Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-1993 NAHMINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 6, 1993 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 6, 1993, WAS CALLED DUE TO THE HOLIDAY AND LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Res ectfully ubmitted, atl Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 1993 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 20, 1993, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Resp ctfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 1993 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 3, 1993, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully s,bmitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1993 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Bullard. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Bullard and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were City Planner Christen, Associate Planner De Gange, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. OATH OF OFFICE Deputy City Clerk Bryning issued Oath of Office to Al Wilsey, and he took his seat. NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIRMAN Chairwoman Brinley opened nominations for the position of Vice Chairman. Commissioner Neff nominated Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Chairwoman Brinley asked for any further nominations, hearing none she closed the nominations. Commissioner Bullard was elected Vice Chairman by a 4 -1 vote with Commissioner Gilenson casting the dissenting vote. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Vice Chairman Bullard, Second by Commissioner Neff and carried by a vote of 3 to 0 with Commissioners Wilsey and Neff abstaining to approve Minutes of December 16, 1992, as submitted, and to receive and file minutes of January 6, 1993, January 20, 1993, and February 3, 1993. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 92 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore (Continued from December 2, 1992) - Chairwoman Brinley stated it has been requested that this item be continued and asked for the desire of the Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Zone Code Amendment be continued. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993 Page 2 2. Conditional Use Permit 93 -1 - Elsinore Naval & Military School (Lawrence and Linda Amsbry) - Associate Planner De Gange presented a request to operate a commercial recycling center, located at 29170 Riverside Drive Unit One A & B. He then requested the following corrections and amendments to the Staff Report: SIZE AND LOCATION, the proposed use would take place within a 4,300 square foot portion of a 12,000 square foot industrial building. Amend Condition No. 1, add verbiage which states that the Conditional Use Permit can be revoked if found not to be in compliance with Conditions of Approval, after review by the Community Development Manager Add Condition No. 8, On a daily basis the applicant shall clean the facility of all debris and excess litter outside the structure. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Lawrence Amsbry stated that he concurs with the Staff Report, and will answer any questions that 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 anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson inquired whether the City Attorney had been contacted with regard to the CR & R contract, to ensure there is no conflict with CR & R competition clause. Associate Planner De Gange responded in the negative. Commissioner Gilenson suggested that staff check with the City Attorney. Commissioner Bullard stated that he concurs with Commissioner Gilenson. He then asked whether recyclable paper products would be accepted. Concern is, this material can become combustible under certain conditions, and suggested the following be added as condition number 9: That all paper products must have an approved Fire Code Sprinkler System installed in the building above and around the paper products. Mr. Amsbry responded that California redemption paper products, such as: milk and juice cartons, etc. would be accepted, but newspaper, computer paper or this type of paper would not. Commissioner Bullard stated that he would like the condition to remain, and if paper products are not accepted then the condition is a mute point. Commissioner Neff commented on the amendment to condition number 1, whether this is subject to revocation at the discretion of the Planning Commission or Community Development Manager. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit 93 -1 Continued Associate Planner De Gange stated the intent was, if the Community Development Manager felt that the applicant was not meeting the conditions it would be brought back to the Planning Commission for revocation. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the exact verbiage for condition number 9. Wants to ensure that the condition specifies that the applicant is not being subjected to putting in a fire sprinkler system because he is handling milk cartons, etc. If he decides to accept the bail paper products then he would be required to install the sprinkler system. Commissioner Bullard stated he concurs, but unsure of the exact verbiage at this time. Suggested that staff recommend verbiage, but it would have to be in the event of bailed, bulk or loose paper products, ie. newspaper, computer papers. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the legal aspect with the CR & R contract as raised by Commissioner Gilenson. Commissioner Gilenson stated this can be handled two ways: 1) Conditioned upon the approval of the City Attorney; 2) Continue it until we have a recommendation from the City Attorney. Chairwoman Brinley suggested that the CUP be conditioned upon approval of the City Attorney, and this added as condition number 10. Commissioner Wilsey inquired whether or not it would come back to the Planning Commission if City Attorney rules there is a conflict. Commissioner Gilenson responded that it has been conditioned to the City Attorney's approval and if he says no then it would be a dead issue. The applicant would have to appeal to City Council. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 1: The approval of Conditional Use Permit shall expire in five years from the date of approval and is subject to an annual review by the Community Development Manager or his designee. The Conditional Use Permit can be revoked if after review by the Community Development Manager it is found that the applicant has not been in compliance with Conditions of Approval. If the Community Development Manager determines that the applicant is not in compliance with the Conditions of Approval the matter will be brought back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation that the Conditional Use Permit be revoked. Condition No. 8: On a daily basis the applicant shall clean the facility of all debris and excess litter outside the structure. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993 Page 4 Conditional Use Permit 93 -1 Continued Condition No. 9: In the event that bailed, bulk or loose paper products (ie. newspaper or computer paper) are accepted for recycling the applicant shall install an approved Fire Code Sprinkler System in the building above and around the paper products. Condition No. 10: Conditional Use Permit 93 -1 is approved contingent upon approval from the City Attorney, ensuring there is no conflict with CR & R contract, competition clause. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Single - Family Residence - 29377 Maes Street - Kristin Estenger - Associate Planner De Gange presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 1,298 square foot, single -story dwelling with a 506 square foot garage. He then indicated that there was an error in the numbering of the Conditions of Approval, and revised copies of the conditions have been distributed. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Bill Estenger stated they concur with the Staff Report, and will answer any questions that arise. A brief discussion was held on the fencing proposed on the northeast side and Code requirements. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29377 MAES STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS City Planner Christen informed the Commission of the tentative hearing schedule for projects coming before the Planning Commission through April. Commissioner Neff inquired whether workshops will be scheduled. Mr. Christen responded there will be workshops on the East Lake Specific Plan and the Lake Terrace project. Also, we have a Town Hall Meeting set for March 4, 1993, on the Lake Edge Specific Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Requested that staff distribute lengthy document two weeks prior to hearing, rather than with the Agenda packet. Commissioner Wilsey Thanked Council for having faith in him and for his appointment; looking forward to serving the community, again. Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1993 Page 5 Commissioner Neff Informed Commission and Staff of the following: 1. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, agency coordinating the Stevens' kangaroo rat habitat conservation plan, has scheduled the following Scoping Meetings: Monday, March 8th, Temecula at the Callaway Winery Wednesday, March 10th, Riverside City Council Chambers Thursday, March 11th, Perris High School 2. Attended a breakfast at which Larry Arnn of the Clairemont Institute spoke; he had some interesting observations on demographics in California and the housing market. If anyone is interested, I can share this information. 3. American Planning Association (APA) Conference scheduled for February 25th, will anyone be attending? Mr. Christen responded in the negative. 4. Planning Commission Handbook, I found very interesting and thanked Commissioner Gilenson. Chairwoman Brinley Congratulated Commissioner Bullard on being selected as Vice Chairman, and welcomed back Commissioner Wilsey. Commissioner Bullard Commented as follows: 1. Thanked the Commission for having confidence in him as Vice Chairman, and hopes to uphold the office in a very professional manner. 2. Attended open houses this last month, and the developers are following the rules and regulations very well. 3. The defacing of signs associated with the recall movement. He indicated that he was against recalls unless there is fraud or a conviction in a court of an individual. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:50 p.m., motion by Commissioner Neff, second by Bullard. Approved 5 -0 irwoman Res ectfull Submitted, Linda Grindstaff Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 3RD DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. MARCH 1993 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Wilsey, Bullard, and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were City Planner Christen, Associate Planner De Gange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Gilenson referred to the vote for the Minutes of December 16, 1992, stating the vote should be 3 -0 with Commissioners Neff and Wilsey abstaining, as Commissioner Neff was absent from that meeting. Moved by Commissioner Gilenson, carried by a vote of 5 to 0 to 1993, with the above correction. PUBLIC COMMENTS Second by Commissioner Wilsey and approve Minutes of February 17, There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 92 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore (Continued from February 17, 1993) - Associate Planner De Gange explained this is a request to amend Section 17.11 of the Municipal Code, establishing the Historic Downtown Elsinore and associated Design Standards. The area is generally bounded to the north by Collier Avenue and Interstate 15, to the south by Lakeshore Drive, the west by Chaney Street, and the east by Grove Avenue, Conklin Avenue and Rupard Street. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Bullard inquired about the status of General Plan Amendment 92 -3, which was before the Planning Commission on December 2, 1992. Associate Planner DeGange detailed the hearing schedule for both the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Code Amendment. Commissioner Bullard commented on the Historic Elsinore Architectural Design Standards, as follows: • Page 51, second bullet, this needs to be modified to address the new program which requires refuse to be placed out front. • Page 57, remove all reference to High Density (it was staff's recommendation to eliminate the High Density and change to Medium High Density). Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 2 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey commented on the proposed Ordinance, as follows: • Section 17.11.060.E, the fact that this section gives the Design Review Committee (DRC) authority to regulate uses. Requested that staff prepare a summary on the discussion and include it in the City Council Report. Section 17.11.030.A, the authority of the DRC to regulate the uses within the district. The sentence "no new or changed use shall be permitted without specific prior approval as to both type and location by the DRC" be deleted from these Sections. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the proposed Ordinance, as follows: Section 17.11.030.A, delete in total. Section 17.11.060.E, delete the words "conduct a new or changed use or construct" Commissioner Neff stated he would concur with those comments- - if you look to the land use regulations it is the zoning that controls it. He then commented on: • Section 17.11.060.E, concurs with Commissioner Gilenson, the deletion of this language would restore the intent of the DRC. However, would modify it to bring reference to the Zoning Code as controlling uses. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the Historic Elsinore Architectural Design Standards, as follows: • Page 18, third paragraph, parking requirements for infill projects. Would like staff to enumerate under what conditions they are talking about, or is it totally discretionary? Associate Planner De Gange responded that in both cases it would be for infill development where parking is not available -- renovating or converting a structure where on -site parking is not available but there is existing on- street parking, or a public parking facility within close proximity. Discussion ensued on parking requirements for infill projects, and parking to be within close proximity. It was suggested that this sections be clarified. • Page 26, Building Height, last paragraph, exceptions to these restrictions may be granted by DRC. Would like staff to enumerate, again it is totally discretionary. Associate Planner De Gange responded that it could be interpreted that way, but does not believe that is the intent. Commissioner Gilenson stated there should be some guidelines as to what extraordinary design or extenuating circumstances are, which would narrow down the circumstances. Chairwoman Brinley asked that staff make note of that and address it to the City Council, so the City Attorney can correct the verbiage in the intent. She then commented on the make -up and authority of the DRC. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 3 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 CONTINUED MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -7 AND APPROVAL OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Section 17.11.030.A, delete in total. Section 17.11.060.E, delete the words "conduct a new or changed use or construct" Page 18, third paragraph, provide clarifi- cation for infill parking requirements. Page 26, Building Height, last paragraph, provide guidelines. Page 57 and 58, remove Section pertaining to High Density. Staff to prepare summary of discussion and include in City Council Report. 2. General Plan Amendment 92 -5 and Zone Change 92 -4 - Halloran & Associates - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify the text to allow mining and reclamation uses within Specific Plan Area "D" (North Alberhill Ranch) , and a change of Zone to incorporate the Resource Conservation ( "RC") Overlay District. The project is located north of the intersection of Interstate 15 and Lake Street. Assistant Planner Villa then informed the Commission of a letter received from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District expressing their concern over the environmental documentation prepared for the site. He then explained the reason for separate environmental documentation. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Jon Friedman, Long Beach Equities, stated he is the property owner and Mr. Halloran and his staff are also present. He then stated that they are in agreement with the Staff Report. Mr. Friedman stated that they were unaware of the letter from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. But agrees with staff, if their concerns are with the project, the mining itself, would like an opportunity to meet with them and address their concerns prior to the mining permit coming before this board. Also, we have asked staff to set -up a workshop prior to the April 7th hearing. Mr. Friedman then gave a brief background on the existing mining operation at Lake Street. 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 anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -5 AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -4 CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson stated that he spoke with Mr. Friedman on this project and voiced his concerns. Basically, no problem with the policy action to be taken, concern is with the mining operation. He then commented on the environmental documentation he expects to see. Commissioner Neff stated he spoke with Mr. Friedman about the project and has no particular problems. He commented on the timing of the letter received from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and encouraged timely correspondence in the future. Does not believe their concerns are directly affected by the action tonight. Commissioner Bullard stated that he concurs with Commissioners Gilenson and Neff. At this time, this is policy action only. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -2 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -5 AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -4 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 93- 1, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION 93 -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -5 TO MODIFY THE TEXT WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT ALLOWING MINING AND RECLAMATION USES WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA "D" (NORTH ALBERHILL RANCH) 3. Specific Plan 92 -1, Tentative Tract Map 27223 - Friendly Group VII (K.S. Chen) - Associate Planner De Gange presented the Cape of Good Hope Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 27223; the proposed project is a 40 acre gated single - family resi- dential development subdivided into 67 custom lots, located at the eastern terminus of Mountain Street northeast of the intersection of Robb Road and Lakeshore Drive. Chairwoman Brinley referred to the written communication (fax) dated March 3, 1993, from Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone, law firm representing the Lake Elsinore Unified School District, requesting the project be conditioned to require the applicant and the District to enter into a mitigation agreement prior to approval of the project by City Council. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Fred Crowe, The Keith Companies, representing the applicant, stated their firm prepared the Specific Plan document and the tentative map. He stated the guidelines and recommendations contained within the document will establish this as a showcase type of development, and that concerns have been adequately addressed and mitigated. He then stated that they are in agreement with the Staff Report and will 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. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 5 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 CONTINUED The following people spoke in opposition, expressing concern on notification, the entrance proposed for Cherry Blossom and associated traffic safety issues, grading of the hillside, and the absence of a park: Joann Siminoff, 3572 Cherry Blossom Lane, also presented petition against gated entrance on Cherry Blossom Lane; Leroy Tucker, 3532 Cherry Blossom; Marty Graff, 3580 Cherry Blossom; Linda Bryan, 3588 Cherry Blossom; Richard Grossman, 3465 Cherry Blossom; George Thompson, 3635 Cherry Blossom; Sam Helt, 3392 Spruce Street Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Crowe asked to respond to some of the concerns raised. The main gate was planned for Mountain and the gate at Cherry Blossom was intended for a card gate only, and used only by the residents. We do have a need for traffic circulation, so potentially it might be worked out where that gate would only be used for emergency vehicles. There may be other ways to minimize or eliminate excess traffic on those streets. Commissioner Bullard suggested the items be continued, due to the opposition raised and the conflict in the paperwork pertaining to applicant's contact with the residents. Believes there could be an option for egress over to Terra Cotta instead of Cherry Blossom. Chairwoman Brinley detailed the notification process, and commented on the issues of a gated community and the dislike of a gated community within a community. Agrees with a continuance at this time, and asked for the consensus of the Commission on whether this should be continued to April 7, allowing staff, the developer and a couple of representatives from the neighborhood to work together to resolve the issues. Commissioner Gilenson stated that a continuance to April 7, is an insufficient period of time, in that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate, and would not support a gated community under any circumstance. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would like this opened for discussion, because direction needs to be given to staff, the applicant and the community. Build up a reservoir of questions that can be addressed, establish a committee and schedule meetings. Commissioner Gilenson commented as follows: • Feels the Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate. • Agrees with the School District's letter. • Insufficient street circulation, against a gated community - -if Commission and Council wants a gated community it should have its own ingress /egress. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 6 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 CONTINUED Commissioner Neff commented on: • Grading concept, whether blasting would occur there if run into rock, at a certain depth. There needs to be some mitigation and discussion. • Not in opposition to a gated community, but it seems odd to have a secondary access which terminates in an existing residential neighborhood. • Economics of project, given the steep hillsides. Concerned about erosion control and landscaping because of its visibility. • Mr. Crowe's suggestion to lock off that one gate, except for emergency services, and investigation of an alternative access to Terra Cotta. • Whether the open space in the project could be dedicated to the City and unsure if this could be used for park facilities. • Responsibilities of the HOA and the City as it relates to landscaping and maintenance, and the condition that some of those landscaped areas be conveyed to the City. • Applicant's willingness to meet with representatives from the neighborhood and work out some of the issues. Commissioner Wilsey commented on: Deviations from minimums in grading, Specific Plan lists grading 1.5:1 and our minimums are 2:1. Not interested in anything that deviates from our minimum. • Cherry Blossom area, those streets were never designed to be through streets - -they meander through that tract and are not meant to be a thoroughfare street. Not interested in seeing a secondary ingress /egress into that project through that area. Asked staff to provide the distance from the applicant's property line to Terra Cotta. Mr. De Gange responded that this distance is approxi- mately 600 feet. • Notification. • Letter indicating communication with neighboring residents. • Questions on the environmental documentation prepared and the need to meet and review closely. • Inquired why a Specific Plan was submitted, why not a Tentative Tract Map with a Hillside Overlay? The design, landscape, building criteria and trade -off amenities for a Specific Plan is missing from this document. Commissioner Bullard commented on the need for additional communication with the other citizens involved and the affects upon this area, and moved to continue Specific Plan 92 -1 and Tentative Tract Map 27223. Motion died for lack of a second. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 7 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson stated a few of the Commissioners have expressed a desire to discuss this with the residents, applicant and staff. The problem is that the public hearing has been opened and closed and we cannot meet outside a public hearing. The only way would be through a published or a continued opened meeting, or if the developer wishes to withdraw the project and resubmit. Discussion ensued on alternative actions available to the Commission. Chairwoman Brinley suggested that a committee be formed and the area residents select representatives to serve on this committee and work with staff and the applicant to resolve the issues. She then commented, as follows: • Concerns are the same as raised by the other Commissioners. • The park issue needs to be addressed. • Dislike of a gated community within a community, as it causes.problems. • Ingress /egress situation has to be addressed. • Erosion control needs to be addressed. Discussion ensued on whether to continue; ask the applicant to withdraw and resubmit; the procedure for resubmittal, and deny without prejudice. Mr. Crowe stated they have been working on this for years and would like to relay these concerns to the owner. He then requested that a staff member be assigned as project manager, enabling the neighbors and myself to contact an individual to set -up regular or neighborhood meetings. Chairwoman Brinley responded that Mr. De Gange would be the contact person, as he is the Planner handling this proposal. City Planner Christen suggested a contact person from the neighborhood be appointed, and the City would then set -up the meetings. Chairwoman Brinley asked that Joann Siminoff be the contact person for the neighborhood area, along with the selection of two other representatives. She informed Ms. Siminoff that it would be their responsibility to keep the residents abreast of conversations and meetings with staff and the developer. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the past problems where the Commission was cut out because the public hearing had been opened and it went back to staff, as the liaison, the homeowners and developers and eventually the project was scrapped. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT IF THE PROJECT IS BROUGHT BACK THAT THE FEES BE WAIVED. Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion, stating that the Tee Pee Ranch was a different story, as the property had been sold a number of times between the meetings and negotiations. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 8 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 CONTINUED Commissioner Bullard asked for clarification on the motion. Chairwoman Brinley stated the motion is to deny without malice and the applicant has to resubmit. Discussion ensued on the motion, deny without prejudice, which enables the applicant to resubmit and the City's operation under the Cost Recovery Program. Commissioner Neff inquired whether this reserves the right for another public hearing in the future. Commissioner Gilenson responded that it reserves the right for discussions individually or collectively with both the residents and developer. Commissioner Neff asked if it was not another alternative to re -open the public hearing and then continue the public hearing. Commissioner Gilenson responded in the affirmative; however, we cannot talk with the residents or developer. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY. There being no further discussion Chairwoman Brinley called for the question. MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. At this time, 8:45 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9:02 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Single - Family Residence - 32925 Kevin Place - John And Helen Risk - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of a one - story, single - family dwelling at 32925 Kevin Place. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, she asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Wilsey commented on this being in a Specific Plan Area. Inquired whether the Specific Plan called for a masonry reenforced wall; if not, why the deviation from the standard? Requested that condition number 9 be amended to reflect the standard verbiage. Assistant Planner Villa explained the Specific Plan was approved in early 1980, and regulations for fencing was not included. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition 9, and suggested the words " reenforced masonry wall" be deleted and the words "wood fence" be inserted. Discussion ensued on condition 9, with the recommendation that the words "and /or wood fence" be inserted. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 9 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 32925 KEVIN PLACE CONTINUED CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 32925 KEVIN PLACE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 9: A six -foot (61) high reenforced masonry wall and /or wood fence shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls) , subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Industrial Project 92 -1 - Norman Industries - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 36,000 square foot office /warehouse building, located at 32371 Corydon Road. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Mark Brody, representing Norman Industries, stated that they support staff's report. He then requested the following amendments: Staff Report, Page 3, under ANALYSIS third paragraph last sentence change the word "finished" to "functional ". Condition 1, that Minor Design Review be granted for 2 years, given the flooding conditions. Condition 27, the language "or conveyed to the Lake Elsinore Floodplain" be added. Condition 34, preface condition by adding "if applicable ", because the grading is less than five acres and this permit does not apply. Condition 29, questioned the 5% impact. From our understanding, our impact on that intersection is far less than the 5 %. Requested relief from the full assessment. Mr. Brody then stated that he would answer any questions. Commissioner Gilenson referred to the letter submitted by Mr. Brody and asked if he was dropping number 20.a., 28 and 32. Mr. Brody stated that conditions 28 and 32, are no longer a concern, will drop. Would like to add condition 20.a., regarding landscaping. Commissioner Wilsey asked if they intend to inhabit this building when completed, get a Certificate of Occupancy - -use the building, but not able to do the landscaping. Mr. Brody responded in the affirmative, stating there is a 6 -7 foot difference and it does seem odd that we could be in the building and not complete the landscaping. He gave reference to the contours and stated they are prepared to post a bond. He then proposed that condition 20.a. read as follows: Condition 20.a. Given that the proposed landscaping is Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 10 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 92 -1 CONTINUED within the Lake Elsinore Floodplain and given current flood conditions scheduling for landscaping for the project would be as follows: half of the landscaping would be planted by time of occupancy. Completion of the landscaping would occur within one year from the date the Lake Elsinore Outflow Channel is finished. A bond could be posted with the City. Chairwoman Brinley suggested the word "finished" be changed to "functional ". Commissioner Neff suggested the word "could" be changed to "shall ". Discussion ensued on the proposed landscape condition, preference is for landscaping and not the posting of a bond; property being in the floodplain and the results of flooding upon landscaping. Commissioner Bullard, referred to the posted rendering, and stated the portion that runs along the Quonset huts and the chainlink fence between the park must be landscaped. Even if the Outflow Channel is functional there could still be flood water at that location. Suggested language "landscaping shall be completed within one year after flood waters have receded elevation of planting ". Commissioner Gilenson commented on: • Page 2 of the Staff Report, Potential Flooding concerns, asked if these were referenced to a particular condition. • Page 3 of the Staff Report, under Analysis third and fourth paragraph of the Staff Report, asked if these were referenced to a particular condition. Assistant Planner Villa responded in the negative, and stated that a condition can be added. City Planner Christen stated the plans illustrate the building pad elevation and finished floor elevation. Suggested a condition be added, that the construction of the building will not be initiated until the Outflow Channel is functional. • Asked Mr. O'Donnell to address condition 29 and applicant's letter with regard to same. Mr. O'Donnell addressed the following conditions: Condition 27, no problem with the modification as requested. Condition 29, this development will generate an additional 200 trips, which is about 4 %. This does not consider the impacts on other signals which will be affected and is estimated at 1 %, for a total of 5 %. Condition 34, no problem with modification if under five acres. Federal law requires permit if five acres or more. Chairwoman Brinley commented on condition number 1, stating she would like to see it remain as written. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 11 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 92 -1 CONTINUED Discussion ensued on the number of extensions that could be granted. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -1 AND APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 92 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition 20.a.: Given that the proposed landscaping is within the Lake Elsinore Floodplain and given current flood conditions scheduling for landscaping for the project shall be as follows: The portion that runs along the Quonset huts and the chainlink fence between the park shall be planted by time of occupancy. Completion of the landscaping will occur within one year from the date the Lake Elsinore Outflow Channel is functional and /or flood waters have receded elevation of planting. A Landscaping Bond shall be posted with the City. Condition 27: On -site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by the adjacent property owner by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement, or conveyed to the Lake Elsinore Floodplain. Condition 34: If applicable, the owner shall provide the city with proof of his having filed a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a National Pollutants Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDEP) with a storm water pollution prevention plan. (SWPPP) prior to a grading permit. Condition 36: The building footprint lies above the 1,265 msl (mean sea level), but below the 1,267 msl (Exhibit "B"). According to Ordinance No. 858, building structures are permitted on areas higher than 1,265 msl. To alleviate and /or mitigate potential flooding, the building pad elevation will be required to be 1,266.5 msl and the finish floor will be required to be 1,267 msl. The parking area lies below the 1,265 msl. According to Ordinance No. 858, Section 15.68.052, no buildings or improvements, and artificial changes in the topography are permitted below the 1,265 msl. Engineering and Planning has agreed to allow the parking area to be made of three (311) of decomposed granite compacted at 95 %. Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1993 Page 12 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinlev Thanked staff for all their work and the people who took an interest and attended the meeting. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:47 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 5 -0 p roved, Pam�nleY, Chairwoman Respectfully Submitted, L'na Grin f Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 17TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Neff. ROLL CALL: MARCH 1993 PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Wilsey, and Bullard ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Associate Planner De Gange and Assistant Planner Villa. BEING AS CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY WAS ABSENT, VICE CHAIRMAN BULLARD CONDUCTED THE MEETING. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Wilsey referred to Page 8, stating the name of the second was omitted, and he was the one that seconded the motion. Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Second by Commissioner Gilenson and carried by a vote of 4 to 0 to approve Minutes of March 3, 1993, with the above correction. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Vice Chairman Bullard closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Amendment #1 to the Revised Sign Program for Four Corners Plaza - John Yang (Steve Harriman) - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to amend the revised sign program, which entails the replacement of a center identification sign and amendment of Condition of Approval number 3. He then presented an Addendum to the Staff Report addressing the Materials and Colors. Vice Chairman Bullard asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Steve Harriman stated that he is in agreement with staff recommendation. Commissioner Neff inquired about the height of the sign, excluding the cap. Mr. Harriman responded 6 feet. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the size of the current sign. Assistant Planner Villa responded 6 feet. Condition number 3, requested clarification by adding the following language "by means of line of sight or otherwise ". Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 3, stating that his concern is with the past problems on the Sign Program for this center and wants specifics spelled out. Suggested condition number 3 be amended by adding language "that staff or the applicant design a site plan depicting the specific area and have that subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee ". Vice Chairman Bullard requested the addition of the following condition: "All sandwich or hinge signs currently being used Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1993 Page 2 AMENDMENT #1 TO THE REVISED SIGN PROGRAM FOR FOUR CORNERS PLAZA at the location will be removed and no longer used. Also, banners may be used per Ordinance, but sandwich and outside banners are to be removed once the sign is completed." Assistant Planner Villa stated that these signs can be restricted to the front of the store. Discussion ensued on the whether or not the proposed condition could be added legally as the Municipal Code allows said signs; A -frame signage being used on permanent basis; verbiage for signs; this being a Code Enforcement problem throughout the City, and elimination of the problem once the sign is installed. Commissioner Wilsey suggested the addition of a condition to indicate to the owners that through Code Enforcement we will be following the strictest policy of temporary signage. Commissioner Gilenson stated the appropriate mechanism is for the Commission to direct staff to send a memo out to the property owner and each individual business saying this is our current sign program you are in violation /not in violation and we will strictly enforce. Vice Chairman Bullard stated that he agrees and instructed staff to do so. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE AMENDMENT #1 TO THE REVISED SIGN PROGRAM FOR FOUR CORNERS PLAZA BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 3: The Center Identification Sign shall be constructed no closer than five feet (51) from any property line, nor be located in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic by means of line of sight or otherwise. A site plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director or designee for approval. 2. Residential Project 93 -2 and Models - Elsinore Homes - Associate Planner De Gange presented a request for Design Review of two models which initially are to be put into production on eight lots, located near the intersection of Grand Avenue and Ontario Way. Vice Chairman Bullard asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Wes Keusder, applicant, stated he agrees with staff recommendation. He requested consideration be given on the garage size - -off by 6 inches, condition number 26. He then stated that they had planned on four models, but due to economics only proposing two, requested that they start with the 3rd or 4th plan after production of 15 or 20 units. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 26, wants it to remain as written; condition number 34 relates back to TTM 24138, condition number 6, CC & R's and enforceability; condition number 30, agrees with staff. Discussion ensued on condition number 30, applicant's request and the reason behind said request; building out of sequence Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1993 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 93 -2 AND MODELS gives the flexibility to control, and plotting approval. Commissioner Neff suggested the addition of a condition or modification of condition 30, granting a total of 15 production units, but reserve plotting among those vacant lots for future construction. Associate Planner De Gange stated that if the applicant submitted a plotting plan illustrating some staggering, and if plottings were spread throughout the tract believes this would eliminate the problem. Staff could monitor so there would not be a concentration. Discussion ensued on how to word this as a condition; and condition the applicant to bring in a plotting plan which has to be approved. Commissioner Neff suggested that condition 30 be modified by adding "As an alternative, building permits for a total of 15 production units may be approved subject to the approval of a plot plan." Commissioner Gilenson suggested that condition 30 be modified by adding "7 additional production units may be allowed subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee." Associate Planner De Gange requested the condition contain verbiage that these models shall avoid being concentrated in one area and shall be staggered or spaced so that when future models are proposed they can be interspersed. Commissioner Neff commented on condition number 31, regarding the stucco surrounds, and inquired whether this prohibits wood trim, or combinations. Associate Planner De Gange responded that we could say whatever is consistent with the model's front elevation. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 93 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 30: Prior to issuance of any building permit other than the two proposed models and the eight production units, the applicant shall submit an additional model or models for Design Review approval for production on the remaining 62 lots within Tract 24138. Seven (7) addi- tional production units may be allowed and shall be staggered or spaced to avoid concentration in one area, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. Condition No. 31: All windows for all elevations greater than one (1) square foot in size shall be framed with stucco or wood surrounds to be consistent with the front elevations and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 1993 Page 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS Assistant Planner Villa reminded the Commission of the Workshop scheduled for March 18, 1993, at 3:30 p.m., at City Hall in Conference Room B. Associate Planner De Gange reported on the Cape of Good Hope Committee meeting held on March 11, 1993. He then informed the Commission that another meeting will be announced in the near future. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like to sit in on the next meeting. He then inquired whether anything had been worked out with the Engineering Department with regard to public versus private streets. Associate Planner De Gange responded there has been some discussion, but does not believe an agreement has been reached. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he wants to see another usable entrance /exit street into the project. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Absent. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:48 p.m., motion by Commissioner Gilenson second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 4 -0 Approved, Richard Bullard, Vice Chairman Res ctful /ly�`Si- u'bmitttteedd, inda1Gri dsta4� ff v� Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 7TH DAY OF APRIL 1993 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Vice Chairman Bullard. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff, Wilsey, Bullard, and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Neff referred to PUBLIC COMMENTS stating this should reflect Vice Chairman Bullard not Chairwoman Brinley. Moved by Commissioner Neff, Second by Commissioner Bullard and carried by a vote of 3 to 0, with Chairwoman Brinley abstaining, to approve Minutes of March 17, 1993, with the above correction. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Specific Plan 90 -1 Amendment #1 - McArthur Glenn - Chairwoman Brinley stated it has been requested that this item be continued and called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -1 AMENDMENT #1 TO MAY 19, 1993. 2. Surface Mining 92 -1; Reclamation Plan 92 -1 and Conditional Use Permit 92 -7 - Halloran & Associates - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for approval of a Mining and Reclamation Plan, required by State Law and City Ordinance 897, and Condi- tional Use Permit in accordance with Section 17.06 (Resources Overlay District of the Municipal Code. The subject site consists of approximately 423 acres, located on the north side of the intersection of Interstate 15 and Lake Street. Assistant Planner Villa then informed the Commission of the letter received from The Resources Agency of California, Department of Conservation commenting on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Their main concern was on the required biological assessment to be completed later on. He then referred to the Memorandum dated April 7th, amending Condition Number 15, as follows: 15. A biological assessment will be required prior to issuance of grading permit to assess the biological impacts of mining on the site and recommend mitigation measures to reduce impacts on animals and plants to levels of insignificance. If the biological assessment identifies areas where impacts cannot be reduced to levels of insignificance, the applicant shall amend the mining /reclamation plan to leave these areas undisturbed. This biological assessment shall be reviewed and accepted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1993 Page 2 SURFACE MINING 92 -1: RECLAMATION PLAN 92 -1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -7 CONTINUED no written communications. She then stated she would like the letter from the Department of Conservation dated March 29, 1993 and received on April 7, 1993, and on file, regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project be entered for the record. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Robert Snodgrass, representing Halloran & Associates, stated they concur with the Staff Report. He then referred to the model and highlighted the operation. 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 anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would like to discuss the following items and have comments and input from the table on each individual item. He then commented as follows: • Haul Road, applicant to develop a plan for clean -up of the 500 foot entryway, or areas appropriate to this facility, on a regular basis and this keyed to volume, and also tied in with a water truck. Commissioner Neff referred to condition number 22, requiring the applicant to post a bond for the repair and rehabilitation of Walker Canyon Road, perhaps this relates to that - -we could expand it. Commissioner Wilsey responded it doesn't relate to that unless we expand it. Chairwoman Brinley suggested that this be added as condition 22.a. Discussion ensued on the frequency of clean -up, and this being subject to the Community Development Director or designee. Mr. Snodgrass responded that they have no problem with this. He then detailed their clean up procedures for the related operation, across the street. • Applicant to develop a program in conjunction with the City to offer to our community the acceptance and storage of broken asphalt and concrete. Commissioner Bullard commented on the City's contract with the trash collection agency and whether it calls out acceptance of this type of fill, re -use and resale. Commissioner Wilsey asked that staff check into this. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated that he does not believe the contract with CR & R covers the pick -up and disposal of concrete and asphalt. Commissioner Bullard stated he believes they would have to provide a collection place, and would like staff to check into this. Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1993 Page 3 SURFACE MINING 92 -1• RECLAMATION PLAN 92 -1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -7 CONTINUED Mr. Snodgrass responded they would be more than happy to take the City's broken asphalt and concrete. He then explained that AB 939, requires local governments to reduce their land- fill trash hauling by fifty percent. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he is asking for the develop- ment of a program that would work for both parties, applicant and City. He then stated he would like the storage site available to the community on Saturday. Chairwoman Brinley commented on making this a tentative condition, at this point. Commissioner Bullard stated he would like to see them offer the same situation, excellent idea. Also, it is a different collection point. Commissioner Neff asked Commissioner Wilsey whether he was contemplating that the Saturday drop off be a manned facility. Commissioner Wilsey responded they would have to set their hours, assumes they are open on Saturday. Mr. Snodgrass responded that they are not open on Saturday, but would be amenable to - -if it is just a matter of someone coming in an dumping - -it probably wouldn't take that much manpower to facilitate and we could have someone in the scale house. We have no problem with the Saturday dumps. Commissioner Neff commented that people may be dumping all kinds of trash, if unmanned. Commissioner Wilsey responded this is why he suggested that the program we worked up in conjunction with the City. They know their working parameters and we do not want to create a burden on them, but we want it available to our community. He then suggested that this be added as condition 15.a. Mr. Snodgrass stated what they do now is, if this recycle demolition waste is the City's from tearing up roads and such, we generally take that in free. But we have a fee for private individuals, and this covers our cost for the Saturday. Commissioner Wilsey informed Mr. Snodgrass that this should be built into their program. Quarry products are normally quarried in this area and billed through your general office; for sales tax purposes, would like to suggest, if necessary, a program be implemented where the invoice has a Lake Elsinore address, recommended this be added as condition 15.b. Mr. Snodgrass stated, it is his understanding, that sales tax is generated from the point of sale, and the point of sale would be on the property. • Condition number 20, would like to amend to require an entry statement where the haul road is. Would like to see landscaping of that entry statement and adequate landscaping to take care of the visibility problems at the entry way, and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1993 Page 4 SURFACE MINING 92 -1; RECLAMATION PLAN 92 -1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -7 CONTINUED Mr. Snodgrass stated they had that entryway landscaped, at one point, and believes the drawings to be their possession. Chairwoman Brinley inquired about including the standard condition for landscape bonding for one year. Commissioner Wilsey responded normal bonding. Commissioner Neff commented on condition number 24 requirement for bond in the amount equal to the cost of completing the remaining reclamation, and whether an amount has been established. Assistant Planner Villa responded in the negative, stating that we have to work with the State Department of Mines and Geology. Community Development Manager Shear stated this is State regulated; giving a certain amount based off of what operation they do to reclaim that portion. Commissioner Bullard stated that Commissioner Wilsey addressed his concerns on the entryway and haul road. He then commented on condition number 19, pertaining to hydroseeding of graded slopes prior to the rainy season. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the secondary batch plant, stating she would like to see those areas designated now. Mr. Snodgrass stated he believes those are designated on the plans. Commissioner Wilsey stated they are shown as alternates, correct? Mr. Snodgrass responded in the affirmative. Chairwoman Brinley inquired whether they would be varying from that. Mr. Snodgrass responded in the negative. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion, asking for individual motions. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE SURFACE MINING PERMIT AND RECLAMATION PLAN 92 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 15. A biological assessment will be required prior to issuance of grading permit to assess the biological impacts of mining on the site and recommend mitigation measures to reduce impacts on animals and plants to levels of insignificance. If the biological assessment identifies areas where impacts cannot be reduced to levels of insignificance, the applicant shall amend the mining/ reclamation plan to leave these areas undisturbed. This biological assessment shall be reviewed and accepted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1993 Page 5 SURFACE MINING 92 -1: RECLAMATION PLAN 92 -1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -7 CONTINUED a) Applicant to develop a program in conjunction with the City to offer to the community acceptance and storage of broken asphalt and concrete, with the storage site available to the community on Saturday. Also, acceptance of asphalt and concrete from City Capital Improvement construction projects at no cost to the City. b) If necessary, develop and implement a program where the invoice has a Lake Elsinore address, for sales tax purposes. Condition No. 20: Access roads into site shall be paved five hundred (5001) feet from connection to Walker Canyon Road. Provide an entry statement at haul road and adequate landscaping to alleviate visibility problems at the entry way, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition No. 22.a: Applicant to develop a plan for clean -up of the haul road and the 500 foot entry- way, or areas appropriate to this facility including the ingress and egress (on /off ramps) portions of the Freeway on Lake Street, on a regular basis and this shall be keyed to volume, and also tied in with a water truck, and subject to the Community Development Director or designee. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -7 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT AND RECLAMATION PLAN 92 -1. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Community Development Manager Shear introduced Harold "Chip" Leslie, Interim City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1993 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Welcomed Chip aboard. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:41 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 4 -0 Pam Br nleSr, Chairrcman Respectful S bmitted, Linda Grin staf Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING 21ST DAY OF APRIL 1993 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff, Wilsey, Bullard, and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Wilsey referred to Page 5, condition number 22.a. needs clarification. My intent was, that this condition would include up to and including the ingress and egress portions of the Freeway on Lake Street. They would be responsible for clean -up of the haul road, the 500 foot entryway, and also those portions that would be affected up to the on /off ramps at Lake Street. Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Wilsey and carried by a vote of 4 to 0 to approve Minutes of April 7, 1993, with the above clarification to condition number 22.a. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit Commerce - Assistant conduct rodeo events Grounds off Franklin years. Pursuant to (CEQA) the request is Exemption. 93 -2 - Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Planner Villa presented a request to and related activities at the Rodeo Street, the request is for three (3) California Environmental Quality Act a Class 23, Section 15323, Categorical Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Tom Hundshamer, representing the Chamber of Commerce, requested the following amendments: Page 2 of Staff Report, Major Events, the Sierra Circuit is not put on by the Chamber, it is put on by Western Classic and this should be stricken. Requested that the word "major" be added to condition number 2, 5, 9, 13 and 14. Condition number 3, this $400.00 was based on $80.00 per event, major event; submitted to the City so that they can go out and inspect the grounds and etc. But that was based on the 5 major events listed on Page 2, and if the Sierra Circuit is deleted that leaves 4. What we would like, instead of submitting one payment yearly, is to pay as we go. Condition number 7, requested the word "exclusively" be changed to "main sponsor ". Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1993 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -2 CONTINUED Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. The following persons spoke: Aggie Goodacre, Treasurer for the Chamber of Commerce, commented on the 3 year lease they have on the property; the financial burden created with applying for separate permits for each event, and; the previous Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and their upcoming events. Gay Pfeiffer, 17441 Ryan, stated that the community needs it and it will be good for the community. Frances Whitney, 32700 Riverside Drive, commented on the events that are being done for the young people in the City and surrounding communities. Hopes this CUP is approved. Walt Ernest, Rodeo Chairman, stated they have put on more events and taken children off the streets on the weekend and during the daylight hours. We need this CUP to continue the High School Rodeo, Play Days and the Barrel Racing. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Councilman George Alongi, 629 Mill Street, commented on the previous CUP, temporary for 3 years with an annual review, and this request is temporary for 3 years. He quoted the grounds for not granting a CUP; stating he would like to see some commitment from the Chamber that, in the future, they purchase some property - -there is property available along Mission Trail. We could relocate the Rodeo Grounds and I'm sure the City would assist the Chamber in the movement. He stated he was not opposed to the rodeo or events; however, the community surrounding the rodeo has grown - -we have a school, playground, houses are being built there, and many children in the area. He expressed concern on the amount of dust created and the traffic circulation on Franklin Street, the Avenues, High and Mill Streets. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Neff commented on condition number 1, this being a temporary CUP, not permanent, and the CUP could be revoked at some future date if there is a problem. Inquired whether there were any conditions addressing Mr. Alongi's concerns on traffic and dust control. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the location of the Rodeo Grounds on Franklin and there being no homes in close proximity, and location of the school. Discussion ensued on the location of the school; timing of events and the events being conducted on weekends. Commissioner Bullard stated that Mr. Hundshamer answered a few of his questions. He then commented on: • Condition number 1, time frame, suggested 1 year rather than 3 years, because we do not have a commitment from Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1993 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -2 CONTINUED the Chamber to find additional lands. Inquired about plans for future land procurement. Mr. Hundshamer responded that this has been one of his projects since June 1992, find an alternate location that could become permanent. We haven't found one yet - -the price, location or zoning is not right, but we are looking for permanent grounds. Unless the City builds the stadium they are talking about and eventually Frontier Days can be put on there, but doubt if the smaller events could be held there. We are looking for land and as soon as we find it we will be moving the grounds. Discussion ensued on the time frame and whether the Chamber would be agreeable to a 1 year CUP and come back before the Commission for annual review. If during the annual review the Community Development Manager finds a problem it would be brought back before the Commission for consideration and could be revoked at that time, if necessary. Commissioner Bullard suggested the addition of the following language to condition number 1: "The Chamber shall present to the Community Development Manager during the yearly review a listing of property considered and any purchase offers ". Condition number 10, would like verbiage added "or taken off the grounds or designated drinking areas ". Condition number 12, who will be attending the first aid station and what are their qualifications? Mr. Ernest responded Goodhew Ambulance will be there for the High School Rodeo and Play Days events. Chairwoman Brinley stated they have paramedics, correct? Mr. Ernest responded in the affirmative. • Condition number 17, would like the language "one week prior to any event" removed and replaced with "year round ground maintenance including weeding and dust control ". • Condition number 24, there is no statement on posting how far prior to the event. Would like staff to check into this, believes there is an ordinance, and have a time limit or time put in prior to the events. • Major concern is on Finding #5, property on the opposite side of Franklin is owned by other individuals, have they been contacted? Will they be contacted? If their property is being used will they be reimbursed? Knows this is a negotiation between the Chamber and individual. Mr. Hundshamer responded all properties that are currently being used - -the ones across on Franklin Street, the property owners are aware of their use. I have in the Chamber's records letters from those property owners giving us permission to use the property in exchange for maintenance and weed abatement on the property. Chairwoman Brinley asked that copies of these letters and agreements be submitted to the City for the case file. Mr. Hundshamer responded that he would submit copies. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1993 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -2 CONTINUED • Condition number 3, yearly fee and the applicant's request. Discussion ensued on the fees to process a CUP, the yearly fees collected covers staff time for review and inspections; this fee being an addition to the fee deposit and whether these fees are refundable. Commissioner Wilsey stated the basic criteria of a City is exactly the same as a Chamber to promote the community and, in so doing, we need to work in harmony. He then commented on the following: • Condition number 1, no problem with the one year. • Condition number 3, no problem with the $80.00 fee rather than the $400.00. • Condition number 5, regarding the traffic control plan and the need to come up with a precise plan to try and alleviate traffic on the Avenues, this should be a definite part of the plan. • Condition number 9, regarding electrical permits, this is making sure all electrical permits have been pulled and complied with, correct? Community Development Manager Shear responded that most electrical permits have been pulled. Sometimes, for each event, an outlet has to be added /moved or more is power needed; so each time they have to come in and get a permit. • Condition number 13, doesn't agree with the applicant's request, adding the word major. Believes security should be adequately supplied on minor and major events. Commissioner Bullard stated he agrees, but they have some events on a weekly basis, and believes they could send a document to the Sheriff's Department for the entire month. Commissioner Wilsey stated that condition number 13 can be altered to include verbiage that this plan will be reviewed and subject to Community Development Manager's approval. • Condition number 17, brush, weeds and dust control. Inquired whether Councilman Alongi was referring to dust control when an event was not being held, correct? Councilman Alongi responded in the affirmative. Discussion ensued on condition number 17, with regard to dust control and the recommendation for year round maintenance which includes weed and dust control. Commissioner Wilsey suggested that condition number 17 be amended by adding: "Develop a program to take care of all weeds, brush and etc. This program shall address the dust control problem and how to alleviate, and shall be submitted to the Community Development Manager for review and approval ". Chairwoman Brinley stated she feels the same as Commissioner Wilsey. The Chamber does a lot to help promote the City. She then commented on the 3 year time frame and the 1 year Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1993 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -2 CONTINUED review, with the inclusion of a listing of property being considered. Believes this will help resolve some of the issues raised. Commissioner Bullard reiterated his concern on condition number 3, pertaining to the yearly fee, stating he was not against the Chamber putting on any program that benefits the community, but wants the community to be aware of costs that are associated with putting on programs. There being no further discussion Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 1: This Conditional Use Permit will be effective for three (3) years and subject to yearly review by the Community Development Manager. Upon expiration, it may be extended subject to Planning Commission approval. The Chamber shall present documentation of their efforts to acquire alternative sites for the activities, in the nature of purchase offers or a listing of properties considered, to the Community Development Manager during the yearly review. Condition No. 2: Thirty (30) days prior to any major event, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Manager (in writing) that such event will take place. Condition No. 3: The applicant shall pay $80.00 for each major event. This fee shall be reviewed on an annual basis. The fee will ensure that the conditions of approval are met prior to any major event. Condition No. 5: The applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan for each major event including the annual parade associated with the Frontier Days Rodeo. This Traffic Control Plan shall include a plan to alleviate traffic on the Avenues and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Traffic Engineer. Condition No. 7: This Conditional Use Permit shall only cover events where the Chamber of Commerce is the main sponsor. All other sponsors shall comply with Section 17.98 (Temporary Outdoor Activities) of the Municipal Code. Condition No. 9: Secure temporary electrical permits and applicable building permits from the Building Division for inspection of all electrical equipment and arrange for a full site inspection no later than one week prior to any major event. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1993 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -2 CONTINUED Condition No. 10: Signs should be posted at the entry to the Rodeo Grounds, and in the parking areas, stating that no alcoholic beverages can be brought into the grounds, or taken off the grounds or designated drinking areas. Condition No. 12: A First Aid Station shall be present in case of minor injuries. Goodhew Ambulance Service with paramedics will be providing the first aid service. Condition No. 13: At least thirty (30) days prior to any event, enter into an agreement with the Sheriff's Department to provide for security and approval of event. Evidence of compliance shall be provided to the City that this agreement has been reached no later than one week before any event. A plan for security services shall be provided for minor and major events, and subject to approval of the Community Development Manager. Condition No. 14: Provide proof that applicant has met all County Health Department requirements no later than one week prior to any major event. Condition No. 17: Develop a dust control program and a program to cut and remove all brush, weeds, litter and similar combustibles on a year round basis, such program being subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Manager. A thirty - foot (301) wide disked area shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all parking areas. Condition No. 24: Barricades will be placed on Franklin Street and Conklin Avenue to close the street off to traffic and prevent people from proceeding. Chamber to submit to the Community Development Manager a list outlining the details of timing of the parking for traffic control prior to event. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Community Development Manager Shear provided an update on Robert Christen's medical condition. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Neff Informed the Commission that due to a family member's illness, he will be out of the state the first two weeks in May, and will not be present at the May 5th meeting. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1993 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsev Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:58 p.m., motion by Commissioner Bullard, second by Chairwoman Brinley. Approved 4 -0 iian Res tfully Sub itted, L' da Grind aff Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 5TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MAY 1993 Wilsey, Bullard, and Brinley Neff Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Senior Planner Morita, Associate Planner De Gange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Second by Commissioner Bullard and carried by a vote of 3 to 0 to approve Minutes of April 21, 1993, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 27659 - Oak Grove Equities - Associate Planner De Gange presented a request to subdivide 49.2 acres into 9 commercial lots within the Elsinore City Center Specific Plan area. The site is located at the southeast portion of the intersection of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Glen Daigle, representing Oak Grove, stated the civil engineer is also present and they will 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 anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Bullard commented on division of the property, timing, the reason being to develop at a faster rate and obtain financing. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27659 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 2. Specific Plan 92 -1 and Tentative Tract Map 27223 - Friendly Group 7 (K.S. Chen) - Associate Planner De Gange presented the Cape of Good Hope Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map 27223. He detailed the concerns raised by neighborhood residents and the meetings held with the special committee comprised of Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 2 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 neighborhood residents, and the modifications made to the project. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported written communication was received from Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone, dated May 4, 1993, law firm representing the Lake Elsinore Unified School District, requesting the project be conditioned to require the applicant and the District to enter into a mitigation agreement prior to recordation of the final map. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Fred Crowe, Keith Companies, representing the applicant, stated their firm prepared the Specific Plan document and the tentative map. He stated that Dr. Chen is in agreement with the conditions, and will answer any questions that may arise. Mr. Eric Doering, of Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone, referenced their letter, stated that staff informed him of the condition requiring the developer to reach an agreement with the School District; therefore, would withdraw opposition. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. The following people spoke in opposition: Joann Siminoff, 3572 Cherry Blossom Lane, Chairwoman of the committee for the residents; expressed concern on the key system on Cherry /Apple Blossom Lane; drainage system and easements; jurisdiction should the homeowners association fail; requested during construction that no construction equipment be allowed to use Cherry or Apple Blossom Lane, and; when the actual construction of the pads occurs that they be hydroseeded and planted to prevent soil erosion. Richelle Noble, 3537 Pear Blossom Lane, opposed to entry/ exit on Cherry Blossom Lane. The developer should be required to install storm drains to take water run -off from the new tract out to the main storm drain and reduce the density. The Environmental Impact Report did not adequately address hillside failure or boulder roll -out, submitted photographs of the proposed site, stating the developer should be required to have another Environ- mental Study done by a third party to show whether the land can safely support the use. Eric Trygstad, 3401 Apple Blossom Lane, expressed concern on hillside development and requested the tract be re- designed or a new Environmental Study prepared. George Thompson, 3635 Cherry Blossom Lane, the proposed gate will be in front of my driveway, expressed concern on the decrease in property values and hillside development with regard to protection for property owners. Belinda Nabonne, 3393 Apple Blossom Lane, expressed concern on the decrease in property values and views- - back yards will face our front yards; points of entry, requested verification that Mountain at Robb Road will be the only point of entry. There is a rumor of a road at Date and Apple Blossom Lane. Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 3 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 Jim Bryant, 3588 Cherry Blossom Lane, expressed concern on off -site improvements, safety and hillside development. Alan Moore, 3457 Cherry Blossom Lane, expressed concern on the density and hillside development. Leroy Tucker, 3532 Cherry Blossom, expressed concern on the gate on Cherry Blossom Lane and requested this gate be a guarded gate. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley stated she was in attendance at the meetings with the committee members; the problems on Cherry Blossom and the slopes were addressed -- crib - walling and maintenance of slopes. She then asked Mr. Crowe to address some of the concerns raised. Mr. Crowe addresses the following concerns: • Drainage, explained that it is more desirable to run the water on the surface to Terra Cotta, but if there is a problem with the purchase of the easement then it is planned to place the storm drain system under the street and it is conditioned that way. • Entry, explained they are not proposing any changes on any existing streets. Date Street will not be used as a point of entry. • Gate, explained the type of lock and gate proposed and that it will not be opened for any access other than emergency and who will have keys, and; penalties included in the homeowners agreement if this gate is opened by unauthorized individuals. • Slopes, explained that the slopes are reasonably stable now; there are a few places where there has been some sloughing off of rock and its granular material. Once Mountain Street is extended through the project the amount of flows are turned and will go down Mountain Street and reduce the existing flows. The project will be monitored by soils specialists through the total grading operation and they will make recommendations as they go through the project should they find an area that is less stable. • Street and off -site improvements, explained the reason for wanting a specific plan on the site was to cluster or confine the developed areas because of the steep terrain and wanting to handle the terrain in a special manner, to minimize grading. The project does have curb and paving. There were no sidewalks proposed, explaining that sidewalks would add 10 -12 feet to the width of the road and 18 feet further out that the slopes would need to extend at the 1.5 to 1 slopes. Chairwoman Brinley asked City Planner Leslie to address the homeowner association failure and the City's recourse, and the discussion at the meeting regarding possible condition. Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 4 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 City Planner Leslie stated that he was unsure if the City has any recourse. The City can attempt to take over the maintenance; however, since the streets are private they do not meet City standards and for that reason would not be acceptable to the City for maintenance. Associate Planner De Gange stated he recalls the Public Services Director commenting on the City's role should the homeowner association fail and there are certain techniques that the City routinely uses in terms of bonding. Associate Planner De Gange informed the Commission that condition number 53 addresses the concern on the pads if graded and left vacant. Chairwoman Brinley asked Engineering Manager O'Donnell to address the street closure. Believes it was discussed that when Mountain was opened -up going on to Terra Cotta that it would be blocked off with a block wall and landscaped and closed off permanently. Mr. Crowe, responded that he was not sure the block wall was discussed. We may choose to remove the drive approaches and install the same type of landscaping that would be on the adjoining slopes rather than the block wall. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated that the emergency access into the project would look like a normal driveway approach on both sides, Cherry Blossom and the tract's street, with the gate on -site. Commissioner Bullard commented on: • Condition number 8, pertaining to slopes. Asked Mr. Crowe whether there was a means of insuring or bonding that property and homeowners in adjacent areas of any financial loss. Bonding during construction a must. Mr. Crowe responded that he did not know. Discussion ensued on bonding; the homeowner association agreement being subject to City approval and include bonding in the agreement, and mechanism to insure future residents added as a condition. It was the consensus of the Commission to deferred this to the City Attorney for review. • Condition number 10, no Xeriscape or landscaping. Recommended this condition be amended to include Xeriscape and landscaping. • Condition number 14, CC & R's for satellite disk in front yard. Recommended the following verbiage be added "street side or visible from line of sight from surrounding neighbors or adequate landscape screening ". • Recommended the following be added as condition 54, construction equipment shall not use Cherry Blossom Lane and will use Mountain Street ingress /egress only. Construction equipment will only be on Cherry Blossom Lane to build the storm drainage system. Time line for installation of storm drainage and the size. Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 5 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 Discussion ensued on the time line for installation of storm drain and if it becomes necessary to add a storm run -off pipe down Cherry Blossom Lane, at the time of completion, the street will be re -paved curb -to -curb, this added to condition number 52. • Proposed gate and what insurance is provided that the extension property can be acquired; contact people on Mountain Avenue over to Terra Cotta. Mr. Crowe stated they are attempting to acquire grading permission and drainage acceptance easements. When, and if, that property develops the City will condition the extension of that roadway at that development; this gives the land owner the most versatility in order to develop his property and the City still has the obligation to extent that when the property is developed. Commissioner Wilsey commented on: • Hillsides, dislike of the 1.5 to 1 slopes, and why the standard 2 to 1 would be better or worse than the 1.5 to 1 as proposed in the Specific Plan. Engineering Manager O'Donnell explained that normally 2 to 1 slopes are fairly stable and a geotechnical engineer must provide confirmation on anything steeper. He then detailed the geotechnical backup material requirements. Whether a combination- -crib wall and 2 to 1 above the crib wall, would be feasible? Engineering Manager O'Donnell however, when you put a slope as bad as a 1.5 to l slope. responded in the affirmative; above a crib wall that could be Condition number 10, landscaping, planting and irrigation of 1.5 to 1 slopes. Whether it is practical or feasible to landscape the hillsides, reference the extension of Grand Avenue between Robb Road and Lincoln. Suggested deletion of the words "on individual lots ", that would encompass all lots, and add subject to review and approval by the City's Landscape Architect. Engineering Manager O'Donnell responded that certain types of vegetation has to be used, which will control erosion. • Visibility of rear yards from lower streets, and slopes in this area. Mr. Crowe detailed the street and design layout. Chairwoman Brinley commented on: • Condition number 17, suggested the following verbiage be added "construction not to start before 7:00 a.m. and cease at 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday ". • The safest way to close off the secondary access permanently, Mountain Avenue, reference condition number 51. Engineering Manager O'Donnell responded to remove the driveway approach, install a cul -de -sac and a six inch curb or a slope could be placed there. Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 6 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 Chairwoman Brinley stated she would like to see a cul -de -sac, and asked Mr. Crowe if there would be a problem with the cul- de -sac. Mr. Crowe stated that right now, the proposal is to remove the driveways and includes removing the depressions and putting standard curb on both streets. It would be the same configura- tion on Apple /Cherry Blossom and straight curb through on Mountain. Chairwoman Brinley suggested that condition number 51 be amended to reflect a cul -de -sac and landscaping if required. Commissioner Wilsey asked what can be done to lessen the impacts on this community with regard to the cul -de -sac and the emergency access. Discussion ensued on alternatives to less the impacts and landscaping as a viable alternative. Commissioner Wilsey suggested the following verbiage be added to condition number 51 "the emergency access entrance to Cherry Blossom shall be landscaped with turf blocks and hydroseeded ". MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -1, AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 8: All manufactured slopes greater than 30 feet in height shall be contour graded. All cut and fill grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer and all slopes steeper than 2:1 will require a slope stability report. Applicant to post appropriate bonds for certification of slopes (to cover damages attributed to slope failure) , which is to be review by the City Attorney for legality and feasibility. Condition No. 10: Slopes an individual lets that are in excess of three -feet (31) in height shall be landscaped and irrigation shall be installed by the developer, and where feasible Xeriscape shall be utilized, and subject to review and approval by the City's Landscape Architect. Condition No. 14: CC & R's shall also include verbiage prohibiting on- street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers and trucks over one (1) ton capacity. CC & R's shall also include screening any ground base satellite disk from street side or visible from line of sight from surrounding neighbors or adequate landscape screening provided, and no roof - mounted or front yard satellite disk shall be allowed. Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 7 SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223 Condition No. 17: The City's Noise Ordinance must be met during all site preparation activity. Construction shall not commence before 7:00 a.m. and cease at 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be modified to reflect said condition. Condition No. 51: The applicant shall provide for permanent secondary access from the easterly boundary of the tract that will connect to Terra Cotta across APN 389 - 190 -002. The connection to Terra Cotta will take place when APN 389 - 190 -002 is developed, in the interim, emergency secondary access shall be provided to Cherry Blossom Lane, the connection shall be turf block with appropriate landscape; this secondary access shall only be used for emergencies and it shall have a locked gate to be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department and the City Engineer. This secondary access shall be permanently closed by means of a cul -de -sac when the access to Terra Cotta is constructed. Condition No. 52: Storm runoff from the easterly boundary of the site must drain to a drainage easement through APN 389 - 190 -002 to a natural water course. If it becomes necessary to add a storm drain pipe down Cherry Blossom Lane, the street will be re -paved curb -to -curb where the pipe is placed the street. Condition No. 54: Construction equipment shall not use Cherry Blossom Lane and will use Mountain Street for access to the site. Construction equipment will only be on Cherry Blossom Lane to build the storm drainage system. AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 93 -4, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 93 -4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -1 (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE) FRIENDLY GROUP VII At this time, 8:30 p.m. the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:38 p.m. the Commission reconvened. Specific Plan 93 -3, Environmental Impact Report 93 -3 and Development Agreement - Eastlake Community Builders /City of Lake Elsinore - City Planner Leslie stated that he would keep his report brief and would request that the Commission allow representatives of East Lake Community Builders to present the project in more detail. He then explained the project is a 3,000 acre master planned community containing a diverse mix of residential, commercial, open space and public uses, the site is generally bounded by Lakeshore Drive on the north, Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 8 SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3 Mission Trail and Corydon Road on the east, the city boundary line on the south, and the shoreline of the Lake on the west. Chairwoman Brinley referred to the memorandum requesting that the Development Agreement be continued to the meeting of May 19, 1993. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THE EAST LAKE DEVELOP- MENT AGREEMENT TO THE MEETING OF MAY 19, 1993. Mr. Dan Young, Managing General Partner of East Lake Communities Builders, gave a background report highlighting the desires to secure the Lake and create recreational and community uses over the years, and the coordination between all governmental agencies to make the project work. He then gave an overview of the Specific Plan and detailed the conceptual plan, amenities and mitigation with school district. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m., and presented for the record a letter from M. W. Haskell and Robert A. Vermillion concurring with the statements and concerns stated in Mr. Pribble's letter. She then asked for any further written communication. The Secretary reported the following written communication was received: Sportsman's Lodge, Gregory A. Block, requesting re- examination of the proposed zoning; Mr. Paul Pribble, Senior Project Engineer and Managing Director of Mentor Aviation, expressing numerous concern on the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report; Genevieve Craft (Alma Rafnsan) , expressing concern on quality of life with regard to air quality and health. Philip A. Manuell, in support of the project. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. The following persons spoke in favor: Rudolph Martin, stated any city or community should be grateful for such a development. This development will generate revenue that is needed. John Greenhut, 22629 Gearsen Avenue, Wildomar, Chairman of the new Wildomar Municipal Advisory Council, extended their full cooperation with the City on this project. In return, it is hoped that we would be invited to participate in decisions that concern the Wildomar community. He then expressed the following concerns on the Environmental Impact Report and the project itself: 1. Could support the project with a lower density alternative. 2. Construct impacted sections of the arterial infrastructure prior to beginning mass grading and /or construction activities, and believes the Certificate of Occupancy should be based on completion of the construction phasing. 3. Begin Cal Trans permit and plan check process immediately after project initiation. Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 9 SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3 4. Mitigate the loss of storm water retention capacity to the satisfaction of downstream residents in Wildomar, Murrieta and Temecula. 5. Provide the County of Riverside with a bond to ensure completion of infrastructure within Wildomar, but also a maintenance bond for roadway repairs during construction activities. 6. Insure that the project will generate enough revenue to support the school district, fire and police protection operations, not just the construction of the facilities. Carmela Loelkes, 23508 Gingerbread Drive, Murrieta, stated she has been involved with this project since 1983, representing Mr. Lehr, and worked with developers involved and everyone has to work as a group. Joanna Sherer, 20182 Hill Spring Road, Lake Elsinore ( Wildomar), recently elected to the new Wildomar Advisory Council, hopes that we can work together and believes this is a valuable project. Greg Block, 777 South Pacific Coast Highway, Solana Beach, representing property owner of the Sportsman's Lodge, stated that it is a fantastic project and something the City needs to get moving. He then submitted a letter reiterating their desire to retain commercial zoning. Fred Fienberg, 26361 Columbia Drive, Sun City, owns land in the floodplain, and all for the project. Jackson Helton, 33102 Lime Street, Lake Elsinore, owns land in the floodplain, hopes this project gets developed in the near future. Roger Chen, 20460 Summer Drive, Lake Mathews, owns property in floodplain, impressed with the project, there are some benefits for all land owners. Marylin Default, 31750 Machado Street,Lake Elsinore, all for the project, it is a fantastic and something the City needs. She then stated she received notification, but was not notified that her property on Lakeshore Drive would be involved, and would like to discuss this with staff. Janice Martin, 30650 Brookstone Lane, Lake Elsinore, in favor of the project, Elsinore has been asleep long enough. H. John Kelly, 14845 Amarose, Lake Elsinore, feels whatever needs to be worked out should be worked out. Should have something were we can draw people and the tax base grows which is needed. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. The following people spoke: Mr. Eric Doering, of Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone, stated it is his understanding that the School District Superintendent and Eastlake Communities Builders met this afternoon to discuss the issue of school mitigation. However, there has been no agreement reached or adequate condition to provide mitigation so must go on record Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 10 SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3 opposing the project at this time. He stated that the school district would be looking for agreements with each property owner or that the project itself be adequately conditioned. The school district proposes the following condition "Prior to approval of any tentative map for property within the Specific Plan, applicant shall have entered into a school impact mitigation agreement with the school district ". On this basis, if the project were conditioned with that condition we would remove out opposition. He then submitted a letter and copy of Resolution 93 -133 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 20, 1993. Mr. Paul Pribble, inquired about the approval of the Environmental Impact Report, and compliance with State and Federal Agencies requirements for a 404 Permit, and requirement for a EIS. Dick Knapp, 29690 Dawn Drive, Lake Elsinore, questioned the maps exhibited, they don't coincide. Questioned the wildlife preserve transfer and associated compaction problems, and location of schools. Against this concept, but would like to see a much better thorough presentation and with less housing. Katie Reidmeir, concern is with the wetlands and loss of wildlife, believes the wetlands should remain as they are; elevation of proposed homes around the golf course. In favor of all the other development. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. The following people spoke: Hank Ottway, District Engineer for Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, stated for the record they submitted comments in a letter dated April 15, 1993., and understands that the developer has already provided a response. Looks forward to working with the developer and City to resolve any issues regarding water and wastewater facilities. Phil Williams, P.O. Box 519, Lake Elsinore, not for or against the project; development for Elsinore is good and we need it. Concerns are: 1. We own the property next to Burger King which is marked for Open Space. No one has contacted us about it and we want to know what effect on our property is going to be. 2. Displacement of floodwaters. We want to make sure the Outflow Channel is adequate and can handle the flows or storage behind the dike; we own the property on the north side of the Lakeshore Bridge that is going to be constructed. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 9:39 p.m. She then asked Mr. Young to address the concerns raised. Mr. Young addressed the following concerns: • School Impact: What is before the Commission this evening are the land use documents which are within the control of Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 11 SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3 the local jurisdiction. Federal and State Agencies want local jurisdiction approval prior to their review. He detailed the procedure process and permit requirements. He then stated they will comply with each and every rule the school district has with regard to schools and a letter will be sent to the school district before May 25th. Chairwoman Brinley stated she would like the school district's letter regarding mitigation be added as a condition. • Conceptual Plan: When you do a master plan community of 3,000 acres you start with a concept plan. The concept plan is not hard line - -when the property is zoned it has to be hard lined so we translated that plan into that zone; so the lines do not tract because of the community, property owner and staff input. When we went to hard line that concept things moved, but in concept it is exactly the same plan. • Compaction: There is not a single house that is going to be built on any land that is not properly compacted. Any grading that is done will meet every modern test of geologic science, to ensure adequate compaction. • Wetlands: We simply proposed the habitat corridor, the one for one trade of land in the habitat corridor, for one reason and that is the Resource Agency said here a better way to approach a habitat corridor. So when we sit down with the Resource Agency and say here is our notion, interpreted as drawn in concept, do you still want to go forward with that, they will determined whether they see that as adequate. It is more or less their decision from the standpoint of the Department of Interior and Fish and Game. At that point in time, we will be consulting with surrounding property owners and they can express their opinion /concerns and also when the plan is presented to the Resource Agency for public hearing. • Notification of property owner: We have worked since April 1991 to find each and every property owner. There have been those occasions where we have a wrong address, the property was traded or something has happened. We will get together with the property owners and make sure that they are adequately briefed on the project. Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Young to comment on the pre - zoning, under the Specific Plan, as there have been inquiries from property owners in the area expressing concern. Mr. Young stated there is every opportunity for someone who owns a piece of property to come before the Commission/ Council and argue their case for a change of zone. You would be looking at it not only as a change of zone but in the context of the integrity of the overall Specific Plan. Mr. Young stated they have no objection to the Sportsman's Lodge retaining its commercial zoning, because of the unique nature of the property. Commissioner Bullard commented on the number of conditions placed on this project and a number of the conditions require compliance with all State and Federal requirements; letter received from the Army Corps of Engineering and response included in the Responses to Comments. Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 12 SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3 Commissioner Wilsey stated he was supportive of the project. Chairwoman Brinley inquired about the financing plan, and time line for the golf course, first phase. Mr. Young stated a detailed briefing of how financing plan works will be presented at the next meeting. In concept, we will be formulating a Community Facilities District and adding to that developers fees, the normal Community Facilities Financing and the Redevelopment tax increment. In terms of timing on the golf course, it is our intent to begin design as early as July. We believe it will take approximately twelve months to get through the flood control conditions and would hope to start by next summer. Chairwoman Brinley inquired about zoning of the property. Mr. Young stated they can not re -zone any property not owned by them without the full knowledge and participation of the underlying property owner. Commissioner Bullard stated he would like to see the school district's letter regarding mitigation be added as condition number 77. Mr. Eric Doering stated their concern with a letter is that Mr. Young and his group do not own the property; so a letter from him will not bind future development of the property. We are looking for either and agreement with each and every property owner, which is not possible, or a condition on the project, as suggested. Mr. Young stated what he means by a letter is not representa- tion of what they would do would be final by virtue of a letter. We want the benefit of a follow -up discussion, as we had with the superintendent, to say there are certain things that are very important to us to include. We are prepared to say to City Council, we will accept a condition for full mitigation. We will write a letter as to what our proposed additional language might be to the condition proposed and he will have that letter within the next seven working days. Chairwoman Brinley stated this will be added as condition number 77, and inquired about adding condition number 78 regarding the Sportsman's Lodge retaining its commercial zoning. Commissioner Wilsey suggested the zoning for the Sportsman's Lodge be referred back to the developer and staff for comment and suggestion prior to City Council hearing. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3, APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 77: Prior to approval of any tentative map for property within the Specific Plan, applicant shall have entered into a school impact mitigation agreement with Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 13 SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3 the school district. The developer shall submit a letter to the School District within seven (7) days (May 12, 1993) indicating any additional language. AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 93 -3, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 93 -3 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 CERTIFICATION OF EIR. 93 -3 AND APPROVAL OF EASTLAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS (EAST LAKE) SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 At this time, 10:15 p.m. the Commission recessed. At this time, 10:25 p.m. the Commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Commercial Project 92 -1 - Rancon Development (The Nadel Partnership, Inc.) - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Design Review of a retail commercial shopping center which includes a 54,698 square foot market; 127,600 square feet of retail stores; 14,000 square feet of restaurants, and gasoline /mini -mart with a carwash; a 25,810 square foot theater and associated improvements as proposed. Ten separate structures will comprise the entire shopping center. The project is called Lake Elsinore Plaza and located on the northwest corner of Collier and Central. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mrs. Martha Cannon, representing Rancon, questioned the block wall fencing along the Freeway, condition number 30, stating they have no problem with the height the main concern is with maintenance. Felt a better screen for.the loading docks would be chainlink with heavy landscaping.. Chairwoman Brinley commented on visibility from the freeway and this being an entry point into the City and feels it is necessary to have the block wall. She then informed Ms. Cannon that the City has a graffiti program. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 17, regarding the three -foot wood fence and suggested the condition be amended to read "all undeveloped building pads along Collier and Central Avenue shall be hydroseeded, irrigated and maintained by the developer until such time they are ready to be developed ". Commissioner Bullard referred to the conditions of approval and need to correct the numbering. He then commented on: • Whether the theater concept could be altered for another type of use; suggested a bowling alley in the event another theater should be built prior to construction of this phase. • Whether a major food chain was interested in any of the buildings. Ms. Cannon responded Dennys will be along Collier, Lot B. We have a signed lease, and our lease has a contingency for financing. Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 14 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 92 -1 • Letter from Aero Pro Manufacturing, Daniel Downer, regarding a storm drainage easement to cross his property. Inquired whether the applicant was working with the property owner. Ms. Cannon responded in the affirmative; explaining the parcel map is conditioned for a storm drain, which goes along future "B" Street, and that they are working with Mr. Downer and the Engineering Department to reach an agreement on an easement until such time "B" Street is dedicated. • Asked staff if there would be a problem with this running against the sewer system instead of parallel, as referenced in the letter. Ms. Cannon asked to address this issue as it was brought up at an engineering meeting, which the water district representa- tive was present, and stated he didn't think there would be a problem, but would have someone from his office check and if so we would have to move it over a foot or so. Chairwoman Brinley commented on: Condition number 1, extension of time, suggested this be subject to Community Development Manager. Whether the theater is a reality. Ms. Cannon responded that the theater will not happen for a while. We had a signed letter of intent with Cinemamark; however, there were financing problems and a concern with lack of residential development. She further stated that if a theater comes in to the south there will not be theater at this location. Construction time line. Ms. Cannon stated that they are having some problems and in this financing market it is difficult to say. Parking lot lighting. MOTION BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -5 AND APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL PROJECT 92 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH CORRECTION TO NUMBERING AND AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 1: Design Review approval for Commercial Project No. 92 -1 will lapse and be void unless building permits are issued within one (1) year of Planning Commission approval. An extension of time, up to one (1) year per extension, may be granted by the Planning Eemissia.� Community Development Manager prior to the expiration of the initial Design Review approval upon application by the developer one (1) month prior to expiration. Condition No. 17: All undeveloped building pads along Collier and Central Avenue shall be hydroseeded, irrigated and maintained by the developer until such time they are ready to be developed. Planning Commission May 5, 1993 Page 15 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Commented on the accomplishment this evening. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:46 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Bullard. Approved 3 -0 T oved B inley, i woman Res ectfully S bmitted, Linda Grin staff Secretary MINUTES 16.13MIXON Waal OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 19TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. MAY 1993 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Manager Shear. OATH OF OFFICE City Clerk Kasad issued Oath of Office to Daniel Metze, and he took his seat. 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, Engineering Manager O'Donnell and Administrative Services Director Boone. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Wilsey and carried by a vote of 3 to 0 with Commissioners Metze abstaining to approve Minutes of May 5, 1993, with the correction of the typographical error on Page 4, last line. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO TAKE THE AGENDA ITEMS OUT OF ORDER. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Tentative Tract Map 27317 - Western Desert Corp. - Chairwoman Brinley stated it has been requested that this item be continued and called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27317 FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 90 DAYS (8- 18 -93). Associate Planner De Gange explained staff's recommendation is to continue for a period not to exceed 90 days. If the applicant wishes to bring the project to hearing prior to the August 18, 1993 date he may do so. Chairwoman Brinley stated this will be noted for the record. I:hFff;�36X41Q0l36� 6. Residential Project 93 -3 (Duplex) - Roy Terrebonne ( Grage) - City Planner Leslie explained that due to issues raised by surrounding property owners dealing with General Plan consistency, land use compatibility and the road alignment staff requests this item be continued in order to resolve the issues. The applicant is in agreement with the continuation. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 TO CONTINUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 93 -3. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Variance 93 -1 - Peter J. Lehr (Cole and Frick Architects) - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for variance from Section 17.14.080 of the Municipal Code. The site is located at 108 Lewis Street. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Peter Lehr, Jr. 41871 Lemon Street, Murrieta, stated he 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 anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:17 p.m. Commissioner Bullard commented on the location; proposed fencing being compatible with the development, and the existence of such fencing in the surrounding area. Chairwoman Brinley stated she discussed this with an adjacent neighbor and they had no problem, and believes it will look nice. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 TO APPROVE VARIANCE 93 -1 BASED ON EXHIBIT "A" AND THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 1. Specific Plan 90 -1 Amendment #1 and Commercial Project 90 -6 Revised - McArthur /Glen (Continued from April 7, 1993) - Associate Planner De Gange explained that this item is an Amendment to revise the original Specific Plan by increasing the total building area from 297,235 square feet to 377,235 square feet, a gross increase of 80,000 square feet, and Design Review of two additional buildings which will be constructed on the northern end of the Outlet Center. The site is generally bounded by Nichols Road to the west, Collier Avenue to the south and I -15 to the north. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Kenny Smith, representing McArthur /Glen Group, gave a brief history on the Outlet Center development and highlighted the expansion of the site, and the Open Space Overlay over the wetland area. He then stated he 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 anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey stated this follows the basic format of the original Specific Plan and sees no problem. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 3 SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -1 AMENDMENT #1, COMMERCIAL 90 -6 REVISED CONTINUED Commissioner Bullard stated he feels the same as Commissioner Wilsey. He then commented on the Overlay area and inquired about the potential of finding additional wetland area. Mr. Smith explained that there is another piece of land, to the far south of the site, also a dedicated open space area, it is landscaped according to the Corp. of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Game standards, which is natural landscaping. If things are solved across the street the chances are very good; there is more land that the agencies would like to see made into higher quality wetlands across the street than are currently designated as the wetland park. Chairwoman Brinley stated she has worked on this project from its conception and it follows the Specific Plan, and it is an asset to the community. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -3 AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -6 REVISED BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 93 -5, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 93 -5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -1 AMENDMENT #1 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -3 FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE OUTLET CENTER (MCARTHUR GLEN) 5. Specific Plan 90 -2 Amendment #1 and 7 Tentative Tract Maps - TMC Development - Associate Planner De Gange explained that this item is an Amendment to the Specific Plan and 7 Tentative Tract Maps as part of Phase I of the North Peak Specific Plan project. He described the Tentative Tract Maps as follows: Tentative Tract Map 27270, a Master Developer (A) map subdividing Phase I of the North Peak Specific Plan Area (310 acres) into 12 lots for conveyance purposes. Tentative Tract Map 27271, a subdivision of 32 acres into 64 single- family residential lots. Tentative Tract Map 27272, a subdivision of 43 acres into 107 single - family residential lots. Tentative Tract Map 27273, a subdivision of 32 acres into 175 single - family residential lots. Tentative Tract Map 27275, a subdivision of 22 acres into 106 single - family residential lots. Tentative Tract Map 27276, a subdivision of 38 acres into 130 single - family residential lots. Tentative Tract Map 27277, a subdivision of 32 acres into 100 single - family residential lots. Associate Planner De Gange requested the following modifi- cations to the Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 4 TMC DEVELOPMENT (NORTH PEAK) CONTINUED Condition No. 2, modify to read: Tentative Tract Maps 27270, 27271, 27272, 27273, 27275, 27276 and 27277 are approved subject to the life of the Development Agreement. Condition No. 6, received documentation from the applicant that this condition has been met, therefore can delete. Condition No. 12, and Condition No. 14, for clarification add the word "map" after the word "final ". Condition No. 37, for clarification add the following language to the end "or whatever is determined appropriate within the Fuel Modification Program ". Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Brian Myers, representing TMC Development, gave a brief history on the North Peak project, and highlighted the special elements in the first phase. He then informed the Commission of their meetings with Southern California Edison with regard to the corridor and the setbacks. Commissioner Neff arrived at 7:46 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Mrs. Virginia Niera, 137 21st Street, Costa Mesa, expressed concern on drainage, density and possible assessments. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Ms. Kathleen Outlaw, 28310 Trellis Lane, inquired about the Highway 74 realignment and the affects /impacts on her property. She then commented on the difficulty in obtaining information on the Highway 74 realignment. Commissioner Neff provided Ms. Outlaw with the name of the agency and person with whom she should contact. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:07 p.m. She requested that the letter from the School District be entered for the record. She then asked Mr. Myers to address the concerns raised by Mrs. Niera. Mr. Myers informed Mrs. Outlaw of a landowner group that gets together fairly regularly on Highway 74, and progress reports are given approximately once a month. He asked that she leave her address and telephone number with him and would ensure this information is passed on. He then addressed the following concerns: • Drainage, explained that drainage has been adequately addresses as it affects the stream course, and all requirements /conditions of Riverside County Flood Control must be met. We also have to meet the new purification standards, according to NPDES standards from the State. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 5 TMC DEVELOPMENT (NORTH PEAK) CONTINUED There will not be a flooding issue on her property (Mrs. Niera), we have already addressed the drainage issue on and off site to make sure that does not occur. Density, in our first village, would have to stress that when we talk about open space we do have parks, schools and such and even without that our overall density including multi - family is 2.5 per acre. We are consistent with the overall density of the entire project, which is 2.3 per acre. Density in the first phase, the single - family residential is the lowest density and we have provided for the largest lot. The average lot size for parcels adjacent to Mrs. Niera are over 8,000 square feet. • Trail System, starts in the northern portion of the first phase of Village 1, and we plan for it to start in the park and it is consistent with the Specific Plan. There is a large portion in the northeast corner, which is a 230 acre nature park, which we have set aside as natural open space and plan to connect that to a regional trail system. • Tax issue, we are not proposing any special assessment or taxes for neighboring property. • Highway 74 Program, we are participating, but not the lead. Cal- Trans, RCTC and the City are taking the lead on Highway 74 improvement programs. Commissioner Neff asked for clarification on condition number 85 and 87. He then commented on: • Street concept. Mr. Myers explained the reason for the street design and the alternative concepts reviewed. • Mello Roos financing, formula for calculations and application; Mr. Myers responded the Development Agreement, Specific Plan and EIR anticipates Mello Roos financing. There is a condition in the Development Agreement /Specific Plan that we can use a maximum district of 2 percent total, against the assessed valuation of the properties. Also, language in the Development Agreement assumes that we participate in the Mark Roos Program. • Condition number 23 regarding energy charges and whether this is a standard condition. Associate Planner De Gange responded this is a standard condition. Commissioner Wilsey stated he would like to see condition number 6 remain, if met it is a mute point. Commissioner Bullard commented on: Condition number 16, suggested the wording "and /or" be added. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 6 TMC DEVELOPMENT (NORTH PEAK) CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey stated he believes this is to require bonding for irrigation only. Associate Planner De Gange responded this is the bonding mechanism for installation of irrigation systems, and doesn't specify the type of vegetation. Condition number 2, proposed modification, believes North Peak was approved for a 30 year term. Mr. Myers stated that North Peak was approved for a 15 year term and a 5 year extension. Condition number 6 should remain. School site, assumes an agreement has been reached with the school district. Concerned with the amount of dirt to be moved and whether there are conceptual plans, and the elevation. Mr. Myers stated the school district has requested something in a 2% pad, a 10 acre square, and they would like to be in control of the design. The elevation is 1596. We are negotiating a Final Mitigation Agreement with the School District. Commissioner Metze commented on the school site remaining the same even if Southern California Edison decides to run their lines through there. Mr. Myers stated there is an alternate plan, which has been submitted. Discussion ensued on the alternative plan and the Village Commercial not being adjacent to the school site and a residential buffer being provided. Chairwoman Brinley commented on condition number 26, regarding signage. She then suggested signs advertising the project include verbiage "in the City of Lake Elsinore ". There being no further discussion. Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 0 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -2 AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 27270, 27271, 27272, 27273, 27275, 27276, 27277 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 2: Tentative Tract Maps 27270, 27271, 27272, 27273, 27275, 27276 and 27277 are approved subject to the life of the Development Agreement. Condition No. 12: Prior to final map approval of any of the tentative maps the improvements specified herein and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be installed, or the bonds and agreement for said improvements, shall be submitted to the City, and all other stated conditions shall be complied with. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 7 TMC DEVELOPMENT (NORTH PEAK) CONTINUED Condition No. 14: Prior to final map approval, provide drainage acceptance letters from adjacent property owners to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney and recorded. Condition No. 26: All trailers and /or mobile homes used during construction, shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval prior to installation. All temporary signage and mailbox plans shall also be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. Signs advertising the project shall include verbiage located in the City of Lake Elsinore. Condition No. 37: Lots adjacent to any area to be maintained as natural open space shall be required to have a setback of 30 feet from property line to building pads or whatever is determined appropriate within the Fuel Modification Program. AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 93 -6, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 93 -6 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 TMC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #1 FOR THE NORTH PEAK SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -2; LOCATED ON THE NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE CITY EXTENDING NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 74 At this time, 8:35 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:42 p.m., the Commission reconvened. 2. Development Agreement - East Lake Community Builders (Continued from May 5, 1993) - City Planner Leslie explained that the consideration of this Development Agreement was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting on May 5, 1993, to allow additional time for City Staff to review the document and to allow for the submittal of a Draft Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) by the applicant. He then explained that the proposed Development Agreement is associated with the East Lake Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report and the DDA is based on and consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding that was approved by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on December 22, 1992. The proposed Development Agreement provides for vesting of the proposed Specific Plan project, and the DDA like the Develop- ment Agreement only applies to property that Eastlake Community Builders will have a legal interest in. He then detailed staff concerns and the modifications made to the documents addressing same. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 8:57 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 8 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - EAST LAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS CONTINUED Mr. Dan Young, representing East Lake Communities Builders, gave a background report and highlighted the concept of the East Lake Specific Plan, and the relationship with the Redevelopment Agency. He commented on State Law requirements for Development Agreement, and their option relationship with the Lehr property and future annexations to this agreement. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. The following persons spoke: Ms. Carmela Loelkes, 23508 Gingerbread Drive, Murrieta, representing Mr. Lehr, agrees with the developer. Mr. Peter Lehr, Jr. 41871 Lemon Street, Murrieta, in support of the project. 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 anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 9:16 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley requested a verbatim transcript of the Commission's concerns be submitted to City Council, since legal counsel is not present this evening. Commissioner Neff inquired whether the letter from Jackson, DeMarco and Peckenpaugh addressing the school district's condition for the project, should be included for the record. Mr. Young responded this was discussed at the previous meeting, and we indicated that we would submit a letter within seven days proposing additional language. Commissioner Neff then commented on the Development Agreement, as follows: • Tax increment financing: As I understand it, in areas described to be a Redevelopment Agency Area, the taxes are locked at a certain level at the conception of the project and once it is built out any increase in tax revenues then goes back to repay the debt on that particular project and are not used throughout the general part of the community, correct? Mr. Young, close. Rather than it be just within the project, it would be in the project area; so when we generate tax increment it goes to the Redevelopment Agency to pay off debts within that project area. • In this case, the project area would include all of those areas where the desired public facilities would be, even if those may be beyond the Lehr option property and the other 314 property owners, correct? Mr. Young, responded that is right. East Lake is actually split between two Redevelopment Project Areas. • So then, the ultimate build out use, public and private facilities, establish some value and taxing revenues generated will go back into paying off the debt underline which is a public finance debt mechanism, correct - -not a privately finance instrument. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 9 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - EAST LAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS CONTINUED Mr. Young responded that is correct. Tax increase financing will apply only to public sector facilities and regional improvements - -not any specific or individual, where a residential type merchant builder would acquire and develop. Mr. Young detailed the financing mechanism and how it works and the cost savings to the City. Interested in how that is divided - -who takes it and who uses it for what. It was mentioned that 180 million comes back to the Redevelopment Agency and we have profits above and beyond the initial investment. But is that not given out to other participating agencies? Mr. Young responded in the negative, and explained the establishment of the project area and the collection of taxes for a period of time in order to effectuate the redevelopment of the area, and this changes from to time as the General Plan or priorities for public facilities change. • The mechanism established by the Redevelopment Agency through the tax increment bond financing makes this work for the community and profitable for the developer. Mr. Young responded in the affirmative. Who is paying for what and why is the City paying to the development interests? Mechanics of annexation, since this really is specific only to the Lehr option, and rights of other outside owners. Asked Mr. Young if they have optioned any other property, at this time. Mr. Young responded that they have no other options at this time. • So likely you would do so only after all the entitlement are in place and would be optioning at fair market value. Mr. Young responded private negotiations. • Page 2, paragraph G, if for whatever reason, negotiations stall and you are not able to pile up these other properties, is there some mechanism that the Redevelop- ment Agency can go in and assist you to the detriment of the existing property owner outside this development agreement. Concern is that the Agency might be able to enforce compliance to annex. Mr. Young responded not to their detriment. But, the Redevelopment Agency has the power of eminent domain. If a private negotiation were to fail and it was essential for us to move forward with some component of the project, then we would ask the Redevelopment Agency to begin proceeding of eminent domain. Page 5, subparagraph 1.13, effective date, didn't know if this has any substance with respect to annexing these other parcels. What started it and finished it. Mr. Young stated that Dave Colgan is the author and attorney and he might be able to better answer that. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 10 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - EAST LAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS CONTINUED Dave Colgan, attorney for East Lake, Section 1.13 also has to relate to Section 8, which deals with the annexable parcel itself. Once we have acquired a legal or equitable interest on property it then becomes eligible for annexation into this agreement, which must be approved by the reviewing bodies. The effective date is to this agreement, because State Law is 30 days after Council adopts it in order to allow for the referendum period. Since the annexable parcels will occur later and not subject to the agreement now will have to go through the same process. Commissioner Wilsey stated that they are doing a base value on the property with regard to the 30 days - -that is the base price they are using for evaluation of this property. Dave Colgan responded in the negative, and explained that the 30 day pertains to annexable parcels at a future date and gives the same legal protection. Commissioner Neff stated his concern is that they would be able to buy or option the property before the entitlement are in place. Mr. Young stated that it would have been to his benefit to option the property prior to it obtaining its zoning and environmental clearance, and negotiations would occur with the property owners. • Page 15, 7th line down, aggregate public debt service may not exceed 2% of average appraised real property value. This might be a manageable max, though it might be better to be less. Page 15, half -way down, with the City's approval more debt could be levied to take it above the 2 %. Why would we want to do that? Dave Colgan responded this paragraph came from City Attorney Harper, which has been incorporated into every development agreement. It is a concept that we are going to try and keep at 2% or below. Commissioner Neff stated that he would encourage that we communicate, as Planning Commission to City Council, the need to par down our wish list, if the risk is that it is going to go above 2 %, because the housing market will evaporate. • Page 17, section 12.6.2, 9 lines up from the bottom, ordinance and resolutions as are necessary to impose a Specific Plan fee on developers of property within the Specific Plan area, other than yours, to defray the costs of preparing, adopting and administering the Specific Plan, the document you would basically be paying for. Mr. Colgan responded that the City and Eastlake Community Builders have paid for that jointly. He then commented on the discussions with staff and Mr. Harper and the section of the Government Code which authorizes the adoption of such an ordinance for reimbursement of proportionate share of cost of preparing and adopting a Specific Plan. Page 17, section 12.8, Development Agreement Fee. No reference to a CPI for adjustments, assumes this is something that was not done in the past. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 11 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - EAST LAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS CONTINUED Mr. Young stated that there was considerable discussion over the DAG Fee. There are two ways to impose a DAG Fee. One is to impose a period of time, and time periods are probably used more frequently. The incentive will be there to get these implemented early as these fees will increase dramatically as the project is implemented. Page 26, Transfer and Assignments, Right to Assign. Asked Mr. Young if there were examples around Orange County that they could go and look at. Entitling a property is one thing, building a product once entitled is sometime entirely a different matter. Mr. Young responded that he would probably bring before the Commission a tract map and the tract map will be prepared in conjunction with a home builder with a track record. Mr. Young gave a brief history on his building activity, and indicated that a tract map would be prepared and developed in conjunction with a developer with a track record. As a joint venture partner in that entitlement process and public financing process, do we share in the revenue of those deals? Mr. Young stated the City is not a partner when it comes to selling a piece of land and whether or not there is a profit to be made. The City's profit comes in the traditional sense of the Redevelopment. Agency. No description or definition of regional improvements versus local improvements that typically Mello Roos financing would apply to - -the regional, is that in a separate document that hasn't been developed yet? Mr. Young responded in the affirmative, and explained that a financial structure for the first Mello Roos would be brought back before the Commission. Chairwoman Brinley asked how the figures were reached for the DAG Fees. Mr. Bob Boone, Administrative Services Director, responded these figures were negotiated between the developer and the City. Commissioner Wilsey stated that in the past on previous agreements, there were numerous City Council /Planning Commission Study Sessions held to work out details where everyone was comfortable. This is an extremely important financial document to this community and believes that adequate review time was not provided to ensure that this is the best document that could be done for the community. Informed staff that he would not like this to happen again; would like to be informed and be a part of the process that develops these programs. Commissioner Bullard stated that Commissioner Neff covered most of his questions. He then commented on affordable housing, and the developer having the right to determine the type of ownership for the affordable units, whether for sale or rental, asked for clarification. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 12 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - EAST LAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS CONTINUED Mr. Young stated they have to provide affordable housing within the project, as the developer we have to provide 15 %, under Redevelopment Law it is actually 20 %. This could be based upon financing in the market and market demand, and this might be condominiums, single - family homes or apartments. Commissioner Metze commented on the Special Deposit and time line to reimburse the City for the Lake Economic /Feasibility Study. Inquired whether this study has to be done in order to develop the property. Mr. Young provided a history on the discussions with staff with regard to the contribution for studies on property that he doesn't own and running the risk of never owning. This study has nothing to do with whether or not East Lake gets built. City Planner Leslie stated the East Lake project itself could proceed without this study, but the marina, as proposed by Eastlake, would need this study completed. The $150,000 special study deposit is just for the Lehr option property that this Development Agreement is for. As other Development Agreements come in there could be other special deposits required. Mr. Young stated they anticipate that the marina will not be started for another five years. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the following: • Asked staff if the Community Services Director was satisfied with the modification to the Park Design Consultant, reference Section 12.6.1. City Planner Leslie stated the Community Services Director was satisfied with negotiated wording on this condition and has signed off on the revisions. • Reiterated comment on the DAG Fee and how the figures were reached. Mr. Boone explained that due to the number of amenities planned we thought it a negotiating item, and could do with half of the DAG Fee in place of the $2,000. Requirement for developer to contribute to the City for any negative impact to the General Fund. Mr. Young stated that on occasion as the project is developing there would be potentially a negative impact to the General Fund, and an annual review was established with City Council. Page 70, paragraph F, Disposition and Development Agreement, No Cross- Defaults. Asked for explanation. Mr. Colgan stated that he was not the author of this document, but would try and explain. He then provided an explanation of the default concept. Commissioner Neff inquired about same ownership. Mr. Colgan responded he would have to check with the author, but the way it is written there is no cross - defaults between separate legal parcels within the site or phases. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 13 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - EAST LAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS CONTINUED Chairwoman Brinley suggested this section be reviewed by the City Attorney and clarification provided, and this carried on to City Council as a concern. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 93 -7, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF WITH A MINOR AMENDMENT THAT THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT GO TO COUNCIL AND A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEET WITH ONE OR TWO OF THE COUNCIL TO EXPLAIN IN DETAIL SOME OF THIS AS WELL. Discussion ensued on the transcript to be provided to Council. It was the consensus of the Commission to provide Council with detailed minutes on the Development Agreement, not a verbatim transcript due to time constraints. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for the question. Approved 5 -0 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Welcomed Commissioner Metze aboard. Commissioner Neff Welcomed Commissioner Metze aboard. Commissioner Metze Thanked everyone and asked for their patience. Commissioner Wilsey Welcomed Commissioner Metze aboard. Reiterated his comment about negotiating agreements and receiving documents in a timely manner. Chairwoman Brinley Thanked staff for all of their hard work. Welcomed Commissioner Metze aboard. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 1993 Page 14 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m., motion by Commissioner Bullard, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 5 -0 Pam Brinl , Chairwom n Respectfully Submitted, *Lindatrindstaff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 1993 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 1993, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 1993 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:07 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Metze. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley, Bullard, Metze, Wilsey ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff. Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, Assistant Planner Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell and Administrative Services Director Boone. MINUTE ACTION MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 19, 1993 AND THE MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 1993. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Specific Plan 92 -3, Environmental Impact Report 92 -1 and Annexation No. 62 - Good Land Investment - The Western Company - (K.S. Chen). City Planner Leslie explained that staff recommends a continuance to allow for additional time for noticing the public in regard to this item. He asked that the Commission set a Special Meeting for the public hearing on June 30, 1993, in the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Board Room at 7:00 p.m. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE BY THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE SPECIFIC PAN 92 -3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 92 -1 AND ANNEXATION NO. 62 - GOOD LAND INVESTMENT - THE WESTERN COMPANY - (K.S. CHEN) TO JUNE 30, 1993 AT 7:00 P.M. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Residential Project 93 -3 - Roy Terrebonne (Ray Grage) Continued from May 19, 1993. Assistant Planner Villa gave an overview of the project and explained that this is an application for a two story duplex located approximately one forth mile north of the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Chaney Street. He further explained the changes made from the original plans for driveways to address traffic circulation. Mr. Villa stated that staff recommends the approval of residential project 93 -3 based on the findings, exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions. Chairwoman Brinley invited Mr. Grage to address the project. Ray Grage, representative of applicant, explained the changes to the original plans which addressed the concerns of the neighborhood. The changes include entries both from Frederick Street and the rear of the property as well as Chaney Street. He further explained that this gives the appearance of a large single family dwelling from either side of the building. He Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 2 addressed the zoning and stated that understood the neighborhood concern regarding the R -2 zoning, but felt that the applicant had met all the requirements of the present zoning to accomplish a quality project. Mr. Roy Terrebonne, applicant, concurred with Mr. Grage. Chairwoman Brinley then called for those who wished to speak on the project as follows: Howard House, 214 Chaney Street, stated that Chaney has become a traffic danger and this project will only increase the traffic problems that the neighborhood is already experiencing. He asked that the Commission consider R -1 zoning for this area. Niddo Ryal, 223 Chaney Street, explained the traffic problems on Chaney and gave an outline of the events that have occurred to his home and the danger to his family and neighborhood. Denise Tompkins, 213 Chaney Street, stated her concerns in regard to potential traffic and parking problems due to this project. She further stated her disagreement with the zoning. Chairwoman Brinley asked staff if Chaney Street was designated a "Major Thoroughfare" on the General Plan. Assistant Planner Villa stated that it was. Mr. Grage stated that Chaney is a secondary street which is two lane in each direction. He further stated that there is a possible plan to change the traffic circulation of Chaney Street and run it behind Frederick Street to address the residential traffic problem. Mr. Grage stated that a realignment will allow Chaney Street from Riverside Drive to Sumner Street to be a residential street. Chairwoman Brinley confirmed that at this time it is a residential street, but is slated to become a two lane highway each way. This was confirmed. She then called upon the Commissioners to speak as follows: Commissioner Bullard questioned the sewer system which would be used. Staff Explained that it is septic with the lot that the drive crosses as the leach field. Mr. Bullard then questioned the position of mail delivery and what address would the units use as one is facing Frederick and the other Chaney. Staff explained that both units will be listed on Chaney Street as Unit A and Unit B, with the mail being delivered on Chaney Street. Mr. Bullard asked staff to look into the possibility of a flashing light on Chaney to aid the resolution of some of the traffic problems experienced. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the roof line. Mr. Grage explained that it was not one straight roof line, but was actually three sections. Commissioner Metze asked for clarification regarding the amount of bedrooms which the units will have. Mr. Grage responded that both units will be two bedroom units. Mr. Metze stated that the driveway on Frederick Street seemed to address the traffic concerns. Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 3 Chairwoman Brinley asked if there had been any septic failures in the area. Community Development Manager Shear stated that there had been none reported and that each unit in the project will have its own septic system since there is no sewer main line available to tie into. He further explained that if sewer becomes available the duplex will be required to time into it and unlike other duplex units which have both units going into one tank each unit is treated as a separate dwelling with its own septic system and leach field. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the color and Mr. Grage explained that it is compatible with the adjacent house which is a charcoal blue. Mrs. Brinley further stated her concern regarding maintenance and upkeep for these units because as rentals in a residential it could create a problem if there were not good tenants. Commissioner -Wilsey stated that he felt that maintenance concerns are addressed by a Landscaping Bond. He further stated that Condition No. 15 B requires a 15 gallon size instead 24 gallon and this should be changed to reflect this. There was general discussion in regard to the City's responsibility to the area for maintenance and that the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual homeowner to maintain their property. Staff was instructed to include this issue as one of the topics for Planning Commission's next study session. MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE BY THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 93 -3 - ROY TERREBONNE BASED ON FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WITH CONDITION NO. 15 ITEM "B" TO READ 24 INCH BOX. 3. Commercial Project 93 -2 (The Elsinore City Center) - Oak Grove Equities. Assistant Planner Villa gave an overview of the project and explained that this is an application for a Design Review of a Commercial Shopping Center (building structures and site plan design) in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.38 (Non - Residential Development Standards) and 17.82 (Design Review) of the Municipal Code and the Elsinore City Center Specific Plan. This project is located a the southeast corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road and has primary access to the site through Grape Street via Railroad Canyon Road. He further explained the proposed monumentation walls and recommended that the Planning Commission may allow the height to exceed the maximums set by code and since it would amplify the there design it is recommended that these walls be allowed as shown. Chairwoman Brinley invited those interested to address the project. Glen Daigle, Projects Manager, Gavlin Development Co., 12625 Highblow Drive, San Diego explained that his company is the Co- developer with Oak Grove Equities and explained that the Company takes exception to items 10, 33, and 36. He further explained that in Condition 10 regarding outdoor storage that due to the nature of what is to be stored, which is tires, it is best to have the building open to the air without a roof with the same block wall construction. Chairwoman Brinley asked staff to clarify this item to allow for tire storage. Staff recommended it read as follows: Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 4 "After outdoor storage area is placed, exception enclosed tire storage area as presented on the plan ". Glen Daigle explained that his firm is proposing an alternative that will solve their objection on Condition No. 33. He suggested a change in texture and adding a stripe to the back of the building to conform with Condition No. 33. There was general discussion in regard to Condition No. 33 and it was decided that to leave the decisions regarding the detailing of the exterior to the discretion of the Community Development Manager. It was decided that Condition No. 36 should read as follows: "The Wal -Mart and adjacent buildings (shops # 1, 2, and major tenant) shall continue the design concept (where appropriate) of mansard roofing with spanish mission tile treatment exhibited in Shop #3. The revised elevation shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager prior to City Council consideration'. Commissioner Wilsey stated his concern regarding outdoor storage with 40 foot trailers during Christmas because the back of the building is seen from Tuscany Hills. Commissioner Bullard addressed roof ladders and stated that there position from the roof area should be made visible for fire purposes. It was decided that the section "No roof ladders shall be permitted" be deleted. MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 93 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS WITH AMENDMENTS TO 30, 33 AND 36 AND CHANGES OF CONDITIONS 11, 12; 15, 18, 21, AND 25 AS STATED IN MEMO. 4. Residential Proiect 91 -6 Amendment No 1 - Centex Homes Assistant Planner Villa gave an overview of the project and explained that this is an application for the addition of a sixth model /floor plan (a 1597 square foot single -story structure) to be constructed on 14 lots within the Centex Homes development. He further explained that staff is recommending approval based on the findings and revised conditions of approval. Mike Aller, Centex Homes, 4351 Latham St., Riverside, explained that he agreed with staff and was available for any questions. Commissioner Wilsey asked if there was a problem cutting the project from 14 to 12 lots. Mr. Aller stated that they did not have a problem and felt that they could make the plan work. Commissioner Bullard asked for clarification regarding the different plans and square footage of the plan. Mr. Aller explained the type of plans that they are marketing and what is available to the public. Commissioner Metze agreed with the conditions of approval, but stated that the project did need enhancements. Chairwoman Brinley concurred with Commissioner Metze. Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1993 Page 5 MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -6, AMENDMENT NO. 1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. PLANNING COMMENTS City Planner Leslie asked for direction in regard to the signage of the Stated Brothers Center on Mission Trial. He explained that in reviewing the site that a sign, program had been approved when they refurbished, but it appears that the program only addressed the minor tenants and the Sprouse Reitz and Stater Brothers were not addressed. The City is still working with them regarding the landscaping and would like to know if the Commission would like me to have them return for amendments to the signs. Commission concurred that.they should. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 8:51 P.M. Re y Submi Adria L. Bryning, Citv;llerk MINUTES OF SPECIAL LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING C HELD ON THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:10 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Bullard. p"091 ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Wilsey, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: Neff Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Senior Planner Morita, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell MINUTE ACTION None PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Specific Plan 92 -3, Environmental Impact Report 92 -1 , General Plan Amendment 93 -1 and Annexation No. 62 - Good Land Invest- ment—The Western Company (K.S. Chen) - Senior Planner Morita explained that this is a 1,202 acre master planned community which contains a mix of residential, open space and a golf course. The project area is located partially within the City boundaries and entirely within the City's Sphere of Influence. Access to the site is taken from Amorose Street and Toft Drive via Grand Avenue. Senior Planner Morita explained that staff is recommending the annexation proposal be continued to a later unspecified date to allow additional time to work with the applicant and residents to resolve some of the issues on annexation. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported that written communication has been distributed to the Commission and the following additional written communication received this evening: Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association Steering Committee, dated June 28, 1993; Joseph and Jeanie Archer, 15271 Alvarado Street, dated June 16, 1993; Betty Baluski, 15750 Alvarado Street, dated January 19 and June 29, 1993; Mr. & Mrs. Gerald R. Otteson, 14395 Amorose Street, dated June 28, 1993; H. John Kelly, Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association, Team Leader, dated June 25, 1993; Laguna Heights Country Club Newsletter and cover letter, dated June 29, 1993 Chairwoman Brinley stated that she also has a combined form of correspondence covering concerns from the Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association, Woodhaven and North Amorose covering approximately the last three years which she would like entered for the record. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 2 Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. The following people spoke: John Mandrell, The Keith Companies, representing the applicant, gave a brief history on the project. Rick Stevens, The Keith Companies, Planning Consultant for the project, commented on whether the Laguna Heights Country Club is part of the City's vision for the future. He then commented on the following issues: density, land use types, open space, golf course, equestrian site, access, equestrian trails. Commissioner Wilsey asked whether the multi - purpose and equestrian trail plans have been coordinated with the County Trails Commission. Mr. Stevens stated that they have had discussions with the Ortega Trails Regional Systems. Mr. Stevens commented on the land use compatibility, ridge line development and whether this ridge line is considered a skyline, and drainage. He stated the applicant has gone to great lengths to design specific architectural design guide- lines to establish a theme. He further stated that they concur with staff's conditions. Andy Maree, 31025 Lakeshore Drive, this project is a positive vision for Lake Elsinore's future and the recreational opportunities are needed by this community. Bob Bryant, Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce and Chairman of the Economic Development Committee, 132 West Graham, impressed with the project as revised and in support of the project as it will have a positive impact on the valley. Erling Arend, Vice President of Elsinore Naval and Military School, 15900 Grand Avenue, this will bring in outside business and this area needs the financial boost. John Outhuijse, 33410 Greenwood Drive, in support of the project. Daniel Desimone, 32975 Serena Drive, in support of the project. The West End needs a large project and one that will put in all of the infrastructure. The project has been massaged for the last four years addressing every concern imaginable. Lynn Wheelert, 244 Heald, in support of the project. The economy needs to be boosted in this area. John Carter, 108 Heald, in support of the project. This will be a boost to the economy to not only Lake Elsinore but the surrounding communities. Steven Mann, 23154 Rancho Peak Place, we need to do something in this community to enhance the area. I studied the plan and believe it to be very well conceived and designed. Oma Slavick, Lakeshore Drive at Lawrence Way, this project will be an asset to the community. Bob Neundorf, 21321 Lemon Street, followed this project from the beginning and feels this project will boost the economy in Lake Elsinore the boost all the real estate value around the golf course. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 3 Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. The following people spoke: H. John Kelly, 14845 Amorose Street, Brookstone Steering Committee, working as team leader since 1989 -90, gave a brief history on the area. He then expressed concern on open space, traffic, and density. Lee Bulen, 14949 Toft Drive, representing the Brookstone Homeowners Association as the President of the Board of Directors, expressed concerns on traffic with regard to street capacity and ingress and egress on Toft and Amorose. He then commented on the proposed Laguna Heights Drive up Brookstone Flood Control stating their CC & R's will not allow that. We had legal definition of our CC & R's and were told specifi- cally that the flood control is common area plus private property and our CC & R's states that it can not be modified without voter approval. He stated that the proposed Laguna Heights South is also in the Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association jurisdiction, therefore they fall under the same CC & R's. He then expressed concern on the steep grade on Patrick Court coming down to a small approach on Grand Avenue and directly across the street is an elementary school. William Denisi, 30669 Rockridge Road, his property abuts the western edge of this development, expressed concern on the density, traffic, drainage, and public safety. John Smolley, 14779 Amorose Street, expressed concern on the loss of resource with the high density, location of the golf course within the vulnerable area, and terrain. Al Knight, 30570 Brookstone, concerned with the equestrian trail and center, the CC & R's state there can be no commercial venture within the boundaries of Brookstone Ranch. He then expressed concern with the buffer between their rural center and Cleveland National Forest and the density. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Colby Street, opposed to the annexation and wants the area to remain rural. Concerned with the density, incompatibility with zoning and codes, drainage, and public services. Commissioner Neff arrived at 8:16 p.m. Eric Doering, Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone, representing the School District, submitted a letter address- ing the impacts the Laguna Heights Specific Plan project will have on the District's school facilities. The school district proposes the following condition: "Prior to approval of the first tentative tract map filed for property within the Specific Plan, applicant shall have entered into a school impact mitigation agreement with the school district. City shall have considered the adequacy of the school facilities or available means of financing school facilities to meet the needs and demands of new development proposed in such tentative map to be approved by the City. For purpose of this condition, acceptable mitigation provided for in the School Impact Mitigation Agreement may include, but is not limited to the following: (a) Utilization of developer fees, Mello -Roos Community Facilities District financing or other special district financing, singly or in combination, to fully. fund the construction cost of school facilities necessitated by the proposed development. (b) Payment or credit toward school fee mitigation to be provided to the landowner for the acquisition of a school site located on such landowner's property." He then stated the School District is requesting that a 10 acre Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 4 elementary school site be designated within this project, and if the Commission chooses to approve the project tonight, we request that a condition be added requiring the applicant to meet with the School District prior to the City Council meeting in order to discuss the location of a school site. David Locke, 15025 Monty Court, home lies next to the north- east corner of the proposed plan, stated the major concern is the proposed land use. Considers this a major incompatibility problem with the neighborhood and the existing topography, and presented a slope analysis he prepared to the Commission and the applicant's representative. He opposed development of less than minimum 10 acre lot size on areas with existing slopes of 25 percent or greater in steepness. James A. Turner, 14743 Toft Drive, expressed concern on school impacts, the possible loss of his driveway due to potential widening of Toft, the steep terrain and ridgeline development, traffic impacts, access, and the Laguna Heights Newsletter containing false statements. Wesley Bertz, 14625 Amorose Street, expressed concern on flood control, the traffic impact and grade of Toft and Amorose, and density. He also was concerned that the proposal by the applicant to make some of the multi - family units retirement villas would increase the density. At this time, 8:36 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:50 p.m., the Commission reconvened. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition and requested only new issues which have not been previously stated be presented. The following people spoke: Stan Jones, 30640 Rockridge Road, expressed concern on aesthetics of the canyons, density, the widening of Toft, the photo illustrating the ridgeline development, and opposed to the annexation. Marie Locke, 15025 Monty Court, commented on the density being in conflict with the General Plan which requires compatibility with existing land uses adjacent to the proposed site. It will not meet the objectives of the Community Design Element with regard to natural environment and enhancement of signifi- cant natural features, and it will increase not remove visual blight. Sixteen percent (16 %) of the proposed dwelling units will adversely impact the custom property adjacent to the northeast end of the Specific Plan. The plan requires the removal of 1.5 million cubic yards of land in order to accom- modate building this portion of the project and raises the question of land integrity, and hillside erosion in the event of heavy rainfall or earthquake. Brian Chesser, 30711 Sarabia Street, does not want to be annexed and concerned with property values. Concerned about the bonds required to build the infrastructure for this project. Concerning the equestrian issue, there is no guarantee that the applicant is going to provide these areas. Dave Buchanan, 30831 Plumas Street, commented on the school impact and concerned with the safety of the children. John Kucharski, 30550 Brookstone Lane, commented on page 3 of the Laguna Heights Newsletter pertaining the equestrian trails and expressed concern regarding development along the ridge - line. He then stated that most of the people are concerned with the environment. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 5 Reggie Kramer, 15077 Patrick Court, concerned with the traffic proposed on Patrick Court. Also, concerned with the impact on the school system. Vivian Beaumont, 30630 Brookstone Lane, commented on the Coastal Sage Scrub and the Coastal Blacktail Gnatcatcher. The Blacktail Gnatcatcher is designated by the State as a species of special concern, and is found only in Southern California in areas of Coastal Sage Scrub. The assessment study states that Coastal Sage Scrub is not found on the property and so the likelihood of Coastal Blacktail Gnatcatcher nesting on the property is determined to be low. The biological Study should be reassessed. Ted Kramer, 15077 Patrick Court, commented on the moral issue that needs to be considered. Patrick Court was approved as a cul -de -sac street and the plan before you now says to change Patrick Court from a cul -de -sac to a major thoroughfare. Asked that the plans that were adopted be retained. Bob Gasio, 14533 Amorose Street, requested that the Club House at the end of Amorose Street be removed from that area. Concerned with public safety and traffic. Judy Irving, 14867 Amorose Street; proposed that the developer be required to make some type of financial disclosure or post bonds with the City, County or Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association concerning the compatibility issues of density, maintaining the natural areas, traffic use, repair and possible closure of Amorose and Toft, clustering issues and to back -up the promises made to the homeowners group. Requested the compatibility be maintained and referred to the Brookstone Ranch Steering Committee letter dated June 28, 1993. She also did not want Amorose Street and Toft Drive as through streets into the project and requested that the drive proposed within the project leading to the clubhouse be heavily landscaped for screening purposes. Carrie Swiggs, 14780 Cobblestone, inquired whether the applicant has ever provided the City with a financial state- ment showing that he can do this project. Whether the applicant is the master developer, and how long he intends to be the master developer. The pricing of the structures and whether they will be entry level. Infrastructure cost and how much blasting, grading and the amount of dirt to be moved, and whether this will have a Mello -Roos. Lea Routledge, 14505 Amorose Street, member of the Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association and Steering Committee, explained the purpose of their Committee and their involvement with the project. She then reiterated that their concerns have remained the same: traffic, density, environmental, commercial use, equestrian use, watershed, project access, and tract compatibility. She then asked that the Commission continue any decision so that they can continue to work with the applicant on this project. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked that the applicant's representatives address the following issues: density, Amorose and Toft Streets, school site. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 6 Mr. Stevens addressed the following issues: • Zoning, County versus City, the proposal before the Commission this evening is for consistency with the City's designation of the General Plan. The density allowed, 3 units per acre is overall allowed density. It would not be the intent of the applicant, at this point, to develop at that level. The City does allow clustering of units. School site, appreciate the opportunity to accept the school's request for a condition to be attached to allow further discussion prior to the Council hearing. The original proposal did have a school site and both the School District and property owners in the neighboring developments did not want a school site there. Mr. Les Card, President of Chief Executive Officer of LSA Associates, prepared the traffic study, gave a background report on the traffic design, options and mitigations from the beginning. He stated that without any mitigation at all the traffic that would be introduced on Patrick Court would be 3,400 additional cars a day; on Amorose about 1,490 additional cars a day; on Toft approximately 4,400 additional cars a day. Starting from that point and recognizing we had a problem to deal with and needed to come up with some mitigations as these volumes would be in access of what would be desirable for a residential street. There were plans for Laguna Heights Drive to provide a new access. We looked at alternatives of improv- ing or enhancing the capacity of Toft or Amorose and at options to widen those existing streets; however, those options have been disregarded and rejected as not viable alternatives. The only option left is to provide an alterna- tive access. Mr. Card then explained how they arrived at the figure of 1,500 cars a day as a limitation; mitigation measures and assurances for the residents. Commissioner Bullard asked if this was a total of 1,500 additional cars or a total of 1,500 with current residents. Mr. Card responded the mitigation measures is written as 1,500 additional cars at the current terminus of Amorose or Toft each. Commissioner Metze asked if it would be reasonable to lower that number, and whether the developer would be willing to reduce it. Mr. Card responded the street can handle that and it is more of a qualitative type of issue. The latter would have to be addressed by the developer. Dr. Chen informed the Commission of the previous meetings with the homeowners and the alternative access considered. He also indicated he was willing to further limit traffic on Toft and Amorose from Laguna Heights to 1,300 additional adt's on each street. Chairwoman Brinley asked about the grade on Patrick Court, and drainage with regard to the retention basin, and how it will affect Brookstone homeowners be addressed. Mr. Card responded to the grade on Patrick Court stating there is a condition requiring all the roads be designed to all of the applicable standards of the County and the City, and with- Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 7 in those standards are requirements for stopping, sight distance, etc. Mr. Stevens stated Section 6, Hydrology and Drainage, of the Specific Plan address this. The way the document is written the developer has to design a plan of retention basins within the golf course to mitigate any additional peak flow impacts off -site. This will be reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and will have to receive their approval. Commissioner Wilsey stated what you are saying is that your project would not add any additional flows. The maximum flows that would be there would be what is there now naturally. Mr. Stevens responded exactly, there would be no increases to these peak flows. Commissioner Neff asked how this would be accommodated? Mr. Stevens,. referred to the exhibit posted, explained there is a golf course going throughout Leach Canyon and within the golf course, as part of the design for natural water ponds and so on, there will be a series of retention basins placed throughout the canyon. These will limit the flow by storing the water in flooding seasons. At appropriate intervals this water will be released through the existing drainage system, but only in controlled flows. Commissioner Metze inquired about the benefits. Mr. Stevens stated the series of retention basins - -the ones at the end there, would also be controls for additives; for example, if there are fertilizers and pesticides used on the golf course the retention basins would have to be monitored to prohibit adding any toxins into the drainage system. At the same time, it would also stop the flow of debris down the canyon. Commissioner Neff commented on the golf course, with flood control issues in mind, what flexibility the developer has to accommodate earthquake design; additional capacity for run- off; the capacity designed for the 100 Year Flood or something less. What flexibility do you have in design at this point, or has that all been locked in to accommodate the 100 Year Flood? Jim Bolton, The Keith Companies, stated basically up stream from the debris basin there are no improvements to the natural channel. The golf course construction would be integrated through the natural channel that is there, so there would be no improvements. It has the 100 Year now and we are not changing it at all. Commissioner Neff asked if there would be no modifications necessary to the existing channel down stream where the existing residences are now. Mr. Bolton stated they are not proposing any as they are not increasing the run -off. Chairwoman Brinley inquired about drainage with regard to cut slopes, and how the drainage is going to affect the people in Brookstone, if at all, and how this is going to be handled should be have a heavy rainfall next year. Mr. Bolton explained the rainfall we had in January resulted in a 10 year run -off and there is still adequate capacity to handle the existing run -off. The improvements that we will Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 8 make to the Laguna Heights project - -on -site storm drain systems, underground pipe system, as well as surface drainage facilities will contain all the run -off generated within the site and be conveyed down to the existing drainage flow out of the canyon. The residents will not feel any additional effect from this project. Commissioner Neff commented that along Amorose Street there are no curb and gutter improvements and there is erosion there and assumes that would change. Mr. Bolton responded in the affirmative, stating the water would be intercepted before it got to the end of the existing Amorose Street. Chairwoman Brinley asked that the public safety issue be addressed, and the time line for the Lincoln fire station. Planning Manager Shear stated he believes the CFD is planning to start construction of the Lincoln station next year. Mr. Mandrell stated there will be mitigation fees paid. The construction of the fire station on Lincoln was funded under the public financing program. The annual maintenance costs would have to be addressed by staff. Chairwoman Brinley asked that the applicant's representative address the concern of taking property to widen the streets. Mr. Mandrell stated the initial plan to handle access was to provide an access road in the wash. The homeowners were not in favor of that. We looked at every alternative that we could think of, and one of the alternatives was widening the improvements within Toft and Amorose. After considerable study and working with staff it was concluded that that was not a viable alternative. So the current plan would be to provide a road called Laguna Heights South, which is along the south side of Brookstone Development. Dr. Chen had his attorney evaluate whether or not he would have the right to do this and according to his attorney's opinion he would have the right to build the road and has acquired the access for the road. However, we would work with the homeowners in any design. Chairwoman Brinley asked that the applicant's representative address the slopes and the cut of slopes. Mr. Stevens stated the project does proposed 1.5 million cubic yards of earth to be moved in the northeast corner. With custom grading you can move selected areas of slope and in doing that you can reduce the grading for the streets and the development. As already stated through City /County guidelines all street grades will not exceed those required, 15% for maximum and 9% for desired grade. Also, a lot of the grading associated with the project is related primarily to the golf course. He then detailed grading for the ridgeline development. Commissioner Neff inquired about the ownership of the channel. Mr. Stevens stated he believes it is owned by the Brookstone Homeowners Association and individual property owners. Would like to add, at some future point, if it was acceptable this still could be an access alternative for consideration. Commissioner Neff inquired about Laguna Heights South, and the existing equestrian system tying in with the equestrian trail center. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Stevens, referring to the exhibit, illustrated the location of area to the south of the project, the equestrian center and the alignment of Laguna Heights Drive South. Also, proposed along Laguna Heights South is an equestrian trail on one side connecting the entire project to Grand Avenue. Commissioner Neff inquired about timing of the trail system and how it relates to the phasing schedule and construction access. Mr. Stevens responded that they felt the best way to protect the City and the other property owners was to use the trip count limitation on the existing streets rather than fix it to any phase of the project. It would be intended that the first phase could proceed without having to build the alternative access road. Commissioner Neff inquired whether signalization would be included at that intersection when constructed, and if this was part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Mr. Mandrell responded that this is part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The traffic signal requirement was reviewed in the Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Neff inquired whether there would be another signal up Grand where the proposed connection through Patrick Court would be, is that correct? Mr. Mandrell responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Neff inquired about the extensive grading activity occurring up from Patrick Court on property close to where the regional park would go in. Mr. Mandrell responded there is an ongoing mining operation in McVickers Canyon, and some grading going on to fill the depression where the regional park is. Commissioner Neff asked where the construction traffic would enter into this particular project. Mr. Mandrell stated that he could not answer this question as the process has not been thought through. But it is a question that has to be resolved. Commissioner Neff stated if a construction access is lacking Laguna Heights South might be considered a construction access that would take the construction impact away from the existing residential areas, and final improvements could be put in later on. Laguna Heights South as a rough graded street could be put in early on at minimal cost. Mr. Mandrell stated they will investigate this alternative with staff when looking through the construction process. Chairwoman Brinley asked the applicant's representative to address the issue raised on the Laguna Heights Newsletter, page 3. Mr. Dave Gottlieb, The Keith Companies, referring to Page 3 of the Newsletter, stated this is their understanding from on- site investigations. The existing drainage and equestrian easements that come down from Toft through the Brookstone tract have been blocked off by fences. We were not aware of any reasons for their being blocked off; however, they are blocked off which prohibits the full use of those as equestrian access. When we build the equestrian center, Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 10 location illustrated on map, that center will be more easily served if the through flowing of equestrian traffic in that drainage and equestrian easement is made easier by the removal of those fences. Chairwoman Brinley asked the applicant's representative to address the issue on the retirement villas. Mr. Stevens stated the question was that they could be senior villas and would that increase the density, and the answer is no. Chairwoman Brinley asked that the Coastal Sage Scrub and the Coastal Blacktail Gnatcatcher concerns be addressed. Mr. Scott White, Biologist for Tierra Madre Consultants, stated they prepared the Biological Report for the site in 1989. He then stated that he revisited the site two or three months ago to confirm that it was Chaparral rather than Coastal Sage Scrub growing on the site, as originally reported. Several shrubs characteristic of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat do occur on the site and they are on our species list, and it is addressed in more detail the Tierra Madre's response to comments. It is not suitable for California Gnatcatcher as it is Chaparral rather than Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. Commissioner Wilsey asked if a public financing mechanism was being considered for the infrastructure. Mr. Mandrell responded they have looked into the possibility of using public financing, and Dr. Chen has looked at both public and private financing; however, no final decision has been made. Also, one of the speakers was concerned about his property being assessed and this will not happen. Commissioner Neff commented on the information that has been disseminated and changed. He commented on the key issues coming back to land use compatibility, traffic impact, equestrian, ridgeline issues, and annexation. He then commented on Figure 6, Figure 9 and Section 8.a. of the Specific Plan with regard to traffic impacts; traffic patterns on Toft and Amorose should combine numbers and go with total trips. Mr. Stevens stated that on the section designs they have worked with the City Engineering and Planning Departments to come up with street standard sections for this road. Commissioner Wilsey commented that these are one acre or larger lot sizes but they are double fronted on the primary access roads. We are also talking about a forty -seven foot (471) wide residential collector street for ninety percent of this project. Inquired whether this was adequate. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated that a forty -seven foot street section has a thirty -six foot curb -to -curb, which would give the two lanes in each direction and parking on both sides. The reason we compromised on some of the widths is the grading, referring to the ridgeline. Commissioner Wilsey commented on Amorose Street being indicated as a sixty -foot wide entry until it gets to the end of the existing Amorose Street and then it goes down to forty - seven foot, why would this not be continued up as a sixty -foot entry? Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated this could be increased to a forty -foot curb -to -curb. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 11 Commissioner Metze asked why reduce this at all, leave it at sixty feet right -of -way. Commissioner Neff commented on having heavy landscaping and larger than typical sized trees planted along the proposed drive leading to the clubhouse within the project to signifi- cantly screen it from view of neighboring existing residences. He also suggested relocating existing quality mature trees on- site for this purpose. He then commented on condition number 47 with regard to signalization further limiting future traffic of Toft and Amorose; school impacts and replacing condition number 31 with the condition submitted by the School District; eliminating construction traffic on Toft and Amorose, and,bonds to avoid incompatibility conflict. Commissioner Bullard commented on traffic flows and the construction access road; suggested that hours of operation be added to condition number 27; suggested the word "feasible" be deleted from condition number 9 and 10; suggested that a Geo- technical engineer be on site, condition number 22. Commissioner Metze commented on limiting traffic on Toft and Amorose to a total of 1,500 adt's each which would include existing Brookstone traffic, or homeowners agree to discuss improvements to Laguna Heights Drive in the flat land. He then suggested that condition number 47 be modified to prohibit construction vehicles from using Toft and Amorose. He also suggested that condition number 52 be added regarding rough grading of Laguna Heights Drive South, and Toft and Amorose to be cul -de -sac at buildout or when alternative access is developed. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the double loaded streets on the ridgeline development; Patrick Court and the cul -de -sac ending into a mountain site and whether this can be mitigated through other measures; concerned with the double loaded streets on the ridgeline. Mr. Stevens stated that after the grading is done on the project the area will have to be revegetated and maintained. Staff and Commission will get another chance to review individual developments on the hillsides. At that point, you can specify landscaping, screening, and berming programs. Discussion ensued on grading and ridgeline development. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the primary entry. Rather than impact Toft and Amorose, a slight change in the traffic circulation pattern as they come off the south entrance and enter into the loop. Would prefer to see that done up front so we use the Laguna Heights South entrance and adopt that as a primary entry way and come up with a mitigation measure that everyone could agree on. Also, this might be the best place to bring in the services. Would like to see Toft and Amorose as cul -de -sacs at their existing terminuses. Mr. Stevens stated to grade the road (Laguna Heights Drive South) for the access it would obviously be done in connection with the first grading permit. If we going to grade the golf course initially this had to be the construction access that grading would be handled in the same permit process. The improvement of that road you are thinking about getting two lanes of pavement for the initial phase of the rod, is that correct? Commissioner Wilsey responded in the affirmative. Possibly asphalt curb and gutter to start with rather than the standard curb and gutter. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 12 Dr. Chen stated that if the marketing is going well; if the first phase is okay, can promise you that I would prefer not to bother the neighbors. I will do the four lane road for Laguna Heights South immediately, but give me the option. He then stated that he understands the position, but can only promise if the market is good and it is financially feasible will do what you suggested. He also agreed to grade in proposed Laguna Heights Drive South up front so that there would be no construction traffic on Toft and Amorose. Commissioner Metze commented on the mention of wood shingles throughout the document and suggested this be deleted. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 92 -3, APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -3 AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 93 -8 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, AND CONTINUATION OF ANNEXATION NO. 62 FOR FURTHER REVIEW: Condition No. 9: Applicants shall incorporate energy - efficient features and passive design concepts, whenever feasible, in the design and construction of the project. Condition No. 10. Applicants shall incorporate the use of solar energy and waste heat recovery systems to reduce energy consumption into the project design wherever items feasible. Condition No. 22: Documentation of slope stability shall be required when the type of fill material has been determined to issuance of a grading permit. All cut and fill grading shall be done under the supervision of a geo- technical engineer. Condition No. 27: All construction equipment shall utilize properly working mufflers and be kept in a proper state of tune to alleviate backfires. Stationary equipment such as generators, shall be equipped with noise shrouds and shall be placed as far as possible from sensitive receptor locations. Finally, when working within sensitive areas, portable noise barriers shall be utilized to reduce produced noise to the extent feasible. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday to protect adjacent occupants from unreasonable noise and glare associated with construction. Condition No. 31: Prior to approval of the first tentative tract map filed for property within the Specific Plan, applicant shall have entered into a school impact mitigation agreement with the school district. City shall have considered the adequacy of the school facilities or available means of financing school facilities to meet the needs and demands of new development proposed in such tentative map to be approved by the City. For purpose of this condition, acceptable mitigation Minutes of Special Planning.Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 13 provided for in the School Impact Mitigation Agreement may include, but is not limited to the following: (a) Utilization of developer fees, Mello -Roos Community Facilities District financing or other special district financing, singly or in combination, to fully fund the construction cost of school facilities necessitated by the proposed development. (b) Payment or credit toward school fee mitigation to be provided to the landowner for the acquisition of a school site located on such landowner's property. Condition No. 47: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall conduct traffic evaluation /traffic counts to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to building permits being issued which would generate more than 1,508 1,300 vehicle trips per day from the Laguna Heights project on either Toft Drive or Amorose Street, the applicant shall develop and improve an alternative access to the site acceptable to the City. Once an acceptable alternative access is determined an Amendment to the Laguna Heights Specific Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval that integrates the alternative access in with the Specific Plan. Condition No. 52: Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from using Toft Drive or Amorose Street at any time. Proposed Laguna Heights Drive South shall be rough graded in the initial grading phase to provide construction access to the project site. Once plans are developed for this alternative access they will have to be reviewed and approved by the City pursuant to Condition No. 47. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE. Commissioner Wilsey asked for discussion, stating that he will be voting no on this, and wants it enter into the record that he is not voting against the project itself, thinks the golf course is a good concept. The thing that I am not supporting is the intrusion on Toft and Amorose. Recommends that Council and staff work diligently, prior to Council, to work out a compromise. MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER WILSEY CASTING THE DESCENDING VOTE. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTIFICATION OF EIR 92 -3, APPROVAL OF THE LAGUNA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 92 -3) AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93 -1 - THE WESTERN COMPANY (K.S. CHEN) Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting June 30, 1993 Page 14 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE INFORMATIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Metze 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 11:40 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Chairwoman Brinley. Approved 5 -0 j Res ctfully S bmitted, L'nda Grin t Secretary MINUTES OF 10.114ona* &-14&*).1un UR.1aZov [ej JULY 7, 1993 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JULY 7, 1993, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF A QUORUM. Respectfully submitted, LL nC dstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 21ST DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7 :05 P.M. JULY 1993 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Bullard. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Wilsey, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff Also present were City Planner Leslie and Assistant Planner Villa. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Second by Commissioner Bullard and carried by unanimous vote of those present to approve Minutes of June 16, 1993 and June 30, 1993, as submitted, and to receive and file Minutes of July 7, 1993. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS HiMp BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Sign Program - Oak Grove Equities - Assistant Planner Villa detailed the project explaining that this is a request for Freeway Identification Signs, a Center Identification Sign, 4 pad monument signs, signage on 6 entry -way monumentation walls, a future theater sign and Uniform Sign Criteria for the Elsinore City Center, as required by condition #23 for Commercial Project 93 -2. Commissioner Neff arrived at 7:08 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Mark Michaelson, of MCG Architects, prepared the Sign Criteria and involved with the architectural design of the center, explained that part of the success in retailing is visibility and signage. He stated that it is important to achieve all of the signage that the Specific Plan allows for. Mr. Michaelson then addressed the Special Project Concerns raised in the Staff Report with regard to the signage proposed along Railroad Canyon Road; the center identification and the four potential freeway identification signs. He stated that he discussed with the applicant and they reached a conclusion that four is probably too many. But would request three signs, or the ability to have two signs in the first phase of the project with the third being planned in the future. Chairwoman Brinley asked if the third sign proposed was for the theater marquis. Mr. Michaelson responded in the negative, stating the third sign would be farther south on Grape Street. Commissioner Wilsey inquired whether the monument signs requested are incorporated and become a part of the entryway, at the various entries. Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Michaelson responded in the negative, stating there are four monument signs proposed for each of the pad buildings. In addition to that we are proposing six center identification signs which would be located at the three entries, and these provide center identification as well as tenant signage. Commissioner Bullard commented on the wall signs and the exceptions to the City's Sign Ordinance, and in disagreement with the 2 to 1 ratio. He then stated that he agrees with the three potential freeway signs and asked for their location. Assistant Planner Villa and City Planner Leslie, utilizing the exhibits, indicated the location of the center identification and the freeway identification signs. Commissioner Wilsey asked for the distance between the freeway signs. Chairwoman Brinley asked for the location of the marquee sign. Mr. Milt Freeman stated the marquee sign would be located in Phase 2, and submitted separately. But we would like to reserve this space (the theater site), and also one further back toward the entrance, should Wal -Mart insist on having their own. Considerable discussion ensued on the freeway and center identification signage and the approved Specific Plan addressing signage, and the concerns raised in the Staff Report. Commissioner Bullard stated his concern is that the area not be over signed. He stated that clarification is needed on a few points and believes there should be special criteria. City Planner Leslie stated that concerns were raised in the Staff Report; however, these concerns were not translated into conditions of approval which alter what is being proposed. He then explained that the Specific Plan did set some guidelines regarding allowable signage, and what was submitted meets those guidelines. Commissioner Bullard stated that he agrees with the Railroad Canyon sign. He reiterated that his main concern was the freeway signage and distance between the signs and not wanting to over sign. He then commented on the 45 foot high pylon sign proposed for Grape Street. Discussion ensued on the height and distance between the freeway signs, and the pylon sign proposed for Grape and Railroad Canyon Road. Commissioner Bullard commented on the major /minor tenant signage, and inquired whether the applicant would be willing to increase this square footage to 10,000 for major tenants. Mr. Michaelson explained how they arrived at the 6,000 square foot criteria on major /minor tenant signage. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the Analysis portion of the Staff Report and the concerns raised in the Staff Report with regard to allowable wall signs and this being doubled by the applicant - -the way the Specific Plan reads, correct? City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the distance between the freeway signs along Grape Street. Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Michaelson responded 45 foot, and the location of one has been identified. We do know that the second freeway identifi- cation sign should be in view and close to the theater. Given the fixed location of one it is going to be probably 600 -800 feet away. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the criteria established in the community for freeway signs and believes that criteria is no less than 500 feet. He stated that this criteria should be applied to the Specific Plan. Chairwoman Brinley stated she would prefer the 600 -800 feet as indicated by Mr. Michaelson. Discussion ensued on the distance and location of freeway signage with Chairwoman Brinley suggesting a minimum of 600 feet be added as a condition. Commissioner Wilsey asked if it would affect the approved Specific Plan by adding this condition. City Planner Leslie responded in the negative, and suggested the following language: "The applicant shall return with a revised Sign Program that includes a provision that the minimum separation between freeway identification signs shall be 600 feet." Commissioner Wilsey asked if this would not require an amendment to the Specific Plan. City Planner Leslie responded in the negative, and explained that the Specific Plan does not address this. Assistant Planner Villa informed the Commission that the future freeway identification signs will be subject to their approval. Commissioner Metze commented on the 600 foot minimum distance for freeway signage, and the ratio for signage. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE UNIFORM SIGN CRITERIA BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTING A REVISED SIGN PROGRAM REFLECTING A MINIMUM 600 FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE THREE FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. Condition No. 1: Applicant shall submit a Revised Sign Program reflecting the changes to section "N" (Pylon Signs, Freeway Identification Signs), limiting the number to three (3) potential pylon signs and a minimum 600 foot separation between the three (3) potential freeway identification signs. 2. Amendment #1 to the Mission Trail Plaza Sign Program - Iry Chase, MTSC Lake Elsinore Partners (The Cooper Group /Barry P. Cooper) - City Planner Leslie detailed the project explaining this amendment will add verbiage to the Sign Program designed to address signage for major tenants. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, she asked for discussion at the table. Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1993 Page 4 Commissioner Metze inquired about the square footage for major /minor tenants, whether the 6,000- 10,000 square foot was to remain or if this changes for every developer. City Planner Leslie explained that the Sign Code addresses the total sign area allowed, which shall not exceed one square foot per linear foot of building frontage. Discussion ensued on the square footage of major /minor tenant space; the rehabilitation of the center and whether permits have been issued for the new signs that have been erected. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE AMENDMENT #1 TO THE MISSION TRAIL SIGN PROGRAM BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS City Planner Leslie informed the Commission of the following: 1. The Laguna Heights project has been postponed to the Council meeting of August 10, 1993. 2. The meeting scheduled for July 22, 1993, with Western Desert has been postponed. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Referred to the Minutes of June 30, 1993 and requested the following changes for clarification: Page 7, 4th paragraph from bottom, first line, delete the word "stated" and insert "asked if". Page 9, 4th paragraph from bottom, second line, delete the word "this" and insert "Laguna Heights South ". 4th line, delete the word "though" and start new sentence with "Laguna Heights South as....". Commissioner Metze Commented on the outside storage bins for Wal -Mart and glad it was conditioned that they be concealed, referencing the visibility of the storage bins at the Wal -Mart in Corona. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1993 Page 5 Chairwoman Brinley Thanked staff for all of their hard work on the Laguna Heights project. She then asked that staff check into the following: 1. Chief Auto and Subway at Four Corners the signs (sandwich signs) are still out there in the public right -of -way and were there all weekend. 2. On Riverside Drive, the A- Frame - -the new bicycle rental shop, has a new sign and a banner, were permits issued? City Planner Leslie stated these items will be passed on to Code Enforcement. Chairwoman Brinley asked that a report be brought back at the next meeting. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:14 p.m., motion second by Commissioner Metze. Approved 5 -0 Res ctfully ubmitted, inda Gri staff Secretary Lake Elsinore Planning by Commissioner Wilsey, 'pp oved, Pam Bri ey, Chairw man MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 1993 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by City Planner Leslie. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Wilsey, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Senior Planner Morita, Associate Planner DeGange, Assistant Planner Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Second by Commissioner Bullard and carried by unanimous vote of those present to approve Minutes of July 21, 1993, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 93 -2, Variance 93 -3, Conditional Use Permit 93 -3, Commercial Project 93 -3 and Sign Program - Stanley N. Mullins (Carlson Design and Construction) Assistant Planner Villa explained that the request is to re- zone .70 acres from R -1 (Single - Family Residential) to C -2 (General Commercial) to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan; to deviate from Section 17.94.170(I.a) of the Municipal Code; a Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive thru and Design Review for the construction of a 2,800 square foot Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant at 321 Summerhill Drive, and; Uniform Sign Program for the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. Chairwoman Brinley suggested these items be continued explain- ing the need to work with the applicant on the architectural issues, and asked for the consensus of the Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue these items. Mr. Russell May, 11008 Cleveland Court, gave a brief history on past meetings associated with this project regarding the architectural design. A brief discussion ensued on the previous meetings held, the architectural features and colors discussed, the color red to be eliminated. Continuing the proposal to allow additional time for Commission members, applicant and staff to work on design issues, which include roof tile and building accent color, roof design (cupola), and signage. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE 93 -2, VARIANCE 93 -3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -3, COMMERCIAL PROJECT 93 -3 AND THE SIGN PROGRAM TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1993. 2. Specific Plan 92 -2, Environmental Impact Report 91 -3 and Tentative Tract Map 27415 - Komerica Land Development Associate Planner DeGange utilizing a video prepared explained that this is the Lake Terrace Specific Plan and Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 1993 Page 2 Tentative Tract Map, an 18 acre mixed use (commercial and residential) Specific Plan and subdivision of the project area into commercial parcels and residential lots. He then referred to the memorandum dated August 4, 1993, requesting the addition of 2 conditions, as follows: 70. Architectural plans for any commercial structures to be submitted for Design Review approval shall show plans for structures designed to conceal any proposed vending machines, tables, kid's rides, newspaper racks, shopping cart storage areas, telephones, and any other devices similar to the above mentioned. These structures shall be architecturally compatible with the rest of the building and center. 71. Applicant shall submit either a revision to the January 21, 1992 version of Tentative Tract Map 27415 specifying that the residential parcels (parcels 1 and 6) are for condominium purposes, or verbiage shall be added to the specific plan within Section XI. F. (Development Standards) accompany the July 29, 1993 version of the map This verbiage shall state that zero lot lines are permitted for the common walls of the single - family attached units and that minimum lot frontages for the Medium Density Residential District shall be a width of 25 feet. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Deputy City Clerk reported the following written communication was received: Dennis & Chris Burkhart, 29252 Northpointe Street; Mr. & Mrs. Vincent Dominguez (no address); Deborah Small, 29241 Northpointe Street; Linda Spencer, 15014 Navel Way; Mrs. Richards (no address) Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Les Cooley, Architects Pacifica, representing the applicant, gave a background report on the proposal high- lighting the meetings held with property owners and the design and preparation of the Specific Plan document. He then questioned condition number 15, pertaining to the facilities proposed, and condition number 57, pertaining to the two driveway approaches. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. The following people spoke: Will Buck, 29610 Hague Street (past Councilmember) , gave a brief history on the establishment of the Specific Plan designation and.the permitted uses for the project site. Gary Barker, 15014 Notnil Way; John Vermillion, 15017 Notnil Way; Chris Hyland, 15191 Wave Crest; Marian Rose, 15012 Notnil Way; David Esponosa, 29053 Fig Way; Glenn Koch, 16500 Mango Way; Phyllis Pardee; 290 Sheri Durbin, 29055 Fig Way Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. The following people expressed concern on the land use Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 1993 Page 3 compatibility, public safety, density, and traffic circulation: Leon Strigotte, 216 Chaney Street (past Councilmember), gave a brief history on the zoning of the project site at the time of annexation, and expressed his concerns on density, land use, traffic and public safety. Chris McColley, 29072 Palm View; Dave Long, Superintendent of Lake Elsinore Unified School District, 22409 Loch Lomond, Canyon Lake; Joseph DeSues, 16514 Nectarine Way; Diana Gilham, 16505 Mango Way; Carlos Lorenzo, 29248 Northpointe Street; Norma DeSues, 16514 Nectarine Way; Donald Foster, 29256 Northpointe Street; Mike Johnson, 29050 Palm View; Lois Knight, 16504 Mango Way; Pam Hendrix, 29074 Palm View; Joanne Senefsky; 29049 Avocado At this time, 8:45 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 9:00 p.m., the Commission reconvened. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. The following people spoke expressing concern on density, land use compatibility, traffic, public health, safety and welfare, and the proximity to schools and the children's safety: Cynthia Robinson, 29196 Outrigger Street; Jeannie Martineau, 29042 Mango; Jack McColley, 29072 Palm View; Bruce Yates, 15035 Valencia Way; Cynthia Deboer, 29175 Outrigger Street; Ronald Briggs, 29192 Outrigger Street; Pat Lopiccolo, 29076 Tangerine Way; Garcia, 29081 Palm View; Rhonda Sosa, 29068 Tangerine Way; Eddie Trunk, 29160 outrigger Street; Dennis Lee, 29804 Palm View; Ron Hendrix, 29074 Palm View; Juan Case, 29201 Northpointe Ross Thomas, 16523 Mountain Avenue; Anna Smith, 29058 Palm View; Ray Knight, 16504 Mango Way; James Taylor, 29007 Spindrift Circle; Carlos M. Hanon, 29200 Northpointe Street; Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Mark Dennis, 29065 Palm View Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 9:36 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the Continuation School being housed at Terra Cotta for the last three years and the discipline problem in the high school. Ms. Martineau, representing the School District Board of Directors, responded to Chairwoman Brinley's concerns. Chairwoman Brinley then commented on the problems associated with strip centers, referencing various centers. She then Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 1993 Page 4 commented on the land use mix not being compatible with existing surrounding uses, and stated that she could not vote in favor of this proposal as proposed and would recommend denial to City Council. Commissioner Metze commented on the problems with commercial uses being in close proximity to schools. Commissioner Bullard stated that they do listen to the citizens. He then expressed concern with the mix, commercial /R -1, and the traffic and public safety issues. He inquired whether Terra Cotta Junior High School would be expanded. He then expressed concern with the traffic and public safety. Commissioner Wilsey commented that traffic is a major concern and that he was opposed to attached housing. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -2 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27415 AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 93 -9, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 93 -9 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 DENIAL OF THE LAKE TERRACE PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 92 -2) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27415 - KOMERICA LAND DEVELOPMENT Senior Planner Morita inquired about the action to be taken on the Environmental Impact Report. A brief discussion ensued on the Environmental Impact Report and the action taken. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE LAKE TERRACE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS DENIED. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE Community Development Manager Shear gave an oral report on signage at Chief Auto and Subway at Four Corners, and the A- Frame, on Riverside Drive. PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Thanked the audience and reiterated his comment on listening to the public. Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 1993 Page 5 Commissioner Wilsey Commented specifically on the Lake Terrace Specific Plan and stated that by letting the applicant get this far in the process the City had done him a disservice. The City should identify what it is looking for on this site prior to any future development proposals. Commissioner Metze Commented that the Board does care about public concerns. Chairwoman Brinlev Commented on the hours spent in meetings for this project with the applicant /developer and the residents. In these meetings the concerns from the public had been taken into consideration, and unfortunately no compromise was ever reached. Commissioner Neff Absent. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Bullard. Approved 4 -0 pr ed, Pam Brinley, Chairwoman Respectfully ubmitted, a Grindstaff Secretary HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 18TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. r«ieo, &V wag] PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Bullard. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Neff, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wilsey, Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, Associate Planner DeGange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Bullard referred to his comments on Page 4, 3rd paragraph, for clarification delete the word "public" and insert the word "citizens ". Also, clarify the statement with regard to Terra Cotta Junior High School by deleting the following "and recommended that no expansion take place." Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Metze and carried by a vote of 3 -1 with Commissioner Neff abstaining to approve Minutes of August 4, 1993, with the above clarification. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Tract Map 27317 - Western Desert Corp. - Chairwoman Brinley stated it has been requested that this item be continued and called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27317 TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1993. 2. Zone Change 93 -2, Variance 93 -3, Conditional Use Permit 93 -3, Commercial Project 93 -3 and Sign Program Continued from August 4, 1993 - Stanley N. Mullins (Carlson Design and Construction) Assistant Planner Villa explained that the request is to re- zone .70 acres from R -1 (Single- Family Residential) to C -2 (General Commercial) to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan; to deviate from Section 17.94.170(I.a) of the Municipal Code; a Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive thru and Design Review for the construction of a 2,800 square foot Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant at 321 Summer - hill Drive, and; Uniform Sign Program for the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. Assistant Planner Villa then gave a background report on the concerns raised with regard to architectural features, colors, signage, and the trees to be provided in the parking lot. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Robert Merriam, Carlson Design and Construction, representing the applicant, stated they agree with the conditions with the exception of condition number 28, 29, 30 and 32, asked that they be amended as necessary based on the decision this evening. Also, would request that condition number 34 be changed to prior to Certificate of Occupancy rather than building permit. Requested that condition number Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 2 46 be deleted, as our client is the owner of Parcel 1 and we have no control over Parcel 2 and 3. Assistant Planner villa reminded the Commission that the signage on the roof was agreed to by the applicant and Commissioners at the last meeting with the applicant. Since then staff has researched the Code and determined that the signage would not be allowed under the current Code. There- fore, if the applicant or Commission wish to allow this signage it would require a variance. Chairwoman Brinley asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. The following people spoke: Corey Northcott, P.O. Box 2320, Chino, designed the signage for this project, commented on signage and visibility of the existing signage in the area and stated anything less than 80 square feet would not be effective, condition number 30. Mr. Russell May, 11008 Cleveland Court, commented briefly on the past meetings and negotiations associated with this project, referencing the signage proposed on the mansard roof. Mr. Roger May, 33171 Sangston, stated that he 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 anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked staff to address the condition raised by Mr. Merriam. Engineering Manager O'Donnell addressed condition 34, explain- ing the normal procedure is to get a lot line adjustment approved and recorded prior to building permit, as this establishes the property lines and setbacks. This condition should remain. Condition 46, when the map was recorded this was a condition on the map; that dedication would not be required until building permits were pulled, and we are following up a condition of the map. Chairwoman Brinley asked how this would be accomplished, since they don't have control. Mr. O'Donnell stated that when they purchased the property it should have been a condition of the sale. Essentially, this has to do with the right -of -way for the bridge (San Jacinto Bridge). We allowed the map to be recorded and didn't take possession of that right -of -way, but I think this may have already been done. Chairwoman Brinley asked if this condition should remain until staff is certain this has been done. Mr. O'Donnell stated this was a condition of the map; that no building permit would be issued on this map until the right - of -way was dedicated. Chairwoman Brinley stated at this time, the condition can remain and if it has been dedicated then it is a mute point. Mr. O'Donnell responded that if this has not been done, he is unsure how it will be resolved. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 3 Chairwoman Brinley asked if this is something that could be addressed at that point by the Community Development Director or designee. Community Development Manager Shear stated if it has not been recorded and the owner(s) of Parcel 2 and 3 do not want to record those right -of -ways then it will go to litigation. Commissioner Metze asked if they were not required to do that. Mr. Shear stated it was required as part of the final map, before any permit for any of the parcels to have the dedication. If the owner of Parcel 2 and 3 does not want to dedicate then he has sold an unbuildable lot, because the map has a restriction. Discussion ensued on whether this was a form of landlocking; requirement for dedication applying to all 3 parcels; whether escrow has closed on the property, and the condition remaining as stated for the protection of the applicant. Chairwoman Brinley stated that aesthetics and compatibility with the surrounding area is the reason behind conditions 28, 29, 30 and 32. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the signage proposed, and suggested the signage on the mansard roof be relocated to below the roof line, referring to the rendering. She gave a brief history on the establishment of the sign code and stated she has no problem with the 60 square foot freeway sign, but has reservation with the 80 foot. She then inquired about the location and architectural features proposed for the cupola, and whether it will be illuminated. Commissioner Neff commented on consistency in the area; use of corporate logo colors and corporate office acceptance of color schemes, and design of freeway signage. Commissioner Bullard commented on freeway signage visibility, and stated he has no problem with applicant's request for 80 square feet. Commissioner Metze inquired whether condition 34 and 46 were addressed to the satisfaction of the applicant. Mr. Merriam responded that he did not understand it. Chairwoman Brinley stated that condition 46 is basically for your protection and condition 34 is working with staff. Mr. Merriam then referred to Page 3 paragraph 2 of the August 4th Staff Report restricting signs which exceed the height of the roof -line or parapet. Mr. Shear gave the definition of a roof line. Discussion ensued on the proposed mansard signage and this not being allowed by Code and would require a variance, and not setting a precedence. Whether there is room to relocate the sign as suggested earlier. Amending condition 28 by adding: Redesign of the roof or sign shall be worked out with staff. Commissioner Metze stated that he does not have a problem with the 80 foot sign, but would like to see some uniformity. He then asked staff or the applicant to address condition 28 and 29, regarding colors. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Merriam referred to the color board, which was resubmitted and illustrates the precise colors proposed. Chairwoman Brinley stated she has no problem with the proposed colors on the material board; the 80 foot freeway sign; re- designing the roof to accommodate signage; design and illumi- nation of the cupola. She then inquired about the drive -thru and traffic circulation and whether this had been addressed. Assistant Planner Villa stated after additional review staff no longer thinks this is a problem as the area referred to will be open. Discussion ensued on condition number 28 and 29 with regard to color, amending condition 28 to reflect the approved colors as illustrated on the re- submitted materials board and allowing the color red at the lower bands, and deleting condition 29. Commissioner Metze inquired whether condition number 32 should be deleted, as this has been redesigned. Discussion ensued on condition 32 with regard to the design and illumination of the cupola, and deleting the language "and replacing the plastic panel with stucco on the remaining cupola." MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 93 -2 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 93 -3 BASED ON EXHIBITS "B" AND "C", FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS 28, 29, 30 AND 32. Commissioner Metze asked if the maker of the motion was recommending deletion of condition number 29. CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AMENDED HER MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 93 -2 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 93 -3 BASED ON EXHIBITS "B" AND "C", FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS 28, 30 AND 32 AND DELETION OF CONDITION 29, AND APPROVAL OF VARIANCE 93 -3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -3, AND SIGN PROGRAM BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY A 4 -0 VOTE. Condition 28. Prier to Eity Geuneil eensideratien, the applieant will be required to submit revised set e€ elevatiens re €leeti g —tire —use e€ ° The approved colors are illustrated on the re- submitted materials board. The redesign of the mansard roof or signage shall be approved by the Community Development Manager or designee. Condition 29. Prier to Eity Geaneil eensideratien, the desired eeler seheme €er the area. DELETED. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 5 Condition 30. The proposed Freeway Identification Sign will be restricted to sixty) eighty (80) square feet. Applicant to submit revised sign plans. Condition 32. Prior to City Council consideration, the applicant will be required to submit revised set of elevations reflecting the deletion of one (1) of the cupola, and elimination of signage, reduction of pitch and replacing the BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Residential Project 98 -17 Amendment #2 - Lewis Homes - Assistant Planner Villa explained that the request is for Design Review of four (4) model homes which will be built on Lots 19 through 23 of Tract 19750 -1, and plotting for Phase 1. The tract is located at the southeast corner of the inter- section of Robb Road and Mountain. The model home complex will be located on Ivy Court. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Ms. Mimi Rayl, representing Lewis Homes, questioned condition 8, 20 and 24 as follows: • Condition 8, the lot numbers need to be corrected. Lot 5 has a 63 foot wide frontage and believes this falls under the exception under Section 17.23.080.b. Lot 23, is a part of the model complex and while the lot area is substandard for the City's current standards the width is 65 feet, and would like to request permission to waive the 15 foot side yard set back. Chairwoman Brinley asked if this would not require a variance, correct? Assistant Planner Villa responded in the affirmative. • Condition 20, ground mounting and screening of equipment. Community Development Manager Shear stated condition number 20 is a standard condition to prevent roof mounted equipment. Condition 24, the masonry or decorative block wall. We came in with wall and fence plans that proposed the use of block wall along all areas visible from the public right -of -way as well as the returns to the homes, and wood fence details for side and rear yards that are not visible from public right -of -way. Explained that the wood fence detail they use is stronger and more stable that the average wood fence detail. Requested con- sideration of this as an alternative. Commissioner Neff asked if this would be painted. Ms. Rayl responded in the negative. Commissioner Metze asked how we are guaranteed that this would happen. Community Development Shear stated basically City Council has made the change to the regulations stipulating block walls, and gave a brief history on why this was changed. He then stated the applicant has the option to appeal that portion to Council. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 6 Commissioner Metze commented on the block wall proposed for Robb Road and Lake Street and inquired whether this was to be installed in phases. Asked about the entry into the models /homes and the disposition of existing three models. Ms. Rayl stated the first phase of production is on the far east side of the project and we would phase our improvements over. The new model complex would be across from the existing model complex and the existing homes would be cleaned up and offered for sale. There would be an entry to the models from Mountain, and the production would start on the east and we would build the roads as we built the different phases. Commissioner Metze stated that he is concerned with the block wall, which was started and then stopped, inquired whether this can be completed as part Phase I. Ms. Rayl stated that they had not gotten that far into the phasing - -when the different walls will be installed, but we have to submit to the City Engineer a schedule for the various improvements. Commissioner Neff stated that he thought this was for design review only. Chairwoman Brinley asked if this could be noted in the record as a concern by Commissioner Metze. Community Development Manager Shear responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Neff commented on condition number 8 and the applicant needing to submit a variance application for consideration of smaller side yard width. He commented on the costs to construction a block wall and build a fence, condition 24. He then inquired about the time frame for the models and production. Ms. Rayl responded that the building plans are far enough along to be submitted for first plan check, if they haven't been already. Right now, we are refining our costs. Commissioner Bullard asked if the existing model homes will be improved and landscaped at the same time as the new models. Ms. Rayl responded in the affirmative. Chairwoman Brinley suggested this be added as condition number 31, the existing models will be cleaned up and landscaped at the same time as the new models. Commissioner Bullard commented on the block wall going down Robb Road, the fencing in the area and the different phasing. This should be noted as a concern, and we would like to see the block wall completed on the Robb Road side. Chairwoman Brinley suggested this be entered in the record as a concern of Commissioner Bullard, Metze and Brinley to be addressed. Commissioner Neff recommended the applicant discuss with City Council consideration of a trade -off. Perhaps, volunteering to construct the block wall beyond Robb Road, all along there where your existing graded lots are, as an alternative to constructing interior side and year block walls. Chairwoman Brinley stated that she agrees with the other Commissioners on condition number 24. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 7 Community Development Manager Shear informed the Commission that the plans have been submitted for plan check and they are being plan checked at this time. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -17 AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 AND THE PLOTTING FOR PHASE 1 BASED ON EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "G ", FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 8 TO REQUIRE A VARIANCE AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NUMBER 31. Assistant Planner Villa asked for clarification on condition 8. Discussion ensued on condition 8, and this condition being corrected as discussed earlier, deleting "Lot 5 of Tract 19750 -3 ". COMMISSIONER BULLARD AMENDED HIS MOTION TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -17 AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 AND THE PLOTTING FOR PHASE 1 BASED ON EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "G ", FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 8 AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NUMBER 31, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE, AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT. Condition No. 8: All structures shall meet setback requirements identified in the Municipal Code Section 17.23.080.B. Dwelling units proposed for Lot 23 of Tract 19750 -1 a-nd Let —5— of Traet 19750 -3 (as shown on Exhibit "E") shall maintain a fifteen (151) foot side setback. Condition No. 31: The three (3) existing models are to be completed, cleaned -up, and landscaped at the time the new models are opened. 4. Amendment #1 to the Central Business Park Sign Program - Brookstone Development - Arlie Blood (Steve Harriman) - Assistant Planner DeGange explained that the amendment will permit buildings within the complex, who have more than three tenants, to have a freestanding directory sign. The site is located at the southeast intersection of Central and Collier. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Arlie Blood gave a brief history on the center and high- lighted the past problems with signage. Mr. Steve Harriman stated that they are in agreement with the conditions, and will answer any questions. Commissioner Metze asked if this is something that would be constantly changing. Associate Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bullard commented on Exhibit "C" and "D" and the location of signs. Chairwoman Brinley suggested no other signage be permitted - -no sandwich signs, no cardboard signs, etc, and this added as condition number 5. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE AMENDMENT Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 8 NUMBER 1 TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS PARK SIGN PROGRAM BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NUMBER 5. Condition No. 5: No other accessory signage such as sandwich boards shall be permitted. PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Metze Commented on previous concerns raised on projects and not conditioned, and the issues were never brought up again. Commissioner Bullard Commented on the baseball park being under construction and excited about this. .Z Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Still concerned with what is occurring at Four Corners, the signs are still out. Inquired about the status. Community Development Manager Shear stated the Code Enforcement Officer has this on the priority list. Commissioner Wilsey Absent. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:55 p.m., motion by Commissioner Bullard, second by Commissioner Metze. Approved 4 -0 Appr ved, I v Pam Bri ley, Chair oman ReoOctfully S mitted, C� Lic�7 inda Grin staff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:04 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Metze. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley, Bullard, Metze, Wilsey ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff. Also present were: City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner De Gange, Engineering Manager O'Donnell and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. MINUTE ACTION MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT WITH COMMISSIONER WILSEY ABSTAINING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 1993. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the Public Comment Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 27821, Commercial Project No. 93 -4 "Camelot Center Phase II Theater" Variance No. 92 -2. MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY BULLARD AND APPROVED BY THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 27821, COMMERCIAL PROJECT NO. 93 -4, "CAMELOT CENTER PHASE II THEATER" VARIANCE NO. 92 -2 TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1993. Commissioner Neff arrived at 7:08 p.m. 2. Annexation 65, Zone Change 92 -6, and Tentative Tract Map 27317 - Western Desert Corporation. Associate Planner De Gange explained that this item consists of Annexation No. 65 which is a proposal to annex 116 acres into the City of Lake Elsinore including 60 acres associated with Tentative Tract Map 27317. The project also consists of prezoning of 346 acres which includes the 116 acre annexation area of R -H (Residential Hillside) and 230 acres of a portion of the Woodhaven Tract. Also, included in this proposal, is Tentative Tract Map 27317 which proposes to subdivide a 60 acre portion of the project into 135 single- family residential lots ranging in size from 33,600 to 12,000 square feet. Mr. De Gange explained that this tentative tract map received approval from Riverside County on August 2, 1989 and was approved for 98 lots with a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size with the same circulation pattern as currently proposed. Associate Planner De Gange stated the following special project concerns: Zone Change 92 -6 The R -H and R -A zoning classifications proposed for the project site accommodates the desired zoning for the tentative map area and seem to fit the existing residential areas. Residential Hillside (R -H) is potentially inappropriate for the undeveloped property along Machado and Grand (the Morris property) . The Morris property is surrounded on the east and south by single - family residential lots ranging in size from Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 2 6,000 to 12,000 square feet. When this property is subdivided it may be the owner's desire to do so with a density similar with the surrounding property. The City's current General Plan land use designation for this property, however, is Low Density Residential which allows for a maximum of three dwelling units per acre (14520 square foot minimum average lot size) , subsequently to be consistent with the General Plan the area has been prezoned R -H which allows a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. Tentative Tract Map 27317 Several issues of concern have been raised by neighboring residents in the Woodhaven tract and in the area directly adjacent to the east of the project in neighborhood meetings hosted by the applicant. These concerns include: 1) compatibility of proposed lot densities and sizes with surrounding existing lots; 2) perceived potential loss of equestrian rights; 3) downstream drainage impacts; 4) down slope maintenance along the eastern project boundary; and 5) increased traffic on existing streets. Associate Planner De Gange further explained that the project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been found not to have any significant impact on the environment or that any impacts will be mitigated. Subsequently, Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 -7 has been prepared and it is recommended by staff, that the Planning Commission 1) Recommend to City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 -7; 2) Recommend to City Council commencement of proceedings to annex to the City of Lake Elsinore Annexation No. 65; and 3) Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92 -6 and Tentative Tract Map 27317 based on the following Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. and asked if there were any written correspondence. Deputy City Clerk Bryning reported there were 158 pieces of correspondence in opposition to the project on file with the Planning Department. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in favor of the project to speak. The following person spoke: Steve Parry, Hamilton Consulting, 3397 Silva Road, STE 320, Dana Point, spoke on behalf of the applicant and gave a brief overview of the project and explained the history of the project. He stated that the applicant has made adjustments to address the concerns of staff and the surrounding residents. Mr. Parry presented exhibits to better define the project. Chairwoman Brinley asked that Mr. Parry to conclude his presentation in order to allow others to address the commission and then he would be called upon after the public hearing is closed to address the issues and concerns of the commission. Steve Parry stated that in closing he felt that by prezoning the surrounding property it will be compatible with what is there now and further stated that the firm has designed the project to mitigate the concerns of the surrounding property owners. Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 3 Chairwoman Brinley then asked for those in opposition to the project to speak. The following persons spoke: Donna Bejarano, 32831 Magdaleno Court, stated her opposition to the project and stated that there are three houses planned behind her home and with two homes as previously planned she would continue to have her view with three there would be no view. She further addressed drainage problems which she is experiencing due to grading on the land behind her home which had been level previous to the grading. She stated that due to raising the level of the land eight feet behind her home it has created a loss of view as well as lack of privacy and drainage problems. She asked that Condition No. 66 be changed to read that all drainage facilities be complete before units can be occupied. Joseph Archer, 16271 Alvarado Street, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that he did not feel that the project would be compatible to the surrounding area and that a restriction to horses when at this time the surrounding property owners can have any type of livestock. He further cited potential drainage problems and stated that the property was purchased as part of the County area and he felt that it should stay part of the County. Patricia Lee Nolan, 30620 Plumas, spoke in opposition to the project and explained that she did not want to be forced to annex into the City due to an island condition (a potential requirement of LAFCO) and stated that there is possible traffic danger created by this project and that it will their country style living. Allan Knight, 30570 Brookstone, spoke in opposition to the project and stated his concerns regarding the traffic intersections on Grand and the dangerous traffic conditions that this will create. He further stated his concerns regarding equestrian trails and the use of their horses in the area. Lee Bulen, 14949 Toft Street, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association would like to have their letter of support made part of the record in support of the Woodhaven area as follows: Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Committee Steering Committee C/O H. John Kelly, Team Leader 14585 Amorose Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (909) 678 -5477 1 September, 1993 The Planning Commission 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Association Steering RE: Tentative Tract Map 27317 The Western Desert Corporation and: Proposed Annexation #k65 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of the Brookstone Ranch Homeowners Association, the Brookstone Ranch Board of Directors and Steering Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 4 Committee would like to inform you that we support our neighbors in the Woodhaven area with regard to the following position: The entire north west side of Lake Elsinore and it's adjacent county neighborhoods will be significantly impacted by the Laguna Heights and Casa Suena Projects. All parcels proposed for annexation #65 will be severely affected by traffic noise, flooding, the destruction of the rural residential status, and more. It appears as though the proposal being considered this evening is an attempt by the City of Lake Elsinore in concert with the developers concerned to deny 211 property owners the right to vote on annexation. The City will achieve this by submitting a concurrent application to LAFCO for annexation #65 (The Casa Suena Project) with the Laguna Heights annexation #62. To prevent property owners from being denied their rights to protest annexation, they must be included in annexation #62 which will decide the fate of the entire area. Please respect our wishes as affected property owners by rejecting annexation #65, Tentative Tract Map #27317, and the prezoning proposed for the Woodhaven area. Yours truly, H. John Kelly, Team Leader Lee Bulen, Board President H. John Kelly, 14845 Amorose, spoke in opposition to the project and submitted 46 petitions in opposition to the project. David Locke, 15025 Monty Court, spoke in opposition to the project and questioned the prezoning of the Woodhaven Tract and he stated that he felt that if they are prezoned they should be included in the annexation in order to have a say in the entire project. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Cobre St., spoke in opposition to the project and asked that the General Plan be changed to conform to the surrounding residences. He further stated that street lighting and landscaping assessments are a concern as well as mandatory sewer hook -ups, the ability to have farm animals and all other City restrictions. He further questioned the increase in the number of homes proposed when the original called for 98 not 135 single - family residences. David Buchanan, 30881 Plumas St., spoke in opposition to the project and explained that he and some other people who helped him did an informal survey and ascertained that this project is not wanted and that Woodhaven does not want to be annexed. Richard Bejarano, 32831 Magdaleno Court, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that he felt that this project is not compatible for the area and he stated that the increase in the amount of lots are not acceptable. He stated that the main concern of the surrounding residences is not development, but rather density. Mr. Bejarano stated that the traffic circulation and intersection design could create a problem should there have to be an emergency evacuation for any reason and this should be considered. Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 5 Vance White, 15009 Eureka, spoke in opposition to the.project and explained that he felt that it should be restored to the original 98 houses originally proposed with the County and cited the flooding problems in the area, traffic concerns for Eureka Street and who is going to pay for the costs for improvements to handle the traffic and a traffic study is needed for this area. Vivian Beaumont, 30630 Brookstone Lane, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that she.felt that the hearing was an attempt on the City's behalf to destroy the rural areas and force the residents into the City. She further stated that this project would affect the quality of life due to high density and stated her support of Supervisor Bob Buster and explained that he felt that this area should remain rural. Hearing no further requests to address the project, Chairwoman Brinley closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked the representatives of the applicant to address Mr. White's concern over the traffic study and flooding on Eureka and who is going to provide for the widening of the street and the traffic signal. Mr. Parry stated that he would like to address the flooding issue and explained that drainage is the single largest cost of the project that is a condition of approval of the tract map. Fred Crowe, Keith Companies, explained that the calculations which show the flow from the subdivision to Eureka are approximately one third of the drainage and show that the 100 year storm be maintained within the right -of -way of the street and that the 10 year storm be maintained within the curb. He further explained that as the flows approach Machado it can be at capacity, but at the upper -end it will not be at capacity. Under standard flood control calculations the street is fine for carrying flows. The plans were approved in the County and has the same run -off. He further stated that the flows to Grand Avenue and the western part of the project will be handled by a piping system to the Lake. Mr. Crowe explained that there are no flows that go northerly or come from the north southerly that come from the Alvarado area. Commissioner Wilsey asked what the difference in construction that have been required between this project and the Brookstone project. Mr. Crowe explained that Brookstone left their channels in a natural state and were not conditioned to improve the channels and in his opinion they will continue to have erosion until that problem is addressed. This project will be picking up the westerly side of the Brookstone and Woodhaven property and they will be handled by drainage pipes to the Grand Avenue area. Mr. Crowe stated that there will be approximately $2,000,000 of flood control improvements. Mr. Crowe explained that at the time of the development of Brookstone and Woodhaven there were less strict standards regarding flood control and this project (as an infill) is picking up the expenses of the other developments that did not have to meet current standards. Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 6 Chairwoman Brinley questioned the concern regarding the bottle- necking of traffic which would make it difficult to do emergency evacuations and the increase in the number of houses in the project. Mr. Parry explained that the change in the economic conditions in the last few years have created a situation where 98 lots would not be economically feasible to create the project, and therefore it was necessary to raise the amount of residences to 135 to meet the costs of the drainage and other conditions of approval. Mr. Parry further addressed the ingress and egress of the project and presented an exhibit and explained that even with the increase in traffic the actual will be approximately one - half of what the streets is designed for. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the lifestyle of the residents and the restrictions regarding animals. Mr. Parry explained that the use for equestrian purposes will continue as well all other types of general livestock. City Planner Leslie defined the code and explained what can be allowed. Chairwoman Brinley then questioned the mandatory services and the tax and assessment issues. Associate Planner De Gange explained that the only raise in the property owners taxes or assessments would be the Lighting and Landscaping Assessment which is off -set by the fact that the property owners would no longer have to pay the assessment for the Ortega Trails Assessment. One Assessment off -sets the other. Mr. Parry explained that the Water District for water and sewer services does not conform to City boundaries and they level their own assessments and this is not ordered or conditioned by the City. He further explained that this also applies to the School District. Chairwoman Brinley questioned the fencing and drainage on Condition No. 66. Ray O'Donnell, Engineering Manager suggested that the condition read: "all drainage facilities should be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy ". City Planner Leslie stated that this is standard policy, but can be added to Condition No. 73. Mr. Crowe explained that a condition can be added to mitigate Mrs. Bejarano concern over the three lots behind her house that there be a lot line adjustment to allow for two houses behind her home which would address lots 13, 14, and 15, which will be Condition No. 33 a. Mr. Crowe asked that the fencing be addressed at the time of the Design Review process. Mr. Wilsey explained that this is addressed in Condition No. 14. Commissioner Neff addressed the traffic circulation and questioned the intersections and the amount of distance between the streets and how it came to be designed in this manner. Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Crowe presented an exhibit and explained the configuration of the land and lot usage. Mr. Parry explained the necessity for the ingress and egress for proper traffic balance and how the lots were designed for best use of the available land. He further explained the distance which is 300 feet between the intersections and the affect on the flood control underground pipe which makes these streets necessary. Mr. O'Donnell explained that the concern would be the left turn into Plumas and Eureka, but there is a need for these "T" intersections. The reason for not moving the intersection is a straight line run, which would create a short - cutting through other residential streets which is a situation the City discourages. Commissioner Neff asked why the prezoning was done if the area is not part of the annexation. City Planner Leslie explained that the applicants project, as it stands now, does not have a contiguous boundary with the City, so they can't annex to the City and the area proposed for annexation would be the logical area to draw in with the annexation due to the provision of services, access and drainage impacts. He further explained the reason for the prezoning due to concern by the residents in the area that even though they were not being proposed for this annexation, they may be proposed in a later annexation and wanted to clarify what those areas would be if they were to come into the City through annexation at some point in the future. Mr. Leslie explained that if LAFCO wishes to see this area annexed with the project then the prezoning is in place, although that is not being proposed at this time. Commissioner Neff questioned the slope areas and asked what will happen between existing tracts and this proposed tract. Mr. Parry explained the difference in elevations and how the slopes were addressed. He further stated that the maintenance of the slopes would be done by the property owners. He further addressed drainage from the slope which will drain to the streets. Commissioner Wilsey questioned the fact that this area of slope would end up a "no- man's - land ". Mr. Parry stated that in order to avoid a "no- mans - land" it was decided that the property owner would be responsible. Mr. Parry stated that the opposing slope, or down slope would be part of the easement and the maintenance would be done by a homeowners association. Commissioner Wilsey stated that fencing at top of the slope and address this in Condition No. 14. This should read "Lots 11 through 28 shall have fencing at the top of the slope. This fencing shall be constructed of masonry, decorative block, wrought iron or a combination ". Commissioner Neff asked how the equestrian fits into the project. Mr. Crowe explained the planned equestrian trail and gave a brief overview of how in fits into the trail system. The County trail does not go through the property, but is designed to go along Grand Avenue. This does not inhibit the trail system, but rather adds to it. Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Wilsey stated that it says that the applicant will dedicate this trail but it does not say that the applicant will build it. Mr. Crowe explained that it is on the street improvement plans. Commissioner Wilsey asked that Condition No. 19 read as follows: "Applicant shall dedicate and construct a multi - purpose trail along Grand Avenue for the purpose of tying into. the Riverside County Regional Equestrian Trail system subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. The trail shall be built to the City's standards." Commissioner Neff explained that he had a concern regarding construction traffic and that he would not like to see the traffic go through a residential area which is Eureka and Golondrina St. with a condition to be added as Condition No. 75, to read that "All construction traffic shall be limited to Grand Avenue and prohibited from using Golondrina and Eureka." Commissioner Metze asked what improvements will be done to Grand Avenue. Mr. Crowe explained that the improvements will be standard improvements which will be 38 foot from center line to curb, with construction of curb, sidewalk and equestrian trail and block wall along Grand Avenue. There is also a requirement for road improvement from project boundary to Machado Street. Commissioner Metze asked that since the new flood control regulations that the lesser amount of lots is not feasible. Mr. Crowe stated that is correct. He asked if the flood water on Magdaleno Court will drain through the project. Mr. Crowe confirmed that it would. Commissioner Bullard explained that he has concerns on Grand Avenue and asked if it would be possible to move the street to the right two lots and make a "T" in the project to expand the distance between the intersections. Mr. Crowe explained that this could create the loss of two lots and it can cause problems with the drainage for flood control. Mr. Bullard asked that this be looked into and be brought back at final tract map stage. Mr. Parry stated that he will have his staff look at this concern and look at all the possibilities and bring the findings back to the Commission. Commissioner Bullard asked if this project will create street improvements down to Machado. Mr. Crowe explained that the improvements will end at the tract boundary and a transition of 32 foot of pavement to Machado. He further explained that the County recently did some improvements in that area and if the Morris family's agreement is honored this will be addressed by the County. Commissioner Bullard asked for a condition which would be Condition No. 76 to read as follows: "All right -of -ways associated with this project which undergo any trenching or underground work shall be repaved curb to curb, at the completion of the work subject to the approval of the City Engineer or his designee. Engineering Manager O'Donnell explained that potholing was a problem of the past, but that it is being addressed better now. Mr. Parry stated that his firm did not have a problem with this condition. Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 9 Commissioner Bullard gave the floor to Mr. Terry Byers, 30780 Plumas, explained that he had a concern regarding the construction traffic on Grand Avenue due to the children walking to and from the Withrow Elementary School. There was general discussion in regard to this concern with Mr. Hamilton, a representative of the developer, explaining that this project could go on for 2 years and monitoring would not be an effective method to address the problems. Commissioner Neff stated that the School District should be consulted to address this problem. Chairwoman Brinley consulted Commissioner Neff and amended his Condition No. 75, to read as follows: "Prior to the commencement of construction, the developer shall meet with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District and City staff (Planning and Engineering) to determine if school children accessing the site destined to and from Withrow school will be impacted. If it is determined that the school children will be impacted, appropriate mitigation shall be developed which may include the provision of a crossing guard at the expense of the developer. Commissioner Wilsey stated a concern with the equestrian units and the property owners who abut them. He asked that a condition be added to read as follows: 33 b. "A statement of acknowledgement disclosing that all properties adjacent to the north, northeast, and west have zoning designations which permits the keeping of livestock as an accessory use shall be presented and signed by all perspective home owners within this tract at the time of sale (prior to the close of escrow) . MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -7, ANNEXATION NO. 65, ZONE CHANGE 92 -6 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27317 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS: 14. A masonry or decorative block wall shall be constructed along the entire tract boundary. In situations where views are to be considered a combination of wrought iron and block may be used subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or his designee. All other fencing shall be provided subject to section 17.14.130 D within the Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. A wall and /or fencing plan shall be developed which designates where the various fencing types are to be located, i.e., decorative masonry, or a combination wrought iron and decorative masonry prior to Design Review approval. Lots 11 through 28 shall have fencing at the top of the slope. This fencing shall be constructed of masonry, decorative block, wrought iron or a combination. 19. Applicant shall dedicate and construct a multi - purpose trail along Grand Avenue for the purpose of tying into the Riverside County Regional Equestrian Trail system subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. The trail shall be built to the City's standards. 33a. The placement of Lots 11 through 18 on the August 1993, version of TTM 27317 shall be adjusted so that none of the lots within the existing adjacent tract to the east will have more than two lots bordering them. Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 10 33b. A statement of acknowledgement disclosing that all properties adjacent to the north, northeast, and west have zoning designations which permits the keeping of livestock as an accessory use shall be presented and signed by all perspective home owners within this tract at the time of sale (prior to the close of escrow). 66. The Marina Channel shall be extended from Machado Avenue downstream approximately 2000 feet to the existing concrete lined channel maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control District, prior to construction of any unit of Tract 27317. Since this reach of required improvements is one of the projects which will eventually be funded by the Zone 3, Benefit Assessment Flood Control Bond Issue, the developer, should plan to execute an .agreement with the District to front its construction costs that are in excess of his Area Drainage Fee obligations, with payback via proceeds from the bond issue program over a 3 -year period; the payback to be anticipated in equal annual non - interest bearing amounts initiated 5 years after the tract is approved. 73. The developer, the City and the Riverside County Flood Control District shall enter into an agreement establishing the responsibility for design, construction, inspection, transfer of right -of -way and maintenance for storm drain facilities prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities must be constructed and be operational prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 75. All construction traffic shall be limited to Grand Avenue and prohibited from using Golondrina and Eureka. Prior to the commencement of construction, the developer shall meet with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District and City staff (Planning and Engineering) to determine if school children accessing the site destined to and from Withrow School pedestrians will be impacted. If it is determined that the school children will be impacted, appropriate mitigation shall be developed which may include the provision of a crossing guard at the expense of the developer. 76. All right -of -ways associated with this project which undergo any trenching or underground work shall be repaved curb to curb, at the completion of the work subject to the approval of the City Engineer or his designee. PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS City Planner Leslie explained that the CUP that was granted for Elsinore Marina West for special events was suppose to return to the Planning Commission for review in six months to determine how long the CUP will be in effect. This item has not been reviewed to date and there have been some questions in regard to the type of events that Elsinore Marina West has had. Mr. Leslie explained that this is to inform you that the issue will be brought before Planning Commission soon. City Planner Leslie explained that there is a new Ordinance amending the Zoning Code regarding fencing in residential tracts of four units or more or less than 12,000 square foot lots where by all side and rear yard fencing now has to be masonry or block wall construction with no exception except by City Council. Planning Commission Minutes September 1, 1993 Page 11 Commissioner Neff asked if painted wood fencing was discussed by Council. Mr. Leslie stated that Council specifically stated that they did not want any wood fencing. Chairwoman Brinley confirmed this. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Commented that if the proposed annexation this evening is completed the use of City parks and facilities will not be an issue for them regarding fees which is a positive for that area. Commissioner Neff No comments. Commissioner Metze Commented that there is no mandatory sewer hook -up and that he would like to know who is giving out this erroneous information. Commissioner Wilsey No comments. Chairwoman Brinley No comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9:51 P.M. 5driacL.uBryn tf11 S b� 'ng, erk MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1993, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF A QUORUM. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grin staff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1993 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, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wilsey Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Assistant Planner Villa and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Metze and carried by unanimous vote of those present to approve Minutes of September 1 1993, with clarification on Page 9, 3rd paragraph and Page 10, condition number 75, change the word "pedestrian" to "children ", and to receive and file Minutes of September 15, 1993. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Harvey French, 15393 Mountain View, stated he has a question pertaining to Tentative Parcel Map 27821. Chairwoman Brinley asked that this be addressed during the public hearing. There being no further request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. IA1l.)000to*1:414Yefz� 1. Tentative Parcel Map 27821, Commercial Project 93 -4, Variance 93 -2, Variance 93 -4, Conditional Use Permit 93 -4 - Depasquale Family Trust (Camelot Property Counselors, Inc.) , Continued from 9 -1 -93. Assistant Planner Villa explained that the request is to subdivide 17.37 acres into 5 commercial parcels, ranging in size from .97 to 9.45 acres; Design Review for the development of a 26,000 square foot theater on Parcel 1. Parcel 2 and 3 will be improved for future development, 11,830 square feet of retail space and a 5,390 square foot sit -down restaurant, and subject to subsequent design review; Condition Use Permit to allow off -site and shared parking; Variance from Section 17.48.050, street frontage width, and; Variance to deviate from Section 17.66.030.D.2 regarding required parking spaces for theaters. The site is located at the northeast corner of Mission Trail and Malaga. Staff requested the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Tentative Parcel Map 27821: Condition No. 12 to read: Applicant must meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) , eliminate the remainder of condition as it is redundant. Condition No. 42, correct Assessor's Parcel Number from 365- 052 -002 to 365- 051 -001. Commercial Project 93 -4 Add Condition No. 40, which will read: The front central facade of the theater building above the ticket windows shall include reveals similar to those proposed on the side panels of the structure that divide the panel into quadrants. This Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1993 Page 2 modification is intended to add further interest to this large vertical building plain. Other alternatives will be acceptable if they serve the same intent, subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Leonard O'Byrne, 38401 Oak Tree Loop, Murrieta, President of Camelot Property Counselors Inc., stated they are in agreement with the conditions and have no problem with the added condition. He requested that condition number 41 for Tentative Parcel Map 27821 be modified to read: "Provide sufficient right -of -way for improvements on Casino Drive for an 80 foot right -of -way. Improvements to be built at develop- ment of Parcel 511. He then requested clarification on condition number 5 and 17.h. for Commercial Project 93 -4. Chairwoman Brinley stated that condition number 17.h. is a standard condition which requires bonding (120 %) to ensure that the landscaping is maintained. Mr. Villa stated this is one bond held by the City for one year. Mr. Shear stated this is one bond of 120% and upon completion 20% can be released and the remainder (100 %) is held for one year to ensure landscape maintenance. Mr. O'Byrne then introduced Sybil O'Byrne, Tim O'Byrne, Mr. Burkes architect, Neil Myers, operations manager for Krikorian Theaters, Dr. Rahi of Associated Traffic Consultants and Roger Drayer of T.I. Maloney, Inc, landscape architect, and Jeff Christoff of Christoff and Manarino, real estate broker. He stated that they will answer any questions that may arise. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Harvey French, 15393 Mountain View, inquired about the eventual road width for Malaga. Chairwoman Brinley stated the applicant can address this after the close of the public hearing. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:24 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked that the applicant address the road width question posed by Mr. French. Mr. O'Byrne stated that the General Plan designates Malaga as 100 -110 foot right -of -way, with an 80 foot street. He then explained that they would improve the intersection, which includes signalization and improve the street up to the property line, but will not widen the street at this time. Chairwoman Brinley commented on lighting of the area behind the theater and stairway areas between the theater and Casino and this area being well illuminated, condition number 19. Mr. O'Byrne stated the condition requires that the lighting be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Manager, and the area will be well lit; security was a major concern of ours. The new owner /operator of the Casino has taken the parking lot that we have reciprocal easement access to and Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1993 Page 3 they have full time security; twenty -four hour security. As well, the lighting will be increased and their parking lot improved. Chairwoman Brinley stated that Commissioner Wilsey, who could not be here tonight, expressed a concern with regard to security - -such as a security person to patrol the area. Mr. O'Byrne responded that there will be a security person on the Dunes's parking lot. Chairwoman Brinley stated that the Dunes could not be made responsible for what is going on at the theater site. Mr. O'Byrne stated that he understood this, but as to the need of a security person at the theater would defer this to Mr. Krikorian, who operates theaters. Mr. O'Byrne stated "if we need a security person to have a safe place and patrons there that is what we will have." Mr. O'Byrne stated that he did not want to make a commitment for Mr. Krikorian, who could not be here this evening, but our intentions for Camelot Center are to combine security with the Dunes Casino, K -Mart and Phase II. Mr. O'Byrne stated "there will be adequate security and if we need a security guard or guards that is what it will be." He further explained that they are presently working with the Dunes and K -Mart and we will combine a security system, Exhibit C reflects the plotting of a security tower. Commissioner Neff stated security was his only concern on the project. Commissioner Bullard stated he would like a condition added addressing security. Commissioner Metze commented that lighting is a must for the rear of the facility. He inquired about signage at Malaga and Mission Trail and at the other end. Mr. O'Byrne stated that a Sign Program Amendment will be submitted. Commissioner Metze then inquired about handicap space within each theater and how this is determined. Mr. Burkes stated that Title 24 was originally used, but transferring to ADA requirements. He then explained that the amount of space to be provided depends on the number of seats in each auditorium. Commissioner Metze asked Mr. Burkes if they would have a problem with providing additional handicap parking spaces on the right side of the theater building. Mr. Burkes responded that he would have no problem either way - -that would be civil engineering design criteria - -and if we can do it that is fine, but would defer to Mr. Crowe. Mr. Crowe, The Keith Companies, stated there is no problem with physically placing those spaces there. However, the way the other is arranged there is actually six spaces, and would defer this to the manager of the Krikorian Theaters. Mr. Crowe expanded on the design of the handicap spaces and drive aisle. He stated there is one constraint with placing the handicap parking in this location and that is, the theater building is so wide, the grade coming up from Malaga up to the building is fairly severe right at the entrance and the parking spaces on the right side the slopes on those spaces adjacent to the front range from 4 to 6 percent cross slope and that wouldn't meet the criteria for handicap spaces; 2 percent is the maximum allowable in a handicap zone, so we would not be able to use that particular area adjacent to Malaga. Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1993 Page 4 Discussion ensued on handicap parking spaces and site constraints; design and layout of the handicap parking and the amount of spaces utilized during peak hours. Commissioner Bullard asked if the air conditioning /heating units would be roof mounted, and if the facade at sight level camouflage these units from the Casino. Mr. Burkes responded that these units will be roof mounted; a site line study was done and these units will be screened from view. Commissioner Metze inquired about the handicap space(s) for the restaurant. Mr. Crowe stated two spaces are provided. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27821 AND DESIGN REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL PROJECT 93 -4 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Tentative Parcel Map 27821: Condition No. 12: Applicant must meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) . This stall inelude prevd_ Condition No. 41: Provide sufficient right -of -way for improvements on Casino Drive for an 80 foot right -of -way. Improvements to be built at development of Parcel 5. Condition No. 42: As part of the construction of off -site public improvements related to Malaga Road, and the Mission Trail and Malaga Road intersections, the applicant shall acquire the property on the easterly corner of Mission Trail and Malaga (APN 365- 051 -001) and dedicate this property to the City. Commercial Project 93 -4 Condition No. 17h: All landscape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of instal- lation of landscape requirements approval /acceptance; 20% may be refunded after acceptance and 100% will be held for one year for material and labor. Condition No. 40: The front central facade of the theater building above the ticket windows shall include reveals similar to those proposed on the side panels of the structure that divide the panel into quadrants. This modification is intended to add further interest to this large vertical building plain. Other alternatives will be acceptable if they serve the same intent, subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee. Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1993 Page 5 Condition No. 41: Security Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department and subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE CONDI- TIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -4, VARIANCE 93 -2 AND VARIANCE 93 -4, BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -8. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Commercial Project 93 -2A - Oak Grove Equities (Elsinore City Center) City Planner Leslie explained that the request is Design Review for the development of Parcel 3, within a portion of Phase I of the Lake Elsinore City Center, consisting of a 62,075 square foot commercial building to be occupied by an EXPO Market. The site is located at the southeast corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. He further explained that this project is consistent with approved Specific Plan No. 91 -1 and the certified Environmental Impact Report No. 92- 3 prepared for this site. He then suggested if the Commission finds the design as presented acceptable that condition number 36 be eliminated, and condition number 35 be modified, as follows: Condition No. 35: The walkway in front of the cart storage area at the front of the building shall be a minimum seven feet (71) wide and the planter shall be a minimum five feet (51) wide and bermed against the cart storage screen wall. Commissioner Neff asked for additional information on the Expo market with regard to type of business. Sharon Douglas provided an explanation of the use. He then requested an update on the Wal -Mart project. Mr. Craig Schleuniger gave a status report on Wal -Mart. Commissioner Bullard commented on the competition between the pharmacies (Expo /Wal- Mart). Concerned with the outside storage of carts, clutters the area. Asked whether the buildings in between Expo and Wal -Mart will be vacant or if they have been leased. Mr. Craig Schleuniger stated that he could not say when these stores would be built; the best would be to have them built at once, and we are working toward this on our leasing. Commissioner Bullard stated that he agrees with the window concept. Commissioner Metze commented on the number of handicap spaces provided and whether there would be a problem with adding four (4) additional spaces on the right side of the building, and this added as a condition. Discussion ensued on handicap parking and the total spaces to be provided. Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1993 Page 6 Chairwoman Brinley commented on window treatments and agrees with the enhancements. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL PROJECT 93 -2A BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 35: The walkway in front of the cart storage area at the front of the building shall be a minimum seven feet (71) wide and the planter shall be a minimum five feet (5') wide and bermed against the cart storage screen wall. Condition No. 36: The app }ieant shall submit a revised €rent elevatien whieh exhibits additienal treat_______, ___________.._____ __ the r_r.ien ef the bedding direetly belew the strueture's main tewer either in the fer e€ extended windews er- deeerative treatments. This revisien shall be i .. u w)cc.. v wthe c.. l o f thee e review a -. designee. DELETED. J Condition No. 39: Four (4) additional handicap parking spaces are to be provided on the right side of the building (Expo). PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS City Planner Leslie asked the Commission about rescheduling the regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for October 20th to October 21, due to the League of California Conference. Chairwoman Brinley asked if the board room was available for that evening. Mr. Leslie responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Neff stated that he had a conflict with this date. It was the consensus of the Commission to reschedule the October 20th meeting to October 21, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Board Room. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Metze Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Asked for status on Tuscany Hills with regard to Mello Roos, building activity and whether there were any defaults on the assessments. Community Development Manager Shear stated that Davidson Communities is the only active builder, and from our understanding Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1993 Page 7 Homestead is gone. If there have been any defaults they have forwarded to the City Attorney for processing. Commissioner Neff asked who he could talk to for additional information. Community Development Manager Shear responded that Ray Wood would be the key person. Chairwoman Brinley Announced that Commissioner Neff resigned his appointment to the Design Review Committee and Commissioner Metze was appointed to fill his seat. Commissioner Wilsey Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m., motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 4 -0 Appr ved Aam r e Chair oman Respectfully ubmitted, inda Gri ds aff Secretar MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 1993 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Wilsey and Metze Neff and Brinley Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner DeGange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Metze, Second by Commissioner Bullard and carried by those present with Commissioner Wilsey abstaining to approve Minutes of October 6, 1993, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Vice Chairman Bullard closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 AND 2 CONCURRENTLY; SINCE RELATED. Associate Planner DeGange presented the following proposals: Annexation 62, General Plan Amendment 93 -2 and Zone Change 93- 4 - The Western Company - A request to approve an annexation of 1,321 acres; General Plan Amendment modifying an area of 22 acres currently designated Mountainous to Very Low Density Residential and Prezoning for a 199 acre portion of the annexation area to R -R (Rural Residential) and OS (Open Space) . The annexation area is generally located to the west of Grand Avenue and the termini of Amorose Street and Toft Drive and to the north of Amorose and south of Toft. Commencement of Proceedings for Annexation 68, General Plan Amendment 93 -3 and Zone Change 93 -5 - City of Lake Elsinore A request to annex a 442 acre area; General Plan Amendment amending a 65 acre area currently designated Mountainous to Very Low Density Residential and Low Density Residential; Prezoning of a 212 acre portion of the annexation area to 51 acres of R -R (Rural Residential) and 161 acres of R -A (Residential Agricultural). The project site is generally located to the east and west of Grand Avenue between the City Limits to the north and Plumas Street to the south. He explained that environmental impacts for both projects have been addressed by Environmental Impact Report 92 -1 certified on September 14, 1993. He further explained that Annexation No. 62 is for Laguna Heights and Annexation No. 68 encompasses the existing neighborhoods (i.e. Brookstone Ranch, North Amorose, and Woodhaven) east of Laguna Heights that otherwise would be left as a pocket or island of county unincorporated area. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) may require, during the hearing process for Annexation No. 62, the elimination of Minutes of Planning Commission Special Meeting October 21, 1993 Page 2 this pocket or island, therefore the City has initiated Annexation No. 68. Vice Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. He then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Dave Gottlieb, representing The Western Company, gave a brief history on the project and detailed their intent. He then introduced their annexation consultant Ron Sullivan who will explain the requirements of LAFCO. Ron Sullivan, Inland Planning, 28480 Highway 74, Suite A, Romoland, explained LAFCO requirements and if there is a potential to create a pocket or island this must be eliminated or attempts made to eliminate. He further explained that two annexations were created, one being Laguna Heights and one being Brookstone, and each must stand on their own. The Brookstone Ranch people would be able to decide for themselves whether they desire to come into the City. City Planner Leslie stated for clarification Mr. Sullivan referred to one annexation as the Brookstone Annexation and it includes more than Brookstone, it also includes North Amorose and Woodhaven. Vice Chairman Bullard then asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those opposed. The following people spoke: Patricia Lee Nolan, 30620 Plumas, opposed to the annexation and wants the area to remain county. She stated these should not be separate annexations so that everyone affected has a chance to vote and has an equal say in what happens to their property. Lea Routledge, 14505 Amorose Street, opposed to the annexations, stating her concern is that the City is not capable of servicing the citizens -- municipal services: fire, police, and schools. Vivian Beaumont, 30630 Brookstone Lane, agrees that this should be just one annexation. Concerned with the prezoning designation of the mountainous areas. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Colby Street, why are you trying to deny us our right for a say in the project? Concerned with the 1993 FBI Crime Report, increase in population and municipal services. David Buchanan, 30831 Plumas, the right to vote on what happens to us up stream is being cut out. This is a blatant attempt by the developer to cut us out of our right to vote. Alan Knight, 30570 Brookstone, concerned with Lots 13 and 14, for the proposed equestrian center - -this is a sham. Brook - stone Ranch is a residential community that is protected under California corporate laws. Annexation 62 and 68 is an attempt to divide the area. Lee Bulen, 14949 Toft Drive, opposed to Annexation 62 and 68. Concerned with the way public notice are written and sent to citizens - -to the public these notices are very confusing and uninformative. Would also like to have it entered into the record that I am opposed to Annexation 68, because I feel it Minutes of Planning Commission Special Meeting October 21, 1993 Page 3 is a transparent attempt by the City and the developer to evade the statutorily defined protest process. He stated the communities of Brookstone Ranch, North Amorose, Patrick Court and Woodhaven are opposed to the Laguna Heights project being annexed to the City because of the adverse effects it will have. We know that the City can not provide the public services needed for projects already approved and started let alone any new ones. He further stated they feel that if Laguna Heights is processed as an uninhabited annexation without regard to the community, which will be directly impacted, it will create an island or peninsula of unincorporated area that LAFCO nor the area residents desire. He further stated that they as the affected area request that the City include them within the boundaries of the proposed Annexation 62, so that they as citizens will have the right to a voice in their future. Vice Chairman Bullard asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition or on the matter. Brian Chesser, 30711 Sarabia Street, as a Planning Commission you have an obligation to plan ahead. I live in the Sphere of Influence of Lake Elsinore and I think that you can see that this whole thing is orchestrated on behalf of the developer. Tom Johnson, 15176 Macias Street, hopes the democratic process is used in this annexation. Wesley Bertz, 14625 Amorose Street, main concern is crime. He then commented that the developer has not met and bargained with them in good faith. Hearing no other requests to speak, Vice Chairman Bullard stated that he would like to close the public hearing. Dave Gottlieb asked to speak in favor of Annexation 68. A brief discussion ensued on whether the public hearing was opened for both items. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow anyone wishing to speak on Annexation 68 to do so. Dave Gottlieb, spoke in favor of Annexation 68. He then commented that he, representing Western Company, wholeheartedly supports the people that live in Brookstone, Woodhaven, North Amorose and the affected area of Annexation 68 to the democratic process. Ace Vallejos, 15231 Colby Street, reiterated concerns on the creation of an island or pocket and the democratic process. Alan Knight, 30570 Brookstone, can provide 100% turnout from residents of the Woodhaven, Brookstone and North Amorose; we are representatives for those people. He then reiterated concerns on the democratic process. Lea Routledge, 14505 Amorose Street, referenced the previous correspondence submitted opposing the project, and reiterated that they should be included in Annexation No. 62. Brian Chesser, 30711 Sarabia Street, commented on the efforts put forth by members of the Woodhaven residents to keep the affected community informed. David Buchanan, 30831 Plumas, referenced the previous correspondence submitted opposing the project. Minutes of Planning Commission Special Meeting October 21, 1993 Page 4 Lee Bulen, 14949 Toft Drive, the 22 acres proposed for annexation by Dr. Chen is under the jurisdiction of our CC & R's and within the boundaries of Brookstone Ranch and there will probably be litigation. Hearing no other requests to speak, Vice Chairman Bullard closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Sullivan to explain the LAFCO process, including how a property owner votes on an annexation. All of these people are saying that they are individual property owners and this has been separated, for LAFCO purposes, to try and cut them out of the voting process, with regard to primary property. If they were included in Annexation No. 62 what type of voting right, as oppose to Dr. Chen and that project's voting right, would they have? Would they be overwhelmed? Mr. Sullivan stated if there were a protest vote and everyone voted against the annexation, then the annexation would fail. He then explained that LAFCO is a boundary organization not a land use organization and the land use has been approved for pre- annexation, so basically it has the right and opportunity to stand on its own. Residents will be able to vote on Annexation No. 68 that encompasses their property, but as proposed they will not be able to vote on Annexation No. 62, that encompasses Laguna Heights. Commissioner Wilsey then commented on the FBI crime report. He then asked staff to provide an update on City services and the potential for services in that area. City Planner Leslie stated that fire services remain the same, because the City contracts with the County for services. Police services, the City would have to increase the amount of officers they have contracted with the County in order to provide the same level of service. Discussion ensued on whether there was a separate police force for the County, and where service providers /facilities are located. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the fire station proposed at Lincoln - -when it will come on line and whether funds have been allocated. Community Development Manager Shear stated from his under- standing, the fire station is scheduled to be put in with the next series of bonds for the assessment district. Discussion ensued on the timing, equipping and staffing of the fire station at Lincoln. Commissioner Metze commented on the crime statistics. He then inquired whether staff suggested separate annexations. Associate Planner De Gange stated in past discussions with the applicant it had been suggested that the two areas be linked. It has been the applicant's request, at this point, to go forward separately. Commissioner Metze inquired whether LAFCO hears annexation in any particular order. Mr. Sullivan responded in the negative, stating whenever they are prepared to go forward- -they do not go by number. Minutes of Planning Commission Special Meeting October 21, 1993 Page 5 City Planner Leslie stated that he believes that LAFCO, if they desire, can continue one annexation until both annexations can be held together. Mr. Sullivan stated that Annexations 62 and 68 could basically go together at the same time. Associate Planner De Gange stated that Annexation 62 may ultimately go to LAFCO prior to Annexation 68 because this is the approach being taken. Annexation 62 will go to LAFCO and LAFCO will determine whether or not they wish to take this annexation by itself or whether they feel it necessary to take additional territory. This is the reason that the City has proposed Annexation 68; so subsequently, the City has pre - zoned and prepared the environmental documentation in preparation of LAFCO making this decision. Discussion ensued on uninhabitated and inhabitated annexations and the percentage of registered voters required to terminate proceedings. Commissioner Metze yielded the floor to Robert Gasio, 14533 Amorose Street, who stated that LAFCO will not allow an island in any case, and he (Dr. Chen) is surrounding us so he is not allowing us to make our own decision. Associate Planner De Gange stated that Mr. Gasio is saying that if Annexation 62 were annexed in order to avoid an island that they ( LAFCO) would force the annexation of Annexation 68, and this is not true. He then detailed LAFCO's requirements and proceedings. Discussion ensued on the reason for Annexation 68 being to meet LAFCO requirement should they desire additional territory; LAFCO's authority - -they could dictate that the annexations be tied together, and the various scenarios available to LAFCO. Vice Chairman Bullard yielded the floor to Lee Bulen, who stated that another scenario is LAFCO approves Annexation 62, but along with that they are not going to cause any pockets of unincorporated area. Because Annexation 68 is a City sponsored annexation it doesn't need five percent of the voters to go forward - -they say okay fine, we are going to annex Annexation 68 at the same time. We have lost our voice, lost our choice, and we have no way to do anything about it and swept in. Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Sullivan if this was viable possibility. Mr. Sullivan stated under this scenario, Annexation 68 would stand on its own, if a protest of twenty -five percent is registered and a negative vote of more than fifty percent by effected property owners is registered then it is not going to happen. Commissioner Metze stated that Dr. Chen as the owner of his property does have the right to be part of the City. Vice Chairman Bullard directed staff to provide clarification, prior to going before City Council, on the mutual aide with fire protection and on the billing of any air drops that would be within the City area if annexation takes place. Minutes of Planning Commission Special Meeting October 21, 1993 Page 6 Commissioner Wilsey commented on the pre- zoning of Annexation 68, R -R and R -A is an endeavor by the City to ensure the people who reside in the area that they will maintain their equestrian property and rights. He then asked staff, under these two zones, would this require a Conditional Use Permit? Associate Planner De Gange responded in the negative, if they met the basic requirements. City Planner Leslie responded that a Conditional Use Permit would be required under the R -1 zoning. Vice Chairman Bullard commented on police services remaining the same, and probably increasing over a period of time once residential is built up and more funds are established. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION 62. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY VICE CHAIRMAN BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 93 -4 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 93 -10, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 93 -10 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 93 -2 - THE WESTERN COMPANY MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECOND BY VICE CHAIRMAN BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION 68. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 93 -5 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 93 -11, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 93 -11 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 93 -3 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Commissioner Wilsey asked when this would go to City Council. City Planner Leslie responded that the public hearing will be set next week, October 26, and heard by Council on November 9, 1993. Commissioner Wilsey then inquired about the time frame for the LAFCO process and the type of notification the property owners can anticipate. City Planner Leslie stated that he believes the applicant is trying to get Annexation 62 before LAFCO on December 9, 1993. Since Annexation 68 is a separate annexation, initiated by the City, and has not been officially filed with LAFCO he can not say when it will go forward. Minutes of Planning Commission Special Meeting October 21, 1993 Page 7 Commissioner Wilsey stated that they as a group can bring this aspect up before LAFCO on December 9th. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsev Commented on the FBI Crime Report and recommended to City Council that a feasibility study be implemented and the possible formation of a committee to look into the feasibility of our own police department. Commissioner Metze Nothing to report. Commissioner Bullard Commented that this evening's meeting was very interesting and everyone has learned a lot. He commented on everyone having the right to do their process by following the rules and regulations, and believes every individual has the right to express their opinion and desires. He further commented that he was for controlled growth, which our City Fathers have seen and planned for, and hopes the annexations go forward so that we can improve our city and lifestyle. Attended the League of California Cities Conference, October 16- 19th, and the classes and seminars were very informative. Commissioner Neff Absent Chairwoman Brinle Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m., motion by Commissioner Bullard, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 Approved, / 4 Gl�..✓ Richard Bullard, Vice Chairman Res ctfully bmitted, L'nda Gri staff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 3, 1993 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 3 1993, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully su itted, Linda Grin taff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Neff. h101thZM 1 :3 21 11 Vlox] ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard, Neff, Wilsey, and Metze ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Assistant Planner Villa and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Second by Commissioner Bullard and carried by a vote of 3 -0 with Commissioner Neff abstaining to approve Minutes of October 21, 1993, as submitted. Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Metze and carried by unanimous vote of those present to receive and file Minutes of November 3, 1993. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Vice Chairman Bullard closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 93 -5 - Greater Inland Investment (Elsinore Valley Friends Church) - Assistant Planner Villa explained that the request is to allow Elsinore Valley Friends Church to conduct services: worship, youth meetings, bible study and aerobic classes, at the Shoppers Square II shopping center, 31768 Casino Drive #106B. Vice Chairman Bullard opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. He then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Kelly Butler, representative of the Elsinore Valley Friends Church, commented on the parking issue with regard to the calculations for assembly area. Mr. Butler stated that he hopes the CUP is granted, and that the church, or any church for that matter, will add character and help for the City. Vice Chairman Bullard asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, he asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Neff asked staff about the shared parking agree- ments, condition number 10; and, if the applicant would need cooperation from the other tenants or the landlord to accomplish, and whether there would be any resistance. Commissioner Wilsey stated there probably would be, except the center is basically empty. City Planner Leslie stated it would need cooperation of the property owners involved - -the property owner of the office building and the property owner of the remainder of the Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 2 center; as it is our understanding that two separate property owners are involved. Commissioner Neff asked what they would do if the shared parking is not approved. City Planner Leslie responded that the parking requirements would not be met, therefore the CUP would be null and void. Commissioner Neff asked Mr. Butler if he is having any success in obtaining the agreement. Mr. Butler stated that he has spoken with the property owners: Tex McCallister, Mr. Washburn and Mr. Winkler and sees no problem with getting an agreement. He further stated that the property owner believes there to be something like that already in place. City Planner Leslie stated if that is the case then evidence would just have to be provided, copies submitted of whatever was done. He further stated that even if this is in place, we would still like to have a letter from the owner of the center acknowledging that all of the spare parking is being utilized by the church use. Therefore, if another church or restaurant use comes in, a use that would require more parking than general commercial retail, there will not be a problem and the land owner will inform them that they cannot locate in the center. Mr. Butler commented on the two year time limit and being able to reapply. If at that point, we are able to get our own facility and get out of that retail spot we would love to do that, because we are paying rent. City Planner Leslie stated at that point, if you do move out then that parking is available and other types of uses that require extra parking could come in. But in the mean time we would like a statement from the land owner acknowledging this is the case. Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Butler to elaborate on the aerobic program. Mr. Butler stated he could not provide any detail, other than she meets during the week -- believes it to be Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 10 -11am. Commissioner Wilsey stated the Staff Report indicates 10 -12 Monday through Friday and approximately 30 people. He recommended the addition of condition number 11, as follows: The applicant shall obtain a City Business License for the operation of a retail aerobics center at that location. Discussion ensued on the proposed condition with regard to non - profit /profit status; if operating a commercial aerobics class obtaining a business license and the type of business license required; changing the condition to obtain a business license if required by the Community Development Director or Business License Department. Commissioner Neff inquired about signage. Mr. Butler stated that they will adhere to the center's sign program. Vice Chairman Bullard commented on the tax base, and inquired whether this has any affect on the property taxes being paid by the center. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 3 Community Development Manager Shear stated the church is exempt from some of the property taxes when the church owns the property, if they lease the space they are not exempt. The owner of the center does not receive an exemption because he is leasing to a church. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBIT "A" AND "B ", AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 11: The applicant shall obtain a City Business License for the operation of a retail aerobics center, if required by the Business License Department. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER METZE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93 -10. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS City Planner Leslie report that staff is continuing to work with Oak Grove Equities (Elsinore City Center) regarding their wall. Also, continuing to work on fencing issues within residential subdivisions. There was general discussion on fencing within residential subdivisions. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the type of fencing that 888 Development will utilize, referring to the park, multi - purpose trail, and asked staff to provide this information. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Metze Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Bullard Invited everyone to attend the Sierra Circuit Rodeo this weekend. Chairwoman Brinley Absent Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 4 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:37 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 4 -0 Approved, Richard Bullard, vice Chairman Resp ctfully Sub "itted, J nda Grind taff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 1993 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wilsey, Metze and Brinley Bullard and Neff Also present were City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner DeGange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Wilsey, Second by Commissioner Metze and carried by a vote of 2 -0 with Commissioner Brinley abstaining to approve the Minutes of November 17, 1993, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 93 -6 - Heritage Brewing Company - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request to allow the operation of a micro - brewery within a 5,429 square foot building within the Central Business Park complex (571 Crane Street, Building "C "), and approval of outdoor storage in conjunction with this operation. He explained that the proposal has been determined to be a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environ- mental Quality Act. COMMISSIONER NEFF ARRIVED AT 7:10 P.M. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communication. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. There being no one to speak the public hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey suggested the addition of condition number 6, as follows: Applicant shall paint silos or erect appropriate screening to lessen the visual impacts from surrounding properties subject to the Community Development Director or designee approval. City Planner Leslie asked Commissioner Wilsey to clarify what might be appropriate screening, to give staff direction. Commissioner Wilsey stated it might be easier to erect a structure, i.e. lattice work or something similar around the silo area, which can be easily painted the same color as the building. City Planner Leslie asked if the Commissioner's intent was to include screening in addition to the 6 foot high fence around the yard where the silos are going to be. Commissioner Wilsey asked if the silos are going to be up against the building. City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative. Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1993 Page 2 Commissioner Wilsey stated the easiest thing would be to paint the silos the same color as the building. City Planner Leslie commented on the difficulty in painting galvanized steel surfaces and getting it to adhere, and the applicant's concern with the paint should it peel or flake and find its way into the grain and contaminate it. He then stated that staff contacted the silo manufacturer and they stressed that proper treatment was required prior to painting. Commissioner Wilsey asked about the practicability of building a facade around the silos with T -111 and painting it to match the building. City Planner Leslie responded this could probably be done, but would want to check with the applicant to understand their requirements for access to the silos. A brief discussion ensued on screening the silos and adding if determined necessary and feasible, condition number 6. Chairwoman Brinley inquired about visibility from the freeway. Associate Planner De Gange responded that it is not visible from the freeway. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the brewery relocating to the stadium area; the 5 year time line and whether this should be reduced to 2 years, condition number 1. City Planner Leslie stated there has never been a brewery in the City before. He then explained that condition number 1 provides some control should a problem arise. A brief discussion ensued on condition number 1 with regard to the time limit. City Planner Leslie informed the Commission that the applicant's representative, Mr. Bill Rousey, has arrived. Chairwoman Brinley informed Mr. Rousey that the public hearing was opened and closed, and summarized the discussion that occurred. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93 -6 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 6: Applicant shall paint silos or erect appropriate screening if determined to be necessary and feasible to lessen the visual impacts from surrounding properties subject to the Community Development Director or designee review and approval. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1993 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Neff Commented on the closure of Chaney Street and asked when it will open. City Planner Leslie responded December 15, 1993. Commissioner Metze Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinlev Announced the Christmas festivities (Winterfest) scheduled for Friday, December 3, 1993, starting at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Bullard Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:25 p.m., motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Metze. Approved 4 -0 Respe tfully Submitted, Linda Grin staff �5 Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1993 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, Wilsey, Metze and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Leslie, Associate Planner DeGange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Metze, Second by Commissioner Wilsey and carried by a vote of 4 -0 with Commissioner Bullard abstaining to approve the Minutes of December 1, 1993, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 93 -6 - City of Lake Elsinore Associate Planner De Gange explained that City Council at a workshop held on October 21, 1993 directed staff to initiate a change of zone from R -2, Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units per acre maximum) to R -1, Single - Family Resi- dential (6 dwelling units per acre maximum) for territory along the west side of Chaney, east of Wilson Way and Adam Avenue, north of Heald Avenue and south of Hill Avenue. City Council adopted Resolution 93 -63, Resolution of Intention, on November 9, 1993 and amended it on November 18, 1993 to extend the area to include the territory north of Hill Avenue to Treleven Avenue. Associate Planner De Gange further explained that this area has been designated as "Future Specific Plan Area J" (Country Club Heights) in the General Plan, and the existing zoning for the area along the west side of Chaney is viewed as incon- sistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Text describ- ing what the land uses should be within this specific plan indicate that most of the area, including along Chaney, should have an average residential density of 6 dwelling units per acre. It is Council's direction that until a specific plan for the Country Club Heights area can be developed that a zone change be processed as an interim measure. Associate Planner De Gange explained that environmental impacts associated with this project are addressed by the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 1990 General Plan, certified November 27, 1990. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., and asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported that written communication was received from: Norman Stockton, 554 Worcester Drive, Cambria, expressing opposition to the down zoning, reduction in property values, and no benefit to the property owners. Minutes of Planning Commission December 15, 1993 Page 2 Weldon Page, 239 Laurelwood Lane, feels the zone change will adversely affect his property and wishes to challenge the proposed action. (This owner's property is actually outside of the proposed zone change area and is therefore not affected by it.) Roy Terrebonne, property owner and developer, 215 Chaney Street, expressing opposition to the down zoning of his property and other property, and citing specific objections. Chairwoman Brinley then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Niddo Rayl, 223 Chaney Street, stated the surrounding neighborhood is comprised of single - family residences; the zoning is not inconsistent, but it is inconsistent to allow high density housing to be placed there. He gave a brief report on the appeal of the recent duplex proposal that was processed and successful. He explained that there is a larger area, all the way to Riverside Drive, where the homeowners want to be included in the R- 1 zone, a petition will be submitted in the future. He then expressed concern with Chaney Street being a major thoroughfare and high density abutting a major thoroughfare. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. The following people spoke: Roy Terrebonne, 8396 Fontainbleau, Cypress, property owner of 215 Chaney, wants to go on record as opposed to the zone change as it devaluates his property. Rob Livingston, 18054 Frederick, stated he is unsure whether he is in favor or against, at this point. Concern is that most of the development or improvements off of Chaney Street do not continue on to our street. If this change goes though are we going to see more improvements or remain the same? I have inquired about dividing my property and selling off one lot, will these fees be waived? Earl Kepley, 18040 Sumner, asked whether his property falls within the zone change boundaries. He explained the area contains a number of substandard lots. He stated that he is not opposed -- probably for the zone change. He then inquired about consolidation of lots, owns four small lots on which exists an old residence- - would demolished and rebuild. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, she asked for those wishing to speak on the matter. Ms. Julian Duarte, 18281 Treleven, asked for clarifi- cation of a zone change. She then stated her property floods every winter recently and this never happened before. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked staff to address the questions that have been raised. Minutes of Planning Commission December 15, 1993 Page 3 City Planner Leslie explained that at this time, the zone change will have nothing to do with whether improvements are extended beyond Chaney Street. The General Plan calls for a specific plan for this area, encompassing all of Country Club Heights, and the extension of infrastructure and utility services would be addressed in the specific plan. He explained that this specific plan is a massive undertaking and the City has not allocated the funds to proceed. As far as a lot split, with the zoning from R -2 to R -1, it would have to meet the current minimum requirement for lot size and frontage. As for lot consolidation, there may be some opportunities; most of the parcels have been split beyond what is considered reasonable. Mr. Livingston stated he recently looked into this and the fees are over $3,000. He inquired whether the fees would be waived since this is going to reduce the property's worth. City Planner Leslie informed Mr. Livingston that this is beyond the Commission's scope; the fees are set by City Council policy and resolution. Chairwoman Brinley asked staff to explain to Ms. Duarte what is being discussed this evening, and that the zone change does not effect her flooding problem. City Planner Leslie explained that a zone change is only a paper transaction, at this point. This zone change will not alter the current situation with potential flooding. Chairwoman Brinley suggested Ms. Duarte meet with Mr. Ray O'Donnell, Engineering Manager, to discuss the matter of flooding. City Planner Leslie further explained the procedures for lot consolidation. Commissioner Metze asked Associate Planner De Gange if he obtained information on the legalities. Associate Planner De Gange responded in the negative, stating the City Attorney was not available. Commissioner Metze asked whether there was monetary significant between R -1 and R -2. City Planner Leslie stated that valuation would depend on the size of the lot, among other things. There are individual lots there that would not be large enough to put a duplex on -- some not even a single unit, based on the current standards. The devaluation question is an interesting one, City Council made a finding that even though R -2 zoning is there and would permit it, the General Plan calls for a density that would not allow R -2 type densities, and as state law requires the General Plan takes precedence over zoning. Therefore, even without the proposed change from R -2 to R -1 there is still a questions as to whether you can develop to R -2 standards. City Planner Leslie stated that he does not know if the zone change means devaluation, necessarily; you have to go back to the General Plan, which indicates the density in this area would be 6 dwelling units to the acre, which is R -1 type zoning. Eventually, there is to be a specific plan and the specific plan can do different things with land uses. The ability to develop multiple units could come back with the development of that specific plan. That specific plan can reduce land uses in some areas; therefore, allowing higher densities to be placed in other areas and the overall density of the entire Country Club Heights could still average out to 6 dwelling units to the acre. Minutes of Planning Commission December 15, 1993 Page 4 Discussion ensued on whether the zone change to R -1 has a monetary effect. Commissioner Bullard commented on the reduction in density if the zoning is decreased, and asked staff to clarify the boundary for the R -2 and R -3 zones. He referred to the comment on Chaney Street being a major thoroughfare and the increased traffic, and explained that Lakeshore Drive is a major thoroughfare and there is high density and also commercial in that area, so the effect on Chaney Street may or may not happen. He then asked why this R -1 zoning was not continued on to Lakeshore Drive. City Planner Leslie explained the General Plan Text indicates that the density for the majority of Country Club Heights would be 6 dwelling units per acre. However, it also anticipates that higher densities may be allowed along Riverside and Lakeshore. A finding could be made that the existing R -3 zoning along Lakeshore is consistent with what is anticipated by the General Plan for the ultimate specific plan; therefore, we did not propose to include that in this zone change. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the underlying R -2 zoning and the General Plan designation of specific plan. He then asked whether the specific plan overlay on the General Plan takes precedence over the existing zoning, stating it should. City Planner Leslie stated this is correct. The only specific plan zoning is the actual specific plan, there is no zoning classification. Commissioner Wilsey commented on previous specific plans, and property owners being informed that they were part of a specific plan area. Therefore, to develop they have to start the mitigation process for that specific plan; this is why major developers, the city or someone with financial backing has been the leader. With the R -1 /R -2 specific plan whomever wants to build would have to start the specific plan. He then asked why Mr. Terrebonne was not required to initiate the specific plan. Chairwoman Brinley stated this is why it went back to Council for the study session. City Planner Leslie explained that there are mechanisms to allow development prior to the specific plan being adopted. Commissioner Neff asked what is in the specific plan General Plan classification? What is the smallest lot area that you could have and still apply for a specific plan? City Planner Leslie explained there may be a reasonable minimum project size, such as 5 acres. But not entirely sure, if there is a set minimum acreage, will have to check and get back with you. However, doing a specific plan on a single parcel will not serve any purpose. (There is not a set minimum acreage; however, the Zoning Code does state that specific plan areas should be of sufficient size to be planned and developed in a manner consistent with the purpose of this district.) Commissioner Wilsey stated he did not know that a specific plan could be fragmented; if the boundaries are defined you have to initiate that specific plan, correct? Minutes of Planning Commission December 15, 1993 Page 5 Community Development Manager Shear explained that Alberhill was a large specific plan, broken up with Brighton, Murdock and different ones. City Planner Leslie stated as general practice a specific plan would not be broken up. However, if someone would come forward with a significant number of parcels, some reasonable defined boundary, based on streets or topographical features, I think the City would be willing to look at that. Commissioner Wilsey stated he was not concerned with the developer that could combine lots to that standard. Concerned with the individual lot owners that might want to build and their having to start an environmental impact report and other specific plan guidelines. City Planner Leslie stated he believes this is what is being attempted with the R -1 zoning, beyond that there is a concern. Commissioner Neff referred to the exhibit, the black area, and asked if this was part of the Country Club Heights area, or what is the definition of the Country Club Heights area? City Planner Leslie explained that the General Plan defines everything west of Chaney Street as Country Club Heights. Community Development Manager Shear explained that Country Club Heights consists of three areas: the Avenues, this area all the way to Riverside; then from Riverside and Gunnerson. Commissioner Neff asked whether the specific plan being discussed could be privately or publicly sponsored, and whether there has been any thought of the City initiating. City Planner Leslie stated it could be publicly sponsored. He then explained that Council directed staff to come back with a preliminary proposal for the Country Club Heights Specific Plan. A rough estimate was prepared and presented to Council and it was upward of $400,000 for staff to do a proper specific plan for this area and address all of the issues. At that point, Council inquired about a zone change. Commissioner Neff commented this zone change only addresses a portion, not all of it. Because there has been some develop- ment pressure the City wants to try and manage - -so as not to adversely impact the redevelopment opportunities throughout all of the Country Club Heights Area, correct? City Planner Leslie explained the boundaries of this zone change was set by Council. He referred to the exhibit and explained that beyond the blackened area any proposal for multiple family is not realistic due to the topography. Chairwoman Brinley commented that this has been worked on and discussed for several years. Commissioner Neff commented on down zoning, stating that in his mind, value is being taken away from property owners. Asked if there were any properties within this area that will be deprived of 100 percent of the economic value for the use of that land. If that were the case, that would be a taking without compensation. My sense of it is, that there is still economically viable uses of all of these properties. It is important for the Commission and Council to be aware that if there is a down zoning measure that effectively takes away all economic value of the property that could lead us down a path that we may not want to go. Minutes of Planning Commission December 15, 1993 Page 6 City Planner Leslie explained that zoning is a tool to implement the General Plan. Again, irregardless of the zoning, for any development proposal a finding would have to be made that it is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Neff commented on recognition of the zoning limitations being a narrow focus and operating under the context of the General Plan there may be some flexibility with the specific plan alternative. There is some flexibility in that context to have some economical viable use of the property. Chairwoman Brinley detailed Council's direction. Commissioner Neff asked why just this area, why not enlarge? Chairwoman Brinley stated this was due to lot size; con- sistency with the General Plan, and consistency with the surrounding neighborhood of single - family residences. Commissioner Neff asked for the number of existing duplexes versus single - family residences within the boundary area, including the grey area going up the hill. Chairwoman Brinley stated that she could not provide an actual count. City Planner Leslie stated currently there is one multiple family dwelling within the boundary area (black), and none in the grey area to his knowledge. Commissioner Neff asked for the number of substandard lots within the boundary area (black area), or percentage of the total. City Planner Leslie stated he could not provide a percentage, but would say that most of them are probably substandard. Commissioner Neff asked whether the City was contemplating extension of urban services, through any kind of grant program to this particular area. City Planner Leslie responded not at this point. Also, part of preparing a specific plan for this area could involve setting up of community facility districts to facilitate this. Chairwoman Brinley stated she agrees with Council. Believes this will be an improvement for the area, and will allow more latitude for development of property. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER METZE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 93 -6 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Bullard asked if this is approved, whether it will this bring this portion into conformance with the General Plan, which states 6 units per acre. City Planner Leslie stated short of adopting a full specific plan, yes. Commissioner Bullard then commented that the General Plan overrules the current plan we have right now, correct? City Planner Leslie responded in the affirmative, explaining the General Plan takes precedence over the current zoning. THE FOREGOING MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. P £ r Minutes of Planning Commission December 15, 1993 Page 7 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS City Planner Leslie informed the Commission of the following: 1. The January 5, 1994, meeting may be called for lack of agenda items. 2. Laguna Heights Annexation No. 62 was approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) at their meeting on December 9, 1993, minus the 160 acre U.S. Forest Service parcel. However, the approval is subject to a condition, recommended by LAFCO staff, that before the Laguna Heights annexation can record, the "pocket area" (Brookstone Ranch and Woodhaven tracts) must be annexed. Due to the apparent opposition to the project by a number of the residents in this area, their agreeing to annexation is not likely at this point. It appears that the Laguna Heights developer may attempt to request a reconsideration by LAFCO (as allowed by LAFCO). Community Development Manager Shear stated the Council /Commission meetings could be held in the new cultural center, hopefully by the 2nd meeting in January or the 1st meeting in February. He also suggested that Commission give consideration to moving the meetings back to the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Metze Happy Holidays. Commissioner Wilsey Happy Holidays. Commented on the Winterfest and would like to commend the Special Projects staff for a job well done. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Bullard Happy Holidays. Chairwoman Brinley Happy Holidays. Thanked staff and the Commissioners for their hard work and support through the year. 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 Res ctfully ubmitted, i inda Gr' dstaff Secretary