity of rebuilding the inter -city, proper mass transit and filling out existing centers. She then presented a paper she prepared on Global Harmony. There being no further requests to address the Commission, Chairman Bullard asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Wilsey commented that most of the testimony heard this evening is that the residents in this area were in hopes that a developer with the integrity of Shannon would come in and start doing something with their neighborhood. He asked if Shannon would be willing to eliminate or drop back the 1,355 model with the new 1,800 square foot model. Mr. Dobron stated the first consideration is plotting the 1,800 square foot unit. The second, the view corridor of the 1,300 unit, because this unit was designed to take advantage of the view. He explained they may be able to take from both the 1,300 and 1,400 square foot units, but until the plotting is completed unsure of the number of 1,800 square foot units that could be built. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the inclusion of a percentage for the number of smaller units. Would like to see plotting for the smaller units. James Hatter reiterated that staff recommended 15% of the larger product be built and that is what we are willing to do. He stated the new proposed product will automatically reduce the number of the smaller product because 20% of the larger product will fit on those lots. He explained the new product is 37110" wide and precise plotting will be required because between the two plans the 1355 model is the widest of the plans proposed. Commissioner Matthies commented on financial responsibilities and both sides working together on this project. She then commented on the masonry fencing. Commissioner Metze asked if the applicant reviewed the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Hatter stated he reviewed the conditions and as the present fencing stands will submit a fencing plan to the City Council in the form of an appeal of that condition. PAGE NINE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 City Planner Leslie referred to the memorandum dated November 16th, requesting an additional condition be included to move the model complex including its parking lot from any existing occupied residences. At minimum, staff is recommending the parking lot be moved to the other side of the model complex, or the model complex itself be shifted. Mr. Hatter stated he does not agree with this position. The reason for putting the model complex there is to gain the view of the Lake. If the model complex is moved we not only loose the view, but the lots narrow down and we will not be able to put the larger product on those lots. City Planner Leslie explained that staff is suggesting that only the parking lot be moved. This would also mean the fourth model would be placed at the lower end. Mr. Hatter reiterated his concern that this would limit the location of this product. Does not feel there will be a problem with the location of the model complex once it is completed and the landscaping along the parking lot is in. Mr. Hatter stated he spent days with his marketing director looking at the site as to the location for the model complex. City Planner Leslie asked where they propose the fourth model to be located. Mr. Hatter stated the model complex is proposed on Lots 14 -16 and the parking lot is on Lot 13. The fourth model would be placed on Lot 17. We have to have a lot that, is 49 -50 foot wide and Lot 17 falls into that category. Commissioner Metze suggested placing the parking lot on Lot 18. Mr. Hatter stated this would reverse the layout as to how the houses are plotted and the slopes are going up the hill. City Planner Leslie suggested that staff still be allowed to work with the applicant on an alternate location for the model complex. Commissioner Neff stated the comment /concern regarding architectural variations and completion of the roads would be taken care of when the project is built out. He then commented on the drainage concerns raised stating there is a condition requiring the Ortega Drainage Channel to be cleaned - up and put back into shape. Mr. Hatter stated they have met with Riverside County Flood Control and have a punch list. The channel itself is 99% complete. The right -of -way was never obtained and County Flood Control is assisting us with gaining this right -of -way. Commissioner Neff inquired about clean -up of the debris. Mr. Hatter stated they would get rid of the trash, and would like to get a barricade up across the end of the street to discourage dumping. Commissioner Neff asked if they would be cleaning up and restoring the landscaping along the front of the project. Mr. Hatter responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Neff commented on the cooperation between the residents and the applicant. Rather than holding up the developer believes there is a solution the Commission may want PAGE TEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 to consider and suggested adding the condition recommended on Page 4 of the Staff Report. He referred to the Phasing Plan distributed with the packet stating Phase 1 is not close to existing homes and perhaps could give the okay to build the first phase. But any subsequent phase the plotting concerns would need to be resolved, and suggested this be added as condition 33.a. He then commented on buffering and suggested the larger homes be plotted adjacent to existing large homes. Commissioner Metze inquired about the condition proposed for relocation of the model complex. He then asked the applicant what conditions were going to be contested. Mr. Hatter responded the fencing condition. Commissioner Metze asked if there was a problem with the color, condition 5. Mr. Hatter explained they tried to get the mix where it fits the existing color scheme, and will work with staff. Commissioner Metze commented that he was impressed with the cooperation between the residents and the applicant. He then commented on the size of units and suggested percentages be included for the number of smaller units to be allowed, and inquired about establishing a percentage from each plan. Mr. Dobron commented that staff's recommendation is for a minimum of 15 %. If we were to take 5% of each and put that at the very minimum into the larger plan. Commissioner Metze commented the concern was with the 1,355 and 1,442 square foot units, not the larger ones. Mr. Dobron then suggested 7 or 7.5% from each. Commissioner Wilsey suggested this be added as a condition and left open for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Metze suggested the addition of condition 33.b., to read: minimum 15% of the 1,836 square foot, with that amount to be made up of 7.5% from the 1,355 and 7.5% from the 1,442. Commissioner Wilsey asked Commissioner Metze if he wanted to add verbiage about the plotting mix against the current product. Commissioner Metze stated that Commissioner Neff commented on this and agrees with trying to limit the 1,300 square foot homes close to the existing McLeod tract. Mr. Hatter reiterated that there will be a conflict with the 1,836 plan because of the width. But the 1,677 plan is the narrowest product and it will fit. Commissioner Metze commented on the drainage issue brought up by Mr. Dawson, and stated that Engineering has accepted the new drainage plan which they will have to implement. Mr. Dawson stated he was not referring to the Ortega Mountain behind the development, but from the development itself going down onto Grand Avenue, it is referred to as area "C" and "D" in the environmental impact report. He then read the following sentence: "The peak flows from storm run -of discharging into a portion of the downstream drainage system from the proposed fully developed tentative tract map will be PAGE ELEVEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 slightly greater than the present peak flows from the site in its developed condition." Mr. Metze asked Engineering Manager O'Donnell if this is what was addressed by the drainage report done on this project. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated there was a drainage report done by McLeod's engineer and about 50% of the development drains to Grand Avenue. He explained the flooding problems on Grand was due to the widening of Grand, by McLeod, and as it goes into the County it narrows down again and the water builds up on Grand and can not get down the street and starts washing across the street onto the property across from Grand. He further explained the measures taken to alleviate previous flooding problems. Commissioner Metze commented that the County may also need to address the flooding issues. A lady from the audience asked if they were going to put out sandbags every time it rains, the way they are doing now. Engineering Manager O'Donnell also stated once the tract gets built out there is going to be that problem there of the water getting by the liquor store. He then commented that the major flood of 1992 raised the Lake 15 feet and Grand Avenue did not flood. Commissioner Wilsey asked about contacting the County and maybe get some cooperation from them to install a culvert or consider implementing some other measure. Engineering Manager O'Donnell explained the problem is right - of -way, which has never been taken, the driveway comes right off the street and it is private property. Commissioner Neff asked about having the Mayor contact Supervisor Bob Buster specifically about this issue, as this is his district. Mr. Hatter stated their project has paid the drainage impact fees, which were part of the original conditions. We have paid $250.00 per unit for drainage impact fees. We were told this was for a future storm drain off Grand Avenue. Commissioner Metze commented that he wanted to continue this item originally and to get an affirmative vote must feel very comfortable that everything has been covered. Does not want the residents coming back and complaining, but everyone here seems to want the project to move forward. Chairman Bullard recognized an individual from the audience. She commented on the Prestonwood models and the length of time their smallest model sat vacant. Chairman Bullard stated he had a telephone conversation with Mr. Leger and he had expressed major concerns. Chairman Bullard commented on completion of the roads stating that he would like to see the streets topped when the last unit of that street is built. Mr. Hatter stated they have bonds in place and they are to guarantee completion of off -site improvements. Chairman Bullard stated his concern is that building may commence and then five years down the line the streets are still not capped. PAGE TWELVE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 Mr. Hatter stated the streets have been capped in the Phase 1 areas and where the homes are occupied at the intersections. Chairman Bullard asked if McLeod has bonds in place and whether they rolled over to Shannon. Mr. Hatter stated they are in the process of getting a reduction on the original bond as it included the Ortega Drainage Channel and street improvements. The reduction will be on the existing improvement bond to the percentage of work that is left to complete, and Riverside County Flood Control is doing a reduction for the Ortega Channel. Once these figures are known the bond will be replaced. Chairman Bullard commented on street lighting and asked if there were plans to install street lights. Mr. Hatter stated there is an approved street lighting plan with Southern California Edison and it is to be put into place. Commissioner Wilsey commented on staff's concern with the model complex, plotting and parking lot; suggested condition 33.c. be added: the model complex and parking lot plotting shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. Mr. Hatter reiterated his concern on the size of the product which limits its location. City Planner Leslie stated that the direction he was hearing from the Commission was to not necessarily require moving the model complex and parking lot from its proposed location but working with the applicant on appropriate landscape screening and fencing. Chairman Bullard recognized a gentlemen in the audience. Mr. David Walsh commented that he notified Edison of eight lights that were out and they replaced four of them and stated the other four are in the cul -de -sac and there is probably a problem underground. Chairman Bullard recognized a gentlemen in the audience. Mr. Hocott asked about the timing to clean -up Grand and redo the landscaping, and commented on the clean -up of graffiti on the block walls. Would like to see the block wall repainted, as there are patches all over. Suggested that landscaping of a thorny or prickly nature be installed to detour graffiti when the landscaping is redone. Chairman Bullard informed Mr. Hocott that the City has Codes and Standards on vegetation. Mr. Hatter stated they would work with staff or the homeowners with regard to landscaping that conforms to City Standards and still achieve your goals. Commissioner Metze referred to the memorandum where staff is recommending condition 30 be deleted. He then asked if staff was comfortable with what has been covered and conditioned. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative, stating the way it has been conditioned staff can work with the developer on a plotting mix that will achieve the goals and objectives set. There being no further discussion, Chairman Bullard called for a motion. PAGE THIRTEEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 -0 TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 94 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 30. to aveid eeneentratien in ene area, DELETED. Condition No. 33a: Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2 (as indicated on the applicant's phasing plan indicated as Exhibit I) the applicant shall submit plans for an additional model or models at least 1800+ square feet in size for Minor Design Review approval for production on a portion of the remaining lots within Tract 19358. In addition, this model shall be plotted on at least 15% of the remaining 127 lots within the project. The applicant shall leave at least three lots vacant within Phase 1 for future production of this new model. These lots should be appropriately staggered. A revised plotting plan, showing how this new plan will be incorporated into the project shall be submitted and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or designee. Condition No. 33b: The plotting of the 1,355 square foot homes and the 1,442 square foot homes on the remaining 127 lots shall be reduced in percentage of units by 7.5% each from that initially proposed by the applicant in order to allow for plotting of the 1,800 square foot model on a minimum of 15% of the remaining lots. This works out that the maximum number of the 1,355 square foot plans and the 1,442 square foot plans that can be plotted is 12.1% and 32.7% respectively of the remaining 127 lots. Condition No. 33c: The model complex and parking lot plotting shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. Commissioner Metze asked staff to relay to City Council that if the block wall is not allowed that they go with the updated fencing condition. PLANNING COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. PAGE FOURTEEN - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Deferred to Design Review Committee Meeting. ADJOURNMENT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURN AT 10:00 P.M. Approved, Richard Bullard, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Linda Grin taff Recording Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING C DECEMBER 7, 1994 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 7, 1994, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. ReL /� ully. submitted, Linda Grin staff Recording Secretary MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1994 The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:01 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 Metze and carried by a vote of 5 -0 to approve the Minutes of November 16, 1994, as submitted and to receive and file the Minutes of December 7, 1994. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairman Bullard closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 94 -3 Amendment #1 - Shannon Development Associate Planner De Gange provided a brief history on the proposal explaining that at the meeting of November 16, 1994, a condition was added to R 94 -3 stipulating that prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2 the applicant was to submit plans for an additional model or models at least 1,800 square feet in size. This amendment is proposed to fulfill this condition. This fourth plan is a two - story, 1836 square foot structure with a two -car garage and will be constructed on 19 of the remaining 127 vacant lots within Tract 19358, which constitutes approximately 15% of the number of units being proposed by Shannon. Associate Planner De Gange highlighted staff's concerns that were expressed at the November 16 meeting and still not resolved with regard to the placement of the model complex; lack of variation in the proposed color schemes and window treatment. Chairman Bullard asked the applicant to make his presentation. James Hatter, Senior Vice President Shannon Communities, stated they are relocating the model complex parking lot and will work through the other issues with staff. Chairman Bullard called upon Mr. Bryan Leger. Mr. Bryan Leger, 33162 Leeward Way, stated his complaint with the development is the present matrix proposed is not the same as built by McLeod. Would prefer to see a matrix that is more consistent with the existing homes, suggested 40% of Plan 4. PAGE TWO - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 21, 1994 There being no further requests to address the Commission, Chairman Bullard asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Metze stated he agrees with staff on the color schemes and window treatment. He then asked if the 1,000 square foot unit was eliminated with the approval of R 94 -3. City Planner Leslie explained that with the approvals for this project the 1,000 square foot unit has been eliminated. Commissioner Metze informed Mr. Leger of the action taken at the November 16th meeting with regard to the mix, and that 55% of the homes built will be 1,600/1,800 square foot. Commissioner Matthies stated she is glad to see the applicant working with staff, but would like to see more variations on the color schemes. Discussion ensued on color variations. Mr. Hatter stated they would work with staff on the color schemes. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the architectural variations and compatibility between existing and proposed, referring to the posted renderings. He stated that Commissioner Neff could better address massing and visual affect from the street. Commissioner Neff informed Mr. Leger of the testimony and consensus reached at the November 16th meeting, and addressed property values explaining that an appraiser looks at a comparable size home when appraising, not at a smaller home adjacent to a larger home. Commissioner Neff commented that the lots for this particular project are fixed in size -- narrow and deep. The footprint is such that they have to present a massing to the streetscape on the front that looks big, yet meets all the setback require- ments. He then commented on the applicant agreeing to add a fourth model, downsizing and selective plotting of the number of smaller units to minimize the impact. He stated that to have a project complete its build -out will probably add more value subjectively to the neighborhood than if it is left vacant. He then commented on the applicant agreeing to clean- up the debris and re- landscape. Chairman Bullard recognized Mr. Leger. Mr. Leger stated he was concerned with the poor condition that McLeod kept the landscaping along Grand Avenue and the model homes. Shannon has given a number of concessions and I support the project. Believes there are a few things that Shannon could do in terms of landscaping and housekeeping of the construction area, that were neglected by McLeod, that could greatly enhance their marketing ability. He then asked for clarification on the 1,000 square foot unit. If Shannon does not complete the project another builder could submit plans for a 1,000 square foot home and the City would be compelled to allow them to build this. Urged the Commission to address the City Council and change this. Chairman Bullard stated that he concurs with staff. Knows that Shannon is working with staff. Asked staff if the 1,000 square foot home was eliminated, with the approval of this project for Shannon, even if sold to another builder, and asked that clarification. Commissioner Metze stated the smallest home that is approved for those lots is 1,355 square feet. Plans for a 1,000 square foot unit would have to come back before the Commission for Design Review approval. He stated the applicant has agreed to PAGE THREE - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 21, 1994 clean -up the debris and re- landscape. City Planner Leslie stated this is the intent - -this Design Review approval replaces all previous approvals. At this time, there is no Design Review approval for a 1,000 square foot home in that subdivision. However, the Code does allow a 1,000 square foot home but it would have to go through the Design Review process. There being no further discussion, Chairman Bullard called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN BULLARD AND CARRIED BY A 5 -0 TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 94 -3 AMENDMENT #1 BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 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 7:31 P.M. Approved, Richard Bullard, Chairman Respectfully ubmitted, Linda Gri dstaff Recording Secretary