Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-01-1992 NAHMINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 1, 1992 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 1, 1992, WAS CALLED DUE TO THE HOLIDAY AND LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully s emitted, L' da Grin staff P anning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Sellevold, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Associate Planner DeGange, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of December 18, 1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to receive and file Minutes of January 1, 1992, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Saathoff requested that Mr. Lehr address the item when it comes up on the agenda. Mr. Lehr so agreed. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Annexation No. 61; General Plan Amendment 91 -3; Zone Change 91 -5; Tentative Tract Map 24609 - Tomlinson & Sons (Zimmerman) - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for: Annexation of 47 acres into the City of Lake Elsinore; Amendment to the General Plan to allow five acres of Medium High Density Residential and three acres of Neighborhood Commercial; Pre -zone of 38 acres of Low Medium Density Residential; • 150 lot single - family residential subdivision (TTM 24609). These projects are located at the southwest intersection of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue with Dreycott Way and Lakeview Avenue bounding the site to the west and south, respectively. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., and asked for comments from the applicant's representative. He stated than an opportunity for persons wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the project will be provided and the applicant can address said comments. Mr. Bill Tomlinson, representing Tomlinson and Sons, gave a brief history on the length of time his family has been in the valley, business operation and their desire to have a quality product. He then stated he would answer any questions that arise. Minutes of Planning Commission January 15, 1992 Page 2 ANNEXATION NO. 61• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -3• ZONE CHANGE 91 -5• TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24609 CONTINUED Mr. George Zimmerman, 835 Christopher Street, West Covina, Engineer for the project, commented on the drainage concerns brought up by staff and their intent to meet the requirements of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. We also have a copy of the West Lake Elsinore Drainage Plan from that District. He then stated that Lakeview Avenue was abandoned about a year ago -- vacated across the frontage of the property by the County Board of Supervisors. Chairman Saathoff called Mr. Lehr to the podium. Mr. Lehr, P.O. Box 145, Lake Elsinore, commented on access being provided and property being landlocked with the abandon- ment of Lakeview Avenue; tract having appropriate drainage and water run -off, so that his adjacent property can be developed in the future, submitted letter addressing concerns. Chairman Saathoff stated a letter dated January 15, 1992, from Mr. Jim Cifu, 15329 Contento, Lake Elsinore, has been received opposing the proposal due to decrease of property value, density, increase in traffic and crime. He then asked for anyone wishing to speak on the proposal. The following persons spoke: Mr. Beau Day, 3385 Dreycott Avenue, Lake Elsinore, inquired about zoning for the site. Concern is with Lakeview Avenue- - access to his driveway and entrance to property, if the City changes the nature and drainage of the street. Ms. Susan Ince, 15301 E1 Contento Drive, Lake Elsinore, commented on the density and its impact on the quality of living, requested this be addressed. Commander Brooks, 15297 E1 Contento Drive, Lake Elsinore, expressed concern on the high density designation. Mr. Ernest Ince, E1 Contento Drive, expressed concern on the density and loss of privacy. Mr. Harvey French, 15393 Mountain View Avenue, Lake Elsinore, commented on the elevation and drainage of lots, amount of rain fall predicted for the area, increase in population and the number of homes, increase in traffic and circulation. Chairman Saathoff asked staff to address the drainage issue. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell referred to condition number 48, which stipulates that with development of this site all drain facilities shall provide tract and immediate downstream property owners or adjacent property owners with 100 year storm flood protection. The applicant has to design for a 100 year flood event. Also, all lots have to drain either to the street or drainage facilities, this is a standard condition. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Chairman Saathoff requested and received clarification on the exact location of the Brooks and Ince property. Minutes of Planning Commission January 15, 1992 Page 3 ANNEXATION NO. 61• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -3• ZONE CHANGE 91 -51 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24609 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows: Condition number 47, with regard to drainage, requested the words "concrete lined" be added. Also, add this to condition 66. Chairman Saathoff commented on the disadvantages of concrete lined facilities. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated the concern is quantity flow, velocity and erosion control. There are different types of concrete structures that have slope banks; however, in this case, it does not make a difference because it is all concrete. Mr. Zimmerman, utilizing the posted rendering, point out the storm water retention basins which would normally not be concrete lined, but have concrete overflow sections. He then commented on the proposed facilities in Laguna Avenue and the expansion of facilities in Riverside Drive. If the Commission wanted to add a condition for this tract requiring all conduits or channels be concrete this would be fine, as long as retention basins are not. Requested staff address the density issue and existing County regulations. Associate Planner DeGange stated the existing County Zoning on this property is exactly what the applicant is proposing for the annexation -- Commercial along Grand Avenue and a multi- family buffer behind that up to Laguna Avenue. Discussion ensued on City /County zoning designation, concern with strip zoning; Riverside and Grand being a major inter- section in the future . Condition number 33, this is not the standard Lighting and Landscaping condition. Associate Planner DeGange stated this condition is for slope maintenance. Discussion ensued on the need to be more specific with regard to condition number 33, and analyze downslope situation on the tract. • Access to adjacent property, and the hope that Mr. Lehr and the applicant get together and come to an agreement between now and development. At this time, 8:05 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:15 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following: • Page 2 of the Staff Report, under TTM, whether or not staff has a breakdown of the square footage of the lots. Would like this data provided. • Page 5 of the Staff Report, Finding #4 and Page 30, of Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 -14, under sewer, second paragraph, "...serving overall area lack of capacity for Minutes of Planning Commission January 15, 1992 Page 4 additional connections. Construction will not be permitted to occur unless, sufficient capacity is available to service the proposed subdivision ". Nothing from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District requiring this, so did not think that we could make this finding. Considerable discussion ensued on Finding #4; comments and conditions from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District being included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; statement from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District that proposal meets all requirements of the California Code; City Attorney to review Finding and confirm that Planning Commission can make said finding. Condition number 22, 6th line down, would like to add "City Attorney ". Condition 25 and 30, believes these are the same as condition 58, incorporate? Associate Planner DeGange responded that condition number 30 was the result of a letter submitted to staff by the State Department of Conservation Division of Mines. Chairman Saathoff stated that condition 25 requires a bond and condition number 58 does not. These address similar subjects. Condition 33 and 57, duplicate conditions. Chairman Saathoff stated that condition number 33 deals with slope maintenance, and needs clarification. Condition number 57 deals with annexation to the City Lighting and Landscaping District and should stand. • Condition 44 and 13, duplicate conditions. City Planner Christen responded these are duplicate conditions; however, the overlap of conditions between departments is not a problem. Condition 50 and 56, duplicate conditions. Community Development Manager Shear responded that one deals with the lot itself and one deals with the overall drainage off -site. Condition 61, whether this is applicable. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated he would like to see the Minutes from the Board of Supervisors showing that it has been abandoned. If abandoned, it is a mute issue. • Page 25, of Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 -14, under Schools -- question to staff and staff may want to check with the City Attorney - -there has been some new case law whereby the city can extract additional fees in addition to the fees extracted from the school district to build new schools. Community Development Manager Shear referred to condition number 34, which addresses school impact mitigation. Chairman Saathoff suggested adding language "City should investigate the feasibility of securing additional fees" to Minutes of Planning Commission January 15, 1992 Page 5 ANNEXATION NO. 61; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -3; ZONE CHANGE 91 -5; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24609 CONTINUED condition number 34. • Page 26, of Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 -14, under Park and Recreation - -no provision for a park, neighbor- hood park or park facilities. Would like to see added to the conditions that some type of park be provided within the complex. Discussion ensued on the City's master planning for park sites, maintenance of park sites, utilizing joint facilities with the school district and regional park facilities, and payment of fees. • County Zoning of Multi- family Residential. Can not see putting multi - family residential out there with the single - family large lots across the way -- doesn't think this will blend with the overall picture of the area. Discussion ensued on the County /City Zoning designation; density, and the need for a buffer between the commercial and single - family, and said buffer being a quality product. Commissioner Sellevold commented on condition number 27, sidewalks being separated from curb with parkway. Concern is maintenance of parkway. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell requested that condition number 27 be deleted as the standard street section, which we have adopted for the General Plan, shows the sidewalk against the curb. Chairman Saathoff asked if Mr. Tomlinson or Mr. Zimmerman would like to comment on any of the issues raised. Mr. Tomlinson commented on the buffer issue and the apartment proposal, stating they are concentrating on the housing development right now, and the eight acres has not been looked at - -it happens to be the current County designation. It is our understanding that Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive, at some point, will be a T- intersection and a major intersection. Other proposals were discussed and this was the best proposal we had worked out with staff. Mr. Tomlinson stated the only persons he spoke with that voiced objection were the Inces and Lehrs. As far as Mr. Lehr's question, from what I understand, Lakeview has already been abandoned. Mr. Zimmerman commented on the Landscaping and Lighting Act stating they would attempt to mitigate any problem on down side slopes by changing the grade of some of those lots. Chairman Saathoff suggested the following language be added to condition 33 "to be determined by Community Development Director, and this pertains specifically to slope maintenance along right -of- ways ". Mr. Zimmerman commented on access to the Lehr property, stating the property has never had direct access by a maintained street, over its own property, physical access is up Riverside Avenue across private property. He then stated that Lakeview has been vacated and sure the County would not Minutes of Planning Commission January 15, 1992 Page 6 ANNEXATION NO. 61; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -3; ZONE CHANGE 91 -5; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24609 CONTINUED vacate if it landlocked a parcel. In fact, thinks this would be reversible and illegal. He then referred to the rendering and commented on the prescriptive right and legal access which was not vacated. Chairman Saathoff asked for further discussion from the table. Commissioner Gilenson asked Mr. Zimmerman whether he could furnish any information on the size of lot, number of homes and size. Mr. Zimmerman responded the only data prepared for this is what is shown on the tentative map. Chairman Saathoff commented on Page 3 of the Staff Report, under Special Project Concerns, asked what staff meant by adequate building footprint, reference condition number 29. Associate Planner DeGange clarified the intent of condition number 29. City Planner Christen stated the concern is if the map is sold, the possibility of a builder's standard product not fitting on the lot. Chairman Saathoff asked for the desire the Commission on Finding #4. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like it deleted or confirmation provided from the City Attorney that the Commission can make this finding. Commissioner Wilsey stated he had no problem with it one way or another. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ANNEXATION NO. 61 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON. APPROVED 4 -0 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. APPROVED 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 91 -5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. APPROVED 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24609 BASED ON THE FINDINGS WITH CONFIRMATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN MAKE FINDING #4, AND SUBJECT TO THE 69 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 22: Subdivider shall record CC & R's for the project 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 disk and no roof - mounted or front yard disk shall be allowed. CC & R's shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney, Community Development Director, or his designee, prior to recordation of any deeds or final map. CC & R's shall be recorded prior to Minutes of Planning Commission January 15, 1992 Page 7 ANNEXATION NO. 61• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -3• ZONE CHANGE 91 -5• TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24609 CONTINUED issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the units when developed in the future. Condition No. 27: Al-1- eiF1_ewe11Es smell be separated frera ,,,,ye ......,ent D ,,.,,,.,_er DELETE. Condition No. 33: Slope maintenance along right -of -ways shall be maintained by a landscaping and lighting maintenance assessment district or homeowners association(s), subject to Community Development Director approval. Condition No. 34: Prior to the approval of the finalized tentative map, 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 demand of new development proposed in such tentative map to be approved by the City. City should investigate the feasibility of securing additional fees. Condition No. 47: All drainage facilities in this tract shall be concrete lined, except retention basins, and constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY. APPROVED 4 -0 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -14, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY. APPROVED 4 -0 MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -3 FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1990 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING FIVE (5) ACRES AND THREE (3) ACRES FROM LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, RESPECTIVELY. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY. APPROVED 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) BUSINESS ITEMS NONE Minutes of Planning Commission January 15, 1992 Page 8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS City Planner Christen informed the Commission Commissioner Gilenson for a Joint Study Session ment Agreement and staff's attempt to schedule, PLANNING COMMISSIONERIS COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey of the request by on the TMC Develop- Inquired about the status of the Hillside Grading Ordinance. City Planner Christen responded that the Zoning Update is underway and a component of it is a hillside development overlay. We have been trying to get a study session, unsuccessful at this point, but we expect to include it in with the TMC Development Agreement Study Session. At least a rough draft for your review. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m., motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 4 -0 p Dyed, ✓ i V Bill aathoff, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff, Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 1992 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 5, 1992, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 19TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 1992 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Manager Shear. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: : None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Assistant Planner Villa, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of January 15, 1992, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Brinley abstaining) Minutes of February 5, 1992, were received and filed. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Sign Program - Bruce Ayres - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to implement a Master /Uniform Sign Program to comply with Condition No. 12 of approved Industrial Project 88 -1, located at 18630 Collier Avenue. Chairman Saathoff asked if the applicant or his representative reviewed the conditions; if there were concerns or problems. Mr. Steve Harriman, representing the applicant, responded in the negative. Commissioner Gilenson asked if a zone change would be required to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan, as referenced under Special Project Concerns. Community Development Manager Shear responded this will be resolved with the General Plan Clean -up. Commissioner Gilenson commented on can signs - -felt it was the consensus of both the Commission and Council that can signs not be allowed, and requested this be added as condition number 9. Commissioner Brinley stated her concern was on the can signs. She then commented briefly on the vandalism and maintenance problems associated with can signs. Commissioner Wilsey stated he was also concerned with can signs, and questioned whether the Commission wanted to carry this through the CM and M Zones, as well as regular commercial applications. Minutes of Planning Commission February 19, 1992 Page 2 SIGN PROGRAM CONTINUED Chairman Saathoff commented on this being a request to comply with condition 12 of Industrial Project 88- 1-- development of a Master Sign Program and no other specifics; whether a permit was pulled when the 519" center identification sign was installed, and whether the applicant was informed of the City's desire not to use can signs. Community Development Manager Shear responded that a permit was pulled for the center identification sign, approved by Building and Planning Departments. He stated he could not respond to the latter. Mr. Harriman stated he was unaware of the desire to eliminate the use of can signs. He then stated that can signs were chosen for the center because of the architecture of the building, and there is insufficient room for channel letters. Discussion ensued on can signs, channel letters and foam letters; height of signs; signs being designed for compati- bility with the architecture of the building. Commissioner Wilsey stated with the architecture of this particular product we might well look at staying with can signs. Do bare in mind, particularly on a retail level, that we are leaning to the individual channel letters. Commissioner Brinley stated she concurs with Commissioner Wilsey. Discussion ensued on type of material - -24 gauge paint lock sheet metal; use of aluminum rather than sheet metal; maintenance problems; number of tenant signs across front of each building and consistency of colors between the sign copy and roofing material; height of wall signs; Sign Type 3 on front windows and entry doors - -over signage. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE THE MASTER UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR COLLIER BUSINESS PARK AT 18630 COLLIER AVENUE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 8 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission February 19, 1992 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:29 p.m., motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 5 -0 Apr ved, �l Bill Saathoff, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Linda Grin staff, Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 4TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. ISIe\ 1;190�&3e3: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of February 19, 1992, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 91 -5 - California Skydive (Skylark Airport, Incorporated), Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to establish a commercial parachute school and skydiving center, and to allow the placement of temporary coach trailers within the floodplain area. The proposed office trailers and requested operations will be conducted on the southeast portion of the site totaling 18.76 acres, located at Skylark Airport (20701 Cereal Street) . The project as proposed is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act based on Section 15311, Class 11. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Brogdon, President of Skydive California and Director of the Airport, 24777 Agusta Drive, Moreno Valley, commented on skydiving /air sports being a natural resource for the community; revenue generated and improving the community's image through positive media coverage. He then submitted letters of support from the following businesses: Don Jose Restaurant; Herman De Jong; Lake Elsinore Lock and Key; Teti's Restaurant; Manny's Grill; Sizzler Restaurant; McDonalds Restaurant Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Brogdon if the Conditions of Approval placed on the proposal were reviewed and if there were any concerns. Mr. Brogdon responded in the negative. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission, in favor or opposition. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Sellevold stated he believes this will be good for the city and likes the layout. He then inquired about Minutes of Planning Commission March 4, 1992 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -5 CONTINUED signage. Mr. Brogdon stated two signs will be erected - -one at Cereal Street from Corydon Road and one on the trailer that is parallel with Cereal Street. Commissioner Wilsey stated he has been a supporter of Skylark Airport for many years. He then commented on the jump- center being internationally know prior to the flooding in early 1980; Airport Study prepared by CH2 Hill and the establishment of an airport committee in the 80's, and revenue generated. Commissioner Brinley commented on revenue generated for local businesses. She then inquired whether the restroom facilities would be hooked -up to septic. Mr. Brogdon responded there is a holding tank underneath - -water is pumped in for the portable restrooms, and pumped -out twice a week by Right -Way Disposal. Commissioner Gilenson stated he has no problem with the Conditional Use Permit and looks forward to the time when a permanent facility will be in place - -not only for the jumping but the airport as well. Familiar with the study that was done and knows the revenue that can be generated. Chairman Saathoff inquired whether the application came from both Skylark Airport Incorporated and Skydive California. Assistant Planner Villa responded in the affirmative. Chairman Saathoff then commented on the skirting for trailers and type of material; parking area - -is this DG, concerned with dust control; providing copy of the contract for portable restroom servicing; landscape plan. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 13 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 12.a.: Dust control measures for the parking surface shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager. Condition No. 12.b.: The City shall receive a copy of the service contract indicating that the portable restrooms will in fact be serviced twice a week. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission March 4, 1992 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Commented on the Freeway off -ramp at Central Avenue. Engineering Manager O'Donnell state with Cal- Trans; as you know, this is jurisdiction. We will talk to them Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. d they have been communicating a State Highway and they have again and see what we can do. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:25 p.m., motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 A ed, Bill aathoff, Chairman Respectfully submitted, in Grin staff, Planning Commission Secretary iuM��I�LY�9 HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 18TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. MARCH 1992 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Sellevold. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold and Saathoff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wilsey Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of March 4, 1992, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 91 -6 - New Hope Baptist Church (Glendora CC Investor) - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to allow New Hope Baptist Church to operate religious services at 565 Chaney Street, Units G and H, within the Warm Springs Business Park. He further stated that the church would use approximately 2,775 square feet of the facility for general church worship including worship and praise services, Sunday School, meetings, youth fellowship activities and bible study. The church related operations will be conducted on weekends and after regular business hours. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak on the subject. Mr. Larry Carter, 34778 Hickory Lane, Lake Elsinore, stated that their church needs a larger facility and their plans are to conduct services on the weekends and after business hours. He further stated that the applicants are aware of the need not to impact the current tenants in the proposed facility and since the main activities are on the weekends and after business hours this should not create any impact either in regard to business operations or the traffic impact. Mr. Carter further stated that this facility would be in use as a temporary measure only until the congregation could build its own facility in approximately two years. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission, in favor or opposition. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson stated he has been against churches applying for Conditional Use Permits in this area only because of possible health and safety concerns, but due to City Council's direction he would not try to block the project. He then commented on the following: • Condition No. 1, expiration of Conditional Use Permit- - suggested the two years be changed to one year with two one year extensions. Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1992 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -6 CONTINUED • Condition No. 3, suggested amendment to read: "Seating shall be limited and controlled by the Fire Marshal of the City of Lake Elsinore ". • Condition No. 7, after the word "shall" add the word "be". • Requested that a condition be added to address excess noise, toxic odors and chemicals. Chairman Saathoff suggested a condition be added that the owner of the facility provide a letter, to be placed in the case file, stating that the adjoining units would not be rented to any business which might produce toxic odors or excessive noise. Commissioner Gilenson concurred. Commissioner Brinley inquired about bible school during the summer. Mr. Carter responded that there would be no bible school. Chairman Saathoff clarified the hours of operation and asked the applicant if the heating and air conditioning had been addressed. Mr. Carter stated that both the heating and air conditioning had been brought up to the needs of the building and its uses. Mr. Saathoff further stated that he agreed with the suggested changes to the conditions and asked Mr. Carter if he had any concerns in regard to the changes. Mr. Carter stated he had no problem with the changes and introduced Mr. Mike Pathos, Westmoore Commercial Brokerage, owner's representative. Mr. Mike Pathos, acting on behalf of the applicant and the landlord, stated that the owner would have no problem providing a letter indicating that the surrounding buildings would not be rented to any business which had toxic chemicals /odors or excessive noise. He further stated that it would not be in the best interests of the owner to place manufacturing in the buildings in question, since they have been designed for office use. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -2 AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -6 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 1: The Conditional Use Permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of approval. The Community Development Manager may issue two (2) one (1) year extension if the applicant demonstrates that a new facility is progressing towards development. If Use has not commenced within one (1) year of the date of this approval, then the approvals as indicated by this Use Permit shall be expired and require resubmittal. Condition No. 3: Seating shall be limited and controlled by the Fire Marshal of the City of Lake Elsinore. Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1992 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -6 CONTINUED Condition No. 7: Any violation or non - compliance with the Conditions of Approval shall be cause for the revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. Condition No. 10: Applicant is required to provide a letter from the owner that states that the owner will not lease buildings A through F, I and J, to any businesses wherein there are any caustic chemicals, vapors or sound intrusion which would affect the building which the church occupies. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:21 p.m. , motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 r;�l ed, athoff, Chairman s ectfuul /ly sub itted, Adria Bryning, De ty �J City Clerk ((&I MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 1ST DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. APRIL 1992 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold, Wilsey and Saathoff Also present were City Planner Christen, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of March 18, 1992, as submitted, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 92 -1 - Arnold Schlevniger (Larry Eichandy) - A request to establish an outdoor sales stand for the sale of strawberries in the General Commercial District, located at the southeast corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. Chairman Saathoff stated the applicant has requested this item be withdrawn from the Agenda and called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO WITHDRAW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -1 FROM THE AGENDA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON. Approved 5 -0 2. Zone Code Amendment 92 -1 - City of Lake Elsinore - City Planner Christen presented a proposal to amend Section 17.11 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and establishing a Central Business Overlay District, and provide Design Standards. The District is bounded to the north by I -15, to the south by the Lake edge, the east by the alley which parallels Main Street, and to the west by Spring Street, and includes a portion of Graham Avenue to Kellogg; the posted map entitled "Central Business District Downtown Land Use Study" outlines the area boundaries. Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 88020114) was prepared and adopted on November 27, 1990, for the General Plan and addresses environmental impacts; therefore, pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act this project is exempt from further environmental review. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m. Chairman Saathoff asked Commissioner Brinley start the discussion as she has served on this Committee for some time. Minutes of Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Page 2 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -1 CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley stated this amendment covers issues which have needed addressing for a long time, such as: the 1920 era design theme -- tradition that we are trying to follow, control and flexibility for Downtown businesses. Commissioner Gilenson asked if the Cal Poly Urban Design Study of 1982 is the one being revised. Mr. Christen stated his understanding is, this has always been the basis for the Downtown area, but it is not being revised. Commissioner Gilenson then commented on Section 17.11.020, incorporation of the Design Standards - -prior to voting on it should have the whole package. Section 17.11.030, density of the same or similar use, this should not be done as it limits /restricts the free enterprise system. Commissioner Brinley stated the intent was not to restrict businesses. Each case, project or business would be taken on its own basis and merit. The flexibility is there. Considerable discussion ensued on the intent of Section 17.11.030 and the need to clarify, and the second sentence alluding to the Zoning Ordinance which states uses in a specific area and does not specify numbers. Commissioner Wilsey expressed concern with the second sentence in Section 17.11.030 and suggested that all comments, questions or clarification be made and the document be sent back to staff (City Attorney) for re -work. Commissioner Gilenson suggested the amendment come back as a total package. The following sections were discussed and comments made as follows: Section 17.11.020 Central Business District Defined. Amendment to come back before the Commission with the Revised Design Standards as a total package. Section 17.11.030 Permitted Uses: Suggested the second sentence be changed to: No new or changed use shall be permitted in this District without the specific prior approval as to both type and location by the Planning Commission. Clarify the intent of the ordinance - -allow the Design Review Committee to approve new or changed uses in the underlying zone, approve variances in setbacks, approve Conditional Use Permits? If use deviates from underlying zoning then it must be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. A change in underlying zoning should come to Planning Commission. Delete all language after the first sentence. Section 17.11.050 Design Review Committee Suggested the last sentence be changed to: The City Council shall retain the right to remove and replace committee members for cause, notwithstanding the terms set out herein. This not being a committee anymore, it is a body having the same power as Planning Commission. Establish criteria that committee member must be a resident or have a business within the City. Committee members consisting of a representative from Downtown Businesses, a Planning Commissioner, private citizen, Minutes of Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Page 3 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -1 CONTINUED business representatives outside the district. Section 17.11.060 Proiect Review This section should define responsibilities of this Committee and the Commission with regards new construction, conditional use permits, variance for setbacks, etc. Clarify steps for applicant and staff - -list of type of action and what body(s) they go before. Name of the committee, refers to design only, implication is they are interested only in design. Subsection C, entire section needs clarification. Subsection E, intent of this section -- renovate structure whether use is changed or not, suggested deletion of the language "conduct a new or changed use or ". Enforcement mechanism and penalty for violation needs to be added, reference to Subsection C.3 and E. Section 17.11.070 Compliance with Standards Subsection A, Nuisance Abatement procedure - -check with City Attorney, provided a provision for penalty and enforcement is included in the section there is another way to enforce and penalize without having to go through Nuisance Abatement. Subsection B, can not selectively enforce; cost of modifi- cation and compliance should be increased for latitude. Subsection C, financial hardship, text for guidelines on hardship should be added. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -1, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY. Chairman Saathoff asked for further discussion. Commissioner Wilsey asked if this has to be continued date specific. COMMISSIONER GILENSON AMENDED HIS MOTION TO CONTINUE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 91 -2 FOR 90 DAYS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Single - Family Residence - 17889 Benedict Avenue - Brenda J. Sailer - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 2,723 square foot, two story, dwelling unit with a 1,120 square foot tuck -under garage on approximately 5,920 square foot lot. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Richard Sailer stated they have proposed a wrought iron fence completely around the property, and the retaining wall permits have been released. No problem with the conditions. Minutes of Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Page 4 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 17889 BENEDICT AVENUE CONTINUED Discussion was held on the distance of retaining wall from structure and reason for wrought iron - -for safety purposes; distance of retaining wall from property line, and the ten - foot retaining wall not addressed in the conditions. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 17889 BENEDICT AVENUE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 25 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 12. The proposed retaining wall will be constructed on the north property line and it will be ten -feet (101) high from the lowest grade. On the highest grade, the wall will only be approximately six - inches (611). A thirty- six -inch (3611) high wrought iron fence extension shall be 'constructed on top of the retaining wall situated on the north property line. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON. Approved 5 -0 4. Single - Family Residence - 29390 Hague Street - Daniel A. Wishard - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 1,480 square foot, two - story, single - family dwelling unit with an attached two car garage that encompasses approximately 412 square feet in area. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Daniel Wishard stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation. A brief discussion was held on whether grading plans are submitted for single - family dwellings, and indication of the amount of grading on said plans, condition number 18. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29390 HAGUE STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 22 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY. Approved 5 -0 INFORMATIONAL 5. Formation of Focus Group for Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement - City Planner Christen explained the objective of forming Focus Groups for specific projects. Commissioners Gilenson and Sellevold were appointed to serve on this committee. PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS Nothing to report. I . /I d.. . Minutes of Planning Commission April 1, 1992 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:15 p.m., motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 ppro ed, Bill Saathoff, Chairman Respectfully submitted,, Yinda Grin staff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING CC APRIL 15, 1992 THE REGULAR MEETING WAS CALLED DUE TO LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully s4bmitted, *Linda Grin staff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING ( MAY 6, 1992 THE REGULAR MEETING WAS CALLED DUE TO LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully s mitt_e /d, in Grin staff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 20TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: MAY 1992 PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley and Sellevold ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wilsey and Saathoff Also present were City Planner Christen, Associate Planner DeGange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. Being as Chairman Saathoff was absent, Vice Chairman Gilenson conducted the meeting. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of April 1, 1992, as submitted, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 3 -0 Minutes of April 15 and May 6, 1992, were ordered received and filed. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Vice Chairman Gilenson closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. 40- .38{40:044\:7A 0k, Ce'? 1. Conditional Use Permit 92 -2 - Mark Piascik - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request to convert a residential structure to a commercial structure. The project is located at 607 West Graham Avenue between Kellogg and Lindsay Streets. This project has been determined to be a Class 1 Categorical Ex- emption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked for written communication. The Secretary responded no written communication received. He then opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mark Piascik stated he is interested in opening an interior design center; it will be used like a residence and wants to maintain the residential look of the structure. Perspective customers will be brought to this location to show them how our products might look in their home. He stated he was in agreement with the parking and other requirements listed in the report. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for opposition. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Brinley commented on loading and unloading of merchandise; the amount of off - street parking, and; whether permits were pulled for the addition. Mr. Piascik stated they have another store in the Stater Brothers Shopping Center where the stock will be kept. This store will be like a showroom. Associate Planner DeGange stated parking is available: two spaces in front, four spaces provided on -site, side street parking on Lowell and Lindsay Streets. For the addition, the applicant would have meet Code requirements. Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1992 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -2 CONTINUED Mr. Piascik stated that permits were pulled for the addition, but not finished. In discussion with the Building Department if the Conditional Use Permit is approved, they will renew the permit. Commissioner Sellevold commented on the number of employees and employee parking. Inquired whether there are any plans for the existing garage in the rear, and if this could be used for employee parking. Mr. Piascik stated there should only be one salesperson at the location at a time. There are no plans for the garage, at this time, and there would not be a problem with employees parking in the garage. Commissioner Sellevold asked if the exterior of the structure was to be re- stuccoed, and if the block walls were going to match, or be slumpstone. Mr. Piascik stated that he would like to recolor -coat, and a decision on the block walls has not been made, would like to discuss with staff. Mr. Larry Erwin, partner, 29281 Swan Avenue, stated they would like to stucco the block walls to match the building. Com- missioner Sellevold stated that he would like this added as a condition. Vice Chairman Gilenson requested the following corrections to the Staff Report: Page 1, last paragraph, indicates minutes attached - -were not attached -- either attach or delete. Page 2, Special Project Concern #2 and #3, condition numbers not listed. Vice Chairman Gilenson inquired whether the project is currently on sewer or septic, if not would like added as a condition. He then stated he would like a condition added requiring the outside addition either be completed or removed prior to business license issuance. Discussion ensued on the addition and whether this was addressed in condition number 2 and 3. Vice Chairman Gilenson stated that he wanted the addition addressed specifically. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if anyone would be residing at this location, and what control the City has over this. Mr. Piascik responded that no one would be residing at the location. Associate Planner DeGange stated that if the structure is to be used for commercial purposes it is against City Ordinance to have anyone residing there. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 6: A six -foot high block wall stuccoed on both sides shall be constructed along the rear and side property lines to match the building where drive aisles and parking areas abut adjoining property. A fencing plan shall be submitted to the Building Division for issuance of building permits Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1992 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -2 CONTINUED and the review of the Community Development Manager or his designee. Condition No. 8: The outside addition either be completed or removed prior to business license issuance. Condition No. 9: The project shall connect to sewer and meet all requirements of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) . SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 3 -0 2. Tentative Parcel Map 27483; Conditional Use Permit 92 -3; Residential Project 92 -1 - Mazen Issa (Samir Alashqar) - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to divide the air space of one parcel into dual ownership to create two condominium units; A Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 17.24.030, and Design Review for the construction of a 2,952 square foot residential condominium building. The site is located at 316 Lindsay Street between Pottery and Sumner Avenues. It has been determined that the request is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15315, Class 15 (Minor Land Division). Vice Chairman Gilenson asked for written communication. The Secretary responded no written communication received. He then opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Nader Qoborsi, Civil Engineer, stated they started with a duplex. We asked the Planning Department what they thought of a condominium conversion, and we received a positive response to that question and consequently we went ahead and filed the map. The only concern I understand from the Planning Depart- ment is the problems of the CC & R's. The duplex or apartment doesn't have CC & R's as there is nothing to enforce. To enforce the CC & R's is not the problem we can add to them whatever condition the Planning Department is comfortable with. Mr. Qoborsi stated the architect and owner is open for any suggestion for change of design or material. They are willing to comply with whatever recommendation the City is asking for without any restriction. I believe that the condominium project should not be dealt with any differently than a single - family home - -they are almost the same. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for opposition. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Sellevold stated that CC & R's are hard to enforce. He then commented on problems associated with two property owners. With an apartment duplex there would only be one owner and more control on exterior /interior maintenance. Commissioner Brinley stated that she concurs with Commissioner Sellevold, and agrees with staff's findings. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked staff, there is a subdivision map whereby there is airspace dividing the two projects or two condominiums, fifteen years from now owner of condominium #2 decides to tear down his half of the condominium and put up an Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1992 Page 4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27483• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _92 -3; RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -1 CONTINUED A- frame, would that be legal? If so, concerned with substandard lot size. Assistant Planner Villa responded that it may very well happen if they do decide to dissolve the CC & R's before that. Vice Chairman Gilenson then commented as follows: • Does not want the vinyl siding. • Not against the asphalt shingle if three dimensional Presidential Series or similar type quality is used. • Does not agree with the tandem parking, believes it creates fire, safety and health hazards. • Noise, due to this area being totally residential, would not approve the 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., would not want construction to start until 8:00 a.m., and specifically enunciating no work on Sunday. • If approved as an apartment duplex, would want condition number 44 added, comply with all conditions of the County Fire Department. • Condition number 41, does staff have any idea what the appropriate bonds are - -what they would run? Engineering Manager O'Donnell responded it would be calculated by the Engineer's estimate, when the plans come in for approval -- $7,000 - $10,000. Vice Chairman Gilenson reiterated that he would be against the dual ownership theory for the reasons stated; would approve the apartment duplex with the amendments to the conditions. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO DENY TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27483; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -3; RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -1 (CONDOMINIUM) BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. APPROVED 3 -0 Vice Chairman Gilenson asked staff if it would be appropriate to discuss the apartment duplex, at this time. Assistant Planner Villa responded in the affirmative, if the applicant wishes to go forward with the project, at this point. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked for the applicant's desire. Mr. Qoborsi stated that the duplex doesn't need public hearing, the zoning allows and indicated he was not interested in pursuing. Assistant Planner Villa informed Mr. Qoborsi that Design Review is approved by the Planning Commission. 3. Conditional Use Permit 92 -4 - Keith R. Liston (Gene R. Bouch) - Vice Chairman Gilenson stated the applicant has requested this item be continued to June 3, 1992, and called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -4 TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1992, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 3 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission Page�?�,t 1992 �r I� ..l �,i .r 4. Conditional Use Permit 92 -5 - Jack Malki (Bruce W. Wade) - Vice Chairman Gilenson referred to the letter dated May 15, 1992, from Mr. Malki requesting this item be withdrawn from the Agenda. MOTI,ON BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO WITHDRAW CONDITIONAL USE PERMI% 92 -5' FROM !TUE AGENDA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 3-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 5. Extension of Time for R 91 -3 - Rodney Pence (ESI Builders) - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to consider a twelve month extension of time for approved Residential Project 91 -3, located. at 110 and 112 Lewis Street between Graham Avenue and Heald Avenue. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if there was anyone representing the applicant.. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at the table. Commissioners Brinley and Sellevold stated they had no problem with the extension. Vice Chairman Gilenson commented on the roofing material and the use of asphalt shingle if three dimensional Presidential Series or similar type quality is use. Condition number 10, noise - -due to this area being totally residential change the 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., and no work on Sunday. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE A TWELVE MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 45 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF ,REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 7: Applicant shall use roofing materials with a minimum of Class "B" fire rating. If asphalt roofing material is used on sloped roofs it shall be of the quality of Presidential Shake three dimensional shingles. Roofing material to be used shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee, prior to issuance of building permits. Condition No. 10: Applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no work on Sunday, to protect adjacent occupants from unreasonable noise and glare associated with construction. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 3 -0 6. Models for Tract 20705 - Friedman Homes, Inc. - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design Review of three models for Tract 20705 (Canyon Creek Specific Plan Area), near the intersection of Summerhill Drive and Railroad Canyon Road off of Interstate 15. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if there was anyone representing the applicant. Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1992 Page 6 MODELS FOR TRACT 20705 CONTINUED Mr. Mike Bird, representing Friedman Homes, gave a brief history on the proposal. He stated that he agrees with the concerns raised by staff and believes the amendments will be very helpful to the project. He then questioned the following conditions: Condition No. 16, Friedman Homes will be constructing roughly a million dollars worth of parks, so we hope the parks would be in lieu of fees. Condition No. 23, all rear and side yards that exist in the right -of -way will be wrought iron or a combination thereof. We were planning to do a captured cedar and redwood on all side yards. Condition No. 30, regarding scheduling and construction of the parks, we have worked out an agreement that was agreeable with Friedman and hopefully the City, as well, reference letter of May 19, 1992. Construction of the soccer park, at the main entrance of the tract, in conjunction with the models and come on line with the restrooms at the 200th house; the baseball park at 300th unit and all other parks at the 400th or 450th unit. Mr. Bird then stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Commissioner Sellevold commented on the soccer field being up and running and no restroom facilities -- inquired about time line for the 200th home and the possibility of temporary restroom facilities. Mr. Bird stated he believes this to be within a 12 month period. As an update for the Commission, there are 111 units in this tract and we have 114 lots in escrow to Century Homes (Tract 20704). In the second half of Tract 20705 we are trying to bring on line another 125 units. Could propose that Friedman pay for the rental and servicing of temporary facilities when the park is in use. Vice Chairman Gilenson stated that due to visibility from the freeway would not want temporary restroom facilities. If anything, would want the restroom facilities coming on line with the models. Discussion ensued on time line for restroom facilities and costs; restroom facilities coming on line with construction of 100 homes; screening of temporary restroom facilities with lattice and providing additional maintenance. Commissioner Brinley stated her concern was on the park, which has been addressed. Believes the embellishments requested by staff will provide enhancement to the project. Vice Chairman Gilenson requested the following corrections to the Staff Report, Page 2, Special Project Concerns, #1 and #3 fill in condition numbers. He then commented on the following conditions: Condition 14, would like to add Planning Commission approval. Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1992 Page 7 MODELS FOR TRACT 20705 CONTINUED • Condition 21.b., delete 1115 gallon in size ". • Condition 23, agrees with the applicant on fencing. • Condition 30, would like the applicant's letter dated May 19, 1992 with the correction to #2 added to this condition. • Condition 32, delete the word "shall ". • Referred to the last page of the Staff Report (Map), would like to see an additional road put in, Lot 111. So that there is more than one ingress /egress. Would like this added to the conditions. Engineering Manager O'Donnell responded that he does not know if this can be designed and put in - -it has already been graded and it might not work engineering wise. Mr. Bird stated that this would not work engineering wise - -the grade is about 30 -40 foot straight up and down. We do have secondary access by Lot 1, exiting on Franklin Street. Vice Chairman Gilenson stated that this still does not give any ingress /egress within the project. Mr. Bird reiterated his statement on the topography. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated the map meets standards and has been approved. Does not know what grounds we have to change the map. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked staff to address the issues the applicant raised on conditions 16 and 23. Associate Planner DeGange stated that condition number 16 can be altered to say or meet the requirements through dedication of park, which they have done, providing parks on: Lot C, baseball field; Lot F, soccer field; Lot E, adult park; Lot F & G, active parks, and Lot B, fire station. Condition number 23, is a Code requirement for all residential developments over 4 units with a provision that Planning Commission may alter. Discussion ensued on fencing requirements, exterior lots visible from the right -of -way being decorative block and interior lots using wood fencing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO APPROVE MODELS FOR TRACT 20705 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 14: All signage shall be by City Permit subject to Planning Commission approval. Condition No. 16: Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, or meet the requirements through dedication of parks: Lot C, baseball field; Lot F, soccer field; Lot E, adult park; Lot F & G, active parks. Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1992 Page 8 MODELS FOR TRACT 20705 CONTINUED Condition No. 21b: Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City's Street Tree List, a maximum of thirty feet (30') apart and twenty -four inch (24 ") box. Condition No. 23: A six foot (61) high masonry or decorative block wall shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines where fencing is adjacent to public right -of -ways, tract perimeter, and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls) . On interior lot lines wood fencing may be used, and subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee, prior to issuance of building permit. Condition No. 30: Lot "C" of Tract 20704 (Soccer Park) and Lot "F" of Tract 20705 (Baseball Park) shall be completed prior to final releases of the models for this project. Construction schedule of the parks within Tract 20704 and 20705 shall be: 1. Begin construction of the Soccer Park (Lot C, Tract 20704) irrigation, landscaping, parking lot, walkways, bleachers and other park equipment, at the completion of the construction of models in Tract 20705. Restroom facilities at the Soccer Park - Provide concealed temporary restroom facilities, which shall be properly maintained, up until the 100th unit. At the 100th home the restroom facility shall come on line with all of the amenities. 3. Construct the complete Baseball Park (Lot A, Tract 20705) before the Certificate of Occupancy of the 300th house in Tracts 20704/20705. 4. Construct the River Park (Lots F & G, Tract 20704) and the Adult Park (Lot A, Tract 20704) before the Certificate of Occupancy of the 450th house in Tracts 20704/20705. Condition No. 32: A model complex plan detailing parking and circulation shall be submitted to the Engineering and Planning Departments for review and approval. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY. Approved 3 -0 PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS City Planner Christen informed the Commission that the TMC North Peak project is going back to LAFCO on May 28th. The Development Agreement will be coming forward in the near future, and an in- house meeting has been scheduled for next week. Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1992 Page 9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if this meeting was for the Study Group. Mr. Christen responded it is just the department heads to see where they stand, at this point. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brinley Yesterday's Dream on Lakeshore, a sign is being painted on the wall, inquired whether a permit had been issued. Associate Planner DeGange stated he was going suggest that Code Enforcement notify the owner and inform them that they need a sign permit. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Inquired about the change in color, signage and the flags on top of the buildings at both Del Taco locations (Lakeshore and Mission Trail), whether this was approved by anyone or if this was a unilateral decision. Associate Planner DeGange responded there is very little that we can do in terms of color. A change of face permit is necessary for the signage, and the flags require a temporary permit. Vice Chairman Gilenson stated that he would like this referred to Code Enforcement. Commissioner Wilsey Absent Chairman Saathoff Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:07 p.m., motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 3 -0 .. - Re ectfully Submitted, inda Gri dstaff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Associate Planner DeGange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of May 20, 1992 as submitted, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 3 -0 (Commissioners Wilsey and Saathoff abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Saathoff stated he has received several requests to speak on Residential Project 89 -11 Revision No. 3, and asked that the persons wishing to speak on this proposal wait until the item comes up on the agenda, if agreeable with the Commission. Commission concurred. Mr. Dick Knapp, 29690 Dwan Drive, suggested the following: 1) Planning Commission follow the City Council's format with regard to the agenda, number the item and pages. 2) Sewer, water and utilities be required before building permits are issued, referring to developments that are not being completed, referenced a home on La Shell and a triplex on Riverside and Robertson. Also, would like to bring to your attention that a fire hydrant is not within 300 -feet of these developments. Does not believe this is followed -up as far as the Planning Department is concerned. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 92 -4 - Keith R. Liston (Gene R. Bouch)- Continued from May 20, 1992 - Chairman Saathoff stated that the applicant has requested this item be continued to June 17, 1992, and called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -4 TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1992, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY. Approved 5 -0 2. Tentative Parcel Map 27033 and Zone Change 91 -7 - Mola Development - Chairman Saathoff stated that staff has requested these items be continued to June 17, 1992, and called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 AND ZONE CHANGE 91 -7 THE MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1992, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 2 3. Negative Declaration No. 91 -15 for the City's Northern Sphere of Influence Boundary - Associate Planner DeGange detailed this item, explaining that Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requested that the City provide additional environmental documentation. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Dick Knapp, 29690 Dwan Drive, inquired about notification to the property owners pulled in through the North Peak project, and stated he was neither in favor nor opposition. Chairman Saathoff informed Mr. Knapp that there are certain legal requirements which have to be met. He then asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for opposition. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m. A brief discussion was held on the Local Agency Formation Commission's requirement for preparation of a Negative Declaration. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -15 AND AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 91 -66, INCORPORATING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -15, BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Single - Family Residence - 16770 Hunt Avenue - Jack DiLemme - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 1,406 square foot single - family dwelling. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Jack DiLemme responded that he had no problem with staff recommendation. Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Receiv- ing no response, he asked Mr. Knapp if this was one of the items alluded to, and informed him that condition number 8 requires the applicant to submit a Soils Report, which includes a sewage disposal plan, prior to issuance of building permit. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16770 HUNT AVENUE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 5 -0 5. Residential Project 89 -11 Revision Number 3 - MacLeod Development - At this time, Chairman Saathoff asked for those wishing to speak on the proposal. Mr. Peter Dawson, 18010 Grand Avenue, President of Kilmsny Orchard P.O.A. and Vice President of Landowners Mutual Corporation P.O.A., both developments are within the Lakeland Village area, waterfront on the downstream side of Grand Avenue. We are just downstream from the new MacLeod development, known as Prestonwood. We have been severely impacted by that development without proper drainage to protect downstream property owners. When I came to report to you, I believe it was last December, regarding that and at that time you said that this was the first you had heard of that problem, so I have come to give a little more information Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED and to give you an update. First of all, a little bit of chronology, we had minor damage in 1989. We had major severe damage in 1990, which I alluded to last December in my report to you including erosion to our beach - -big enough to drive a truck into -- extensive damage to homes at the same time. We hired a consultant engineer, Applied Consultants of San Diego. We hired an attorney, Negele, Knoppfler of Universal City. We won our case, it is very clear that there was damage, and it was caused by the development. We heard response from your department - -the Lake Elsinore City Engineer, Ray O'Donnell, and he says that he has revisited the site - -this is something after our meeting of last December - -he contacted the developer, he requested the developer to take remedial action and he will continue to work with the developer. This is the letter we've got stating that and it is available to you I'm sure. Now, this is the last we heard - -one letter and the response from the developer was a bunch of sandbags. Well now, that doesn't sound like a modern progressive development and a modern progressive city to me. Sandbags won't be a good temporary measure, but it certainly isn't a long term measure and what happens when the developer goes away, is sandbags the answer for the next 50 years, I hardly think so. Now during this winter of 1991/92 we had no heavy downpours still there were ruts in our beach, about 2 feet deep and the potential damage is still severe. This is second rate response and we are just not satisfied with it and we are convinced that you won't want to go along with this developer's new ideas of downgrading his homes or whatever without taking into consideration downstream residences. We have extensive comments available to you from the Department of Building and Safety where there were complaints and people were protected through the court system and we feel that you now must protect us further. Ms. Bonnie Dowling, 32877 Marie Street, I live directly on the beach that is affected by the flooding and was there at the time and helped other homeowners that had 2 -3 feet of water in their homes as well as the problem on the beach. I spoke before you in December of last year, and did receive the same response as Mr. Dawson did - -a letter of assurance that you would be monitoring this and that some remedial action would be taken. To date, the only remedial action I see is the sandbags in the street -- nothing different has changed. I am only here to say, and will try to make it brief so that I am not repeating what Mr. Dawson said, that before any approval of any additions to that tract can be made they are going to have to be brought into adherence with what they had originally set up in the plan as far as flood control is concerned. Chairman Saathoff - as a clarification, would you comment briefly regarding the flood control situation at this particular time. Bearing in mind that what we are doing here this evening really doesn't have anything to do with flood control. I mean, it is design review for some models of the home. Ms. Dowling - I noticed that portion has been removed from the agenda. Chairman Saathoff - that is an issue that is really mute this evening. Community Development Manager Shear - I think Ray O'Donnell requested that the engineers for the site prepare some Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 4 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED drawings in which, I noticed behind you, show some of the drainage issues that they are concerned with. At this time, the flood control channel behind the tract is fully installed which eliminates a large portion of the flooding problems. When the tract was first graded we had a unique rain storm and also the fire in that area and they had a flash flood that caused the mud and water to go in a different direction. The developer has addressed the issues of flooding his tract would cause. I think, if Commission has more precise requirements Ray O'Donnell can answer those. Ray O'Donnell, Engineering Department - I discussed with the developer and I think he is ready to make a presentation that I think would be of education to the citizens, as well as the Council, to explain the hydrology of the area, the hydraulics and the flooding on Grand Avenue. Chairman Saathoff - before we bring the matter to the table then - -the applicant in the audience would probably like to make a statement, we will let him, is that alright Commission? Mr. Paul White - I represent MacLeod Development Company, 2 North Lake, Pasadena. I have a few things to say concerning the development, but as long as we are on the drainage my civil engineer, John Dierksen, I'd like to give him an opportunity to speak and then I would like to reserve a few comments after that. John Dierksen, PHB Engineering, 109 East Huntington Drive, Monrovia. Kevin alluded to the maps behind you there and the issue here is - -the March rains of a year ago and even before any development in this area, the drainage area looked like this, it drained onto Grand Avenue and a good portion of the water spilled over the road - -went down these streets into the lake and we've drawn a cross section here to show what the water depth and quantity looked like leaving basically this same area, where that arrow is. Before any development water was about a foot and a half deep and about 75 cubic feet per second. After development, this channel was installed it carries almost 700 c.f.s., cubic feet per second, into a storm drain that winds through and outlets into the lake and really as part of condition of the tract this major storm drain facility eliminates- -what you can see in this drainage area- - almost the entire drainage area. At the present time, the water that runs through the tract goes in two directions- - there has been a storm drain installed through this corner of the tract which drains this area - -runs down the alley through the street pattern out Sangston and down Grand and there is a portion of the tract here that drains directly onto Grand and the condition now is slightly less flow and the water depth is about half. Of course, this is going to carry more water because it is a paved street now and the capacity of the street is greater, so we have a condition now where none of the water over tops Grand it is all carried down Grand, and I think probably the bigger part of this issue is the fact that we go from City to County and the County street section looks different. Once we get past our tract, the street tips - -all the water flows across the street and down through these houses. And I think the real issue is, you know - -does this development cause more or less water to leave the site, well it is slightly less about 15 cubic feet per second less than would have left there before. Now, we understand that there were a lot of reasons why the flooding happened in 191, part of it was the fire that happened up here that caused greater run -off, part of it was the fact that the erosion control was Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED not properly installed at the time of the storm and any time you have a graded site with no erosion control or vegetation the water is just going to run right off, carry the mud with it so. Commissioner Wilsey - all the facilities in place, now? John Dierksen - yes. Commissioner Wilsey - and operational? John Dierksen - yes. This channel right now carries about 750 cubic feet per second. It is a major facility that was paid for by the developer and I think there was three developers that shared in the cost of that. I believe that MacLeod Development's portion of that was about a quarter of a million dollars. Commissioner Wilsey - the first thing that enters my mind is, do you have any calcs with regard to how much more run -off you have off the surface with pavement in there and housing, roofs and all of these things as compared to what it was. John Dierksen - that is what this calculation is based on, and this is all based on 100 year event storm. Commissioner Wilsey - but what happens when we have - -I realize that it is County, but it is still a problem, and it is their problem - -what happens when it exits Grand Avenue over here and we have all of this beautiful paving and it is doing a great job and we've got a dam on Grand Avenue at the end of your project. John Dierksen - that is right, it is down the street a ways - -I mean - -it looks like this for a little while and then before Sangston the road tips. You are right, there is a dam right before that little store and all of the water goes across the street. Commissioner Wilsey - I was out there three times this winter checking this and that was after you people were in, in December, and I didn't see any crossing -- remember that little old lady that came in - -I didn't see any water going across that street into her property the times that I were out - -the times I was out there. Mr. Peter Dawson - February 19, 1992, I note sheet action crossed Grand Avenue - -a street sweeper used to clean the street. Commissioner Wilsey - I wasn't there then, but I went out two or three times to check that. Mr. Peter Dawson - it was not a heavy rain winter of course. If we were to get a heavy one, we would have a problem. The developer here is clouding the issue here by discussing areas behind the tract and not the run -off of the tract itself which is not mitigated other than anything just running onto Grand Avenue and where it goes from there is no longer his business, that is no way to build a development. Commissioner Brinley - could you address that issue he just brought up - -when it leaves the mitigation problems there. John Dierksen - I guess from a drainage stand point, the developer feels that we're letting less water onto Grand than Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED previously would've flowed through Grand and by that fact alone it is somewhat of a mitigation. I mean, there is about 15 percent less water being let down Grand right now than was there before the development. Chairman Saathoff - to really solve the problem it is going to be Grand Avenue. John Dierksen - yes, right. Commissioner Wilsey - that is the crux of the problem right there in front of that store. John Dierksen - if Grand Avenue was improved, this street section would carry the water. Commissioner Brinley - M & M Market? Chairman Saathoff - the point is Grand Avenue. Commissioner Sellevold - that is County right after. Commissioner Gilenson - more of a comment than a question, but a question also. If I'm understanding correctly the project- - these people's residences flooded before your project, is that correct? John Dierksen - see that's probably a question that the answer is probably no. Now, if you were to do the calculations, okay based on a 100 event storm, which is pretty close to what we had in 191, the answer would be yes, the possibility for flooding was there. Commissioner Gilenson - but it never actually flooded. John Dierksen - right, because we didn't have the rains and we didn't have the fire. Commissioner Gilenson - okay, if it didn't flood before, and you are saying you decreased the amount of flow going over now John Dierksen - potential flow. Commissioner Gilenson - but now it is flooding, I don't under- stand how that can happen. If it wasn't flooding before - -you decreased the amount of flow and now they are flooding. I don't understand that. Ray O'Donnell - what happened was when this tract got graded there wasn't enough erosion control in the tract and a lot of silt got out onto Grand and when that happened it dammed the water right there - -just this side of the tract and it all went over on the other side of the street. Commissioner Gilenson - it changed the direction and capacity of the flow. Chairman Saathoff - that was one year, I think - -Ray. Ray O'Donnell - that was because silt was getting out onto the street from this tract. Chairman Saathoff - that was that one year that really created a problem, I think we are all aware of that and know the circumstances. I think that Mr. Gilenson's question is, prior Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 7 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED to 191 - -in 181 when we had near the 100 year storm, was there flooding in that area? Mr. Peter Dawson - we're aware - -there was not. Chairman Saathoff - no flooding what so ever in 1981 -83. Commissioner Brinley - no flooding in 1981. Commissioner Wilsey - 1983, 80, or 79. Ms. Dowling - not in the homes. Mr. Dawson - nothing Commissioner Brinley - front yards Chairman Saathoff - front yards or anything Commissioner Brinley - nothing Ms. Dowling - there was from the lake coming up into the houses - -there were on frontage to the beach, but not on the Grand Avenue side, and I believe if you went back and reviewed what we spoke on in December, Margaret Downie was the lady that was there since 1940- -spoke on that issue since she lived in that house since 1940 - -she will sign an affidavit to the fact that she has never had a flood prior to this year - -this time. Commissioner Gilenson - see I've been out there much like Mr. Wilsey. Whenever it rains, I make it a point, since December, to go out there and look at it and I have seen rain traversing from one side of Grand over to the other. I don't think the problem has been corrected; unfortunately, that is not before US. What we have tonight is design review. We have no authority to change anything doing with drainage at this point. My recommendation would be, possibly City Council could or through litigation. We have no authority to change anything on that tonight. Chairman Saathoff — obviously, it is a civil matter. Commissioner Gilenson - yeah, we have no authority to change it. It is a mute point, it is out of our hands basically. Chairman Saathoff - I think they agree with that. Commissioner Gilenson - I agree with that. Commissioner Wilsey - I think we all agree with that, but the problem is, we do have a problem there. The problem didn't exist before the tract. Commissioner Gilenson - right. Commissioner Wilsey - okay, we know where the problem and where the bottleneck of that problem is and we realize it is in County. What can we do as a community to solve the problem, push County to improve that portion of the road, joint funds, developer cooperation, what can we do to get it handled? Community Development Manager Shear - staff can speak to the County, but I can't really say that we can push the County to do anything. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 8 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey - I realize it is off -site, what are you guys willing to do to help these people out? We know that we didn't have a problem before you graded that tract out - -what are you willing to do to help these people? John Dierksen - I think Ray addressed part of that, the fact that the drainage went across the street was due in part - -a large amount of mud that came down here because of the erosion control not being in place. I think the situation there today, is certainly better than that isolated incident that happened with the large rainfall. Commissioner Gilenson - its better, its better. Commissioner Wilsey - from what I see out there, I would agree with that, but we still have a problem out there. John Dierksen - there is still a problem. Commissioner Wilsey - I've seen it this winter and we didn't have the silt coming out of the tract at that time. What we have is a lot of streets and all of that draining into Grand Avenue where we didn't have quite that concentration before, and I'm not an engineer and I don't know the numbers, but I also know where the bottleneck is, any five -year old kid can go figure that out. What we need to do is get rid of the bottleneck, and I am suggesting - -and it is up to you guys to figure out whether you want to help out or not - -to help these people out and be a good neighbor is to go in there and do some cooperation to put a pipe across that doggoned thing or whatever it would take. John Dierksen - let me say, I think the other part of this issue is - -the if here - -if these houses were built, the yards were landscaped, we wouldn't have the erosion problem anymore. The sandbags could be eliminated and the sandbagging would no longer be the permanent solution. That is part of the reason we are here tonight. Commissioner Wilsey - I can understand that aspect of it, but you are going to have roofs and yards. Okay, now you've got open pads, I assume they have weeds on them, I haven't been through that tract, but you've got direct percolation for the square foot of the lot area right now. Okay, so I'm thinking, being a layman in this I don't know anything about it, I'm thinking, that direct percolation on a lot is going to give you better percolation than a roof coming off and running it down the driveway to the street. Okay, are we going to have a more intense problem when we get houses in the rest of that tract, I don't know. Community Development Manager Shear - it is the engineer's design they take that into consideration. John Dierksen - that's what these numbers are based on, so Community Development Manager Shear - Now, you also have to understand, since this tract has been going on, 4 -5 years ago, in the County they have other tracts that have developed and added to the problem, so it's not all this developer and just city. I mean, County is approving projects of large develop- ments that are impacting these people also and not solving the problem. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 9 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey - I think we all understand that and we also understand that you got a City /County problem there. The guy that is in the County, until he wants to do something with that property - -be it whatever - -he can sit tight and nothing can happen. Okay, you got the City, maybe they can come up with some contributing funds, I don't know. County, they may not want to spend any money everybody is tight budget. The developer he doesn't have the obligation or responsibility to go off -site, we all know that. But I'm saying that some where there has got to be some- cooperation to get the situation alleviated. Chairman Saathoff - Ray, have you ever contacted the County at any time, do you know? Ray O'Donnell - not that I know of, no. We went out there and the other problem was when they did their improvements out on Grand Avenue they put a AC berm all the way across almost to the existing pavement out there and that caused the problem, that directed the water across the street. We had them cut that back and try to get that water around that liquor store, or whatever it is there, try to get it around that -- that's if we could work with the County and cut that back so that we could increase the capacity of that side of the street. You see what happens, is the cars drive by and they wave it and the water waves across the street, but it is not going to be as bad as it was because of the erosion is not going to be on the street like it was in 189. It's not going to be that bad. Commissioner Gilenson - I said this back in December, and I'll say it again, I take exception with the developer and staff saying that it is not going to be as bad. What are you comparing it to, 3 feet of flood or 1 foot of flood. it is just bad, you get 1 foot of water in your house or 3 feet. I don't buy it is not going to be as bad - -if it is flooding it is flooding, it's gotta be corrected. That is all I have. Chairman Saathoff - any other comments. Commissioner Wilsey - the only other comment that I would make - -if we could send some kind of notation on this to City Council for further discussion and review of this matter. Somebodies got to be able to come up with some kind of a compromise on this and it is going to take a multi - municipality-- County, developer whatever compromise to come up with it. Commissioner Brinley - and including the homeowners. Commissioner Wilsey - somebody got some asphalt - -I'll take a backhoe down there and we'll dig that sucker out and put a pipe in it and be done tomorrow. Chairman Saathoff - Paul Mr. Paul White - one of the map conditions was for MacLeod to put up a sum of money that would be for future road improve- ments once the County has - -I believe we have done so. I don't know if you can use those immediately, I am certainly not going to get involved in engineering's business - -how they are going to deal with City /County what not, but I believe there are some funds available that we have put up that could be put to some good use. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 10 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED Chairman Saathoff - did you want to address the conditions on the Mr. White - should we have the staff report before I address. Chairman Saathoff asked staff for the report. Associate Planner DeGange - the applicant, McLeod Development requests a Minor Design Review of three models to be constructed on 90 lots within Tract 19358, which was previously approved for four models, on the total of 171 lots, as part of Residential Project 89 -11. As you might recall, on November 1, 1989 Planning Commission approved Residential Project 89 -11, like I stated before this was for four models on 171 lots. Due to changes in the housing market, the applicant submitted Residential Project 89 -11 Revision #1 and 89 -11 Revision #2. Revision #1 was approved by Planning Commission on October 2, 1991, Residential Project 89 -11 Revision #2 was continued by the Planning Commission due to drainage and flooding issues as we have discussed. Currently, the applicant is submitting a third revision in further response to the changing housing market. The three proposed models are: 1,000 square feet, 1,327 square feet and 1,638 square feet. This will replace the 5th, 6th and 7th plans that were being proposed in Revisions #1 and #2. The proposed project includes the addition of three new models, like I've stated, to be in conjunction with the previously approved four models. At present, 44 lots have been constructed with the four original models. The applicant proposes to construct an additional 37 of the approved four models and then construct the new models being proposed tonight on the remaining 90 lots. The three new models, Plan A, like I said before, was a 1,000 square foot three - bedroom, two - bathroom structure, and Plan B is a two -story 1,327 square foot structure, and the Plan C is a two -story 1,638 square foot structure. In your staff report there is a breakdown on the percentage that these models will include in the entire development. Materials and colors: the applicant is proposing to use the same three roofing colors and roofing types, the same nine stucco colors and the same nine trim colors. Staff does have a couple of concerns with the project, as proposed. First of all, staff has some concern with the proposed 1,000 square foot model. First of all, it may have some sort of financial and visual impacts on the rest of the tract. With this in mind, and having conveyed this to the applicant, staff and the applicant worked closely to develop ways in which to reduce the impacts, visually and financially on the rest of the tract. This was done, first of all, through the limiting of the number of 1,000 square foot units. Secondly, by making sure that the width of the smaller unit is as wide or wider than the larger units. I might add, that three proposed plans tonight are two -feet wider than the four previously approved models, including the 1,000 square foot model. Thirdly, through using consistent architectural themes with the other models, using the same roofing colors, materials, same architectural treatments Fourthly, making sure that the smaller unit is expandable; in other words, being able making sure to add on to it if someone were to buy a 1,000 square foot unit they would be able to add on another room. Sometimes, you get a model which it is impossible to add on to, but in this case the applicant has put together a smaller unit, but it has the ability to be added on to, and also the fact that the units will be plotted on or these units will be plotted on lots that allow for being added on to; in other words, there is enough room in the rear of the lot in order to add on to it. And Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 11 RESIDENTIAL.PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED Fifthly, by scattering the plotting of these smaller units through out the development and making sure that they are never directly adjacent to one another. In addition, staff has added a couple of conditions, condition number 3 and 4, to further reduce these impacts. First of all, condition number 3 limits the number of Plan A's that are to be constructed to 12 percent of the total development. Condition 4 has been added to ensure that the units in this project are plotted in a manner in a way to minimize the impacts to the other units. Another concern that staff has is of course drainage, we have already discussed that. With all of this in mind, staff would recommend that Planning Commission approve Minor Design Review for Residential Project 89 -11 Revision #3 based on the Findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval, this would conclude staff's report. Chairman Saathoff - would you care to address the Commission. Mr. White - just a few words on the proposed homes. I was hoping John would have brought the other colored renderings of the previous four homes, but you would see that from the street the plan to the 1,300 foot two -story home does not look any smaller than the plan 2 of the current house, which is 1,879 square feet, so from the front elevation we are not giving the appearance of a scaled down - -all of the homes will conform to each other. You are not going to get the appearance of a group of big homes and a group of small homes. The plan 1 is actually the same width and looks from the street as a plan 5 which was already approved, that was a previous single -story that was approved but never built. We've been going through a lot of changes and I don't think I need to tell any of you the market conditions and competition so what we will be doing is operating a new model complex so we'll in effect have two model complexes at the same site, which would offer seven models at the project so any potential buyer would have a wide range of homes to chose from. As far as the 1,000 square foot model goes, we are trying to obviously attract buyers by being able to provide a low cost, but at the same time quality house. One of staff concerns was that it was a bit small thus the restriction on the number of those units within the tract. Even through it is a 1,000 square foot, like I said, I don't think it detours from the rest of the project. I don't think it looks like all of a sudden we have very tiny units that doesn't look like any of the tract. We do have, way on the back wall, a plan drawn up so let say a young couple starting out doesn't have a lot of money they can get into their first home, 5 years later they build up some equity they can either add a fourth bedroom or a large family room to increase the size of the house to approximately 1200 some square feet. Architecturally it is very simple, and that would cost somebody $8,000 dollars and they could add on to the house. Of the Plan 1's that's plotted all but 2 are expandable that way. There are two lots that it will not fit, but all the rest will fit on there. I guess I would conclude my comments, I think we are compatible, we are going to offer a wide range of homes and if you have any questions of me at this time. A person from the audience - asked for the price range. Mr. White - we haven't set the prices definitely, but I would imagine the plan 1 would start from 115 -120 thousand. Chairman Saathoff - bring the matter to the table. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 12 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson - on the conditions of approval, condition number 4. I would like to see that reworded so that all of the items in Special Projects Concerns number 4 and 5 are incorporated into that condition, whereby they make it expandable, no two small lots adjacent to one another, like to have that wording incorporated into condition number 4 in addition to what staff already has here. Chairman Saathoff - you have building elevations to be constructed, that one, right? Commissioner Gilenson - right. Chairman Saathoff - and you want to add something like, what? Commissioner Gilenson - making sure that the smaller unit is expandable, also in the scattering of the plotting of the smaller units make sure that they are never directly adjacent to each other, as it says on Special Project Concerns number 4 and 5, incorporate that wording into the condition. Chairman Saathoff - even though the footprint - -I have no problem with that. Commissioner Gilenson - another question that I have, just a second here - -with this - -I think I'm beating a dead horse with the drainage, but a question of staff and throw it out to the Commission, on the Findings for this project. Finding number 1, states subject to the attached conditions the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse environmental impacts. To me, and maybe I'm wrong, flooding seems like a health and safety issue which would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Where if we find that the flooding does cause health and safety factors adversely affecting environmental, and I don't feel we can make this finding and we have authority to deny this project. That is all I have, thank you. Associate Planner DeGange - All I can say about that is, that what this is, is a Minor Design Review and so with that in mind - -the fact that we are reviewing the models for these homes is what the actual project is. Unfortunately, the drainage issues would have been addressed through the environmental impact report for the tract map, so that is why we can make that finding. Commissioner Wilsey - so what you are saying is, the finding on number 1 is addressing the models and the homes themselves, the buildings and all of that, not the project itself as a whole. Associate Planner DeGange - not the tract. City Planner Christen - just the action that is before you tonight. Commissioner Gilenson - the wording says the proposed project. Associate Planner DeGange - in this case, the project is the Minor Design Review. Commissioner Gilenson - I feel as long as it says proposed project we can deny this project based on health and safety. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 13 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley - when you talk about the 1,000 square footage home, how much room are we allowing them for build on- -say the size of room, they want to build on a family room, are we talking at least 200 square feet if they wanted to build on a family room of that size or more. Associate Planner DeGange - yes, if you look at the schematic that the applicant has provided there he showed two different Mr. White - two different options: one 1193 and the other is 1260. Chairman Saathoff - that is what you have designed, of course the applicant Commissioner Brinley - could do something different Mr. White it is easy because of the roof line in the back is simple and there is no load carrying, so structurally it would be simple for them to add on. Associate Planner DeGange - the floor plan allows for that too. Commissioner Brinley - okay, now when we are talking wider- - the look of being wider, am I looking at the exact rendering of the width? Associate Planner DeGange - that's correct, like I said, it is 32 feet wide, wider than the originally approved four models so it has the appearance of a larger home from the street. Commissioner Brinley - so literally we've stretched out this part right in here. Associate Planner DeGange - right. Commissioner Brinley - okay, and I do concur with Commissioner Gilenson about the verbiage on adding that in to 4 and 5. Commissioner Sellevold - the only question I have is where are you going to plot these at - -are they going to be next to the biggest model or are you going to kind of keep them away - -I'm just thinking of somebody spending $150 -160 thousand on a house - -I don't know what your models are, I have no idea what they cost. Mr. White - like I said, from the front you can't really tell if it is a 1600 square foot or 2100 square foot house. We were proposing to have the large units in the interior of the project and then, you see right behind you, the lower portion of the tract is where we would begin plotting these and running these around the outside. There are a few homeowners in the tract now that we have told them this is what we are planning to do - -they said great - -even though these are going to be lower price than those homes. A person from the audience - actually not, I'm a homeowner. Mr. White - it is either - -the people that we have spoken to -- we explained to them that we either need to build some smaller units that we can sell or otherwise we are going to be looking at these dirt lots for who knows how long. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 14 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey - do you have a backhoe? Mr, White - I have access to one. Commissioner Wilsey - just kidding. I would suggest with regard to Findings that we change the verbiage on number 1. As it reads now: Subject to the attached conditions the proposed project is blah, blah, blah. How about we change that to say subject to the attached conditions this Minor Design Review is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impact. That solves our problem. Commissioner Gilenson - it works. Commissioner Wilsey - we also have a request to us from the Engineering Department to add a condition and I assume that would be condition number 6 from Engineering. Have you reviewed the proposed conditions from Engineering? Mr. White - yes. Commissioner Wilsey - applicant shall prepare a Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) to FEMA for blah, blah, blah. I submit that as condition 6. The only concern that I had, and it wasn't really a concern but I'll bring it up anyway - -on the 1,000 square foot house, when I look at the plotting from the right and left side I thought that they lacked embellishment. Now, before you think my God, it really doesn't matter if they are going to be in their own individual yards - -right and left side yards - -where it would matter, I would think, would be if those sides faces of those houses where ever they may be in this tract would be visible from the public right -of -way or due to pad elevations visible from other homes, then we might consider conditioning them to add some embellishments. Associate Planner DeGange - condition number 2 states - -kind of addresses that in a sense - -it states that all windows greater than one square foot shall have some embellishments around them. In other words, they will either use stucco surrounds or wood trim to provide some sort of relief from those elevations. So staff had tried to address those concerns with this condition. I don't know if this would be adequate to address your concerns, but that was the intent of that particular condition. Commissioner Wilsey - that might work, but you can throw a piece of 2 x 4 or something or a 1 x 6, and call that embellishment. Associate Planner DeGange - it would have to be consistent with what has already been approved with respect to the other models, and they provided stucco surrounds in the other models. Commissioner Wilsey - there is no way obviously - -I understand, there is no way that you could plot where these individual houses are going to be in this thing and that was my other solution - -to figure out a solution to plot these suckers on what you have shown us on the vicinity map - -that is what I'm looking at - -to make sure that these are not very visible from either upper elevation pads or street wise. Mr. White - we have plotted the first 40 homes and I believe condition number 4, once we go in for building permits on a particular phase - -and they will approve that before issuance. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 15 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey - I am going to assume that condition number 2-will cover my concern on that. Mr. White - with regard to condition number 2, I would like to have that say where visible from public right -of -way. We do have a lot of homes that will be backing up to open space and I don't see any reason to put the stucco surrounds on the backs or sides of homes that no one is going to see. Commissioner Wilsey - but we don't know do we that it will remain open space. Mr. White - that is a huge hill behind there. Commissioner Wilsey - who owns it? Mr. White - I believe that is a lot of County land back there. You know, it goes straight up the hill to the Ortega Highway above. Commissioner Brinley - would like to see it stay just for the quality of the homes. Commissioner Wilsey - question there would be, is it public land that would not be developed or is it private land that could be developed, who knows? Commissioner Brinley - and for the quality of the home to leave it, you know for the quality of the home. Commissioner Gilenson - I would just as soon leave it. Chairman Saathoff - leave it in - -its not that many. Mr. White - with regard to condition.3, 12 percent works out to 20.5 units, if we could make that 21. Commissioner Gilenson - why not 20? Chairman Saathoff - how about 19? Mr. White - I gave in on the stucco surrounds. Commissioner Wilsey - do you want to make that 12.5 percent then? Associate Planner DeGange - or you could just say 21 homes. MOTION BY WILSEY TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NO. 3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Finding No. 1: Subject to the attached conditions the __r___a r-_j__a this Minor Design Review is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Condition No. 3: No more than _..__._ r_______ ,___, twenty- one (21) homes of the total project (171 lots) shall be constructed with the 1000 square foot Plan A. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 16 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 3 CONTINUED Condition No. 4: A revised plotting plan indicating the plotting for all new models (Plans A,B, and C) and the revised placement of all of the originally approved plans for R 89 -11 shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of building permits. Condition No. 6: a) making sure that the smaller unit is expandable (can be added on to) and is plotted on lots which will allow for this; and b) scattering the plotting of the smaller units throughout the development and making sure that they are never directly adjacent to one another. Applicant shall Revision (LOMR) land in Zone construction of Applicant pays process letter prepare a Letter of Map to FEMA for removal of AO made possible by flood control facilities. all appropriate fees and through the city; letter must be processed before certificate of occupancy. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS City Planner Christen commented on the downsizing of developments and informed the Commission that with the current market situation this is something that will be coming before you in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey With regard to Mr. Knapp's comments, what time frames do we look at. Community Development Manager Shear gave a brief history on the structures referred to by Mr. Knapp, explaining that sometimes people over extend themselves and detailed the procedure mortgage or lending institutions and the City goes through to resolve. He then stated that the will -serve letters are required up- front, and septic system approval is required from the County Health Depart- ment on design and placement prior to building permits. Planning Commission Minutes June 3, 1992 Page 17 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Saathoff Asked Commissioner Wilsey if he wanted to request a statement be sent to City Council from Planning Commission requesting that the Engineering Department contact the County with regard to the flooding concerns on Grand Avenue. Commissioner Wilsey responded in the affirmative, stating that this is a complex problem. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE THAT A STATEMENT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION BE SENT TO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WORK WITH THE VARIOUS DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA AND CONTACT THE COUNTY WITH REGARD TO THE FLOODING CONCERNS ON GRAND AVENUE AND SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:04 p.m., motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 ed ppr v, Cn� !B 11 Sa thoff, -- Chairman Re ctfu11 Submitted, 2da � � inda G ndstaff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Associate Planner DeGange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of June 3, 1992. Motion died for lack of second. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to continue Minutes of June 3, 1992 to next meeting, as I am reviewing the tape with regard to the MacLeod project and have additional notes that I would like added, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 27033 and Zone Change 91 -7 - Mola Development (Continued from June 3, 1992) - Chairman Saathoff stated that staff has requested these items be continued to July 15, 1992, and called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 AND ZONE CHANGE 91 -7 THE MEETING OF JULY 15, 1992, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Commissioner Gilenson asked for discussion. He then commented on the number of continuations. Associate Planner DeGange stated this is the second continuation. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for the question. Approved 5 -0 2. Conditional Use Permit 92 -4 - Keith R. Liston (Gene R. Bouch)- Continued from June 3, 1992 - Chairman Saathoff stated that the applicant has requested this item be continued to July 15, 1992, and asked for any discussion. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the number of continuations and as long as there are negotiations going on does not see any problem with giving them a third extension. Assistant Planner Villa detailed the reasons for the continuations, explaining that the requirement for paved parking is still being negotiated between the applicant and the property owner. Commissioner Gilenson commented on justification for continuations and whether the item should be continued or pulled and have applicant resubmit when ready, and the amount of staff time involved with continuations. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1992 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -4 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the cost factor. Community Development Manager Shear stated minimal time is involved and it is charged off to the account, and the recommendation could be modified to continuance to July 15th with no further continuations allowed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -4 TO THE MEETING OF JULY 15, 1992, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY. Approved 5 -0 3. Conditional Use Permit 92 -6 - Misc Lake Elsinore Partners (Chase Development) Chris' Kids Club - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to establish a child care facility in the C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. The project is located at 31912 -31920 Mission Trail. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Ms. Chris Greer, President of Chris' Kids Club, stated she concurs with staff recommendation, and gave reasons for relocating the facility. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for opposition. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Brinley commented on construction of interior improvements and whether children would be present during this period; number of children enrolled; play area and where children are going to play during the construction period; when relocation of facility would occur. Ms. Greer responded that interior improvement plans have been submitted. With approval tonight, we are planning on doing tenant improvements tomorrow which should be done next Tuesday, all improvements done before we move in. Technically if we got the approval, we do have State approval, if the Fire Marshal and Planning Department would agree to it, occupy half of our new facility which would qualify to handle the number of children we have, which is 65 at present. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the tenant improvements and stated for the safety and convenience of the children would like to add condition 10, Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until construction and landscaping is completed. Commissioner Sellevold stated that he concurs with the addition of condition number 10. He then commented on the play area with regard to landscaping of the 5 foot slope area and the steps leading to the play area. Ms. Greer stated an enhanced landscape plan with ground cover, shrubs and trees, has been reviewed by Roger Kobata. Chairman Saathoff inquired about grading, and there being no indication on the plans that grading is to be done. He then commented on the landscaping and recommended the landscaping plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Discussion ensued on the play area and the slope area with regard to safety. Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1992 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -6 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey suggested the addition of condition number 11, Landscape Plans shall be approved by the Community Development Manager. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -6 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 9 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 10: Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until construction and landscaping is completed. Condition No. 11: Landscape Plans shall be approved by the Community Development Manager. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Single - Family Residence - 16513 Stevens Street - Gregory Ward - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 2,753 square foot, two- story, single - family dwelling. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the applicant. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on whether a parcel merger was required and the proposed color. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16513 STEVENS BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 24 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY. Approved 5 -0 5. Single- Family Residence - 16511 Stevens Street - Vincent Berry - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 2,008 square foot, two - story, single - family dwelling. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the applicant. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 5, roofing material, and suggested it be amended to reflect the same language as the previous proposal. Also, requested that the standard paragraph regarding Materials and Colors be included in future reports. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16511 STEVENS BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 23 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 5: Applicant shall use clay tile roofing material as proposed. Any alterations to the approved roofing material shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes June 17, 1992 Page 4 6. Freestanding Sign - Brookstone Landing (Steve's Sign) - Chairman Saathoff stated the applicant has requested this item be withdrawn from the Agenda and will resubmit. PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:32 p.m., motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 App ved, i 1 aathoff, Chairman 41n epectfully Submitted, d�G °ndstaff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 1992 CALL TO ORDER: The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m by Vice Chairman Gilenson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sellevold. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wilsey, Saathoff Also present were: Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Assistant Planner Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. OATH OF OFFICE: Deputy City Clerk Bryning issued Oath of Office to Pamela A. Brinley, Richard L. Bullard and Donald R.R. Neff. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN: Deputy City Clerk Bryning assumed the Chair and opened nominations for the position of Chairman. Commissioner Sellevold nominated Pam Brinley Commissioner Bullard seconded the nomination. MOVED BY BRINLEY, SECONDED BY SELLEVOLD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF CHAIRMAN. The Deputy City Clerk called for a roll call vote with results as follows: COMMISSIONER BRINLEY VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER BRINLEY COMMISSIONER BULLARD VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER BRINLEY COMMISSIONER GILENSON VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER BRINLEY COMMISSIONER NEFF VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER BRINLEY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER BRINLEY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY WAS DECLARED CHAIRMAN AND ASSUMED THE CHAIR. SELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN: Chairwoman Brinley opened nominations for the position of Vice Chairman. Chairwoman Brinley nominated Chairman Sellevold. Commissioner Gilenson seconded the nomination. MOVED BY GILENSON, SECONDED BY BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIRMAN. Chairwoman Brinley took a roll call vote with results as follows: COMMISSIONER BULLARD VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD COMMISSIONER NEFF VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD COMMISSIONER GILENSON VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY VOTED FOR COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD Planning Commission Minutes July 1, 1992 Page 2 CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY DECLARED COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD VICE CHAIRMAN. MINUTE ACTION: MOVED BY SELLEVOLD, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND 3 -0 VOTE WITH COMMISSIONERS NEFF AND BULLARD APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 1992. MOVED BY SELLEVOLD, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND 3 -0 VOTE WITH COMMISSIONERS NEFF AND BULLARD APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 1992. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CARRIED BY ABSTAINING TO CARRIED BY ABSTAINING TO Zone Code Amendment 92 -1 - City of Lake Elsinore. Community Development Manager Shear explained that staff is requesting a continuance to August 5, 1992. MOVED BY SELLEVOLD, SECONDED BY BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -1 TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1992. BUSINESS ITEMS: Residential Project 92 -2 and Models for Tract Map 23988 -1 - 888 Development. Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of four model homes for Tract 23988 - 1,2,3, and 4. (Model Home Complex to be on Tract 23988 -1, lots 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43.) Mr. John L. Allday, 888 Development Company, 1441 E. 17th Street, STE B, Santa Ana, CA, addressed the Commission with his concerns regarding the conditions and requested clarification in regard to some of the conditions. The items discussed are as follows: Planning Commission Division Conditions: 1. Design review approval for Residential Project 92 -2 will lapse and be void unless building permits are issued within one (1) year of the approval date. An extension of time, up to one (1) year may be granted by the Planning Commission prior to the expiration of the initial Design Review approval upon application by the developer one (1) month prior to expiration. Community Development Manager Shear explained that this is Planning procedure and as long as building is in progress there is no problem. Should there be no activity then the Design Review Approval for the project will expire. 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, or meet the requirements through dedication of parks: lot "C ", "D", "E ", and "G" Community Development Manager Shear explained that this is a standard and is done when the permits are pulled. If its lots 1 through 10 then the fees are paid on those. Planning Commission Minutes July 1, 1992 Page 3 25a. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system to provide 100% plant and grass coverage using a combination of drip and conventual irrigation methods. Assistant Planner Villa explained that this condition is based on the City's Landscape Guidelines and automatic means manual or electric. 25f. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any phase at the time Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. Community Development Manager Shear explained that when the project is in phase production and there are five houses ready for occupancy and the landscaping is not done, it is the policy of the City to work with the developer on a case by case basis. 25j. Landscaping shall be required on all side yards of all corner lots, (as follows T23988 lot # 36; T23988 -1 lots #15,01,56,75; T23988 -2 lot #13; T 23988 -3 lots #7, 8, 12, 50,49,43,30,37) and have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 100% water coverage. Assistant Planner Villa explained that this condition should have electrical inserted to read as follows: Landscaping shall be required on all side yards of all corner lots, (as follows T23988 lot # 36; T23988 -1 lots #15,01,56,75; T23988 -2 lot #13; T 23988 -3 lots #7, 8, 12, 50,49,43,30,37) and have a permanent electrical automatic sprinkler system with 100% water coverage. 25m. Landscaping on the slope areas behind lots 40, 41, 42 of Tract 23988 -1 will be planted consistent with - -and irrigation connected to -- Lincoln Avenue landscaping. An easement shall be prepared over these slopes and said easement shall dedicate the maintenance rights to the City's Street Lighting & Maintenance District. Chairwoman Brinley then called for Commission Comments as follows: Commissioner Gilenson requested changes as follows: 25k3. Give the developer the right to enter onto the property through public right -of -way to do corrective landscaping work and to lien the property to insure proper payment, similar to the provision of the CC & R's referred to above. 25m. Landscaping on the slope areas behind lots 40, 41, 42 of Tract 23988 -1 will be planted consistent with- -and irrigation connected to -- Lincoln Avenue and Terra Cotta Road landscaping. An easement shall be prepared over these slopes and said easement shall dedicate the maintenance rights to the City's Street Lighting & Maintenance District. Commissioner Sellevold expressed his concern in regard to block walls on top of slopes with landscaping. He further stated that although the conditions call for the developer to take care of them for up to two years, it presents a problem after that time for maintenance by the developer has expired. Planning Commission Minutes July 1, 1992 Page 4 Commissioner Gilenson stated that the City could be made a part of certain portions of the CC & R's to make the property owners maintain the landscaping with the city acting as the enforcing agency. Community Development Manager Shear explained that the City Attorney had stated that being made part of the CC & R's was not wise as it would put the City in the position of being trapped in property owner disputes, and that it was not wise to be the enforcing agency for private property owners. Commissioner Sellevold stated that he would like to see the slopes be Xeriscaped for low water maintenance and the property owner made aware of this on lots 36, 15, 01, 56, 75, 13, 7, 8, 12, 50, 49, 43, 30, 37 and 48. Commissioner Sellevold further expressed concern over the block walls on McVicker Channel which is where the horse trail follow and two of the lots have their front yards left unprotected from that trail. He felt that this should be addressed by the developer. Mr. Allday stated that they could bring a decorative wood fence along the side of the yard starting at 5 1/2 feet and curving and tapering down to 3 feet. Commissioner Sellevold asked that Condition 25J. read as follows: 25j. Xeriscape landscaping shall be required on all side yards of all corner lots, (as follows T23988 lot # 36; T23988 -1 lots #15,01,56,75; T23988 -2 lot #13; T 23988 -3 lots #7, 8, 12, 50,49,43,30,37) and have a permanent electrical automatic sprinkler system with 100% water coverage. Commissioner Sellevold asked that there be a condition added which reads as follows: 27a. There shall be a decorative wood fence along the side yard starting at 5 1/2 feet curving and tapering down to 3 feet on lot #12 of Tract 23988 -2 and lot #1 of Tract 23988 -3. Commissioner Neff questioned condition no 34 which reads as follows: 34. All second story windows shall be embellished with window surrounds. All first floor elevations visible from the public right -of -way shall be treated the same. Chairwoman Brinley explained that this was conditioned because the neighbors can view each others homes from their back yards and needs to be addressed for aesthetic purposes. MOVED BY SELLEVOLD, SECONDED BY BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF FOUR MODELS FOR TRACT 23988 BASED UPON THE LISTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS WITH MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance on a lot by lot basis, or meet the requirements through dedication for parks: lot "C ", "D", "E ", and "G" 25j. Xeriscape landscaping shall be required on all side yards of all corner lots, (as follows T23988 lot # 36; T23988 -1 lots #15,01,56,75; T23988 -2 lot #13; T 23988 -3 lots #7, 8, 12, 50,48,49,43,30,37) and have permanent electrical automatic sprinkler system with 100% water coverage. Planning Commission Minutes July 1, 1992 Page 5 25k3. Give the developer the right to enter onto the property through public right -of -way to do corrective landscaping work and to lien the property to insure proper payment, similar to the provision of the CC & R's referred to above. 25m. Landscaping on the slope areas behind lots 40, 41, 42 of Tract 23988 -1 will be planted consistent with - -and irrigation connected to -- Lincoln Avenue and Terra Cotta Road landscaping. An easement shall be prepared over these slopes and said easement shall dedicate the maintenance rights to the City's Street Lighting & Maintenance District. 27a. There shall be a decorative wood fence along the side yard starting at 5 1/2 feet curving and tapering down to 3 feet on lot #12 of Tract 23988 -2 and lot #1 of Tract 23988 -3. PLANNING COMMENTS: Community Development Manager Shear welcomed the new Planning Commissioners and extended congratulations to the new Planning Chairman. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Sellevlod asked if staff could provide an update on the landscaping of the Kids Club. Chairwoman Brinley extended her congratulations to the new Planning Commissioners and reminded the public of the 4th of July concert which will feature Joe Diffy and Highway 101. ADJOURNMENT: MOVED BY BULLARD, SECONDED BY SELLEVOLD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:10 P.M. pproved, Pamela A. Bri ley, Chairwoman ((( R pectfully Subm d4i4a(4ryn i9� D eputy City Clerk MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 15TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. JULY 1992 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Sellevold, and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bullard Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Associate Planner DeGange, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Sellevold to approve Minutes of July 1, 1992, second by Commissioner Neff. Commissioner Gilenson asked for discussion, stating there is a correction and we will probably have to check with our legal counsel whether or not we have to bring back the Minutes of June 3rd and June 17th. The Minutes show that they were both seconded by Commissioner Neff and carried by unanimous vote. Neither one was present. Chairwoman Brinley asked the secretary if this had been addressed with the City Clerk, and how it is handled. The Secretary responded this was discussed with the City Clerk and the information received was that the new Commissioners could vote on approving the minutes, however, they could not request any modifications to the minutes. Commissioner Gilenson asked who made that. The Secretary responded that this was defined by the City Clerk. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he spoke with Mr. Burns, Mr. Harper's associate, and he said no - -they can not vote on it. Chairwoman Brinley asked if previous Councils have not done the same thing, approve and receive the minutes. Commissioner Neff asked if we could go back and amend. Commissioner Gilenson responded yeah, we can amend those changes. According to Attorney Burns it has to be done, it can not be accepted this way. Commissioner Neff asked if we can amend to take off my name and have another second in place of those. Commissioner Gilenson responded right, then it would have to go 3- 0-2 would be the vote. Chairwoman Brinley stated if you wish to amend, we can do that then. Amend the minutes of June 3 and June 17, so moved to amend. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD AND SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 1992. APPROVED 3 -0 (COMMISSIONER NEFF AND BULLARD ABSTAINING) MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD AND SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 1992. APPROVED 3 -0 (COMMISSIONER NEFF AND BULLARD ABSTAINING) Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 2 MINUTE ACTION CONTINUED Chairwoman Brinley stated there is a motion on the floor for the approval of the Minutes of July 1, 1992, and asked for any further discussion. Commissioner Gilenson requested the following corrections: Page 3 and Page 5, condition number 25k3, where it says "in public right -of -way" believes it should say "through public right -of -way ". Chairwoman Brinley asked for any further discussion, receiving no response she called for the question. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Bullard absent) PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Roger D. LeClerc, 29370 Turnbull, stated he likes the way Lake Elsinore is looking these days - -a resident here since just after the flood. It looks like a more prosperous community than it did then and sure it will continue. I have a building permit matter before the city -- roofing my house and doing a skylight and it kind of held up things. Submitted a drawing to the City and they may have to make comments on it. It has been in there a week and I haven't heard anything on it. Granted a week is not a long time, but you don't meet every evening. If you would do me the favor, just checking on me, see if everything is moving along as it should. Chairwoman Brinley informed Mr. LeClerc that this would be directed to staff. There being no further request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 27033 and Zone Change 91 -7 - Mola Development (Continued from June 17, 1992) - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for subdivision of 21.1 acres into 24 M -1 (Limited Manufacturing) zoned lots ranging in size from 20,085 to 84,750 square feet. This project constitutes a change of zone of an 8 acre portion from R -1 (Single - Family Residential) to M -1 (Limited Manufacturing) to bring this area into conformance with the General Plan, located at the southwest corner of Chaney Street and Minthorn, within the Chaney Business Park. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Matt Kaufman, Mola Development, stated he would like to commend staff on the staff report, and the way they have worked with us through this project. He then stated that he would like to address some of the concerns staff brought up in the report, commenting as follows: Floodplain - yes, we are in the floodplain. For light industrial, office park depending on exactly what we end up with after Business Park Zoning is put into place. Obviously, there is a concern - -we mitigate it a couple of ways that would alleviate concerns -- obviously, we will comply with Sections 15.68 and 15.64 of the Floodplain Management /Flood Prevention Plans. Possible things that we do, raise site out of the floodplain by importing, this is something that we address Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 AND ZONE CHANGE 91 -7 CONTINUED when we have a plan. In complying with the Floodplain Management Plan, if that is the way we go and stay within the floodplain, we will be mitigating by water proofing foundation construction and a lot of water proof materials that will alleviate any of those problems. Ideally, as staff pointed out, right now Flood Control plans that with the improvement of the Outflow Channel we will be lifted completely out of the floodplain, and obviously that will happen after the FEMA maps are revised, and that is what we are hoping. So, obviously, we are very happy about that plan going through. Adiacent to the Flood Control Channel (Outflow Channel) When we first created this map we knew there were plans, plans have been there for quite some time to do this channel, we are glad it finally happened. The survey that was finally recorded had been done previously, so we had a copy of the Flood Control and Army Corp's Survey prior to beginning our map so we took that into consideration with our map and our map represents that. We are not interfering with Flood Control's right -of -way. Least Bell's Vireo Habitat I want to state that I understand sensitivity - -it is an endangered species within the City of Lake Elsinore and I agree with the importance of doing these things. We did a study in June based on comments from Flood Control and the ornithologist, who was out there, concluded - -based on that day and that study - -that the habitat was not sufficient, in his mind, for the Vireo and I think it is stated - -those reasons stated in the staff report. On the contrary, the habitat adjacent to the property in the channel, and this was stated by our consultant also, is more suitable for the Vireo. The problem with waiting till next Spring for a study, staff has stated February, March, April, could be April, May, June also, is that it does hold us up. It is possible that this will not hold us up because we are not ready to go at that point in time and I also understand that. The ornithologist has recommended to us that he feels that he can go out through the end of July and do three more studies /surveys on the site and feel fairly conclusive whether there has been any nesting on the site, which is really the key when looking at the habitat - -is the site suitable for nesting, and he would also recommend that not only on our site would he do these, but adjacent our site in the channel where that habitat exists - -find out if there has been any nesting adjacent to our site. I would like to have Commission consider doing three more studies through the end of the month and saying what the results are and possibly foregoing a Spring Study. On the other hand, I do understand the sensitivity to this issue. Mr. Kaufman then commented on the following conditions and requested clarification: Condition No. 26 - which is about the Spring Survey. If indeed Commission agrees that we need to do a Spring Survey- - one thing that I would like to go forward with and need clarification is with Design Review - -cause I don't really see the relationship between the Design Review process and the potential for a Vireo. Grading, obviously, is a different story and I'm not sure if this condition states that we can't Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 AND ZONE CHANGE 91 -7 CONTINUED submit for Design Review till after we are done with the study or we just can't get on the agenda for Design Review approval. I don't want to begin the Design Review process, whether it is 7, 8 or 10 months from now, and then go through another 4 month process at that point in time. Since the City is sort of on a pay for play, so to speak structure, if we went through Design Review we would be the ones paying for it. Additionally, if-- although we don't think the habitat is suitable - -if Vireo were to be found the end of this month, or in the Spring, or evidence of nesting we would have to mitigate that. Condition No. 27 - Final Map shall reflect plotting as approved on plans date stamped February 14, 1992. This was our submittal of the Tentative Map and need clarification on this from Engineering. The Final Map will be final. The Tentative Map obviously is not final ideally nothing will change. Engineering wise there may be a little leeway, just need this clarified. Condition No. 50 - Until Street "D" is completed, secondary access shall be provided by dedicated public right -of -way subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Riverside County Fire Department, need clarification. Believes this condition stems from the fact, at one point, we were proposing because our Street "D" which is adjacent to the channel was going to not be developed until after the channel was improved - -we are going to need another access. What we initially proposed was Street "B" -- intersects Chaney temporary access easement and staff, City Engineering and City Attorney said we can't approve a temporary access easement so we did convert it to a full public street, and need to confirm that's what this condition is referring to. Condition No. 20 - A decorative block or masonry wall shall be constructed around the perimeter of the subdivision. We are not in for Design Review. I don't know if that condition means my entire subdivision is a block wall. Obviously, fronting Chaney Street there is going to be, based on what we think that business park zone will be, there will be some storefront type office, light industrial buildings, but based on taking this technically that is perimeter of the property. I wonder if I am going to have a block wall in front of the property. Obviously, Design Review is going to take a look at our wall plan or wall design and condition us at that point in time. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for opposition. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:29 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked Planning Staff to address the issues on conditions 20 and 26, brought up by Mr. Kaufman. Associate Planner DeGange stated with respect to condition number 20, the applicant is correct in that this issue is addressed at Design Review. However, it is a safeguard for staff to ensure that the site is constructed with a decorative block wall. We also add this condition at Design Review stage and the actual design and plotting of the wall is not determined until the project is actually proposed on the site. Chairwoman Brinley asked if this was a standard condition. Associate Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 AND ZONE CHANGE 91 -7 CONTINUED Commissioner Neff stated typically block walls are used for residential projects. Not familiar with block walls for industrial. Asked if there was precedence in the City to do this. Associate Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative. All the industrial /commercial projects have the same condition - -it is a standard condition. Commissioner Neff asked if there was an alternative that might present a softer look like a combination of landscaping. Perhaps, a hedge type landscaping that would be more attractive. Associate Planner DeGange responded that option is always available to the applicant when he proposed his fencing plan at Design Review. Commissioner Neff asked if that wouldn't be prohibited or limited by virtue of language in here - -that could be an alternative. Associate Planner DeGange stated another alternative would be the use of combination wrought iron or any combination there of. With respect to condition number 26, staff would have to stand by the condition as written. He then asked that Mr. Kaufman restate his concern. Mr. Kaufman stated that he needs clarification on whether this condition is saying that he cannot submit Design Review until the study, or I just can't have a hearing on Design Review. Associate Planner DeGange stated the condition does not mean this it all. It means that when an initial study is done in conjunction with an application for Design Review the study would be required at that time. Mr. Kaufman asked if are you saying that if I were to submit plans in to the City tomorrow for Design Review I could do that. Associate Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative, and stated that the condition could be altered to clearly state that. Chairwoman Brinley commented on amending condition number 26, to include the process of being able to go before Design Review. Associate Planner DeGange stated that he believes condition number 26 does state that because it says prior to the approval of any Design Review application. It does not say prior to submittal of any Design Review application. Commissioner Gilenson asked why don't you just drop the first part, don't even talk about Design Review - -prior to issuance of grading permit. Associate Planner DeGange responded that there are instances when Design Review may come in prior to pulling grading permits or vice - versa. It is a safeguard, in order to make sure whatever the first approval or the first aspect of the project, which would require moving dirt or any other project other than final map approval, that issue needs to be Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 AND ZONE CHANGE 91 -7 CONTINUED addressed. The two ways that a project is conducted on that site is either with a grading permit or a development project, so we are just making sure that we have that covered. If he comes in with the grading first, we would require a Spring Survey. If he were to come in with a Design Review application first, then we would require a Spring Survey. It is just to make sure both bases are covered. Chairwoman Brinley commented, but he could submit one. Associate Planner DeGange responded certainly - -he could also submit an application for grading permit. Chairwoman Brinley asked Mr. Kaufman if this clarified the condition for him. Mr. Kaufman responded in the affirmative. Chairwoman Brinley asked Engineering Staff to address the issues on conditions 27 and 50, brought up by Mr. Kaufman. Engineering Manager O'Donnell stated that he believes that condition number 27 is, Planning Department making an interpretation of the Map Act. All it is saying is that the final map has to be in compliance with the tentative map. You can take it out if you want, it doesn't have to be in there, you can delete. Chairwoman Brinley stated she believed that Mr. Kaufman just wanted clarification, correct? Mr. Kaufman asked that the condition be re- written to: "per the Subdivision Map Act the final map shall be in compliance with the tentative map." It was the consensus of the Commission that condition number 27 be amended as requested by the applicant. Mr. O'Donnell stated with regard to condition number 50, heard your response, but didn't quite understand your interpretation of it. Referring to the posted map, "D" Street along the channel - -are you saying that you are using - -your secondary access until "D" Street get completed as "B" Street your only access, is this what you are talking about here? Mr. Kaufman responded that is correct; with an emergency access which was required by the Riverside County Fire Department. Mr. O'Donnell stated that our condition says that this has to be dedicated public right -of -way not a temporary easement. The reason is, this map is being phased and when the first phase goes through things might be fine, but as the second phase or later phases go on things might go wrong with this project. There may be some financial problems and this could stay like this for a long time, and somebody else could buy that and we want this as dedicated right -of -way on phase 1 or phase 2, and then when they develop phase 2 dedicate it back to the City and not leave it as an easement. But we don't want it temporary in case something should happen and a new owner should come in or phase 2 never gets developed or gets developed differently than what is shown on that map. Chairwoman Brinley recognized Mr. Kaufman. Mr. Kaufman responded this is fine; just needed it stated implicitly, that everybody understands that that will be Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 7 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 AND ZONE CHANGE 91 -7 CONTINUED vacated at such time as "D" Street is built. I don't want to loose a lot if the City says that is a dedicated right -of -way you can't vacate it and I have just lost a very large lot on the site. Mr. O'Donnell stated that all we want is to make sure - -there being a commercial secondary access in case something happens and, as far making guarantees, if that map gets filed and completed the way it is there shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Kaufman asked that the condition be amended so that it states once "D" Street is completed the secondary access will be vacated. Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following: Condition 20 - as Commissioner Neff stated, I don't think this belongs in a tentative map as a condition. If Commission wants to leave it fine. I want it on the record that I am against a walled in fortress for business park. There should be other options besides walling it in, making it look like a prison yard. Condition 26 - I don't think that we should keep the developer hostage for a 9 -12 month period. I see no problem with developing the project, all but the six acre area adjacent to the wash. I see no problem with striking the words "the approval of any Design Review application or" and leaving it read: "prior to the issuance of any grading permit on the site a Spring Biological survey shall be conducted ", if that is the way the Commission wants to go, or similar to that, and allowing development on the project all but the six acre area adjacent to the wash, including grading. Commissioner Sellevold commented on the following: Condition 26 - thinks it should be left the way it is. The six acres that we are talking about has never been looked at, and the way it was stated tonight is, that these birds only come in three months a year. So, if we don't really know that they don't nest there, then I would say - -if we knew positively that they don't nest there that would be fine. But we don't know that and, until we find that out, I would have to say that this would have to stay in just the way it is stated. I don't see any other way around it, and I don't see the City holding them hostage. If they were ready to go tomorrow we would still be pretty much within 1 or 2 months of anything happening. The developer had mentioned something about importing -- raising the grade for the floodplain. I would just like to see if that is feasible. Mr. O'Donnell stated in Floodplain Management, if you are within the 100 -Year Floodplain you have to get approval to put fill in the 100 -Year Floodplain, cause what you are doing is filling the 100 -Year Floodplain and the flood is going somewhere else,; so you are really affecting someone else and you couldn't do that unless there is proof that it is not affecting somebody else and that is almost impossible. So, no he could not just come in and fill that in above the flood - plain. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 8 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 AND ZONE CHANGE 91 -7 CONTINUED Commissioner Neff stated that his comments also address condition 20 and 26. I concur with Commissioner Gilenson, in that philosophically, I think an industrial or office related - -even if it is an RD site, is better presented to the community with decorative landscaping rather than a block wall. on a residential project that may be a little different story. The other thing that drives my thought or philosophy about that is you have an income producing asset typically, where you can have landscaping that will be maintained by the owner of that income producing asset; with a residential tract, on the other hand, where you have common property that is left over after you sell off each of the parcels it is a little more difficult to control; so I would suggest, if staff doesn't take objection, to making some amendments to 20 to allow alternative use of landscaping subject to Design Review approval. He then suggested the following language: after the word "wall" add "and /or alternative use of landscaping subject to the discretion of the Design Review Board ". Condition 26 - I concur also with Commissioner Gilenson insofar as - -the concern really from the developers perspective - -if you start moving dirt you are going to upset the habitat, so you can do anything you want to up until moving dirt. So, if you read this literally, it protects you from - -even if you leave it in you are still protected. You could phase the project, hold back the 6 acre development and develop the other side first and that would work too. Another thought on this is, Mr. Kaufman mentioned earlier on himself, he is taking the risk, if he is going to submit for Design Review and it gets approved, or whatever reason sometimes you can agree to - -in other communities they will have, for example, a statement that you as a builder will sign if you want to make a concurrent submittal for Design Review, for Planning review or even building permit issuance, that you are rolling the dice and just by submittal does not guarantee approval and that should be clear to the applicant, that is not a guarantee. Bottom line on 26, I'm indifferent, you can leave it the way it is or modify. I think that it accomplishes what needs to be protected. Chairwoman Brinley stated that her concern was also on 26 and would like to see the condition stand. I understand that there would be no problem with him coming forth with Minor Design Review. There would be no grading or anything else. I think this is a sensitive issue here -- environmental with the Bell's Vireo. Am I assuming correctly when I say that this is part of the Negative Declaration - -it has to be done, correct? Associate Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative, and stated that there is a mitigation measure added in the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Neff stated that the applicant mentioned that there is a mitigation alternative, curious to know what that is for the Vireo. Mr. Kaufman stated that obviously this would be addressed if we found the Vireo, but typically you would replace. River- side County Flood Control is replacing 17 acres that they are disrupting in the channel area, so they have to find a 17 acre area and replace, I believe on a 1 to 1 or 3 to 1 basis. You can often contribute to a program that somebody else is doing. You have to replace, typically that is what happens. Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 9 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 AND ZONE CHANGE 91 -7 CONTINUED Chairwoman Brinley reiterated the changes to be made to condition 20 - after the word "wall" add "and /or alternative use of landscaping subject to the discretion of the Design Review Board ". Chairwoman Brinley asked for any further discussion. There being no further discussion, she called for a motion and asked that separate motions be made for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Zone Change and Tentative Parcel Map. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -3, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF. APPROVED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONER BULLARD ABSENT) MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 91 -7, BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY. APPROVED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONER BULLARD ABSENT) MOTION BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27033 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 20: A decorative block or masonry wall and /or alternative use of landscaping subject to the discretion of the Design Review Board, shall be constructed around the perimeter of the subdivision. Precise design, materials and location to be determined through Minor Design Review process. Condition No. 27: Per the Subdivision Map Act the final map shall be in compliance with the tentative map. Condition No. 50: Until Street "D" is completed, secondary access shall be provided by dedicated public right -of -way subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Riverside County Fire Department. Minimum width of secondary access shall be 30 feet. Once "D" Street is completed the secondary access will be vacated. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. APPROVED 3 -1 (COMMISSIONER GILENSON VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER BULLARD ABSENT) Conditional Use Permit 92 -4 - Keith R. Liston (Gene R. Bouch)- Continued from June 17, 1992 - Community Development Manager Shear stated that staff is recommending withdrawn, and at the time the applicant submits new plans we will reschedule. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -4, 29540 CENTRAL AVENUE, BE WITHDRAWN AND RESCHEDULED AT THE TIME OF RESUBMITTAL. Approved 4 -0 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 10 3. Zone Code Amendment 92 -2 - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Manager Shear detailed this item, explaining the changes or deletions that were made to Section 17.94, Signs. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Ms. Cheryl Robbins, Riverside County Building Industry Association (BIA), stated the Riverside County Chapter of the BIA has submitted a proposal for the new home directional sign program for the City of Lake Elsinore. We feel this would eliminate proliferation, the crowding up of intersections and possibly even traffic problems. Basically, we would like to enter into a contract with the City to manufacture, erect, maintain, repair and replace directional signage. We would also like to offer the City community service signs, placing them at either end of the City Limits, these would show the Civic Center, City Hall, Fire Department, Police Department, services such as that. Ms. Robbins stated the BIA has five counties they represent, 25 -30 cities in these counties, and these cities have never asked us to put a cash deposit, per sign or per structure, to ensure compliance with the ordinance; therefore, in talking with staff and staff concurs, we would like to have 5.d. on page 9 of the ordinance stricken. She then detailed the procedure, explaining they go for an encroachment permit for each location, and wanted to state for the record that hopefully we can get this stricken from the ordinance. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for opposition. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson stated he has a lot of questions and requested a continuance, in lieu of spending a lot of time going through the changes, and that a study group be formed between staff, City Attorney and whoever on the Commission, to make these changes, go through them and bring it back to the Commission at the next meeting. Chairwoman Brinley asked staff to address the issue brought up by Ms. Robbins. Community Development Manager Shear stated that Ms. Robbins did discuss this with him, and concurs. This $500 cash deposit is throughout the ordinance for other temporary signage. This program is unique because it is in the City right -of -way and we do have the right to go in and remove a sign at any time, so this regulation is not necessary. Commissioner Sellevold inquired whether this would apply to everyone affected by this. Community Development Manager Shear responded anybody who is affected by this sign code in the public right -of -way area. Basically, this section only deals with that kiosk program. Chairwoman Brinley asked for a motion to continue this item to the meeting of August 5, 1992, putting together a small committee to work with staff, which shall consist of: Commissioner Gilenson and Commissioner Neff to meet with staff and go over the issues. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF TO CONTINUE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -2 TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1992. (COMMISSIONER BULLARD ABSENT) Approved 4 -0 Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 1992 Page 11 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Associate Planner DeGange stated a copy of the Draft Standards for the Central Business District has been handed out to each Commis- sioner. This item will be before the Commission on August 15. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Chairman Brinley Thanked the City for the fireworks and entertainment that we had over the 4th. Commissioner Bullard Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:01 p.m., motion by Commissioner Neff, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 4 -0 F Secrectfully ubmitted, Gri dstaff tar MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Bullard. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Sellevold, Bullard and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Associate Planner DeGange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Sellevold to approve Minutes of July 15, 1992, as submitted, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 92 -1 - City of Lake Elsinore (Continued from July 1, 1992) - Chairwoman Brinley stated that the public hearing on this item was opened and closed with testimony received on July 1, 1992, she then asked staff for an update. Associate Planner DeGange detailed this item, explaining the amendment to Section 17.11, establishing a Central Business Overlay District, and providing Design Standards. He then stated that Mr. Ballew is present and will answer any questions the Commission may have. Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion at the table. Commissioners Neff, Bullard and Sellevold stated they had no comment. Commissioner Gilenson commented as follows: Section 17.11.030. Permitted Uses Density of the same or similar use, against this provision as it limits /restricts the free enterprise system. Section 17.11.050. Design Review Committee Does not feel City Council should be on this committee, if they are the appellate board that would handle appeals. Does not feel the board itself should be appointed by City Council, but by the Downtown Business Association; thereby taking the control away from the City Council, since they are the appellate board hearing any appeals. Suggested the last sentence be changed to: The Downtown Business Association shall retain the right to remove and replace committee members Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 1992 Page 2 Zone Code Amendment 92 -1 Continued for cause, notwithstanding the terms set out herein, subject to appeal to the City Council. And, throughout that section where it talks about the committee being appointed by City Council would like Downtown Business Association substituted and another member of some other organization appointed in lieu of the City Councilmember. Section 17.11.070 Subsection C Compliance with Standards Suggested this be changed to read: "The Design Review Board may grant one extension equal to the initial term upon showing of financial hardship by the applicant." Chairwoman Brinley stated she would like to see the Ordinance remain as written and presented. She then commented on Councilmembers being elected officials of the City, and appointed to serve on these committees. Chairwoman Brinley asked for any further discussion, receiving no response she called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -1, AMENDING SECTION 17.11, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OVERLAY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS, AS PRESENTED AND BASED UPON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) 2. Zone Code Amendment 92 -2 - City of Lake Elsinore (Continued from July 15, 1992) - Chairwoman Brinley stated the public hearing on this item was opened and closed with testimony received on July 15, 1992, and a committee formed to work with staff to go over the issues raised. She then asked staff for an update. Community Development Manager Shear stated staff and the committee met and discussed the concerns raised. The Sign Code has been revised to incorporate all concerns with the exception of the Freeway Identification Pole Signs. Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Bullard stated he had no comment. Commissioner Neff commented on the freeway identification signs and the master sign program -- whether this is in terms of the design of the sign or the number and location, and inquired about the existing program. Community Development Manager Shear stated the issue was whether freeway identification signs, with pole signs, should have a master sign program to dictate the number of signs. The existing section requires freeway identification signs to come before the Planning Commission, review of design and place- ment. He then referred to the section and detailed the requirements. Commissioner Sellevold asked what Commissioner Gilenson wants added to this section. Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 1992 Page 3 Zone Code Amendment 92 -2 Continued Commissioner Gilenson responded that he is not sure if it would be worded in here or the master sign program when submitted, but an easement for the other tenants to be able to use the sign and maintain it, so that we don't have the problems that we are having now. Commissioner Sellevold commented on this falling under the sign program for the location. Commissioner Gilenson commented as follows: Page 14, Subsection H, does this stop the use of can signs, as we have done on Page 16, subsection C.3. Can we do the same thing with H.1? Discussion ensued on suspended or projected signs and amending these subsections by adding the following language, H.1: "a maximum of 1 to 2 inches in thickness "; subsection C.3: "no thicker than 3 inches ". Chairwoman Brinley stated she had no comments, and called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -2, AMENDING SECTION 17.94 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: 17.94.170.H.1: A maximum of one (1) such sign per building frontage is permitted provided that it is perpendicular to the main face of the building and suspended from a canopy or projects not more than three feet (31) from the building face, and a maximum of 1 to 2 inches in thickness; 17.94.190.C.3: Signs shall be attached to the building or canopy, parallel to the building face. No portion of any sign or its supporting structure, may project more than six inches (611) from the face of the building or structure nor exceed 3 inches in thickness, to which it is attached; SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF. Commissioner Gilenson asked for further discussion, stating that he would be voting no on this subject to any recommen- dation not to change subsection "I" into a master sign program. Chairwoman Brinley asked for any further discussion, receiving no response she called for the question. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) 3. North Peak Development Agreement - TMC - Chairwoman Brinley stated that staff is requesting this item be continued to the meeting of August 19, 1992 and called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEFF TO CONTINUE THE NORTH PEAK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1992, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 1992 Page 4 BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Single - Family Residence 359 Avenue 4 - Inland Pacific Group (Peery & Berzansky) - Assistant Planner Villa presented a proposal to construct a one - story, 1,231 square foot, single - family dwelling. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant. Messrs. Perry & Berzanky stated they concur with staff recommendation. Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion, she called for a motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 359 AVENUE 4 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD. Approved 5 -0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT °S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Neff Received a letter dated June 30, 1992, regarding annexation of Laguna Heights, and asked staff to provide him with an update. The Joint Study Session was very useful, and the grading study done by the City Planner was thorough and well presented. If we could have more communications like that I think it would be to the betterment of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bullard The Joint Study Session was very educational. Thanked the School District for the use of the facilities. Commissioner Sellevold Thanked the School District for the use of the facilities. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Chairman Brinley Thanked the School District for the use of the facilities, and thanked John for his help and assistance. The Joint Study Session was excellent, the communication was there, and would like to see these happen on a regular basis. Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 1992 Page 5 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:30 p.m., motion by Chairwoman Brinley, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 5 -0 Resp ctfully S mitted, Linda Grin taff Secretary App owed, Pamela Brinley Chairwoman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairwoman Brinley. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Sellevold, Bullard and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Community Services Director Watenpaugh, Attorney Burns, Associate Planner DeGange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Neff to approve Minutes of August 5, 1992, as submitted, second by Commissioner Bullard. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. North Peak Development Agreement - TMC (Continued from August 5, 1992) - City Planner Christen presented an agreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and TMC Communities regarding the development of 1,964 acres. Said development includes a multi phased combined residential and commercial Specific Plan consisting of 4,621 dwelling units and 32 acres of commercial development. The project site is bounded by Steele Valley to the north, Wasson Canyon to the east, State Highway 74 to the south and E1 Toro Road to the west. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Brian Myers, Vice President of TMC Communities, gave a brief background report on this item and associated proposals, and commented on the public benefits to the City and its residents: off -site infrastructure, road improvements, park site improvements, fire station improvements and feasibility studies. Mr. Myers stated their only concern is with the improvements to the Nature Park. He then gave a brief history on the negotiations on this agreement and the improvements offered and settled upon, which included the park improvement and development fees, and the Nature Park was not one of those. We felt that in our work with staff, Dick Watenpaugh of the Parks Department, that the money would be best spent on the central public parks, which would be the most active use of the community and that is where we applied those dollars. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Mrs. Virginia Neira, then submitted to the Commission a copy of her concerns and a letter from the Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter, with regard to the North Peak project. She then Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 2 NORTH PEAK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED commented as follows: The area has been rural residential for a long time consisting of mostly open land, few ranchos and spotty developments and has provided affordable housing; Objects to the phrase reduction of development standards; We could get carports rather than garages; We could get smaller lots than specified in the Specific Plan, which are already small. No percentage relationship factor is given; a minimum of 25% should be required at either end with the balance in the middle for an equitable mix. If any reduction is to be made it should be in the total dwelling figure of 4,621 which will double the city's existing population. A reduction factor of at least 10 percent for dwelling units allowed by the developer should be written into the agreement to give the city and its residents some leverage in controlling and maintaining the density; Would like to see more specific provision for bicycle and horse trails; Inventory of 6,000 acres previously annexed to the City. It has been the intent of the State of discourage urban sprawl. This project will result in a local increase in housing stock of 5,369 units; The Specific Plan locates lower density residential uses and open space along the perimeter of the project, this is favorable. This should be made clear as some drawings show otherwise; Active Parks given at 49 acres. Parks adjacent to schools - 15 acres, with three schools this is only 5 acres to be shared with school kids and the community. Green areas surrounding schools should not be counted unless the area is more than 15 acres; Nature Park at 20% credit. This is a mitigation area for the Kangaroo rat and a few rare plants. The land for this was obtained from a BLM swap within the North Peak boundary. It is questionable that this credit should be allowed; If you count the 15 acres of parks adjacent to schools and 46 acres of nature parks the count is 61 acres that should not be counted as park area. A rural environment should have parks on the positive side, at least one good size park of 40 acres or more. The 14 acre park in the first phase hillside area is too small, this park should be enlarged as this area is to serve as the gateway to North Peak; Ortega Trail was taken from the current management of the County to management by the City. In doing this we don't know the true future of these trails; Visual impacts, the project will significantly impact the visual views of this area. Fill depths of up to 80 feet are planned as well as cuts in hills up to 60 feet. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 3 NORTH PEAK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED Chairwoman Brinley informed Mrs. Niera that she had exceeded her time limit and asked that she conclude her comments. She also asked that Mrs. Niera leave her comments with the Secretary and informed her that they would be included as part of her testimony. Mrs. Niera stated that this is a very lengthy document and expressed concern on the amount of time given for public testimony. She then stated in conclusion, they are concerned property owners and would like to point out that this is an environmentally sensitive area with development density limitations. I am very concerned about the density, alignment of the roads. 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 7:26 p.m. Commissioner Bullard commented on the following: • Fire station - to be started at the 1,900 residential building permit, this is at Phase III. Would like to ask Mr. Myers if this could be moved into Phase II, as there will be 1,899 homes built out there without fire protection. Feasibility Study on Page 8, we have under school sites 4.1.3, we have no mention of Junior High School or Middle Schools. Would like to see something added on this. Mr. Myers stated that he would like to address the fire station; during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Specific Plan process we spent a lot of time with the fire district and came up with a calculation, they sent us a letter specifying the number of units at which they wanted a fire station built. The land that they want the fire station in is in Phase III and there will not be road in until we get into Phase III. However, unit count, which is your concern, was addressed specifically with the Fire Department and that is where the calculation came from. Also, there was a requirement from the Fire District that we provide funding for three - quarters of a fire station. We have agreed to build the whole fire station and fully equip it, as well. That is the basis for how we determine how and when the fire station would be delivered. Mr. Myers stated that as far as the school site, we went through the same process. During the EIR and Specific Plan process we met extensively with the School District; came up with the generation requirements and what type of school they require for a site, and this is what they came up with - -three elementary schools. We have concurrence with them on the types of schools located there, and we now have a mitigation agreement with the School District on the first phase of our project, for the first elementary school in which we meet their funding requirements. Commissioner Sellevold commented on the following: • Nature Park - Commissioner Gilenson wanted to grade, hydroseed, and irrigate. How soon will the Nature Park be in place, timing? Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 4 NORTH PEAK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED Mr. Myers responded that this would be about seven (7) years out. Also, the Active Use Parks in the first phase are required to be built before the first model complex opens, so there will be a 14 acres Active Park built fairly rapidly. • Asked Commissioner Gilenson if there is a reason why we would want these irrigated, this is a Nature Park and would like to see it left natural. Do you want the whole area hydroseeded? Commissioner Gilenson responded just where it is going to be turf. It calls for turfing now. Mr. Myers responded that Commissioner Gilenson is correct, according to the conditions of the Specific Plan. There is a requirement to provide for 25 acres of easily accessible area for public park. Would rather see these dollars allocated to the Active Use Parks. If there is an issue with the improvements on the Nature Park, that the entire Commission would like to see, we can re- allocate some of those dollars to see improvements done on the Nature Park, as well. As I stated earlier, would like to see the agreement stay the way it is, providing for full improvement on the Active Parks which I believe the public benefits more from, and the Nature Park staying more natural. Commissioner Gilenson stated that his comment on that - -to answer your question, why that is in there - -was specifically as Mr. Myers stated. The Specific Plan does call for turfing of the entire 25 acre area, and if it is going to be turfed I want it graded, hydroseeded and irrigated, so that it stays green. Mr. Myers stated the Specific Plan condition says that it should be available for those uses. Basically, it leaves it up to the City and what you would like done with that 25 acres of dedicated use. We had put in a list of potential uses, which included: tot lots, picnic benches, park courses and turfed areas, but it is stated that there is a potential for public. • Asked Community Services Director Watenpaugh, if it is a Nature Park and we are going to leave it, and there is really no money set aside for improvements and upkeep, except for maybe walkways - -how are we going to irrigate it without taking money away from the other parks? Community Services Director Watenpaugh responded that what we have done with TMC is to negotiate public usage of privately owned and maintained facilities. They are getting credit for Quimby Fees so they meet their total requirement for park dedication. The public will get use of the 25 acres of this but the general public, the City Assessment, is not going to be paying for the maintenance of it. The intent, I believe, of Council was to provide for some passive uses. I do not believe the intent was to turf the 25 acres. He then detailed the Quimby requirements, and the benefits the city is getting up front. Commissioner Sellevold stated that he would not want to take away the money to improve something that is to be natural. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following: • Page 28, Section 13.3 and how this relates to Section Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 5 NORTH PEAK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED 13.1. On 13. 1, if the City is in default we are not excused from performance. In section 13.3, if the developer is in default he still doesn't have to perform. So it is a win -win for the developer on these two sections. Would like to see one of these sections changed so that they conform. Page 33, Section 18.1.2 calls for Public Liability insurance in the amount of one million for injuries to any one person and one million of any one occurrence. Would like to see this changed whereby the one million per person would stay, but five million aggregate per occurrence. Page 7, Development Agreement Fees, asked that staff go over those fees again, and asked why this is being changed. City Planner Christen reiterated the scheduling for the DAG fees, and stated that we are trying to standardize the increments, when it accelerates. Letters from the Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter and Mrs. Virginia Neira, there are some legal questions and requested -- hopefully this can be done during a break, that legal counsel review, as we were just handed this before the meeting. • Page 28, Section 13.3 and Section 13.1, defaults and remedies -- can go over this with the Attorney and Commission during a break, or however the Attorney wants to handle. Attorney Burns stated that it would be appropriate for him to review and speak individually with members, but would caution members about discussing this among themselves during a break, might be a violation of the Brown Act. Chairwoman Brinley asked Mr. Burns if he has a problem with taking a break and reviewing the documents and then discussing. Mr. Burns responded in the negative. Chairwoman Brinley stated that at this point would take the remainder of Commission comments and then take a 15 minute break. Commissioner Neff commented on the following: • Lot count and mix, and asked that Mr. Myers provide additional information on lot count by size. Mr. Myers stated the entire Specific Plan area has a gross density of approximately 2.2 units to the acre. What we did through the Specific Plan process is to say we would like to cluster development in certain areas. Our goal was to cluster the higher density units in the center of each one of these village cores, as identified in the past, and to surround the perimeter of the project closer to the open space and rural residential with lower density residential units. He then stated that he could not provide information on lot count by size as they have only now provided specific site planning on the first phase. He then gave the following examples for the first phase, a single - family residential a minimum lot size of 5,500 foot lots and a 64 unit subdivision the average lot size is 7,700 maximum lot size 16,200. A 5,000 square Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 6 NORTH PEAK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED A 5,000 square foot minimum lot size in a 134 units has an average lot size of 6,500 feet and a maximum of 18,000. Mr. Myers stated that his attorney is with him and asked if they could meet with city counsel regarding the item that Commissioner Gilenson brought up. Nexus between DAG fees and the use to which it will be put, but will defer to the attorneys and staff who studied that at length. Commissioner Bullard stated his concerns have been raised by the other Commissioners. At this time 7:52 p.m., Chairwoman Brinley called for a 15 minute recess, allowing the attorney to confer and then come back to the table for discussion. The Commission reconvened at 8:06 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley asked Mr. Burns to address the Commission. Mr. Burns commented on the letter from the Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter and what some of the acronyms refer to, apparently, it is the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Area, but it has to do with the Steven's Kangaroo Rat habitat area. I understand that the environmental certification happened long ago and it is not an issue with development. The Development Agreement is in compliance with the EIR that was previously certified and the statute of limitation has run on that, this is my understanding. Mr. Burns stated that on the termination, 13.1 talks about- - the City cannot terminate or take action as if to hold up improvements while they are in default, but still subject to their cure period. We have to allow them the cure period to bring themselves back into compliance. Default by the City, 13.3, states that the City agrees the developer -- obligated to proceed while City is failing to comply and that is because there would be an uncertainty at that time. Really, the City's rights are in 13.2 and that does provide for certain remedies in which the City can find default after it hold appropriate hearing and gives due process. There are different avenues and some are specified in the Development Agreement statutes and that calls for a hearing to allow the developer some input before we do terminate them and then there is a standard of review, and then later there is a procedure for the developer if he disagrees to challenge the City in court. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the following: • Asked that Community Services Director Watenpaugh address the 20 percent credit listed in Mrs. Niera's letter. Community Services Director Watenpaugh stated as to the City's direction or the way we looked at it, in regards to the credit for the 25 acre of land that the Council and the Specific Plan addressed and they said that they would allow park credit against that. Part of the feeling there was that it would be usable by the public not an obligation to maintain necessarily by the public and secondly, in trade -off we are also getting 3.6 million dollars plus the 49 acres of developed active lands. Our park -in -lieu fee allows us to collect 5 acres per 1,000 population and that is 74 acres based on calculations, based on that 49 acres of active use in those locations plus Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 7 NORTH PEAK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED the 25 acres meets the Quimby requirements. Mr. Watenpaugh stated that with regard to the Ortega Trails, believes the intent or the concern was that the City be conscious of the equestrian trails and the plan that has been adopted by the County. The City Council, when they addressed the first or second development agreement, their policy and discussion was that they would follow and accept and deal with the primary trail system, which is the Regional Trails that was adopted by the County. • Nature Park, would not want to take money from the other parks and put into this at this time. Would like to see this remain natural. • Fire Station, concern is that there will be approximately 1,275 houses by the Second Phase. We are looking at Nichols Road and that area, which may not be developed for ten or twelve years. Would like to see the fire station come on line in Phase Two, we could set a unit number, say the 900th unit. Mr. Myers responded that the Fire Department selected the site for a reason, and that reason was because of the grades and slopes, this is basically at the top. There is a gradient that goes on the roads that goes into the Second Phase of the project - -they picked the middle of the project to put the fire station in and also looked at the grades of the road, space and the number of units. Discussion ensued on location, timing, cost of construction and equipping a fire station. Chairwoman Brinley requested that a recommendation be forwarded to City Council that consideration be given to revising timing of construction of the fire station to Phase II, City and developer working together, and $500,000 for equipment. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE TMC NORTH PEAK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED REVISIONS, AND THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO REVISING TIMING OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE FIRE STATION TO PHASE II, AND REQUIRING $1,000,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE FACILITY AND $500,000 FOR EQUIPMENT, AND THE DELETION OF GRADING, HYDROSEEDING AND IRRIGATION OF THAT SECTION AS LISTED IN SECTION 4.1.4 IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD. Approved 5 -0 MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 92 -2, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 92 -2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NORTH PEAK PARTNERS Commissioner Gilenson asked for discussion, stating that he would like a note of concern to Council on this, from him, on the 5 million dollar aggregate policy. At this time Chairwoman Brinley called for the question. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 8 2. Specific Plan 91 -1, Zone Change 92 -3 and Environmental Impact Report 92 -3 - Oak Grove Equities (Elsinore City Center) City Planner Christen presented a request to approve the Lake Elsinore City Center Specific Plan, Zone Change, Environmental Impact Report and Design Review for a proposed 49.2 acre commercial retail and office center. The proposed project consists of 32.6 acres of General Commercial uses (retail, office, restaurant and movie theater), with 8.6 acres of manufactured slopes, 4.2 acres of major roads, and a "Future Use Area" of 3.8 acres. The total commercial square footage is 356,400. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Milton Freeman, partner in Oak Grove Equities, stated that they have engaged Turrini and Brink to do the Specific Plan and to oversee the consultants and coordinate the work on the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Freeman stated that Mr. Greco of Turrini and Brink is present and will present the proposal and answer any questions. Mr. Greco, gave a brief history and highlighted the major issues relating to the project: freeway off -ramp, parking and landscaping. He then detailed the site design, and stated in the revised graphics - -we are still in disagreement with staff recommendation for the improved raised median. It is far above anything required by the City, it is very expensive and it will be a maintenance nightmare. In the revised graphics we have removed the curb for that very same reason, we feel it will be much cleaner and easier to maintain. Mr. Greco requested that condition number 8 be modified, as Section 17.66 has already been addressed within the Specific Plan. Mr. Greco then referred to Figure 12 of the document, which presently shows an 8 inch sewer line which would need to be added along Railroad Canyon Road. Since this document was prepared we have done further work and investigation and determined that the 8 inch line that would extend from Grape easterly would not be required, and presented a new graphic and requested that this graphic, as well as the revised parking graphic, be placed in the text at the appropriate time. 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 8:40 p.m. Commissioner Neff inquired about the freeway off -ramp status of approval with Cal Trans. City Planner Christen stated that it is his understanding that the project applicant along with BSI consultants, representing the City, have spoken with Cal Trans, but does not believe that Cal Trans has taken a position. Mr. Greco stated that their team has been working with the City's team and working on a number of alternatives: with a ramp, without a ramp and the possibility of a joint ramp at both the location we show and just a little bit to the north, near Franklin- -that would provide an opportunity for the best access and that is the one that we hope would be approved, and Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 9 SPECIFIC PLAN 91 -1, ZONE CHANGE 92 -3 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 92 -3 CONTINUED I think from the City, because it provides the most flexi- bility. As we go forward with the final design and the map that issue will have been resolved with Cal Trans. Commissioner Bullard stated that his questions were answered during the study session. Will take into consideration your request on condition number 8 and the graphic on the sewer line. Commissioner Sellevold commented on the following: Amount grading and where the dirt that has to be taken off -site is going to be placed. Mr. Greco stated that they have three or four locations, but it is very difficult at this point in the process to identify a site when we do not have Specific Plan approval. When we have Specific Plan approval and can go forward then specific agreements can be drawn. • Condition number 2, whether there is a specific reason for the raised parking lot- -this means more maintenance and water. City Planner Christen stated that staff is trying to soften it up somewhat. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following: • Condition number 1, spoke to staff and the applicant about this, would like to see something similar to the rooftop enclosures at the Outlet Center. • Condition number 2, requested 24 inch box trees rather than 15 gallon trees, and delete the second sentence, but would like to have something out there to break up the sea of blacktop. • Inquired about a phasing plan. Mr. Greco responded they are expecting the project to be developed in one or two phases -- identifying the major anchor tenants in phase one. To give a time frame, anticipates that the site could be in operation sometime between 14 and 16 months. Chairwoman Brinley asked Mr. Greco to reiterate his request for modification to condition number 8. Mr. Greco stated that within the Specific Plan document is language that provides for specific plan zoning and are asking for a rezone from its current C -2 to Specific Plan, within that we have articulated very specific parking language. City Planner Christen stated the reason condition number 8 was inserted was because of the theater and restaurant use, which requires more than 1 space per 250 square feet. Mr. Greco stated their section does address this and they went beyond the City's standards. Chairwoman Brinley asked staff if they felt there is adequate parking. City Planner Christen stated, it is his under- standing, that we are over parked relative to the standards. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 10 SPECIFIC PLAN 91 -1. ZONE CHANGE 92 -3 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 92 -3 CONTINUED Chairwoman Brinley commented on the visual impacts from the freeway, with regard to the parking lot and rooftop. Mr. Greco stated they agree about the curbs and that is why in the modified plan they are taken out. Discussion ensued on the parking lot with regard to parking stops -- medians, landscaping, maintenance and safety standards. Commissioner Gilenson suggested that condition number 2 be amended, to read: "Parking lot landscaping designs shall provide at least one (1) twenty- four -inch (2411) tree for every ten (10) parking spaces with planter box to be staggered every row and subject to approval of the Community Development Manager or designee ". Chairwoman Brinley suggested that condition number 1 be amended by adding the following language: "rooftop enclosures similar to the Outlet Center shall be used and subject to approval of the Community Development Manager or designee ". Discussion ensued on condition number 8 and the applicant's request for modification. Mr. Greco suggested that condition number 8 be modified by adding the following: It shall be as provided for in Section 17.66 unless specifically provided for otherwise in the Specific Plan. For the record, the parking requirements are set forth in Roman Numeral XII -31. For restaurants and other food establishments we are requiring 1 space for each 45 square feet of customer area plus 1 space for each 200 square feet of non - customer area, this exceeds the standards. Attorney Burns responded that this would be acceptable language. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEFF TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 92 -3; APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 92 -3, AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 91 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 1: Roof mounted air conditioning units and any other rooftop mechanical equipment shall not be visible from any neighboring properties or public rights of way. If necessary architectural features such as parapet walls and secondary parapet walls which are architecturally consistent with the rest of center shall be used to conceal roof mounted equipment. Rooftop enclosures similar to the Outlet Center shall be used and subject to approval of the Community Development Manager or designee. Condition No. 2: Parking lot landscaping designs shall provide at least one (1) twenty -four -inch (2411) tree for every ten (10) parking spaces with planter box to be staggered every row and subject to approval of the Community Development Manager or designee. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 11 SPECIFIC PLAN 91 -1. ZONE CHANGE 92 -3 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 92 -3 CONTINUED Condition No. 8: At such time as any Design Review application is submitted for this site the applicant shall meet all requirements of Section 17.66 (Parking Requirements). It shall be as provided for in Section 17.66 unless specifically provided for otherwise in the Specific Plan. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 5 -0 MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 92 -3, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 92 -3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF OAK GROVE EQUITIES ( ELSINORE CITY CENTER) SPECIFIC PLAN 91 -1 At this time, 9:05 P.M., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9:12 P.M., the Planning Commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Residential Project 92 -3 - Century Homes Communities - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Design Review of four model homes on a portion of Tract 20704 and plotting on Phase 1. The site is located between Summerhill Drive and Railroad Canyon Road within the central portion of the Canyon Creek Specific Plan. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Arthur Levine, 1535 South D Street, San Bernardino, gave a brief background on Century Homes. He then stated they are in agreement with the Conditions of Approval placed on the project with the exception of the following: Condition number 4 and 6 are linked to us in the following, the mix is say, at this point in time, a best guess on the part of our marketing department, which is why we have elected to submit strictly phase one - -the models and 17 production units. The mix that we are proposing is a trail mix or trial plotting. Condition number 6, relative to the mix, we have no problem, relative to phase one, with the 15 percent plotting. But would request that on subsequent plottings that the plan one be limited to no more than 20 percent of the plottings. Condition number 20, it is out understanding that the subdivision and improvements - -all that have been put in or proposed to be put in by Friedman Homes does comply with open space, parkland requirements and park facility requirements of the City and, in light of that, I don't believe that we would be required to pay the park -in -lieu fees. This is my understanding. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 12 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -3 CONTINUED At this time, Chairwoman asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Bullard commented on condition number 27, slopes in the first phase, we are going to have a lot of irrigation- - my estimation is that over 90 percent of the phase has greater than a 3 foot slope in the back yard and this will be covered, and complied with. The model home 2XC plans, there is only a three foot clearance on the side yard setback. Mr. Levine responded that there is already a submitted and approved slope landscaping and irrigation plan, submitted by Friedman Homes, and it is our intention to comply with those plans and requirements. He then stated regarding he model plans, that they would need to look at this and adjust. Believes it is the intent to put a retaining wall between Lots 4 and 6. Commissioner Bullard stated that Lot 19 has the same situation. Commissioner Neff commented on the mix and plotting; doesn't disagree with Mr. Levine's on condition number 4 and 6. Condition number 20 raises an issue with application to these fees - -since the demand is not created at the building permit stage, but occupancy stage, if the fees are in fact due and payable that they be deferred until occupancy; condition number 28, fencing - -the block wall would be only along Summerhill Drive. Commissioner Gilenson requested the following amendments: Condition number 9, add the word "rear ". Condition number 31, add "and shall be removed prior to residential occupancy of the model home ". Condition number 33, not applicable and should be deleted. Discussion ensued on condition number 33, regarding the tentative map /final map and conditions carried over from maps or development agreement; final map supersedes tentative map, but tentative contains conditions; dealing with minor design review at this point. Commissioner Neff stated that he concurs with Commissioner Gilenson on conditions number 9 and 31. Chairwoman Brinley stated she is in agreement with staff recommendation on condition number 6. Commissioner Bullard stated that under RECOMMENDATION it is noted as R 91 -3 and it should be R 92 -3. Commissioner Neff inquired about the modification to condition number 6 as requested by the applicant. Discussion ensued on condition number 6, pertaining to the applicant's request. Chairwoman Brinley stated that she would like to see this remain as written. MOTION BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY TO APPROVE THE FOUR MODELS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -3, AND PLOTTING FOR PHASE ONE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "N ", AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 9: All windows larger than one foot (11) by one foot (11) on all side and rear Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 13 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -3 CONTINUED elevations with the exceptions of those windows already utilizing treatments such as ledges or mullions shall incorporate stucco surrounds. Condition No. 31: Tubular steel fence that surrounds models shall be constructed behind public sidewalk, and subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee, prior to issuance of building permit, and shall be removed prior to residential occupancy of the model home. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD. Approved 5 -0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Community Development Manager Shear stated that staff would work with EVMWD on the air conditioning. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:53 p.m., motion by Commissioner Neff, second by Commissioner Bullard. Approved 5 -0 Respectfully ,ubmitted, findea Gri dstaff Pamela Bri Chairwoman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:07 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Bullard. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Sellevold, Bullard and Brinley. ABSENT: . None. Also present were: City Planner Christen, Attorney Burns, Community Services Director Watenpaugh, Engineering Manager O'Donnell and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. MINUTE ACTION• Motion by Commissioner Neff to approve the Minutes of August 19, 1992, as submitted, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS: There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the Public Comment Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. General Plan Amendment 92 -3 and Zone Code Amendment 92 -3 - 2. The City of Lake Elsinore requests a General Plan Amendment to implement the "Historic Downtown Land Use Plan ", and approval of Zone Code Amendment 92 -3 establishing the Historic Downtown Overlay District and the associated Historic Downtown 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. MOVED BY NEFF, SECONDED BY BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 AND ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1992. City Planner Christen explained that this item is the Murdock Alberhill Ranch General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and Development Agreement. Also there is an addendum to the staff report and two revisions to the Development Agreement. He further explained that this project contains approximately 511.4 acres bounded by the Brighton Alberhill Specific Plan to the north, the extension of Terra Cotta Road to the east, Terra Cotta area to the south, and Robb /Lake Street to the west. Mr. Christen stated that the original Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan was approved on August 8, 1989 and consisted of 3,705 dwelling units for the entire Specific Plan area. Brighton Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1992 Page two Homes purchased a portion of the Alberhill project from Long Beach Equities. The Murdock site is the remaining, primarily residential, portion of the original Specific Plan. He further reported that the proposed Murdock amendment to the Alberhill Specific Plan consists of residential, commercial, open space, institutional, and recreational land uses on 511.4 gross acres within the approved Alberhill Specific Plan. The purpose of the General Plan Amendment is to remove the existing Exhibit II -3 from the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The purpose of the Murdock Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment is to revise the distribution and intensity of land uses approved for the 511.4 acre site covered by the approved Alberhill Specific Plan (89 -2). Although the proposed Specific Plan retains similar land use concepts, the revised Specific Plan proposes several significant modifications such as residential density increase on a per acre basis, total dwelling unit increase, land use revisions to generally higher density residential than the approved plan and increase in commercial acreage. The purpose of the Murdock Alberhill Development Agreement is to vest the amended Specific Plan project under California State Law. Staff would suggest that a time frame or date be set on the $100,000 feasibility study which would be six (6) months from the effective date of the Development Agreement and in addition, Exhibit II -3 is incorrect in the Staff Report and is correct in the Specific Plan Amendment, Exhibit 1 and should be the land use plan approved for this Amendment to Specific Plan 89 -2. Commissioner Bullard stated that he would have to abstain from discussion or vote due to a potential conflict of interest due to Murdock owning a company which may have economic gain that his wife works for. Commissioner Neff abstained due to conflict of interest because his company owns an adjoining piece of land in which this project could create an economic gain. Both Commissioners stepped down. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. The following persons spoke: Ilene Miles, Assistant Vice President of Murdock Development Company stated that this project has been in process for the last two years and commended staff for the work and effort. Ms. Miles then presented a slide presentation to explain the project and stated that if the Commission had any questions she and her staff were available to answer. She further explained the development agreement and went over its contents. Chairwoman Brinley asked for those wishing to speak in opposition to the project. Hearing none, she asked for anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Gilenson: The two feasibility studies, one for $50,000 and one for $100,000, can you elaborate for me what the $50,000 and the $100,000 are for and how we came up with those figures? Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1992 Page three Christen: The $50,000 is for a public facility study. There have been concerns in the past that we haven't looked at the entire City boundary and sphere area to make sure we have proper community facilities located in the various satellite areas. Many of the Specific Plans that are being proposed or future Specific Plans may or may not contain those facilities that are essential to a City as a whole, such as library, post offices etc. Gilenson: O.K. and the other. Christen: The $100,000 is, theres been I guess a little bit of a ground swell here recently to try to get some more public facilities, recreation type uses such as a community pool, basically we are trying to amass some dollars to look at those facilities. Gilenson: O.K. now, on the Brighton, Ramsgate and T.M.C. we had $100,000, 100,000, and $200,000. What were those studies for? Christen: Brighton doesn't come to me right off the top of my head, North Peak dealt primarily with the annexation of the County park that remained, the other $100,000 was basically for work on Highway 74 and they were fronting quite a bit of money on Highway 74, for us to do studies for the expansion of that roadway system. Gilenson: O.K. and Ramsgate, that $100,000. Christen: One of them is and I'm not sure if its Ramsgate, is an amphitheater study, or Community Center. O.K. the amphitheater study is on Brighton, the Community Center, I think that the Civic Center I think on Ramsgate. Gilenson: O.K. how did we arrive at these figures? At random. Christen: Well kind of yes and no. I mean we don't know exactly in a situation what a study will cost, but we try to look at some past studies just to come up with the - -they are round numbers. Gilenson: Wouldn't it be equitable to only allocate a fair share to each Specific Plan area. What I'm talking about is like Brighton and Ramsgate, they both got hit for a $100,000, and there're about twice the size of this project, the T.M.C. project is about twice the size of Ramsgate and they got hit with $200,000. This ones getting hit with $150,000. Christen: There are some other things that come into play. One of the reasons that Brighton went the way that it did is because there was a strong desire for a golf course. They got some additional units. This project is also getting additional units, but is not offering a golf course, so I guess that came into play. There was an item that was very strongly desired by the Community. Gilenson: I agree that it was desired by the Community, but I think that it should be a fair share. Each development project. Christen: All of these items have obviously been up for Planning Commission and City Council approval. These are just staff recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1992 Page four Gilenson: O.K. another question I have. On the addendum that was given to us tonight, the long one, on page two, they are adding $210 per residential dwelling, I'm assuming that's for police and fire. Christen: Yes, primarily. Basically, this project in its Fiscal Impact Report, shows a short fall with some of the activity that's happening at the State level now and the possibility of the City loosing substantial amounts of money in their budget, we have to start dealing with the short falls in all these projects that are coming before us. Ultimately, I think we would like to get to a point where we have a City wide assessment of some sort, assessment district or whatever it is that will look at police and fire. Gilenson: O.K. I'm in agreement with the extraction of extra money for police services. The question I have, and for the record I did meet with the applicant for about an hour and a half this week, they had a study prepared by a consultant and we had our study prepared by our consultant, the two figures didn't jive as to how much an assessment per home should be. How did we come up with - why did our figures differ from theirs and was there a happy medium agreed or are we just dictating what we want. Christen: There was a happy medium I think agreed, although the situation is that we don't as yet have a clear understanding of what the City would like relative to police persons per thousand population. So, a number of 1.5 has been thrown out. In this applicants fiscal impact report they looked at a 1.08 and a 1.35 ratio per thousand. I think finance basically which is a driving force behind this $210 amount is trying to reach some point where they are comfortable with covering the short fall on this project from a fiscal standpoint. Gilenson: O.K., thank you. Back to our regular staff report on page 7, number 3, my question to staff is why we are recommending the change from the approved specific plan on the minimum sizes. Christen: O.K. Understand that yes there is an approved Specific Plan, but once you amend it other options are available. And this again is something we're getting primarily from City Council that they would like to see a larger size units than are allowed in the Zoning Code and that had already been approved in other Specific Plans. We have some that go down as small as 425 square feet. We're responding to that with revisions that occur in the amended version is basically an agreement with the applicant. A negotiation agreement. Ultimately, what I think this applicant is looking for some direction from City Council to set a policy relative to unit size. Gilenson: O.K. I agree with that that we need to increase the sizes. The only problem I have with it were putting the new developers at a disadvantage in that we have approved other plans with lower lot sizes which means that when the homes are built, they can sell theirs cheeper than this applicant and if that's the case this project is never gonna get built. Or kind of a rock and a hard place where we wanta start going with this. Christen: I understand, we're still looking for direction on this from City Council. Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1992 Page five Gilenson: O.K. On Conditions of Approval, Condition number 16, third bullet on Condition 16, I'd like to change it to Public Transit stop shall be incorporated in order to establish appropriate location points with the approval of R.T.A. Brinley: Tony, could you say that again please. Gilenson: Public Transit stop shall be incorporated, changing the word considered for incorporate, in order to establish appropriate location points with the approval of R.T.A. Riverside Transit Authority, or whatever they are called now days. Gilenson: O.K., not done yet, let me go to my other set of notes here. In the Development Agreement, Staff do you know off hand how much dollars we're getting on the fire station. Are we getting a million or a million five like on the other one we just approved? Christen: On North Peak? Gilenson: Right. North Peak we did a million five. Christen: Right. Actually it became a million six with the police facility added on. Gilenson: What are we doing on this one. Christen: The project applicant can probably explain it a little bit better than I can. It has to do with when the project has some fiscal positive. Theres a certain allocation that the fiscal impact report is allocated to a fire station. Ilene Miles: In our fiscal analysis in going through that process, what we discovered was that our project is being serviced by the Lincoln /Machado Station. That station is being paid for by CFD and not by the City. But, what we did include in our report was our fair share of the cost of trucks and squad car and also increase service going forward. And then at year 10 when its assumed that the project area be more fully built out we added the cost of another fire station in the formula. Assuming that we would have to be paying our fair share of it at a unknown location. Gilenson: Alright, what are we putting up front and what are we putting in in 10 years? In dollar amounts. Miles: You mean from us? Gilenson: Right. Miles: We're not putting up anything up front because the station is being paid for by the CFD. Gilenson: Another truck? Miles: Right, and the way we're paying for it is through that $210 per unit increased development fee. Gilenson: Oh. O.K. I want to go back to that then. On page two of the Amended Special Project Concerns and Recommendations I'd like to change, I don't know if you made that part of a condition now. Is that part of a condition staff. On you -add $210. Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1992 Page six Christen: It was, basically it would have to go into the Development Agreement as added on to the DAG fee. Gilenson: O.K. Christen: It was not conditioned. Gilenson: O.K., I'd like to see it somehow worded either in the Development Agreement or in the Conditions of Approval that the $210 per residential dwelling unit is for police services only. And then an additional for the fire. Christen: O.K. that takes us back to the original staff report where we had the $250 for fire and $135 to cover the short fall in services. If you go back to the staff report we had a $250 for fire and then $135 fee to cover the short fall. Gilenson: For Police. Christen: Right, for police or whatever. Any. Gilenson: That's what I'm getting at, I want something specific for police. Christen: You might want to add a separate one then, because see understand that the $135 in the original, in the original was for, it was in the original staff report, was for operations maintenance cost for various things including police. Gilenson: Originally when I went through these notes I didn't have a figure in mind. When I went through some of the studies that have been done regarding costs of police officers, I had wanted something either in the Development Agreement or in the conditions somewhere that the cost of one officer for every 300 CO's issued. Whatever that cost for the three hundred, or for one officer is. Divided down to 300 CO's. Miles: If I may, in our fiscal analysis, what we used is actually 1.08 police per every one thousand people, which is similar to what you're coming up with. As a matter of fact I think that its a little higher. And how we got this is we polled 20 relative similar cities in the area and the average police service of those is 1.08, and so that is also in the formula of the fiscal analysis, and not only the fire, facilities and service. Gilenson: Right, that's what I was talking about before with the figures being different. Miles: Right Gilenson: But, this $210 you're saying is going to be used for, for adding an extra fire truck, which is needed because of the size of your development, but we also need the police out there. I want a specific fee for whats going for fire and whats going for police. Miles: To separate the $210? Gilenson: Whatever. Miles: Right. Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1992 Page seven Burns: My only comment for what its worth is usually you get money in the Development Agreement for the facilities, but the manning of the police officer is something that you have to do year after year and that's why I think maybe there was that thought about that special tax or that district that would provide for an ongoing. Might want to commit to obtaining an officer with that money that will be there one year and gone the next. That's why you use that money for building a facility but not for an ongoing salary type of an obligation. Christen: It also depends upon building permits which could vary drastically so its a one shot thing. Gilenson: O.K. Brinley: Thank you Mr. Burns. Gilenson: Lets see. Brinley: Are you done yet? Gilenson: No lets see ... See if I have anything else here. I think the only other thing I had which the applicant has already stated is on page 24 of the Development Agreement, under 18.1.2, the last figure should be changed to $5,000,000. The applicant has agreed to that. Brinley: The liability to $5,000,000. Gilenson: Right, its $1,000,000 per person, $5,000,000 aggregate. Give me a minute here and see if I have any more notes. That appears to be it. Thank you. Brinley: Commissioner Sellevold. Sellevold: Actually, I didn't find anything with this. Fine. No comment. Brinley: My comments are I'm very happy with the project, glad to see it coming on line, looking forward to the nice development that's going to go on there. I have no problem, myself too I have met with the applicant and have worked out the concerns that I had and I feel that we have been comfortably covered with the $210 and I was glad to see it with our floor ratio there of 1.0 and at this point I am very pleased with the project and have no further comment at this time. We will take this Madame Secretary, for you in three motions adding to them the modifications to each of them. I believe there are modifications to the Development Agreement, is that correct Robert, with the fees being changed to $210. And the effective date for the $50,000 and the $100,000. Christen: Right, there is already one for the $50 and add one for the $100. Also the two revisions that are before you from the applicant's attorney. Brinley: There is one thing I'd like to refer to really quick before we get there and that is the Development Agreement. On page 6 we asked for the word reasonably to be deleted, in the subject up there of the Community Park. "Improvements shall be determined consistent with the Community Park concept plan by consultant retained by the Developer and delete the word reasonably and approved by the City and the City Hall by the design within ". Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1992 Page eight Christen: Mr. Burns has my Development Agreement but that's O.K. I believe the issue was with Dick Watenpaugh's and I guess the City's policy that the City hires the designer for the parks would not be... Brinley: You had the other one here down into the neighborhood parks where you wanted to add into there to the rough graded area. Christen: I don't remember that issue, but Ilene you might want to speak to that. Miles: Yea, I believe Mr. Watenpaugh added a condition to the Specific Plan that simply said that rather it be in a raw condition it would be dedicated in a rough graded condition. On the first C of O in that Planning Area II. Brinley: And the other question that I have in the CD regarding the motion when we get to, we will include the addendum here that we were given this evening and the letters that we received from Jones, Day, Revison and Hogg. Christen: Right, that's the Developers Attorney. Those have been reviewed by City Council. Brinley: And I would like these. Do you want this included in the... Christen: Yes, please. Brinley: Alright then, the chair at this point will now entertain a motion. Sellevold: I move to recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment 92 -2 and Resolution No. 92 -4 with amendments. Brinley: Do I have a second. Gilenson: Second. Brinley: I have a second, any discussion? O.K. Madame Secretary open the channels for the voting. All those in favor all those opposed. I can't see. 3 -0. Moving down to the second recommendation. Mr. Gilenson. Gilenson: Move approval of Specific Plan Amendment 89 -2 with the change on condition 16 bullet three, the changes according to the Staff Report Addendum on condition 9, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 25. Brinley: May I have a second. Sellevold: Second. Brinley: Thank you. Discussion? Madame Secretary open the channels for voting. All those in favor all those opposed. 3 -0. O.K. We are down here for motion number three. Commissioner Sellevold. Sellevold: I recommend to City Council approval of the Murdock Alber -Hill Development Agreement and the adoption of Resolution No. 92 -6 with amendment from Jones and Day and on the insurance from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000. Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1992 Page nine Gilenson: Second. Brinley: O.K. Discussion? channels for voting please. opposed. 3 -0 Madame Secretary open the All those in favor, all those THE FORMAL MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: MOVED BY SELLEVOLD, SECONDED BY GILENSON AND CARRIED BY A 3 -0 VOTE WITH BULLARD AND NEFF ABSTAINING TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94 -2 WITH CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS AND RESOLUTION NO. 92 -4 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 92 -4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -4 FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ALBERHILL SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE EXHIBIT II -3, BOUNDED BY INTERSTATE 15, TERRA COTTA ROAD /NICHOLS, PACIFIC CLAY AND ROBB /LAKE STREET; FILED BY MURDOCK ALBERHILL. MOVED BY GILENSON, SECONDED BY SELLEVOLD AND CARRIED BY A 3 -0 VOTE WITH BULLARD AND NEFF ABSTAINING TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND THE ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89 -2 WITH CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 92 -5 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 92 -5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF MURDOCK ALBERHILL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT #2 OF THE ALBERHILL SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2; BOUNDED BY INTERSTATE 15, TERRA COTTA ROAD /NICHOLS, PACIFIC CLAY AND ROBB /LAKE STREET; FILED BY MURDOCK DEVELOPMENT. MOVED BY SELLEVOLD, SECONDED BY GILENSON AND CARRIED BY A 3 -0 VOTE WITH BULLARD AND NEFF ABSTAINING TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AND MURDOCK DEVELOPMENT WITH CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 92-6 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 92 -6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH MURDOCK ALBERHILL. BUSINESS ITEMS• None. PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS: City Planner Christen stated that he was please to see this project come on line. Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 1992 Page ten PLANNING COMMISSIONERIS COMMENTS: Commissioner Neff Stated that he was looking forward to the future and the development of this project. Commissioner Bullard Concurred with Commissioner Neff and commended Commission and staff for all the hard work. He further complemented Murdock for their good track record in building. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Stated that she is will be happy to see this Murdock Alberhill Ranch project get started as soon as possible. MOVED BY BULLARD, SECONDED BY BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY A 5 -0 VOTE TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:47 P.M. 5 Re tf�ull; Submitt , Adria L. Brning . Deputy City Clerk Pamela Btinley MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 16TH DAY OF 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:13 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Sellevold. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Sellevold, Bullard and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. Commissioner Neff arrived at 7:15 p.m. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Gilenson referred to Page 2 and requested that his discussion with staff be included verbatim. Page 4, second paragraph, the amount should be 5 million. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of September 2, 1992, with the addition of the verbatim discussion and the correction on Page 4, second by Commissioner Bullard. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 - Ervin S. Palmer - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to allow incidental weekly uses such as: Farmer's Market, Street Fair, Concerts, Art Shows, Car Rallies, Boat Races, Chili Cook -off, Wine Tasting, Arts and Crafts Fair, Fiddlers' Festival, Hang Glider Fly -in, Renaissance Fair, Bungee Jumping and Carnivals at the Elsinore West Marina located at 32700 Riverside Drive, within the Marina Campground. Assistant Planner Villa informed the Commission that the applicant decided to eliminate the Bungee Jumping, Boat Races, Hang Gliding and the Carnivals from the application after being informed of staff's concerns, and seek approval for those that are considered to be minor in nature. He then stated that the proposal was reviewed pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act and determined to be a Class 23, Section 15323, Categorical Exemption. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m., asking for any written communication. The Secretary reported the following written communication: John A. & Margaret E. Clark, 15568 Grand Avenue, expressing concerns with the Concerts and associated noise; trespassing and the disregard for private property quoting past experiences. Indicated that the other examples given seem like a good idea for our community if organized properly. James W. Peyton, E1 Morro Investment Co., Inc., owners of the Butterfield Village Mobilehome Park, 32900 Riverside Drive, next door to Elsinore West Marina, expressing Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 2 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued concern on additional noise, and a deterioration of the adverse effect of property park. traffic, security problems environment as well as an values of everyone in the Letter from Citizens of Butterfield Village Mobilehome Park, (45 signatures) 32900 Riverside Drive, next door to Elsinore West Marina, expressing concern on the increase in crowds, noise, parking problems, access to properties, robberies and vandalism. Chairwoman Brinley brought to the attention of the Commission the memorandum from the Police Department dated 9- 11 -92. At this time, Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. The following people spoke: Mr. Richard Hinton, 32900 Riverside Drive, presented two petitions in favor of the permit. He then informed the Commission that he was a manager for the past four years, up till February of this year, and we have never had any problem. All of the problems we have had in the park have been drive -in. Mr. Kenneth Niemi, 17032 McBride, President of the Lake Elsinore Hang - Gilding Association, stated a few years ago Elsinore West Marina invited us to use their property as a landing facility and in the time that has transpired we have not had one incident that has affected hang - gliders or the community adversely. There has not been any accidents at all and this speaks in favor of the facility of Elsinore Marina West and the people that run the facility. Ms. Terri Schumacher, 17032 McBride, stated that she has been around the Marina - -as far as hang - gliding goes- - since last November, and has not seen any accidents or problems whatsoever. Mr. Ervin Palmer, applicant, stated he has been conduct- ing business for about 15 years, a force in the com- munity--in a sense that we have been launching boats and conducting a good business and brought a lot of tourist into the community - -a positive force in the community. He then stated the loss of water in the lake and along with that our boating has been a real detriment to the entire economic situation. The failure on the part of the water board and others to satisfy this need - -water in the lake, recreation, tourism and so on I think has been a real shortcoming. What we are attempting to do with this program, and we see only part of it here, we are attempting to substitute recreational activities in the area in an attempt to bring tourism back into the City and business back into our park, and to provide recreation of a broad nature for the entire community. Our RV average age, customer base, is in its early fifties. We are not talking about kids or a lot of rock - n- rollers, we are talking about a mature, fairly well to do kind of tourism group that we are hoping to attract. The activities here, how long it has it been since any of you have seen anything at all about a symphonic group of some kind that is going to be playing. This is the quality and kinds of things we are trying to do. We want to bring these people in and do something good for the whole community. Needless to say, it is an attempt to Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued replace the loss we are suffering, because of the lack of the boating - -the boating base and everything that goes with it. Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposed. Mr. Dale Cleveland, spokesman for citizens of Butterfield Village, stated that they have no quarrel with most of the activities next door, and there is just a water channel between us. We are very happy with the way the place is run, but we would have an objection to loud music after 9 or 10:00 p.m, it has happened a couple of time, but it doesn't happen very often. We have no problem with boats, boat racing activities. Our problem number one is the loud music. We wouldn't appreciate a rock group -- anything that would bring in the type of people that their reputation has preceded them. 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 7:32 p.m. Commissioner Bullard - Amphitheater and the direct sound - -what type of theater do you have out there, which way is the openings pointing towards on your theater or where you are going to have your concerts. Mr. Palmer - As far a podium or stadium goes we do not have one. We will, in all likelihood, have a small platform over in the Farmer's Market area where we can have a 2 -3 man combo of some kind. Referring to Exhibit "A ", the Farmer's Market area is in the upper left hand corner, we would have probably some kind of a small combo in that area. Now, that is a long way from Butterfield; as a matter of fact, right next to it is an open field going one -half to three - quarters mile down to Kay's Bar. We also, from time to time, do have music in the Pavilion, which is in the lower area. We have done that off and off a lot of different kind of occasions, a wide variety of music there. That essentially as far as aiming does is down towards the other end of the lake. Commissioner Bullard - it doesn't project the sound over towards Butterfield. Mr. Palmer - No not direct, it aims it the other way. I'm sure, sound is sound it goes in different directions. It certainly isn't aimed toward Butterfield, and as far as hours goes our Farmer's Market is scheduled to run in the mornings, Saturday mornings, and as far as times go, we have been asked to curtail our activities by 9:00 p.m., which is consistent with the schedule that we normally have. We have people in the park who are concerned with the hours of operation as well as our neighbors. Commissioner Bullard - Whether there are plans for rock concerts. Mr. Palmer - No, we do not. I would not rule this out as a possibility, but it would be once a year perhaps twice a year event, if we did it. At the moment it is not on the agenda. Commissioner Bullard - Plans are basically for the classical type music. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 4 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued Mr. Palmer - A little bit of everything - -jazz. Keep in mind that our customer base is in their early fifties and we would be looking to provide entertainment for people at this age. Commissioner Bullard - Vendors for the Farmer's Market, do you have a limitation number in mind? Mr. Palmer - We have two basis different kinds of activity - -a certified Farmer's Market which we hope - -we are signed up to go ahead with, sponsored by a corporation -- essentially a farmers co -op. The farmers themselves are all certified and their farms are examined by the City and they are licensed by the County as well. In addition to that we will have arts and crafts and we have a wide range of different kinds of crafts people. Commissioner Bullard - My main concern is, I do not want to get into a situation like we had years ago with the open air markets -- overcrowding and so forth. I want to make sure it is kept clean and orderly. Mr. Palmer - You don't want the Peddler's Village kind of thing - -the Swap Meet. This is what we are trying to avoid, we do not want that. We will not have any used merchandise of any kind for sale, no hot merchandise. We have to have a good clean show - -that is the intent. Commissioner Bullard - What is your insurance package for- - that you have against liability Mr. Palmer - We turned that over to our insurance agent this morning to review and he stated that most of our existing insurance covers most of the activities that we are talking about doing. Our hang - gliding friends have insurance - -their policy with the City, providing the City coverage as well as our park. So as far as insurance goes, I think this is satisfactory. If the City needs also insured kinds of coverage it will be provided. At this time, Chairwoman Brinley stated she would like to go over the memorandum from the Sheriff's Department: The Police Department will need specific information for each of the special events. We will need the following information: 1. Date and times of events 2. Number and types of vendors 3. Sketch of layout for each event 4. Estimated attendance 5. Any plans involving alcoholic beverages 6. Concerts - type of music 7. Traffic Plan inside the park /entrance and exit to park 8. Plans for crowd control and security Chairwoman Brinley informed Mr. Palmer that these are items that he will need to address with the Police Department, so that they can held maintain security. Mr. Palmer - It is apparent that, and I an not objecting to this if they want it we will do it. We have been in business for about 15 years and 12 of those years we launched boats. We have today over 200 people living in the park and we have 150 sites that we rent on the weekends, which brings in Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 5 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued sometimes up to another 450 people; so we are accustom to handling, for just our camping people, someplace over 600 people on a weekend basis. This does not include boating which we did for many years - -we launched 300 boats a day on a good weekend - -this is what we are trying to replace- -300 boats a day with an average of 3.5 people to a boat. This is another 1,000 people that we cope with, we have done this for years and done it well. Chairwoman Brinley - I assume then you will have no problem with your meeting these conditions. I can see no problem then meeting these things that the police have. Commissioner Sellevold - Basically, it looks like a real good plan and it would be great for Lake Elsinore to have something like this - -bring some tourism back. I really don't see that many things wrong at this point in time. Commissioner Neff - Likewise, I think the City can benefit from a proposal like this with the right kind of guidelines adhered to. I want to focus on a couple of conditions just for the benefit of the audience. So that they know that perhaps some of the what may be a concern or issue I believe is addressed to some extent in the Conditions of Approval, for example: • Item 3, hours operation will be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on days when events will take place. I would Presume that noise control would be mitigated basically through those hours of operation. • Comments given by the Police Department. I was curious to know, if in the past you've retained private security at all for various events and if you propose to do that for any of these that you are proposing here. Mr. Palmer - We have on a contract basis an arrangement with Tri -Lake Security Company, they patrol the park on a regular basis. The owner of the company, Jay Ruby, is an attorney and an ex- policeman and he acts pretty much as a consultant to us on these kinds of affairs. If it is looks as though, in his judgement, we have a need for additional security service he supplies it for us, which is every seldom, I might add. But we do have that professionalism as far as the security field goes that supports what we are doing. Commissioner Neff - I presume there is some flexibility in the Conditions of Approval for the Community Development Manager to review performance over time, and should we get feed back from the community that we are having some security breeches or problems like that, I would imagine then, you would be responsive to those concerns; otherwise the CUP might be jerked. Mr. Palmer - It doesn't do anything for anybody. Commissioner Neff - I was not real clear on exactly how many parking spaces you have allocated, and where you park the vehicles for the boat traffic that comes in on weekends. Historically, where they've parked and where in the future. Mr. Palmer, referring to Exhibit "A"- -area crosshatched is the boat parking area and we have spaces there for 200 vehicles and trailers, approximately 400 vehicles. At this point in time, we are not doing very much with boat races or launching so the parking is available for the other events as they ..........._.... . Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 6 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued happen. Also, indicated the additional areas to be used for parking, and stated that they could easily accommodate up to 500 cars. I don't anticipate that we will have any need for anything of that nature. Commissioner Neff - Vehicle access off of Riverside Drive for weekend events being limited to the one closest to the Farmer's Market? Mr. Palmer - The one closest to the Farmer's market has been blocked off, we simply don't need it. We will open it up for the activities we are talking about here. Now, that still leaves us a second access, referring to Exhibit "A" illustrated location. We do have a guard shack where we can control traffic and customers, if need be. Commissioner Neff - The insurance issue was covered. Question on the insurance, we will have a copy of that - -the certificate with the City - -will the City be named as an additional insured? Mr. Palmer - I think that is the practice, yes. They are already with the hang - gliders, but that is something that they have done with their own organization. I would like to make one point on that, if I may, concerning their involvement in this. They had a regional fly -in, a month or so ago, and it is the maximum kind of thing that they would have as far as people go here in the Southern California area, they attracted 85 of their own folks and virtually no spectators. The only concern that would be with their group is if they have a national fly -in, and in the case of a national fly -in there may be enough people so that we would want to get a special permit for it. But as far as our on -going activities go, it is low key in terms of people and I would hate to have our present arrangement, which has been good for everybody, loused up by what we are doing here. Commissioner Gilenson - Generally, I am against granting a blanket Conditional Use Permit to any facility, I feel that it is setting a precedent for other applicants. I think that granting of a blanket Conditional Use Permit should have some direction from City Council as to whether or not they want blanket Conditional Use Permits issued within the City. Commissioner Gilenson - The letter from the Sheriff's Office, in my opinion in reading it, tends to agree that there shouldn't be a blanket CUP, but there should be a "each event" application so that the Sheriff's Department can know what is going on there, also so that we would know what is going on there. Commissioner Gilenson - In speaking with staff before the meeting, I had brought up two Code Sections of our Municipal Code, Section 5.60 dealing with Outdoor Festivals and 5.73 deals with Special Events. I understand that these two Sections have been changed, although we have not received copies of the change yet. With that said, I also want to ask staff why do we do a blanket CUP, which based on the Code Sections that I have, would seem like we are trying to usurp the Code Sections by granting the blanket CUP. It gives us less control over the event. We do not generate any revenue from it, by granting a blanket. We would generate money from either a Special Event Permit or a Outdoor Festival Event. In light of the budget cuts, from the State and the Feds, I believe the City needs to generate whatever revenue they can, Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 7 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued pursuant to Code, and I feel that we have this Code available to us to generate some revenue and to control the events that go out there. Also, to help the Sheriff's Department keep track of what is going on out there and determine what safety requirements are needed out there. I understand that Mr. Palmer has a consultant who use to be an ex- officer, but still we don't pay that person, we pay the Sheriff's Department to look after the City's best interest not Mr. Palmer's. Commissioner Gilenson - In the Findings, based on what we have in the file, I cannot agree with Findings 2 and 4, based on the letters that we have received from the people of adjoining properties and the seniors that are in the area. I don't believe that we can make Finding 2 and 4, which are: 2) That the requested use, as proposed will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, comfort, and welfare of the persons residing in the neighboring area or the City. 4) That in approving these uses as requested, there will not be an adverse effect on abutting property because the site is already an RV /Recreational Park. That is irrelevant whether its a RV /Recreational Park. The events that Mr. Palmer is suggesting are not normally a part of an RV /Recreational Park. Also, the Staff Report states that these proposed uses are minor in nature. I don't agree with that, I've been to street fairs, car rallies, farmer's market and they have had large attendances. Mr. Palmer is talking about he is use to having 500 -600 people on weekends with the lake and even cutting that in half to 300 doesn't seem like a minor event to me. 300 people, I would feel that we need some type of Sheriff intervention for crowd and traffic control. Commissioner Gilenson reiterated that he would not be in favor of this project. Chairwoman Brinley - question of staff, does not believe we are granting a blanket Conditional Use Permit, are we? The Bungee Jumping and other requires him to get a Special Event Permit. City Planner Christen - Right, but it is a form of an all encompassing situation. What we are trying to deal with is not having Mr. Palmer coming back for every event and trying to be sympathetic to possible hardships that he may have at this point, and in that regard it is sort of all encompassing. Yes, each individual event needs some sort of analysis also. Commissioner Sellevold - asked staff, if he would have to come in every week to get a permit, are we talking lots of time and money, or what is the procedure on that? Community Development Manager Shear - Under the Special Events ordinance there is approximately 30 days lead time. So if he was going to come in every week he would be coming in 30 days prior to that weekend event. As part of the conditions, Condition number 4 states that if he is going to attract more than 100 people he has to notify and obtain the proper clearances from the Fire, Sheriff's, and Health Departments, if he has food involved. So, if this is a small Farmer's Fair that will only be attracting people in the park, may bring out weekenders who bring out their trailers and stay in the park and utilize the Farmer's Fair, there is not going to be much of a major impact, and you would probably stay under that 100 people. If it gets above that then he is going to have to come in an getting clearances for Sheriff's, which is the major one. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 8 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued Commissioner Gilenson - How this is determined? Community Development Manager Shear - Like any event - -even under the Special Event, what they state to us. If they go over that then they can be shut down. Commissioner Neff - Without being the 100 of what the minimum weekend traffic load would be, or Commissioner Gilenson - Is this more than 100 people? Chairwoman Brinley - If I were to go in tomorrow to do a farmer's fair and I put down 100 people, you would be relying on me then if it was going to be above or if you can out there and you see that there is more than 100 people and we have some security provided that Code Enforcement or the Police Department could then be called in or close it down. Community Development Manager Shear - Like any event that we have under the existing ordinances for special events, if the person says that he is going to have 200 people and the Sheriff's Department is anticipating 200 people and they go to the event and there is 600 people and out of control they will shut down the facility. Because they are not equipped to man it, the people who put the event on its way over done, so they would be shut down. Chairwoman Brinley - Automatically? Community Development Manager Shear - Automatically. Commissioner Gilenson - If there was somebody there to enforce it. Community Development Manager Shear - The Sheriff's Depart- ment. Commissioner Gilenson - They are not going to be there. Chairwoman Brinley - Someone could call them. Community Development Manager Shear - The Sheriff's Depart- ment would have to be notified of over 100 people. Chairwoman Brinley - Asked Mr. Palmer if he understands that anytime he has this event, the Farmer's Fair, you will have to notify the Police Department, approximately 100 people. Mr. Palmer - If that 100 people level is adhered to, then would like to ask that it be changed - -if adhered to, we are out of business. We will get 100 people at any one of these Farmer's Fair in the course of a day. We are a business in the area seeking to expand our endeavors, and we are doing it in a straight forward positive way. We are looking to accommodate 1,000 people a weekend, over and above our normal. Chairwoman Brinley - You are looking to accommodate 1,000 people. Mr. Palmer - This is correct and with our own staff. We have done this for 12 years, already. City Planner Christen - I think that we would try to look at some sort of method of - -if there is going to be more than 100 people that it somehow, per that approval, occurs at staff Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 9 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued level including Police Department, Fire Department, Public Safety, or whatever but rather than having to go to hearing each time and lengthy staff reports and so forth. Chairwoman Brinley - In other words, just deal at staff level. City Planner Christen - Granted you would still - -may have some time delay if you are going to get some response from the Police Department. Mr. Palmer - This is why we have our police force, we employee these people because the Sheriff is just not effective. Chairwoman Brinley - Part of the conditions are that you contact the Police Department. Mr. Palmer - this I can do, and there is no problem with that. Chairwoman Brinley - and you do use police security in there. Community Development Manager Shear - It is not stating that he has to use the Sheriff's Department on a contractual basis. Like most events, the Sheriff's Department will check who he is using as private security; they will run checks on everybody to make sure they are who they are, and do what they are. The Sheriff may say that they need 5 more people to help him man that and they would give him that direction. City Planner Christen - A similar response as to what you have there, of their concerns. Commissioner Gilenson - That is why I suggested through the Special Events Permit- -that doesn't come back to Commission. That is through the City Manager's office, strictly administrative with the City Manager or his designee giving the approval. Chairwoman Brinley - But on special activities doesn't it also have to go before Council. Community Development Manager Shear - as the ordinance is changed, there is a committee set -up of Council and special events, temporary outdoor activities will all encompass in one ordinance. There is not two, it goes to Council committee or Council on every activity. Commissioner Gilenson - These are all wrong, then? Community Development Manager Shear - Right, those ordinances are null and void. Commissioner Gilenson - Why haven't we been updated? Community Development Manager Shear - Check with the City Clerk's office. Commissioner Sellevold - Condition number 4 is, basically 100 people over his normal everyday use, is this how I'm reading this? Commissioner Neff - That was my understanding. Mr. Palmer - That must have been a typo, I think that it should be a 1,000. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 10 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued City Planner Christen - No, it is 100. Assistant Planner Villa - 100 above normal operations. Commissioner Sellevold - It really doesn't state that if it is 100 people for 1 hour or 100 people for 15 minutes. If he is having a farmer's market it looks like it is only going to be a half block long, how long could 1 person be there? 25 -30 minutes and walk through it and they are going to leave. It looks like - -the gentleman is talking maybe 1,000 people a day that doesn't mean that we are going to have 1,000 people there at 8:00 in the morning and all day. Chairwoman Brinley - Talking about total circulation. Commissioner Sellevold - Total circulation, so are we going to need to have him spend more money for security because he anticipates a 1,000 people a day. Commissioner Gilenson - Using this as a window -its not just a Farmer's Fair. A Farmer's Fair is just one section, he is going to have a crafts fair in another section, a jazz band set -up in another section. Chairwoman Brinley and Commissioner Sellevold - Not on the same day. Commissioner Gilenson - On the weekend. Chairwoman Brinley - Asked Mr. Palmer if he was going to have all of these activities on the same day, all at once. Mr. Palmer - Afraid not, no. The intent is that we have certified Farmer's Market, which we contract with the farmers - -a select list so we get a balance of product. They would be there every Saturday for a year. In addition to that, each Saturday - -don't know whether they can do this every Saturday or not, but it is my desire each Saturday we have in addition to that arts and craftsmen, perhaps an art show and I would like to see a little bit of music every week - -not talking a symphonic orchestra, I talking about a guitar player maybe. Chairwoman Brinley - What we are trying to address here is, if you are planning to have all of these events going on on a Saturday -- having your Farmer's Market, classical music and classical jazz, and then you are also going to be having possibly an art show on the sam days, we are looking at over 100 people and this is what we are saying that you need to have more security for public safety. That is what we are trying to clear up, are you going to be running multiple activities on Saturday and Sunday or are you going to be rotating those activities? Mr. Palmer - With the Farmer's Market every Saturday. Chairwoman Brinley - The Farmer's Market is going to be there every Saturday and then there will be one other activity running with it. Mr. Palmer - We might have the Farmer's Market and guitar player along with maybe an art show or along with craftsmen. I like the idea of a little bit of music along with the Farmer's Market. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 11 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued Commissioner Gilenson - It goes from 1 to maybe 4 different events. Chairwoman Brinley - We are talking about the security and public safety. In other words, how many people - -you would have to be - -in other words, what we are asking - -you would need do - -what I believe we need to do or have it in here that you would be notifying the Police Department each week of the activities that would be taking place that weekend. Giving them enough response time to get back to you and tell you how much security you are going to need to provide for that weekend. Mr. Palmer - Would be glad to. Chairwoman Brinley - Would like to see this made as a condition, condition number 11. In other words, if you knew by Monday morning you would need to submit to the Police Department the activities that will be going on the following Saturday, so that they would have enough time to respond back your security needs for that event. Mr. Palmer - Would be glad to do it, yes. I think that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I will be glad to do it. Chairwoman Brinley - This is one of the things that they are asking for anyway, and it helps provide for proper security for the events. You can kind of judge, you will know what activity is going to draw more people. Mr. Palmer - Would like to suggest something else to, my understanding of this is, that for the boat races, carnival particularly we would be applying for the one shot deal on the Special Event. On the Bungee Jumping, I understand that this is now licensed by the State and no longer a consideration in this. Chairwoman Brinley - The Bungee Jumping, we would really have no control that goes back to the Council's special committee that would be issuing permits and we would have nothing to do with that. Commissioner Sellevold - Lets forget about the Conditional Use Permit for a second, if you were running your park - -your marina, how many people could you put in it on an average weekend - -not average, I mean if you filled it full when would you have to turn people away? Mr. Palmer - About 650. Commissioner Sellevold - 650 people or 650 units. Mr. Palmer - 650 people. We have 300 RV sites. I might mention that I am paying a business license /permit for those. Commissioner Sellevold - 300 RV sites, how many boats, can you bring more boats in on a weekend. I am asking for a total amount of people. Mr. Palmer - 1,700. Commissioner Sellevold - 1,700 and we are talking basically maybe 1,000 people a day for these special events. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 12 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued Mr. Palmer - 1,700 people could reasonably be in out park and was in our park 2 years ago on a Saturday and Sunday during the summer months. This is what I am accustom to working with. Commissioner Bullard - What we are trying to do is get a clarification on your capacity as a business and as our item 4 here says above normal operations of 100 people. If your maximum is 1,750 people and this permit comes in you could have 1,850 people there before you would have to notify Riverside County Fire and Sheriff, this is the way I understand it, and what we are trying to clarify. Mr. Palmer - If that is the understanding. Commissioner Gilenson - That is ridiculous. Commissioner Sellevold - Why is it ridiculous - -if he runs a business and if that is what he can hold now without security and without special concerns. Commissioner Gilenson - You are talking two different things- - pulling a trailer in there and parking for the weekend or going to an event -- Farmer's Market, jazz concert - -that is two different ball games. Commissioner Sellevold - No it is not. Chairwoman Brinley - He is already use to dealing with - -2 years ago he was dealing with 1,700 people coming in to launch and stay there. Mr. Palmer - 10 years on a weekend basis. Chairwoman Brinley - Then again, he had no problem with the condition I wanted added in there notifying the Police Department. Mr. Palmer - If you insist on it then we will do it. Not because it makes any sense, not because there is anything that they will need to do. But if it is a formality that I have to go through, I'll do it gladly and do it well. Commissioner Sellevold - Do you see where I'm coming from - -if he can handle that many people himself we are just adding more work and problems for the City to deal with. He is handling that now, and if the economy was up and he was handling that every weekend now, I don't see why'we would have to make him do more than what he is doing now. Chairwoman Brinley - Where the Farmer's Fair Market is to be, what kind of stalls, are they going to be temporary, are they going to be there all of the time - -what are we looking at, are we looking at something that is going to be under construction? Mr. Palmer - They are temporary and they are there just for the duration - -the farmers each bring their own. Chairwoman Brinley - In other words, when they leave that evening, after the event, they will be taking everything with them. Mr. Palmer - There are 50 -75 of these fairs going on in the Southern California area. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 13 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued Chairwoman Brinley - Nothing will be left up during the week- - that is what I want, that they will be taken down at that point. Mr. Palmer - Absolutely not. Chairwoman Brinley - Riverside Drive, I do not want to see any parking on Riverside Drive. I want to see it all on -site, and this added as a condition. Mr. Palmer - It is posted and we have an entrance and exit right next to the park. Chairwoman Brinley - Expecting with your security that this does not occur and would like to put this as a condition that there will be no parking on Riverside Drive on either side of the street. This is a hazard with people crossing the street. Mr. Palmer - Agrees with this completely. Chairwoman Brinley - In the front on Riverside Drive where the fair is to take place, the fencing. Would like to see some kind of fencing, because you will be having children in there and being as Riverside Drive is a busy thoroughfare there I have visions of a child getting away and running out into the street. For public safety, I think that this is one issue that needs to be addressed - -the type of fencing to be put up to contain the people on this side. Mr. Palmer - Asked about the use of something called snow fencing, temporary fencing arrangement. Chairwoman Brinley - Since it does face - -has a visual impact on the City because you are coming down a major thoroughfare there would like to see something nice out there. Mr. Palmer - This would be during the hours of the fair. Assistant Planner Villa stated we could add a condition to alleviate the concern, to provide a fence entirely around the perimeter of the Farmer's Market area. Chairwoman Brinley - Temporary fencing, and that would be like - -I'm not familiar with the snow fencing at all. Are you talking about the aluminum slats that go down. Mr. Palmer - These are wood slats, they are maybe 2 -3 inches wide, and the fence itself about yea high, and the slats are just vertical and the fence all rolls up. Chairwoman Brinley asked if this would be acceptable to the other Commissioners and staff. Commissioner Gilenson stated he had no comment and the other Commissioners and staff stated that this fencing was acceptable. Chairwoman Brinley stated that she would like to see this added as a condition, and this shall be maintained during the hours of operation of the Farmer's Market. Chairwoman Brinley - I was at the facility the other day. Asked if the classical concerts are to be held at the Club- house. Asked Mr. Palmer if he had read the Conditions of Approval, stating that the only music that could be played there is classical music and classical jazz. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 14 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued Mr. Palmer - I would like a little more leeway, if we can- - that is our intent, but we are looking at other things too. If you want to exclude rock music /rock concerts that would be fine. City Planner Christen - Believe you could say what isn't allow as opposed to what is allowed. You could say no heavy metal hard rock, rap. Mr. Palmer - I would like to be in a position to approach Council for special permission for that kind of thing. Chairwoman Brinley - You would have to approach Council, that would be Special Activity. So at this point, we would be looking at no heavy metal, rap, or hard rock. City Planner Christen - Rather than add condition number 11, could we just beef up number 4 to do the same thing. Chairwoman Brinley - That was fine. Chairwoman Brinley - Traffic circulation upon leaving and entering - -there will be an attendant there to assist with traffic, am I correct in assuming that you will have someone there to make sure - -and I'm talking about exiting. What I would like to see done here is, that we have the exiting done totally to the right. Mr. Palmer - What about a sign that says right turn only. Chairwoman Brinley - That is true, but sometimes you need to have an attendant there. Mr. Palmer - If we put this in as a condition can spell out when this person will be there and under what conditions. Chairwoman Brinley - He will be there under your operational hours -- probably, during the working hours -- didn't you say the fair was going to be starting at 9:00 in the morning. Mr. Palmer - 8:00 in the morning to 9:00 at night. Commissioner Neff - Wouldn't that be related to the special events and the traffic control plan that he would review with the Kevin, or not. Chairwoman Brinley - Basically no, I don't think so, it would be a problem with the Farmer's Market and people would be coming and leaving out of there. My concern is that people leaving are not holding up and rushing out there and causing a traffic accident. That they exit to the right and that you have an attendant during that time just to make sure that traffic flows. What we are trying to decide here are the hours - -what do you feel? Asked Mr. Palmer what time the market opened. Mr. Palmer - From 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.- -9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Chairwoman Brinley - The Farmer's Market will be closed down by 1:00 or 2:00. Mr. Palmer - It is a tentative 4 hours, but hoping that we will have some other activities going on there so that it will go till maybe mid - afternoon. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 15 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued Commissioner Neff - As need requires- -that is real subjective I realize, but Chairwoman Brinley - Could we put as needed to be required, Robert. Commissioner Bullard - I'm still thinking on that and it should be as required and I think the Sheriff's office would be involved in that type of decision to. Chairwoman Brinley - That is true they will be, but I would just like to put it as per requirement. How would we word this? Commissioner Bullard - Each day could be different -- different hours for each day and I think Chairwoman Brinley - Could we put the requirement in, but leave it at the police's discretion of when. Commissioner Bullard - As a judgement call by Mr. Palmer and his security, and by placing a right turn only sign onto Riverside Drive on your private property. Chairwoman Brinley - Lets put a condition in there then, right turn only sign be posted Saturday and Sunday only. Community Development Manager Shear - You can put on one of those traffic control A -frame devices, sit it in the lane that normally people who try to go straight make a left put it in that lane there and force them to make the right hand turn. Chairwoman Brinley - You understand what he is talking about, Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer - No. Chairwoman Brinley - You put in right turn in on Saturday and Sunday, which means you can remove the sign Sunday evening after everyone has left. Mr. Palmer - Do it just during the time of the activity. Chairwoman Brinley - Yes, during the activity - -any activity that you have planned for either Saturday or Sunday you must have your sign up that says right turn only onto Riverside Drive and this added as condition 13. Chairwoman Brinley - When I was out there viewing your property I assume when I was, Armando will you show him on the map, the area where you told he that the fair and carnivals was going to - -down there by that little inlet that he has, which' I think is very nice picnic tables. Now, that area there, this is where you are going to have the carnivals, cook -off. Mr. Palmer - If we were going to have a carnival it would probably be in that area, that is correct - -yes. Chairwoman Brinley - While I was there I noticed that you had trailers and some - -a couple of trailers, a truck and a fifth - wheeler I believe on the back - -the back of the truck and a storage bend. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 16 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued Assistant Planner Villa utilizing Exhibit "A" illustrated the location being discussed. Commissioner Bullard - The other area looked like the landing field for the hang - gliders. Mr. Palmer - Yeah, the other area is hang - gliding landing area, but the area you are talking about here - -yes, there are some street vehicles stored up along the top. Those would be moved. Chairwoman Brinley - Those will be removed. Mr. Palmer - Yeah, they won't be there during the course of this activity. Chairwoman Brinley - Would like to add this in as a condition that they do be moved out of that area, because there was a storage bend, a couple of trailers, a truck and I believe a trailer was connected to the back of that or something, so as a condition. Mr. Palmer - it is property -- people that are gone for 2 -3 or a month or two and they come back and we just store them there while they are gone. Chairwoman Brinley - Lets find another area - -that is an area that you are going to need to correct. Mr. Palmer - That we can do - -no problem at all. Commissioner Neff - Just another question, I am curious, I don't know that we have any other active theater group in Lake Elsinore area and you have considered that as one of the activities. I see on the map itself, it says Hamlet on the Green. Have you investigated the possibility of plays or summer stock. Mr. Palmer - I have been interested in promoting a summer stock kind of a activity in Lake Elsinore, not necessarily to be done in our park, cause we don't have the facilities for the whole thing. But I would like to find a little barn someplace so that we can do the whole thing the way they do back in New England. This is what I would like to do, but that would be a separate enterprise from what we are talking here. To the extend that we can have things like the Hamlet on the Green - -we can do that. A full blow enterprise would be a lot of fun, but we don't have the capacity for it here. Chairwoman Brinley - Armando, can you tell me the area so that I can pin point this down in this condition - -to remove the storage from area, what is that area right in there called or numbered? City Planner Christen - It is about where it says Street Fair, referring to Exhibit "A ". Mr. Palmer - Right along the fence there right along those trees is where she is talking about - -yeah, there and over to the left. They're an eyesore, I would agree to that - -we would want to get those out of there. Chairwoman Brinley - The others that I had here was - -don't know if it has been addressed -- regarding restrooms, how many do you have on site? How many stalls in each building? Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 17 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued Mr. Palmer - Two buildings. We have in the men's building behind the Pavilion, there are 3 stalls and 2 urinals for men and there are 4 stalls for women. In the other restroom Chairwoman Brinley - How about something that would be close to the Farmer's Market? Do you have anything that would be available to them without having Mr. Palmer - The other restroom, I don't know what the count is on that one but it is larger. Chairwoman Brinley - Would you point out for the audience where the Farmer's Fair would be located and then the restrooms again are right up there. Mr. Palmer - The State or County - -we have to license to have something like Chairwoman Brinley - Yes, they will give you the actual number. Mr. Palmer - Is concerned about that, yes and they do meet the requirements I might add. Chairwoman Brinley - Gentlemen are there any other questions that you would like to ask Mr. Palmer this evening. Commissioner Sellevold - None here. Chairwoman Brinley - Any further discussion on this matter at this time. I think that we have covered everything, thank you Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer - May I make one comment on one of the letters you got about security. I think one is appropriate from the man that owns Butterfield and he was talking about people jumping over the fence and that sort of thing. Chairwoman Brinley - We don't have that letter sir - -that was just a comment we heard - -it came to us I believe it was just- - I only heard - -are we talking about people jumping over the fence and supposedly Mr. Palmer - Yes, and the only comment that I would like to make is that the folks from Butterfield are in a problem as we are having a problem, as many other businesses up and down Riverside Drive are having a problem with thief, with minor things being stolen, with a bunch of rather shabby kinds of folks that are up and down there that have been driven out of downtown; so we are told, when the downtown are increased their police coverage. We all have a concern about that and Butterfield has expressed their concerns to be about it to, but we don't claim to have any responsibility for any of that. Chairwoman Brinley - Any further discussion. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD MOVED TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92 -8 AT ELSINORE WEST MARINA WITH THE CHANGES TO CONDITION NUMBER 1 WITH NO HARD ROCK MUSIC AND ALL THAT; NUMBER 4, TO READ ABOVE NORMAL- -MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE ABOVE NORMAL APPLICATION AND THEN ALSO TO HAVE THE POLICE NOTICED THAT NUMBER 4 CONDITION NOTICE TO THE POLICE OKAY; CONDITION NUMBER 11, BE THE TEMPORARY SNOW FENCE FOR THE HOURS OF OPERATION ON RIVERSIDE DRIVE; CONDITION NUMBER 12, NO PARKING ON RIVERSIDE Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1992 Page 18 Conditional Use Permit 92 -8 Continued DRIVE; CONDITION NUMBER 13, RIGHT TURN ONLY ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY ONLY WHICH WOULD BE A TEMPORARY SIGN DURING OPERATIONAL HOURS; CONDITION NUMBER 14, ALL STORAGE WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE STREET FAIR AREA. Chairwoman Brinley - the only thing that I would like to add to condition number 4, at this point, was the part about the notification to the Police Department on Monday for the following Saturday activities. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF. Chairwoman Brinley asked for any further discussion. There being no further discussion she called for the question. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Sellevold Glad that somebody is bringing some other things to the City, thinks this is a good idea and glad that we approved it. Commissioner Neff stated that he agrees to, and with the proper controls as we have outlined in the conditions, I think this could be an inspiration to the community. Chairwoman Brinley Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m., motion by Commissioner Bullard, second by Commissioner Sellevold. Approved 5 -0 Respectfully Su mitted, Ain Grindstaff Secretary Pamela Bri ley V Chairwoman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Neff. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Sellevold, Bullard and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Associate Planner De Gange and Assistant Planner Villa. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Neff requested the following corrections: Page 5, 4th paragraph, 4 line: correct typographical error. Page 5, 8th paragraph: My intent was, I presume there is some flexibility in the Conditions of Approval for the Community Development Manager to review performance over time, and should we get feed back from the community that we are having some security breeches or problems like that, I would imagine then, you would be responsive to those concerns; otherwise the CUP might be jerked. Page 6, 4th paragraph, 3 line: correct typographical error. Page 16, 10th paragraph, last sentence: My intent was, Have you investigated the possibility of plays or summer stock. Page 18, correct Second: Second by Neff. Motion by Commissioner Bullard to approve Minutes of September 16, 1992, with the above corrections, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Sign Program for Commercial Project 89 -1 (Ritz Garden Plaza) - Associate Planner De Gange presented a request for a Sign Program and a freestanding monument sign for Ritz Garden Plaza, located at 265 San Jacinto River Road. He then requested that Section 2.D. be amended as follows: Letters shall be maximum of 18" in height. Each tenant shall have a maximum of 1 square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of leased width. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Ray Bush, representing Artech Signs, stated the applicant is also requesting signage facing the freeway. He further stated that they are in agreement with the conditions. Commissioner Bullard commented on the width of signage from the building, and this not being current with the recently approved Sign Code, Section 17.94.170. Would like to see if this can be reduced to meet the six -inch requirement. Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1992 Page 2 Sian Program for Commercial Project 89 -1 Continued Discussion ensued on the width of signage and race -way; race- way to match the building; design of building requiring the construction of the race -way to house electrical and transformers. Commissioner Sellevold commented on Section 2.D. of the Sign Criteria, regarding maximum height and requested a uniform size. He then suggested the following language be added to Section 2.D and Condition number l.c.: All letters shall be eighteen inches in height or two rows totaling eighteen inches. Commissioner Neff commented on condition number 5, regarding the planter and whether this will have irrigation. Commissioner Gilenson suggested that condition number 5 be incorporated into the Sign Criteria, add as 2.I.7 and also moved to Condition 1.d. He then suggested that condition number 2 be amended as follows: Any amendment to the approved Sign Criteria shall be submitted by the master developer or center owner, individual tenants shall not be allowed to submit amendments, in writing for review and approval by the Community Development Manager. Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion on the applicant's request for signage on the second floor facing the freeway. Commissioner Neff stated this is addressed by condition number 1.b. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO APPROVE THE SIGN PROGRAM AND THE FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGN FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -1 BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 1.c.: Add to Section 2.D. that if a tenant space has more than one frontage, these frontages may not be combined to permit a larger sign than what is permitted for any one building frontage. Letters shall be maximum of 18" in height. Each tenant shall have a maximum of 1 square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of leased width. All letters shall be eighteen inches in height or two rows totaling eighteen inches. l.d: A 100 square foot planter with a minimum dimension of five feet (51) shall be provided at the base of the monument sign. The landscape plan for the planter area shall be consistent with the overall project landscaping scheme and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager or designee. Plans must be approved prior to issuance of building or sign permits. Condition No. 2: Any amendment to the approved Sign Criteria shall be submitted by the master developer or center owner, individual tenants shall not be allowed to submit amendments, in writing for review and approval by the Community Development Manager. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Bullard voting no) Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1992 Page 3 2. Residential Project 92 -4 and Models - Tava Development - Assistant Planner Villa presented for Design Review two (2) model homes (model complex will be built on Lots 2, 3 and 4 of TM 24213 -1), and plotting for Phase One. The site is located approximately 1/4 mile east of the intersection of Lincoln and Grand Avenue. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Scott Allen, Tava Development, stated they are satisfied with the Conditions of Approval with the exception of two conditions. He then requested clarification on condition number 21.g., pertaining to Xeriscape, and stated they plan on using drought tolerant plants, sod, and automatic irrigation. Chairwoman Brinley defined the use of Xeriscape landscaping, and asked if landscape plans have been submitted. Mr. Allen responded in the negative. Assistant Planner Villa stated the condition calls for Xeri- scape, but this was discussed with the City's Landscape Architect and he agreed that it was not necessary for two models. If they were to submit another model they would have to provide Xeriscape. Mr. Allen then questioned condition number 26, regarding fencing. He requested this condition be excluded, so that the fence can be placed on the curb and the sidewalk used for circulation within the model complex. Commissioner Neff inquired about the location of the models, and then commented on: • condition number 21, suggested combination drip and /or conventional irrigation. • condition 21.a., regarding street trees, whether this is a standard condition. Community Development Manager Shear responded this is a standard condition. • condition 23, fencing not visible from the right -of -way, may be wood. Whether the wood fence is to be painted or left natural. Community Development Manager Shear responded that wood fences not visible from the right -of -way are not required to be painted or stained. condition 26, regarding applicant's request on fencing. Depending on the circulation, pedestrian traffic, it doesn't seem that the location would be a concern. Community Development Manager Shear suggested adding language subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager and City Engineer. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 4, and suggested that where it refers to approval of the Community Development Manager that it be changed to Planning Commission. Considerable discussion ensued on condition number 4, pertain- ing to Commissioner Gilenson's request to amend; definition of major and minor alterations and who determines, and giving the Community Development Manager discretion up to a certain Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1992 Page 4 Residential Project 92 -4 and Models Continued percentage for change of total mix and establishing a standard percentage; the need for flexibility due to the market. Commissioner Gilenson commented on: condition 21.d., should reflect one year. condition 21.g., this is being stricken, correct? condition number 26, suggested amendment to read: Tubular steel fence that surrounds models shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager and City Engineer or designees, prior to issuance of building permit, and shall be removed prior to residential occupancy of the model home. Chairwoman Brinley asked for clarification on condition number 26. Community Development Shear stated that before the models can be occupied the tubular fence will have to be removed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -4 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Condition No. 21. All front yards and side yards on corner lots shall be properly landscaped with automatic (manual or electric) irrigation system to provide 100% plant and grass coverage using a combination of drip and /or conventional irrigation methods. The final landscaping/ irrigation plan is to be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and the Community Development Manager or designee. A Landscape Plan Check Fee will be charged prior to final landscape approval based on the Consultant's fee plus forty percent (40 %). Condition No. 21.d: All landscape improvements on the model home complex shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of land - scape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year. Condition No. 21.g: ene of the prepesed lets of the ;aaa�l eemplex shall ? ha Xeri seape i and ci nnneje identifying previded 3n� DELETE Condition No. 26: Tubular steel fence that surrounds models shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager and City Engineer or designees, prior to issuance of building permit, and shall be removed prior to residential occupancy of the model home. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1992 Page 5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Commented on the letter received from Princess Mirara of the Reconnaissance Group. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Moved for adjournment. Chairwoman Brinle Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:06 p.m., motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 5 -0 Respectfully S bmitted, Linda Grindstaff Secretary Ap ro ed, Pamela Brin ey Chairwom n MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 21ST DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:10 P.M. OCTOBER 1992 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Sellevold. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Sellevold, 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 Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Sellevold to approve Minutes of October 7, 1992, with the following correction: Page 1, last paragraph - Section 17.94.160 should be 17.94.170. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 92 -3 and Zone Code Amendment 92 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore - A General Plan Amendment to implement the "Historic Downtown Land Use Plan", and Zone Code Amendment establishing the Historic Downtown Overlay District and the associated Historic Downtown Design Standards. The area is generally bounded to the north by Collier Avenue and Inter- state 15, to the south by Lakeshore Drive, the west by Chaney Street, and the east by Grove Avenue, Conklin Avenue and Rupard Street. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 AND ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 TO DECEMBER 2, 1992. Approved 5 -0 2. Annexation 64, General Plan Amendment 92 -2, and Zone Change 92 -5 - William and Rosalyne Hall (Entec Consultants, Inc.) - Annexation and prezoning of 87 acres, and an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map changing a total of 33 acres from Freeway Business and Business Park to General Commercial. The site is located at the northwestern corner of Central Avenue and Dexter Avenue. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF TO CONTINUE ANNEXATION 64, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -2, AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -5 TO DECEMBER 2, 1992. Approved 5 -0 3. Annexation 52 Revised, General Plan Amendment 92 -1, and Zone Change 92 -2 - Hunsaker & Associates (Robert R. Dyer and Linda D. Wynn) - Associate Planner De Gange presented a request for Annexation of 140 acres; General Plan Amendment changing 20 acres from Very Low Density to Low Medium Density; Zone Change 92 -2 to pre -zone 140 acres to: 20 acres of R -1 (Single - Family Residential) and 120 acres of R -R (Rural Residential). The site is bounded by Scenic Crest Drive to the north, Ramsgate Specific Plan Area to the west and south, and Tuscany Hills Specific Plan Area to the east. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1992 Page 2 ANNEXATION 52 REVISED, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -1, AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -2 CONTINUED Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:17 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. William Grimes, of J.F. Davidson, representing Wynn /Dyer, stated they have reviewed the Staff Report and concur with staff recommendation. 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 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Neff asked to be excused due to possible conflict of interest. Chairwoman Brinley asked for discussion at the table, there being no discussion she called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -8. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Neff excused) MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION 52 REVISED BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Neff excused) MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMEND- MENT 92 -1 AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -2 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 92 -7, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 92 -7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -1 FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1990 GENERAL PLAN TO REDESIGNATE 20 ACRES FROM VERY LOW DENSITY TO LOW MEDIUM DENSITY Commissioner Gilenson commented on Page 2 of the Resolution recommending that the roll call vote be changed to electronic vote. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for the question. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Neff excused) At this time, Commissioner Neff returned to the table. BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Residential Project 92 -5 - Premier Homes - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Design Review of 5 model homes Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1992 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -5 CONTINUED on a portion of Tract 22912, and plotting approval. The site is located on Lincoln Street northwest of Machado and south- east of Grand Avenue. He then presented an Amendment to the Staff Report modifying section of said report, and amending condition number 8 and adding condition number 30. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the model plans and inquired as to why an enhanced model is not being provided, and suggested a scaled down model be displayed in the sales office. Commissioner Neff commented on condition number 30, with regard to the trail system and how this connects with the rest of the community, and storm drain connections. Commissioner Bullard commented on the decorative block wall to be constructed along the trail system, condition number 8, and referred to Exhibit "F ". Concern is that the passage or fencing is installed to the request of the residents in that area. Commissioner Sellevold commented on the decorative block wall and the six -foot wide opening and location, condition number 8. Requested a condition be added that if the wall is taken down it will be replaced with a certain type gate or something that looks good. Discussion ensued on the six -foot decorative wall with regard to the number of openings, location, the removal of said wall and the need for a triggering mechanism, and amending condi- tion by adding "prior to removal, a plan must receive approval from the Community Development Manager ". The need to define condition number 8.b. and 8.c with regard to the wall, and the applicant meeting with the property owners to see if an alternative fence /wall would be acceptable. Commissioner Sellevold commented on condition number 7, whether this is to match the existing fence, suggested amending the condition to match existing fencing. Condition number 30.a., with regard to the three -foot block wall along Shirley continuing all the way to the property line, and 30.d, with regard to the waist -high peeler post or log fence to be constructed from the trail east to Lot 28 and connect to the trail. Mr. Doug Woodward, stated that he believes Lot 28 is now Lot 39. Discussion ensued on condition number 30.d., regarding type of fencing to be provided, where the block wall would stop and this being subject to approval of the Community Development Manager or designee. Plotting on Lot 40 and rear yard privacy. Commissioner Sellevold then commented on the statistical summary with regard to square footage and percentage, and the elevations illustrating only two -car garages. Discussion ensued on the six -foot decorative block wall to be constructed along the trail system, condition number 8; whether there is a Homeowner's Association; the location of the opening being left up to the homeowner /property owner, and adding a condition that Premier Homes or the homeowner assume responsibility. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1992 Page 4 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -5 CONTINUED It was the consensus of the Commission to condition the proposal to petition the Community Development Manager or designee for an opening or an alternative to the opening. Commissioner Bullard stated he would like to add a condition that Premier Homes petition the homeowners, that this will affect, for their input and bring back to the Community Development Manager for approval. Doug Woodward, Premier Homes, questioned condition number 9, pertaining to the treatment of windows and requested that this apply to the upper level homes, Plan 3. He then questioned condition number 24.a., regarding placement of street trees and 24.d, regarding landscape bonding. Discussion ensued on condition number 9, amending to reflect visibility from public right -of -way; condition number 24.a, amend by adding language subject to the approval of City's Landscape Architect and Community Development Manager, and clarification was given on condition number 24.d. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Approval is for Plotting on 92 lots. Condition No. 7: A six foot (61) high decorative block wall with pilasters shall be constructed along the boundary line of Lincoln Street to match existing block wall that is in place now, in that from the park through the Fire Station is subject to the Community Development Manager's approval. Condition No. 8: As approved by the City Council, Determi- nation of Substantial Conformance of Revised Tentative Tract Map 22912 on September 12, 1989, the following conditions shall be fully complied with: a) A six foot (61) high decorative wall shall be constructed on Terra Cotta Road along the La Laguna line from Lincoln to Approximately "A" now Versailles Street. From approxi- mately "A" now Versailles Street to Terra Cotta, the wall shall be stepped down from six feet (61) to three (31) feet. b) Provide for a six foot (6') wide opening in the six foot (61) high block wall along the rear property lines of the existing parcels located between La Gaye and Pierre, in order to provide for future access to an existing fifteen foot (151) easement for a multi - purpose trail. However, staff recommends that the opening be either blocked or contain cold joints to allow for future removal of the wall section upon such time that the trail easement is actually utilized. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1992 Page 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -5 CONTINUED C) Provide a six foot (61) wide opening at the existing private easement at the rear property line of existing parcels between La Gaye and Zieglinde to provide access to the sixteen foot (161) equestrian trail. d) Continue the trail easement northerly along Terra Cotta to its junction with Washington Avenue. In addition to the extension, the applicant shall stop the three (31) high block wall approximately three (3) feet short of the property boundary at Washington to provide for access from an existing easement. e) Construct a six foot (6') high wall, instead of wood fence, along the west side of the sixteen foot (161) wide equestrian trail running along Terra Cotta from "A" now Versailles Street to Washington Avenue. f) Prior to construction of the six - foot decorative block wall Premier Homes shall petition the neighboring property owners on La Gaye, Saint Pierre, Shirley and Zieglinde to determine the design. If any property owner wishes to alter the construction of the block wall (by placing an opening or alternative to the opening) they must submit a plan and receive approval from the Community Development Manager. Condition No. 9: All windows larger than one foot (11) by one foot (11) on all side and rear elevations visible from public right -of- way, with the exceptions of those windows already utilizing treatments such as ledges or mullions, shall incorporate stucco surrounds. Condition No. 24.a: Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City's Street Tree List, a maximum of thirty -feet (301) apart and at least twenty- four -inch (2411) box in size, subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Architect and Community Development Manager. Condition No. 30: a) The three -foot (31) high block wall was along Shirley Drive should continue all the way to the property line, as previously proposed. b) A sidewalk should be constructed along the west side of the proposed wall adjacent to Shirley Drive from the property boundary to the terminus at Washington Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1992 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 92 -5 CONTINUED c) A six -foot (6') wide opening should be provided to the sidewalk and the trail at the northwest corner of the property. d) A waist -high peeler post or log fence should be constructed from the trail east to Lot 28 (now Lot 39) and connecting the trail to Washing- ton Avenue, subject to the approval of the Community Development Manager. Approved 5 -0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS City Planner Christen informed the Commission of the Joint Study Session to be held on Laguna Heights, which is scheduled for October 27, 1992, at 4:00 p.m., at Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Board Room, 31315 Chaney Street. Commissioner Neff stated that he has a conflict with the date and would get with Mr. Christen. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Neff Informed the Commission that the Economic Development Corporation is sponsoring a luncheon on October 23, 1992, from 11:30 to 1:30, at the Temecula Creek Inn, and gave details. Commissioner Bullard Attended and enjoyed the League of California Cities Conference in Los Angeles, October 10 -13th, the programs were very educational. Commissioner Sellevold Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m., motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 5 -0 Respectfully Submitted, Ap ov , L'nda Grindstaff Pam rinley, Secretary' Chairwoman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING CON NOVEMBER 4, 1992 THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 4, 1992, WAS CALLED FOR LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. Respectfully /su�Jmitted\ Linda Gristaff Planning C ommission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Neff. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Sellevold; Bullard and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, Associate Planner De Gange, Assistant Planner Villa, and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Sellevold, Second by Commissioner Neff to approve Minutes of October 21, 1992, as submitted, and to receive and file Minutes of November 4, 1992. Approved: 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. 404 $X A *,1'4k*f -_y 1. Tentative Financial Parcel Map 27291 Revised - Long Beach Equities - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to divide approximately 500 acres into three parcels for conveyance purposes only. The site is located on the north side of the intersection of Interstate 15 and Lake Street. This proposal has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and determined to be exempt. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:10 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, of Long Beach Equities, gave a brief history on the proposal, detailing past and future endeavors. He then questioned condition number 4 with regard to bonding for monumentation and requested that this condition be postponed to a future date. 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 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Bullard commented on the proposed mining activity for Parcel 3 as stated by the applicant, and condition number 1 requiring City approval for any activity. Mr. Friedman stated that a request for mining has been submitted to the City by Halloran & Associates. Commissioner Neff asked that Engineering Manager O'Donnell address condition number 4. Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1992 Page 2 TENTATIVE FINANCIAL PARCEL MAP 27291 REVISED CONTINUED Mr. O'Donnell stated this was not a requirement on the previous map. Although, it states in the City Ordinance that a tract or parcel map has to be monumented. This is a Financial Parcel Map and really not covered under the Subdivision Map Act. A map doesn't necessarily have to be monumented if there is existing monuments in the field. He then suggested the condition be modified by adding language: "Unless sufficient survey information exists on filed maps to locate and retrace the exterior boundary lines of the parcel map". Discussion ensued on the suggested modification to condition number 4. Commissioner Neff commented on the costs of monumentation - -if not covered by a development loan it has to come out of pocket and in today's economy it is difficult to do that. Suggested exercising some leniency to the developer and amend the condition to the satisfaction of the applicant. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he agrees with Commissioner Neff and the applicant on amending condition number 4, or it could even be deleted. Chairwoman Brinley stated she would like to see condition number 4 stand as amended. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE FINANCIAL PARCEL MAP 27291 REVISED BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 4: Applicant shall provide appropriate bond for monumentation. Unless sufficient survey information exists on filed maps to locate and retrace the exterior boundary lines of the parcel map. BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1992 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Neff Inquired about attendance for the Groundbreaking ceremony for the Lake Elsinore Plaza on November 19th, stating that he would be unable to attend. Commissioner Sellevold Announced that he will be moving out of state and this is his last meeting, resigning appointment. Chairwoman Brinley Thanked Commissioner Sellevold for his service, support and doing a good job. She then wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:25 p.m. , motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Bullard. Approved 5 -0 roved Pam B inley, Chairwoman Respe tfully Sub 'tted, _ nda Grindstaff Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND DAY OF III) ;Cal; "03:iT:l:36 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Manager Shear. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Neff, Bullard and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Associate Planner De Gange and Engineering Manager O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Commissioner Neff and carried by unanimous vote to approve Minutes of November 18, 1992, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 92 -3 and Zone Code Amendment 92 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore (Continued from October 21, 1992) - Associate Planner De Gange requested that each item be considered separately as there have been various modifications made to the Historic Downtown Land Use Plan (GPA 92 -3), however, the Zone Code Amendment is still in the process of being revised. General Plan Amendment 92 -3 - to implement the Historic Downtown Land Use Plan establishing General Plan land use level designations for this area. 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. Zone Code Amendment 92 -3 - request this item be continued indefinitely. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:10 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. Alex Bellehumeur, 6242 Napoli Court, Long Beach, owns the old hotel site, 6.6 acres bordered by the Outlet Channel, Limited, Lakeshore Drive and Spring. He gave a brief back- ground on the property highlighting the acquisition, design of a master plan and past discussions with members of the City. He then commented on the proposed Specific Plan designation for the general area and requested it be changed to Mixed Use, because of the importance of the area. City Planner Christen stated, as a point of clarification, the Specific Plan designation is probably a broader category than Mixed Use. The Mixed Use category is limited to specific percentages of commercial or residential, and a Specific Plan is not. Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 AND ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 CONTINUED 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 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Bullard commented on the following: • Requested the following changes: High Density areas, designated as HD on the map, downgraded to Medium -High Density and the Medium -High Density areas downgraded to Medium Density. My thoughts are, the High Density area would incorporate too many residents and dwelling units for the area, and would not enable future development as fast as a Medium - High Density or downgrading one area. By doing this, we would move the acreage to the Medium Density residential to 215.5 acres and the Medium -High Density would then become 48.4, leaving the High Density area as 0. We do not need to create another area like our Joy Street area in the future, 5 -10 years down the road. • Outflow Channel, making sure there is no interference with this plan. It is my understanding that the Outflow Channel is not affected by this plan. Concern was, creating a historical area and what the future would bring in upgrading the Outflow Channel. • Geothermal wells along Spring Street and future develop- ment with the historical background. This is a plan for future development and, at this time, would not affect those. Commissioner Neff stated he has no particular comments or questions, but was intrigued by Commissioner Bullard's suggestion on the change in density. He commented on the density of the Joy Street area, 24 presently, maybe density is not the problem but quality of construction. Another major control that we might want to think about or implement is a thorough review of plot plan /site plans coming before the Commission. He then inquired whether this would have to go back before the Design Review Committee, because of the nature of the recommended changes. Discussion ensued on whether this would need to be returned to the Design Review Committee; the Design Review Committee being a recommending body and final action would be required by City Council. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he had no comment. Chairwoman Brinley stated that she had no problem with the changes and called for a motion, asking for separate motions. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF AND CARRIED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH COMMISSIONER GILENSON CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO DOWNGRADE THE HIGH DENSITY AREAS TO MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY AND DOWNGRADE THE MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY AREAS TO MEDIUM DENSITY, WHICH IN TURN INCREASES THE MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE TO 215.5 ACRES AND DECREASES THE MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY TO 48.4, AND 0 OUT THE HIGH DENSITY, AND ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -7. Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 AND ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 CONTINUED MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEFF TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 92 -8. Commissioner Gilenson asked for discussion. Are you recommending the same change that was on the Negative Declaration, changing the High and Medium Densities? Chairwoman Brinley responded in the affirmative. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for the question. Approved 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) RESOLUTION NO. 92 -8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -3 TO IMPLEMENT THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN LAND USE PLAN ESTABLISHING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE LEVEL DESIGNATIONS FOR THIS AREA. THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY 486 ACRES AND IS LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC CORE OF THE CITY. 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. MOVED BY BULLARD, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 92 -3 INDEFINITELY. 2. Annexation 64, General Plan Amendment 92 -2, and Zone Change 92 -5 - William and Rosalyne Hall (Entec Consultants, Inc.), Continued from October 21, 1992 - Associate Planner De Gange presented a request for annexation and prezoning of 87 acres, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map changing a total of 33 acres from Business Park and 15 acres from Freeway Business to General Commercial. The site is located at the northwest intersection of Tenth Street and Dexter and to the north and south of Cambern Avenue, east of Central Avenue (State Highway 74). Associate Planner De Gange stated the proposal was continued because the annexation as originally proposed would create a slender island between Dexter Avenue and Interstate 15. The application was revised to include all of the area and the associated environmental document was re -done, re- circulated and re- reviewed. He gave a history on the correspondence with Cal- Trans, highlighting their request for a traffic study and for revision of the mitigation measure to include a condition for a traffic study for the entire site prior to Design Review. He then stated that staff will alter the Mitigation Monitoring Program on Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 -6 to represent the desires of Cal- Trans. Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m., and stated she would like to have the correspondence from Cal - Trans entered for the record. Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 4 ANNEXATION 64, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-2, AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -5 "Department of Transportation November 10, 1992 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Annexation 64, General Plan Amendment No. 92 -2 and Zone Change 92 -5 We have reviewed the above referenced document and request consideration of the following comments: • The account of the conversation between the City and Caltrans (Harvey Sawyer) as stated in the Discussion of Environmental Impacts (page 22) is inaccurate. Caltrans agreed to "a condition that requires the applicant to prepare a traffic study for the entire site prior to design review approval," as stated in the letter dated, August 31, 1992 (see attachment). • A traffic study for the entire site will be necessary as each individual project could conceivably have only minor to moderate traffic impacts; however, cumulatively, the impacts could be significant. The preparation of individual traffic studies, may not adequately provide for the total impacts generated. Overall impacts are best when considered in a single, detailed document which addresses the worst -case situation. In any event, should the City require individual traffic studies, each proposal within the annexation area should be required to consider the overall cumulative impacts of all development within the area. If you have any questions, please contact La Keda Johnson at (714) 383 -5929 or FAX (714) 383 -5936. Sincerely, Harvey J. Sawyer, Chief Transportation Planning San Bernardino Coordination Branch" Chairwoman Brinley then asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Kim Quon, Entec Consultants, 1355 East Cooley Drive, Colton, representing the applicant, stated they concur 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 7:38 p.m. Commissioner Neff asked whether there were any proposed commercial uses that would vary from what exists now, the nursery -- replacing the nursery with a use for the particular amendment or prezone. Mr. Quon responded in the negative. Commissioner Bullard stated that he was satisfied with the Staff Report. Commissioner Gilenson stated he had no comment. Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 5 ANNEXATION 64, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -2, AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -5 Chairwoman Brinley stated that she has no problem and agrees with staff.. She then called for a motion, asking for separate motions. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION 64 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92 -6 AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. - MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -2 AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 92 -9, AND ZONE CHANGE 92 -5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92 -2 FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1990 GENERAL PLAN TO REDESIGNATE 33 ACRES OF BUSINESS PARK AND 15 ACRES OF FREEWAY BUSINESS TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ITEMS NONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Commented on the following: 1. Attended a seminar and display on the Environmental Systems Research Institute concerning the GIS System, during the League of California Conference this year. I would like to see the City continue with its GIS System and have somebody who is well trained, as it will benefit the whole community. 2. The Sierra Circuit Finals Rodeo will be held again this year in Lake Elsinore. Classic Western Production Inc. is on schedule in promoting this for Elsinore. Commissioner Neff Inquired about the dates for the Rodeo. Commissioner Bullard responded January 9 and 10, 1993, and there is a kick -off Queen's pageant on the 8th. Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:45 p.m. , motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Neff. Approved 4 -0 Respectfully S bmitted, Linda Grindstaff Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1992 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by City Planner Christen. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Bullard and Brinley ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Neff Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner Christen, Assistant Planner Villa, Engineering Manager O'Donnell. FOR VICE CHAIRMAN MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIRMAN TO THE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1993. MINUTE ACTION Moved by Commissioner Bullard, Second by Chairwoman Brinley and carried by unanimous vote to approve Minutes of December 2, 1992, as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, Chairwoman Brinley closed the PUBLIC COMMENT Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single- Family Residence 16940 Wells - Samuel & Rita Bendlin - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 1,159 square foot, single -story dwelling with a 440 square foot garage. Chairwoman Brinley asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Ms. Rita Bendlin stated they concur with the Staff Report. Commissioner Gilenson requested that the standard condition for dedication of underground water rights be added as condition number 23. Chairwoman Brinley commented on the architectural modifi- cations made. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON, SECOND BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 16940 WELLS BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Condition No. 23: Dedicate underground water rights to the City (Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.52.030). Document can be obtained from the Engineering Department. Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1992 Page 2 2. Single - Family Residences - C.M.S. Company (William Boyd) - Assistant Planner Villa explained why separate reports were prepared and then detailed the following: 358 Avenue 2, 379 Avenue 3 - one - story, 1,856 square foot single- family dwellings with a 454 square foot garage. 1121 Mill Street - one - story, 1,506 square foot single- family dwelling with a 454 square foot garage. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 358 AVENUE 2, 379 AVENUE 3 AND 1121 MILL STREET CONCURRENTLY, SAME APPLICANT. 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 Gilenson commented on 358 Avenue 2, requesting that three conditions be added. The verbiage would be the same as condition number 19, 21 and 22 from 1121 Mill Street. Commissioner Bullard stated that he agrees with Commissioner Gilenson. Chairwoman Brinley stated she had no problem and agrees with the added conditions, and called for a motion. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 358 AVENUE 2, 379 AVENUE 3 AND 1121 MILL STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONS 25, 26 AND 27 TO 358 AVENUE 2: Condition No. 25. Street improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Roads Department Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code 12.04 and 16.34) Condition No. 26. All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certification (with tie notes delineated on 8 1/2" X 11" mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Department before final inspection of 'off -site improvements will be scheduled and approved. Condition No. 27. Arrangements for relocation of utilities company facility (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. INFORMATIONAL 1. Planning Commission Meeting of January 6, 1993 is being called due to the Holidays and lack of Agenda items. Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 1992 Page 3 PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS Community Development Manager Shear wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Bullard Wished everyone a happy holiday. Commented on the national finals in Las Vegas. We were well represented, 26 members of the Classic Western Productions, for the Rodeo and we have been invited back next year to put on a seminar at the national finals. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Chairwoman Brinley Wished everyone a Merry Christmas. Thanked staff for a good year - -all the help, consideration and all the things that you do to make the City run smoother. Commissioner Neff Absent. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:15 p.m., motion by Commissioner Bullard, second by Chairwoman Brinley. Approved 3 -0 Pam Brinley, Chairwoman Respectfully Submitted, Linda Grindstaff Secretary