HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-02-1991 NAHMINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 1991
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson,
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Brinley, Brown, Wilsey and
Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman,
Planning Manager Strandgaard, City Attorney Harper, Senior Civil
Engineer O'Donnell and Consultant Engineer Spagnolo.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of December 19,
1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved: 4 -0 (Commissioner Brinley abstaining)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Zone Change 90 -8 Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised;
Commercial Project 90 -11 Revised - Thomas Brothers (Kentucky
Fried Chicken) - Continued from December 5, 1990 - Community
Development Director Gunderman stated that plans will be
submitted by the end of the week, per telephone conversation
with the applicant's representative. Staff would request that
these items be continued for a period of time not to exceed 60
days or March 6, 1991, allowing staff time for a thorough
review of said plan.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Zone Change 90 -8
Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised; Commercial
Project 90 -11 Revised for a period of time not to exceed 60
days or March 6, 1991, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
2. Tentative Tract Map 25487 Revised - Partin Development
(Courton & Associates) -
Commissioner Brown asked to be excused due to possible
conflict.
Planning Manager Strandgaard presented a request to revise
approved Tentative Tract Map 25487, increasing the acreage
from the original 48.3 to 59.4 acres, increasing the number of
residential lots from 133 to 171 lots. The site is located
north of the terminus of Wasson Canyon Road, in a currently
undeveloped portion of the City, adjacent to Ramsgate Specific
Plan Area.
Planning Manager Strandgaard requested that condition number
69 be amended changing the date from March 5, 1990 to
September 1, 1990, and adding the following language "subject
to review and approval of utility agency and City Engineer ".
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Minutes of Planning Commission
January 2, 1991
Page 2
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25487 REVISED - PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
Mr. Larry Buxtoi
on the proposal,
circulation and
then commented
District 90 -3,
roadways, water
i, Courton & Associates, gave a brief history
highlighting previous concerns on grading and
improvements with the revised proposal. He
on the formation of Community Facilities
which would provide for construction of
and sewer facilities.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor.
Mr. Adel Abusamra, 32655 Rachel Circle, Dana Point, stated he
was in favor of the proposal, and commented on growth
occurring in the City; traffic circulation; lot size /density
of the proposal and compatibility with surrounding areas.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m.
Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows:
Condition No. 23, with regard to landscaping for models -
would like to see Xeriscaping and signage for one (1)
model home, and this added to the condition.
Condition No. 39, need to be more specific with regard to
type of hazards and who will determine. Asked staff to
address.
Community Development Director Gunderman responded this is an
erosion hazard. We are reinforcing through barriers, walls
and landscaping unstable slopes, and this is best determined
by the City Engineer.
Chairman Saathoff suggested condition number 39 be amended by
adding the word "erosion" and language "subject to the
approval of the City Engineer ".
Condition No. 38, Lots 35 -58 have downside slopes- -
shouldn't they be maintained by the homeowner's
association?
Planning Manager Strandgaard referred to condition number 76.
Mr. Larry Buxton referred to Note "B" listed on the tentative
tract map, and suggested that reference be made to this in the
condition.
Chairman Saathoff commented on condition number 38, with
regard to the four lots (Lots 58, 59, 60 and 61) and amending
the condition by adding verbiage "areas designated with a Code
"B" will also be maintained by the homeowner's association ",
and further identification on condition number 76.
Commissioner Wilsey suggested that condition number 76 be
amended by adding "subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director or his designee ".
Condition No. 68, asked for clarification on horizontal
curve radius.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated this is a secondary
Minutes of Planning Commission
January 2, 1991
Page 3
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25487 REVISED - PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
street, because of the speed and traffic the minimum radius is
a 1,000 feet. This is not a cul -de -sac.
Finding No. 4, with regard to Planning Commission
determination whether the discharge of waste from the
tract would be adequately handled through another agency,
in this case. Asked staff if this has been adequately
reviewed and if the information available.
Community Development Director Gunderman responded that this
is a Finding required by State Law on tentative tracts. In
this particular case, and in most cases, the Commission has to
rely upon Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to
determine that the project can be properly sewered and the
sewer system can deal with normal domestic types of sewer
discharge, and that this particular type of development will
not create hazardous or toxic discharges.
Chairman Saathoff asked if we request a will -serve letter from
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, does this indicates
that we have met that determination?
Community Development Director Gunderman responded in the
affirmative.
City Attorney Harper expanded on the requirements of Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District and Planning Commission with
regard to this Finding.
Commissioner Wilsey then commented on traffic circulation- -
Elsinore Hills Road, "A" and "E" Streets, Highway 74 and the
adjacent Ramsgate project.
Considerable discussion ensued on the traffic circulation
within this proposal and surrounding developments, and traffic
studies prepared for this development.
Commissioner Gilenson stated, for the record, he met with the
applicant and discussed some of the conditions. He then
commented as follows:
Condition No. 23, with regard to landscape and irrigation
plans, whether said plans will come back to the Commis-
sion for review.
Condition No. 35, does this take the place of the
standard condition for landscape, fees, and landscape
consultant's review.
Chairman Saathoff stated this refers to slope areas and fire
breaks not the normal landscaping.
Community Development Director Gunderman responded that this
condition refers to slope areas and fire breaks, but the
overall landscaping will be at Design Review.
Condition No. 40, with regard to driveways for corner
lots. Recommend this condition be amended as follows:
Lots 62 and 85 driveway to go to "B" Street; Lots 129 and
148 driveway to go to "G" Street; Lots 16 and 150
driveway to go to "F" Street, and Lots 127 and 113
driveway to go to "H" Street.
Discussion ensued on the requested amendment to condition
number 40 with regard to driveway locations for said lots.
Minutes of Planning Commission
January 2, 1991
Page 4
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25487 REVISED - PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
Condition No. 53, recommended the following language
"subject to City Engineer approval" be added to the end.
Condition No. 69, with regard to M.E.N. Association
letter, and what this entails.
Condition No. 74, with regard to settlement of engineered
fills of significant thickness, and adding language "as
determined by a geologist or geologist report ".
Environmental Assessment Initial Study, Page 3, Number
5-- Animal Life. The actual report prepared does not show
significant animal life, this should be changed to
reflect same prior to certification.
Community Development Director Gunderman responded this
section will be changed to reflect the biotic report. The
biotic report indicated there are some sensitive species.
There are no species which are presently endangered.
Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 72, with
regard to traffic impacts on Highway 74 and contribution
towards traffic signalization. Would like to see this 10
percent applied toward Highway 74 and Ramsgate Drive.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the substandard frontages for
cul -de -sac Lots 79, 80, 117, 118, 119, 120.
Discussion ensued on frontage widths for cul -de -sac lots;
setbacks and determination of lot frontage, and all cul -de -sac
lots meeting Code requirements.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to recommend to City Council
adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -56 Revised and approval of
Tentative Tract Map 25487 Revised based on the Findings and
subject to the 78 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff
Report, with the following amendments:
Condition No. 23: Applicant shall submit and receive
approval from the Community Development
Director for landscape and irrigation
plans for model homes (Xeriscape and
signage to be provided for one model
home, if such are desired), back -up wall
areas, street trees and slope planting in
accordance with the City Landscape
Guidelines, prior to issuance of building
permits.
Condition No. 38: The final map shall indicate that the
slopes on Lots 58, 59, 60 and 61, and
areas indicated on Tentative Tract Map
25487 Revised as Code "B" shall be
maintained by the homeowners association.
Condition No. 39: Reinforced barriers and /or walls and
landscape treatment shall be installed at
cul -de -sac points where downslope erosion
hazards may exist at the end of cul -de-
sacs, subject to City Engineer approval.
Condition No. 40: The final grading plans shall indicate
that all corner lots shall be graded to
ensure driveway approaches are least
hazardous and driveways are placed on
Minutes of Planning Commission
January 2, 1991
Page 5
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25487 REVISED - PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
neighborhood street where possible. Lots
62 and 85 driveway to go to "B" Street;
Lots 129 and 148 driveway to go to "G"
Street; Lots 16 and 150 driveway to go
to "F" Street, and Lots 127 and 113
driveway to go to "H" Street.
Condition No. 53: Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports
for review and approval by City Engineer
prior to approval of final map.
Developer shall mitigate any flooding
and /or erosion downstream caused by
development of site and diversion of
drainage, subject to City Engineer
approval.
Condition No. 69: Applicant shall meet requirements of
utility agency letter from M.E.N. and
Associates dated September 1, 1990 prior
to final map approval, subject to review
and approval of utility agency and City
Engineer.
Condition No. 72: Applicant shall contribute ten percent
(10 %) towards the cost of design and
construction of the traffic signals for
Highway 74 and Ramsgate Drive, per the
circulation recommendation by the traffic
study for Tract 25171 by Kurzman
Associates.
Condition No. 74: The Geology Report submitted for the
subdivision shall include: A) Identi-
fication of all faults to define
potential hazards. Including the Glen
Ivy fault. B) Stability of man -made
slopes under either static or dynamic
conditions, and C) Differential
settlement of engineered fills of
significant thickness, as determined by
geologist or geologist report.
Condition No. 76: Five foot (51) landscaped slope
maintenance easements shall be dedicated
to individual property owners or a
homeowners association, subject to the
Community Development Director's
approval.
and correction to the Environmental Assessment Initial Study,
Page 3, Number 5-- Animal Life, which shall be corrected to
reflect the biotic report, indicating there are some sensitive
species, but there are no species which are presently
endangered.
Second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Brown abstaining)
Commissioner Brown returned to the table at 8:05 p.m.
BUSINESS ITEMS
Single - Family Residence - 4198 Crestview Drive - David Smith -
Planning Manager Strandgaard presented a request to construct
a 1,349 square foot, single -story dwelling on a 25,700 square
Minutes of Planning Commission
January 2, 1991
Page 6
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 4198 CRESTVIEW DRIVE CONTINUED
foot lot, located at the westerly terminus of Crestview Drive.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant. Receiving no response, he then asked for
discussion at the table.
Commissioner Gilenson commented as follows:
Condition number 9, with regard to sewer requirement.
Recommended this be amended to include the standard 200 -
foot connection language.
Condition number 33, with regard to flood control ease-
ment. Project illustrates an expansion pit - -if the
County Health Department does not approve this and they
have to go with leaching beds would the leaching bed
interfere with the flood control?
Commissioner Gilenson was informed that nothing could encroach
into this easement.
Commissioner Gilenson then commented on the need for archi-
tectural enhancements on the east and west elevation.
Discussion ensued on architectural enhancements for said
elevations being provided if viewed from the right -of -way;
placement of fencing and setbacks.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called
for a motion.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family
Residence at 4198 Crestview Drive based on the Findings and
subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff
Report, with the following amendments:
Condition No. 9: Prior to issuance of building permit
applicant shall submit a soils report
which includes a sewage disposal plan
approved by Riverside County Health
Department. The project shall connect to
sewer if a sewer line is within 200 -feet
of the project boundary unless it is
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Chief Building Official that this is
infeasible. If the project does not
connect to sewer, applicant shall comply
with the following:
a) Prior to issuance of building
permits, the applicant shall submit
a Soils Report which includes a
sewage disposal plan referenced to
the grading plan and approved by the
Riverside County Health Department.
b) Prior to release for occupancy, the
developer shall record a notice
entitled "Septic System Disclosure
and Restrictions" specifying that
the property is served by a septic
system and that no structure or
paving may be placed over the sewage
disposal area or the expansion area.
A copy of the approved septic system
Minutes of Planning Commission
January 2, 1991
Page 7
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 4198 CRESTVIEW DRIVE CONTINUED
plot plan shall also be recorded
along with this notice. A copy of
this recorded along with this
notice. A copy of this recorded
notice shall be provided to the City
for verification.
c) An acknowledgment of receipt of this
notice by the expected occupant of
the property shall also be submitted
to the City.
Condition No. 22a: Architectural enhancements to be
provided on the east and west elevation
if visible from the right -of -way, and
shall be subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
Second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Commission of
the following:
1. Thursday and Friday, January 3rd and 4th, there will be
stop signs installed at Railroad Canyon Road--and the
freeway.
2. January 16, 1991, would like to introduce an outline for
the Title 17 Work Sessions. Maybe begin some dialogue
at that time, and subsequently go to another work session
at that point, if this meets with the Commission's
desire.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brown
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsev
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Nothing to report.
Minutes of Planning Commission
January 2, 1991
Page 8
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
c'
Bill Saathoff
Chairman
Resppjqctfully ptbmitted,
inda G/nd'staff
lanning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES
HELD ON THE
OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
16TH DAY OF
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
JANUARY 1991
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Gilenson,
Brinley and Saathoff
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Brown and
Wilsey
Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman,
Planning Manager Strandgaard, Assistant Planner DeGange, Contract
Planner Smothers and Subdivision Engineer Spagnolo.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of January 2,
1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved: 3 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Tentative Tract Map 25098 - Grunder /Nieto (Continued from
December 19, 1990) - Community Development Director Gunderman
stated that the applicant has requested this item be continued
to the meeting of February 6, 1991.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to continue Tentative Tract
Map 25098 to February 6, 1991, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved: 3 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Conditional Use Permit 90 -9 Reconsideration of Conditions -
St. Frances of Rome Church - Assistant Planner De Gange
presented a request to reconsider Conditions No. 6 - masonry
wall and Condition No.7 - adding a fence to a dirt lot.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present
representing the applicant.
Ms. Sue Wesolowski, 35278 Pischal Place, Wildomar, stated she
was in agreement with staff recommendation, the day care
program will be a benefit to the community, and building a
brick wall would place a financial burden on the day care.
Commissioner Gilenson commented as follows:
- Condition number 6 with regard to the masonry wall.
Stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation for
a wood fence instead of the masonry wall for safety
reasons to the children. Would like to make sure the
fence is maintained in a manner so that it doesn't look
run down.
Condition number 7 with regard to the dirt lot. Stated
he has a problem with waving this Condition. With all
good intentions of the Church not using it, people would
still park in this lot. A chain link fence would be
okay, no vehicular access, pedestrian access only.
Minutes of Planning Commission
January 16, 1991
Page 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -9 RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS CONTINUED
Commissioner Saathoff asked if the dirt lot was already fenced
in.
Assistant Planner De Gange stated that it was fenced on three
sides.
Commissioner Brinley was in agreement with Commissioner
Gilenson.
Commissioner Saathoff stated that in Condition No. 6 he would
like the condition to reflect the quality of construction of
the fence and the enhanced landscape.
Discussion ensued on the type of wood fencing and landscaping.
The being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for
a motion.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Conditional Use
Permit 90 -9 with the following amendment:
Condition No. 6: A six foot (61) high wood fence (of good
quality construction) two -feet (21)
behind the existing retaining wall with
enhanced landscaping shall be constructed
around the perimeter of the building of
operation (Lakeshore Drive) subject to
approval by the Community Development
Director.
Second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved: 3 -0
3. Residential Project 90 -13 - Albert Leon - Commissioner
Saathoff stated the applicant has asked for this item to be
continued to February 6, 1991.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Residential Project
90 -13 to February 6, 1991, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved: 3 -0
4. Zoning Ordinance Update
Zoning Consistency Program
Community Development Director Gunderman presented to the
Commission an outline for their review and discussion on the
Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Consistency Program.
Discussion was held on the different dates available to the
Commissioners for the study session, the outline pertaining to
the new zones and timing.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORIS COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Asked if there were plans to put in a stop sign at the northbound
exit on Highway 74.
Minutes of Planning Commission
January 16, 1991
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Community Development Director Gunderman stated that this item had
been addressed at two City Council meetings and that Frank Tecca,
the Traffic Engineer, has prepared an updated status report to the
City Council.
Commissioner Wilsey
Absent.
Commissioner Brown
Absent.
Chairman Saathoff
Inquired if Council or Engineering were going to make any changes
to the proposed circulation plan.
Community Development Director Gunderman responded that changes
would probably occur when development takes place.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved: 3 -0
Approved,
ill a thoff
Chairman
Respectfully Submitted,
l;�- �ee1�— /'wbrLl2�Gr�
Colleen Moorhouse
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1991
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Planning Manager Strandgaard.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Brown, Wilsey and
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman,
Planning Manager Strandgaard, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh-
Shahry, Assistant Planner DeGange and Senior Civil Engineer
O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of January 16,
1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Tony.
Approved: 3 -0 (Commissioners Brown and Wilsey abstaining)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Tentative Parcel Map 26597 and Industrial Project 90 -8 -
Daniel Development (Continued from December 19, 1990) -
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a proposal to
subdivide 2.59 acres into 6 lots, and design review for the
construction of 6 buildings, averaging approximately 6,500
square feet each, and proposed as a single industrial park,
located on the north side of Collier Avenue between Chaney and
Third Streets.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Jeff Hardy, representing the property owner, stated they
were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval with the
exception of condition number 32, Industrial Project 90 -8,
would requested that this condition be amended by allowing the
use a six -foot (61) high masonry wall or tilt -up concrete
wall.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 7:06 p.m.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 24 and how
this relates to condition number 32 - -why we would allow a
painted wood fence along Collier Avenue. Suggested this be
changed to a block wall.
Commissioner Brinley stated that she too was concerned with
the wood fence along Collier. Then commented on the driveway
between the uses, whether this was included in the 40 -foot
setback.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on the Conditions of Approval
for Industrial Project 90 -8, as follows:
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 2
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26597 & INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -8 CONTINUED
• Condition number 24, can not see the justification for
the expense of a block wall for a temporary fence.
• Condition Number 18 and 19, with regard to site
visibility - -from the freeway, down the roof line of this
project. Suggested that condition number 18 be amended
by adding "subject to review and approval of the
Community Development Director or his designee ".
• Condition No. 23.a., with regard to the 100% watering
coverage. Suggested this condition be amended by
deleting the words "watering coverage" and adding
language "to provide 100% plant and grass coverage using
a combination of drip and conventional irrigation
methods ".
Requested further discussion on the proposed language- -
maybe this can become a standard condition, if the
Commission agrees.
• Suggested the following language be added to condition
number 23.i,: "All planting areas shall include
plantings in the Xeriscape concept, drought tolerant
grasses and plants. Requested this be added as a
standard condition, particularly on commercial projects.
Discussion ensued on water conservation, using Title 22 Water
for landscape irrigation.
• Condition number 32, with regard to the applicant's
request for masonry wall. Suggested adding language
"subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director or his designee ".
Commissioner Brown commented on the Conditions for Industrial
Project 90 -8, as follows:
• Condition number 24, with regard to grading and
maintenance of pads if building permits not pulled within
a certain amount of time, purpose of the three -foot
fence.
Discussion ensued on the three -foot fence being for aesthetic
purposes- -not used for screening, but for erosion control.
• Condition number 32, with regard to the applicant's
request for a masonry /tilt -up wall. Recommended that
this be a decorative block wall.
Mr. Don Daniel, applicant, commented on the three -foot wooden
fence, visibility and maintenance of pads -- believes this is
addressed at the beginning of condition number 24.
Discussion ensued on condition number 24 with regard to
maintenance of pads, amending said condition by deleting the
last sentence and adding the following verbiage: "If building
permits are not issued within 90 days all areas or pads
graded, during the grading operation, shall be landscaped and
irrigated ".
Mr. Daniel stated that he would like to clarify their request
on condition number 32. It is not economics. We might be in
a situation where we need to use that wall as a retaining
wall, and it is better to retain with a block wall rather than
a tilt -up wall.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 3
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26597 & INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -8 CONTINUED
Mr. Daniel asked Commissioner Wilsey to clarify his comment on
condition number 18, with regard to visibility and screening.
Commissioner Wilsey responded that staff will determine
whether screening is required.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Daniel if he had any comments on
condition number 23, with regard to the Xeriscape landscaping
and combination drip irrigation system. Mr. Daniel responded
that he did not have a problem with this.
Discussion ensued on availability of Xeriscape landscaping;
consulting with the City's Landscape Architect on drought
tolerant plantings, and the final landscaping plans being
approved by the City's Landscape Consultant.
Chairman Saathoff suggested that condition number 23.g. be
amended by adding "Special attention to the use of Xeriscape
or drought resistant plantings with combination drip
irrigation system to be used to prevent excessive watering ".
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 23.b.,
suggested that 1115 gallon" be deleted and replaced with
"twenty- four -inch (2411) box.
Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council
adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -31, and approval of
Tentative Parcel Map 26597 (40 Conditions) and Industrial
Project 90 -8 (37 Conditions) based upon the Findings and
subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff
Report with the following amendments:
Industrial Project 90 -8:
Condition Number 18: All roof mounted or ground support
air conditioning units or other
mechanical equipment incidental to
development shall be architecturally
screened or shielded by landscaping
so that they are not visible from
neighboring property or public
streets, subject to review and
approval of the Community
Development Director or his
designee.
Condition No. 23.a.: All planting areas shall have
permanent and automatic sprinkler
system to provide 100% plant and
grass coverage using a combination
of drip and conventional irrigation
methods.
Condition No. 23.b.: 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
(24 ") box in size.
Condition No. 23.g: The landscape plan shall provide for
ground cover, shrubs, and trees and
meet all requirements of the City's
adopted Landscape Guidelines.
Special attention to the use of
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 4
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26597 & INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -8 CONTINUED
Xeriscape or drought resistant
plantings with combination drip
irrigation system to be used to
prevent excessive watering.
Condition No. 23.i: All landscaping and irrigation shall
be installed within affected portion
of any phase at the time a Certifi-
cate of Occupancy is requested for
any building. All planting areas
shall include plantings in the
Xeriscape concept, drought tolerant
grasses and plants.
Condition No. 24: All undeveloped lots along Collier
Avenue shall be maintained in a neat
and safe condition, with erosion and
weed control methods applied by the
developer as necessary to meet the
approval of the Community Develop-
ment Director until such time as
these lots are built -out. in
additien, these lets shall be
streets landseaped
Z thirty six
high selid, painted weed ~ €ene to
neet the approval of the Gemmunity
Development Bireeter. If building
permits are not issued within 90
days all areas or pads graded,
during the grading operation, shall
be landscaped and irrigated.
Condition No. 32: A six -foot (61) high decorative
masonry or tilt -up concrete wall
shall be constructed along the side
and rear property lines, subject to
the approval of the Community
Development Director or his
designee. Decorative enhancements
shall be applied to match the
building.
Second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
2. Tentative Tract Map 25098 - Grunder /Nieto Family Trust -
Planning Manager Strandgaard presented a request to subdivide
80 acres into 233 lots, located east of Interstate 15, north
of Franklin Street terminus and Canyon Creek Specific Plan
Area, and contiguous to the eastern boundary of the closed
Lake Elsinore Landfill. The proposal also provides for an
open space buffer along the landfill border.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Tom Tice, 17611 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, engineer
for the project and representing the property owner, stated
they are in agreement with the Conditions of Approval with the
exception of condition number 50. In discussion with
Engineering Department staff condition number 50 should be
deleted, as condition number 57 was meant to replace this
condition. He then stated that he would answer any questions
that may arise.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 5
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25098 CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor.
Ms. Mariana Mohyhlyn, property owner adjacent to proposal,
stated that she was in favor of the proposal, and asked that
Mr. Ken Buchanan be allowed to speak for her.
Mr. Ken Buchanan, 2098 Lower Lake Road, Santa Ana, commented
on Ms. Mohyhlyn's attempts to get access and develop her
property. He then commented on the 60 -foot wide right -of -way
with residential loading, and suggested that the lots be re-
designed and presented a sketch.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak on the matter.
Mr. Robert Nelson, Director, Riverside County Waste Manage-
ment, stated that he would answer any questions the Commission
may have relating to the landfill. He then informed the
Commission of the following:
• The property itself is about 44 acres, owned by the City
of Lake Elsinore. He then gave a brief history on how
the County became involved with the operation, until it's
closure in 1986.
• We are required by State Law to do a closure project on
the landfill and that design is nearing completion. We
expect to do that closure work this Summer. That project
will entail the installation of about three -feet (3') of
earth material, largely a clay product, on top of the
landfill to prevent moisture from getting down into the
landfill. In addition, landfills require constant
maintenance for a number of years -- monitoring for gas
emissions and installation of a gas system, at the
appropriate time, if that is a problem. This one appears
as though it needs a gas system. Last month, at a
hearing before the Air Quality Management District we set
the time table to install the gas extraction system for
this landfill, and we will have that system installed by
September of 1992.
• The County would be willing to maintain the dedicated
open space property as a part of the landfill closure
maintenance. The County would perform this maintenance
until a time when the City converts the landfill to other
types of recreational or open space land uses.
We recommended that a six -foot fence be located along the
edge of the street, and the current fence be moved to
that point. Did not see this in the Conditions of
Approval, unless included in condition number 20.
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded that condition number
20 includes this request.
We recommended that Lot 135 be eliminated, due to its
proximity to the landfill, inquired whether this was
included in the conditions.
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded in the negative.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 6
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25098 CONTINUED
Mr. Nelson stated that the purpose for that deletion, in our
judgement, relates totally to its proximity to the landfill.
Our recommendation is that Lot 135 be made part of the public
dedication, so as to keep a reasonable setback away from the
potential for methane migration.
Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak on the
matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed
at 7:57 p.m.
Chairman Saathoff asked that the applicant address the
comments raised on the 60 -foot right -of -way and Lot 135.
Mr. Tice commented as follows:
Street Width: In designing the circulation pattern we
reviewed the City's proposed General Plan and Circulation
Element. There was no indication that there was going to be
any commercial activity, and for that reason we designated it
as a 60 -foot street. The adjacent 88 acre parcel already has
a proposed access from the San Jacinto Highlands property, it
is also a 60 -foot right -of -way, and we surmised that the two
would connect, in a like width.
This is the first I've heard that the traffic engineer has a
problem with the 60 -foot right -of -way. The major disadvantage
of a commercial width, 66 -foot right -of -way, is that no lots
can front it, and we are trying to create a neighborhood there
and not a thoroughfare to commercial properties. If the
Commission feels that there is a need for a 66 -foot right -of-
way we do not have a problem with that, as noted we can re-
arrange the lot.
Lot 135: We have had several meetings with Mr. Nelson and
this did not come up. As mentioned, the landfill is not
anywhere near that property and for that reason we did not
think this was a problem. But if Mr. Nelson feels that it is,
and the Commission feels that it is important enough to be
that concerned with then we have no problem with adding that
lot to the open space area.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the 60 -foot right -of -way,
stating that we do not know if commercial development will go
in - -it is conceptual. Asked Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell
if we are requesting the same width in the surrounding areas.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated this is being upgraded
to a collector due to the volume of traffic, and circulation
for that area will be dictated by the terrain. We will follow
the traffic engineer's recommendation for a 60 foot street,
but no fronting lots.
Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows:
• Condition number 20, with regard to the six -foot wall
along the project perimeter.
Discussion ensued on condition number 20, whether this condi-
tion should be clarified - -that the applicant is giving title
not just dedicating.
• Condition number 23.a, inquired about the City's long
term liability, with a project adjacent to a landfill.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 7
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25098 CONTINUED
• "A" Street is going to be a primary collector for that
area, so it will be serving as a collector for the
potential tracts in that area. Possible realignment of
Franklin Street as it comes into "A" Street.
• The need to address the problem with the 88 acre parcel,
directly to the east.
• We have not addressed additional landscaping on collector
streets. There are some slope areas that can be
landscaped, but they are included on the lots. Location
of the block wall has not been determined, bottom or top
of slope.
Suggested additional setback of the block wall on either side
be required, and enhanced landscaping be provided up and down
that major corridor.
• No entry statement into this project.
• Would recommend that street loading be taken off "D"
Street.
• Downslopes at the south end of this tract being visible
from the freeway. Would recommend these downslopes and,
possibly, the extensive landscaping on "A" Street be
included in a Homeowners Association (HOA).
Commissioner Gilenson commented as follows:
• Staff Report, Page 3, Water Impacts - -the ground water
tests that were taken were during the beginning of our
lower water table. What is going to happen if we get our
water table back - -what affect is this going to have?
Mr. Robert Nelson responded they do not see the ground water
as a problem to the landfill itself. Typically, State rules
require a five -foot separation between the trash and ground
water.
• Asked staff if the old rifle range is included on this
property or adjacent. If a report or study has been
done on any unexploded rounds.
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded the old rifle site is
located at the rear of the property. Mr. Tice stated that a
report has not been done.
• Recommended that a condition be added to require a study
be conducted on unexploded rounds.
• Condition number 23, with regard to City's liability- -
what about the feasibility of having a Hold Harmless
Agreement drawn up between either the City, Developer,
County or an HOA, or include in CC & R's. Would like the
City Attorney's opinion on this.
• Condition number 10.i. and 10.j., should be more specific
with regard to design of facilities, subterranean or
screening.
• Condition number 18, add after Community Development
Director or his designee the words "City Attorney ".
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 8
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25098 CONTINUED
Commissioner Brinley commented as follows:
• The 1988 Water Study indicates high levels of halogens.
If an on -site study has not been done since 1988, would
like to see something that confirms lower levels.
Mr. Nelson responded there are monitoring wells around all
active landfills and, in this case, even this inactive
landfill. Samples are taken quarterly and delivered to the
Water Quality Control Board for review, as well as our staff.
• Asked for the location of the gas flaring units to be
installed.
Mr. Nelson responded that the flare itself is proposed to be
placed on landfill ground. In this case, on the other side of
the landfill, so it will be further to the west.
• The open space area to be dedicated to the City, and the
length of time it will be maintained or studied before
released to the City.
Mr. Nelson responded that it is available to the City
immediately. We assumed that there would be a fence along the
street, our fence that exists along the property line would be
taken down. The secondary access road will probably have to
be located near that property line in order to be off the toe
of the landfill. That road itself may be in conflict with the
existing fence for a number of feet. We added a condition
that the road be placed off the toe of the landfill.
• Inquired about vapor barrier and how homes will be
protected.
Mr. Nelson stated this is a high density polyethylene that is
placed beneath the homes to give them secondary protection.
• Asked if the Fire Department concerns on the cul -de -sac
widths have been addresses.
Community Development Director Gunderman responded that the
original map had some cul -de -sac islands, where there was some
concern by the Fire Department. They have accepted this map
with more traditional cul -de -sacs.
• Franklin Street upgrade.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the gas extractors, asked if
there is an odor problem once these are installed.
Mr. Nelson responded that there should be no detectable odor
once the system is in. Prior to that, on certain still days,
there may be.
Mr. Tice commented on the following issues:
Realignment of Franklin Street: A series of studies was done
with the engineers for the tract south of us and Mr. Williams'
property, and we came up with a semi -final sketch that was
agreed upon by all parties. This tract reflects that
alignment.
Entry Statement: Since Lot 135 is going to be open space it
would probably be a good place for an entry statement.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 9
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25098 CONTINUED
Modification to conditions 10.i.. 10.1 and 18• We see no
problem with the suggested modifications.
Disclosure requirement: There is a disclosure requirement on
the final map for lots within proximity to the landfill.
Ground Water Testing: There was no on -site testing done, it
was all done off -site.
Study on Old -Rifle Site: This should be done prior to any
grading permits being issued.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the following:
• Landscaping requirement on "A" Street, and whether this
should be addressed at the tentative map stage or at
Design Review.
Community Development Gunderman responded that it should be
addressed at the tentative map stage, because it becomes an
issue of width and design.
• Lot 135 being utilized as an entry statement, and this
added as a condition subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
Commissioner Brown commented as follows:
• The slopes on "A" Street and condition number 20.
Logically, the block wall would be at the top of the
slope, and in many cases you have 25 -35 foot high slopes
in rear lots facing a public right -of -way (Lots 1 through
6, 42 through 43, 168 through 174, 148 and 149 and 135
through 140). If we are going to require a HOA to
maintain these it should be done at the map stage.
Concerned with visibility from the right -of -way.
• Whether condition number 40 will take care of the
drainage on Lots 70 -73, part of 69 and possibly 76, as
these all drain off tract.
Considerable discussion ensued on the slopes on "A" Street,
increasing landscape setback, not reducing the lot size, and
maintenance vehicle. Lots 78 through 81 and Lots 20 through
24 having uniform setbacks, so that the landscaping looks
contiguous along that street.
Mr. Tice stated that he does not believe that a HOA is the
best way to take care of this and suggested some type of
mutual maintenance agreement subject to the Community
Development Director's approval.
Discussion ensued on maintenance of slope areas and vehicle
for said maintenance.
Discussion ensued on the entry statement and slope landscaping
for "A" Street, adding a condition that Lot 135 be utilized as
an entry statement, and the entry statement /slope landscaping
plans come back before the Planning Commission; re- design of
"D" Street; continuing the project for two weeks due to the
number of issues raised or whether all issues can be addressed
within the conditions.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 10
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25098 CONTINUED
Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council
adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -13 and approval of
Tentative Tract Map 25098 based on the Findings and subject to
the 59 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with
the following amendments:
Condition No. 10.i: Design and construct water
reservoir, booster pump station and
transmission mains sized to meet a
regional need for operational, fire,
and emergency water requirements.
Design shall be subterranean or
screened from view.
Condition No. 10.j: Design and construct sewage lift
station sized to meet a regional
need for additional area tributary
to the station (if required by
design analysis). Design shall be
subterranean or screened from view.
Condition No. 18: 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 of any ground base
disk and no roof - mounted or front
yard disk shall be allowed. CC &
R's shall disclose sites proximity
to landfill. CC & R's shall be
subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director or
his designee and the City Attorney
prior to recordation of any deeds or
final map. CC & R's shall be
recorded with the final map.
Condition No. 40: All lot drainage shall be conveyed
to a public facility or accepted by
adjacent property owners by a letter
of drainage acceptance or conveyed
to a drainage easement. Lots 64
through 66, Lots 69 through 73 and
Lot 76 shall drain to a common
easement or accepted by letter of
drainage acceptance.
Condition No. 50:
DELETE
Condition No. 60: Lot 135 to be utilized as an entry
statement. Design shall be
reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission.
Condition No. 61: Applicant shall conduct a Study on
the unexploded rounds at the old
target range site and submit said
study to the Planning Division.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 11
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25098 CONTINUED
Condition No. 62: Landscaping for slopes along "A"
Street, particularly Lots 1 through
6, 42 and 43, 168 through 174, 148
and 149 and 135 through 140, Lots 78
through 81 and Lots 20 through 24,
shall have uniform setbacks, so that
the landscaping looks contiguous
along that street, and shall be
reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission. Maintenance
for said slopes shall be through a
Homeowners Association or mutual
maintenance agreement, approved by
the Community Development Director
and City Attorney.
Second by Commissioner Wilsey.
Approved 5 -0
At this time, 8:55 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed.
At this time, 9 :07 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to reconsider Tentative Tract Map
25098, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
Discussion ensued on the re- design of "D" Street, no homes to
face on "D" Street - -flip flop the cul -de -sac, this added as a
condition; traffic study to determine loading /unloading issue
on "D" Street, reference condition number 43.
Commissioner Brown amended his motion to include the re- design
of "D" Street, amending condition number 43, as follows:
Condition No. 43: Developer shall provide a traffic
study prepared by a Traffic Engineer
to determine the traffic volume and
the impacts on intersections in the
vicinity and freeway on and off
ramps, and loading of lots on "D"
Street prior to final map approval
and contribute a pro -rata share for
the design and construction of these
traffic signals subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
Commissioner Wilsey amended his second to reflect same.
Approved 5 -0
3. Zone Change 90 -12; Residential Project 90 -11 and Residential
Project 90 -12 - Albert Leon - Assistant Planner DeGange
presented a request for a change of zone from R -2 (Medium
Density Residential) to R -3 (High Density Residential) for two
contiguous parcels, and Minor Design Review of two proposed
projects to construct two (2) triplex apartment buildings,
2,132 square feet in size, on adjacent 9,000 square foot lots,
located on Riley and Langstaff Streets approximately 250 feet
north of Sumner Avenue.
Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Commis-
sion that the Design Review Committee, for the Downtown Area,
has adopted Guidelines for the Downtown Area, and these
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 12
ZONE CHANGE 90 -12; RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -11 AND RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED
Guidelines apply to the larger Central Business District Area,
which is the area we are talking about. Suggested the colors
for the units be consistent with the Guidelines, and the
Design Review Committee approve the colors for these units
prior to building permit issuance.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 9:23 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Albert Leon, thanked staff for their assistance with these
projects. Informed the Commission of the favorable comments
he received from area residents on three triplexes completed
on Ellis between Flint and Pottery, and the encouragement for
property owners to upgrade, and the demand for rental units in
this area.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 9:25 p.m.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Leon if he had any comments on the
embellishments staff is requesting for the front entryways.
Mr. Leon asked for clarification - -is this the front or just
the doorways. Assistant Planner DeGange responded the
embellishments are for the doors.
Discussion ensued on the type of embellishments to be provided
for the entryways of each structure.
Assistant Planner DeGange responded he envisioned elaborate
doors, ornate trim or framing around the doors.
Commissioner Gilenson recommended the following amendments to
the Conditions of Approval:
Residential Project 90 -11 and Residential Project 90 -12
• Condition number 4, change to read as condition number 7
on Residential Project 90 -21.
• Condition number 13: change 1115 gallon" to "twenty -four-
inch (2411) box ".
• Condition number 23: Add "A Landscape Plan Check Fee will
be charged prior to final landscape approval based on the
Consultant's fee plus twenty percent (20%) ".
Residential Project 90 -12
• Condition number 29: Add "Color scheme shall be approved
by the Design Review Committee for the Central Business
District ".
Residential Project 90 -11
• Add Condition number 28.a.: The applicant shall utilize
a color scheme with brown roofing material, light yellow
stucco with dark brown accent. Color scheme shall be
approved by the Design Review Committee for the Central
Business District.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 13
ZONE CHANGE 90 -12; RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -11 AND RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED
Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 9, with
regard to sewer connection, and condition number 40, Resi-
dential Project 90 -12, and the City assisting the applicant in
obtaining drainage easements.
Commissioner Brown commented on the south elevation and
entryway of Residential Project 90 -12, suggested windows be
added to this elevation; suggested that windows or plant -ons
to match the windows on the garage be added to the north and
south elevation.
Discussion ensued on street elevations for said units; density
and existing land uses of surrounding areas, and architectural
enhancements to be provided on entrance elevations, condition
number 28.
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council
approval of Zone Change 90 -12 based on the Findings listed in
the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Residential Project
90 -11 (40 Conditions) and Residential Project 90 -12 (41
Conditions) based on the Findings and subject to the
Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the
following amendments:
Residential Project 90 -11 and Residential Project 90 -12
Condition No. 4: A revised site plan and elevation
plan shall be submitted to the
Planning and Building Departments by
the applicant prior to Building
Division issuance of permits which
reflects all Conditions of Approval.
These revised plans shall become the
approved plot plan only upon the
review and approval by the Community
Development Director or his
designee.
Condition No. 13: Change 1115 gallon" to "twenty -four-
inch (2411) box ".
Condition No. 23: A revised Landscape Plan shall be
resubmitted to the City's Landscape
Consultant for review and final
approval shall be by the Community
Development Director based on the
recommendations of the Landscape
Consultant. A Landscape Plan Check
Fee will be charged prior to final
landscape approval based on the
Consultant's fee plus twenty percent
(20 %).
Condition No. 28: Architectural enhancements shall be
added to the lower level entrance
elevation, subject to the approval
of the Community Development
Director or his designee.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 14
ZONE CHANGE 90 -12; RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -11 AND RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED
Residential Project 90 -12
Condition No. 29: The applicant shall utilize a color
scheme with a gray roofing material,
light pink (blush) colored stucco,
aqua colored accent, and gray for
the doors and wood trim. Color
scheme shall be approved by the
Design Review Committee for the
Central Business District.
Residential Project 90 -11
Condition No. 28.a: The applicant shall utilize a color
scheme with brown roofing material,
light yellow stucco with dark brown
accent. Color scheme shall be
approved by the Design Review
Committee for the Central Business
District.
Second by Commissioner Wilsey.
Approved 5 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
Residential Project 90 -13 - Albert Leon - Assistant Planner
DeGange presented a request for Design Review of two (2)
triplexes, 2,132 square feet in size, to be constructed on two
adjacent lots with a total square footage of 13,450, located
approximately 77 feet east of the intersection of Chestnut
Street and East Heald Avenue.
Community Development Director Gunderman suggested the
additional conditions relative to Design Review and the
elevations be added.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Leon if he had any comments or
concerns. Mr. Leon responded in the negative.
Commissioner Brinley commented on the need for architectural
enhancements, windows, between the buildings.
Commissioner Gilenson reiterated his comments made on
Residential Projects 90 -11 and 90 -12.
Commissioner Brown commented on the street elevation, asked
whether a sidewalk approach from the street to the second unit
is needed, and placement of a sidewalk within the twenty -foot
driveway, if practical.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to adopt Negative Declaration
90 -30 and approve Residential Project 90 -13 based on the
Findings and subject to the 43 Conditions of Approval listed
in the Staff Report with the following amendments:
Condition No. 4: A revised site plan and elevation
plan shall be submitted to the
Planning and Building Departments by
the applicant prior to Building
Division issuance of permits which
reflects all Conditions of Approval.
These revised plans shall become the
approved plot plan only upon the
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 15
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -13 CONTINUED
review and approval by the Community
Development Director or his
designee.
Condition No. 13: Change 1115 gallon" to "twenty -four-
inch (2411) box ".
Condition No. 23: A revised Landscape Plan shall be
resubmitted to the City's Landscape
Consultant for review and final
approval shall be by the Community
Development Director based on the
recommendations of the Landscape
Consultant. A Landscape Plan Check
Fee will be charged prior to final
landscape approval based on the
Consultant's fee plus twenty percent
(20%).
Condition No. 27: Architectural enhancements, windows,
shall be added on elevations which
face Heald Street, subject to the
approval of the Community Develop-
ment Director or his designee.
Condition No. 28: The applicant shall utilize a color
scheme with a gray roofing material,
light pink (blush) colored stucco,
aqua colored accent, and gray for
the doors and wood trim. Color
scheme shall be approved by the
Design Review Committee for the
Central Business District.
Condition No. 44: Sidewalk approach from the street to
the second unit, within the twenty -
foot driveway, shall be provided, if
practical.
Second by Commissioner Brown with discussion. Asked if the
drainage for the entire project would come down the driveway.
Discussion ensued on drainage for the site, and placement of
a sidewalk within the twenty -foot driveway, if practical.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called
for the question.
Approved 5 -0
5. Residential Project 90 -21 - Friedman Homes - Associate Planner
Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for Design Review approval
for two (2) model home complexes and plottings for 66 lots for
Tracts 20704 and 20705. The two tracts cover a total of 220
acres, located on both sides of Summerhill Drive and east of
Interstate 15.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry referred to the memorandum
dated February 6, 1991, recommending the deletion of condition
number 32, and amending condition number 31.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Todd Schermerhorn, project manager for Friedman Homes,
gave a brief overview of the proposal, and stated that he
would answer any questions that may arise.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 16
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -21 CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the Staff Report, Page 2,
Project Description, pertaining to the plottings for the 66
lots being approved by the Commission and the remainder by
staff; whether handicap parking is provided for Complex
"C ";condition number 23.b, recommended the words 1115 gallon"
be deleted and "twenty- four -inch (2411) box" remain.
Commissioner Brinley commented on parking for Lot "B ", and
reasoning for condition number 21, with regard to air
ventilation.
Commissioner Wilsey recommended the addition of condition
number 23.i, which will read: "Developer will use his best
effort to put in drought tolerant plants /grasses, and use the
Xeriscape concept where ever possible."
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Residential Project
90 -21 based on the Findings and subject to the 39 Conditions
of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following
amendments:
Condition No. 23.b: Applicant shall plant street trees,
selected from the City's Street Tree
List, a maximum of thirty -feet (30')
apart and at least twenty- four -inch
(24 ") box.
Condition No. 23.i: Developer will use his best effort
to put in drought tolerant
plants /grasses, and use the
Xeriscape concept where ever
possible."
Condition No. 31: The applicant shall pay a K -rat
Mitigation Fee per Ordinance 905, if
determined necessary by the
Community Development Director and
City Attorney.
Condition No. 32: The applicant shall pay —a Y, rat
Mitigation
prier
20708 equal to the ,... F
gr
the Tract (130) multiplied by
$1,950.00. This fee shall equal
moo- DELETED
Second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
6. Single - Family Residence - 316 North Lindsay - James
Blankenship - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request
for Minor Design Review of a single - family dwelling, 1,669
square feet in size with a 506 square foot garage placed on a
9,000 square foot lot. The site is approximately 120 feet
south of the intersection of Pottery and Lindsay Streets.
Assistant Planner DeGange recommended the Design Review
Committee for the Downtown Area /Central Business District
approve the color scheme, and this added as a condition.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present
representing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at the table.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 17
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 316 NORTH LINDSAY CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 9, with
regard to sewer and recommended the standard language be
added; condition number 13, recommended that 1115- gallon" be
deleted and replace with "twenty- four -inch (2411) box ".
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Single - Family
Residence at 316 North Lindsay based on the Findings and
subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff
Report with the following amendments:
Condition No. 9: The project shall connect to sewer
if a sewer line is within 200 feet
of the project boundary unless it is
demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the Chief Building Official that
this is infeasible. If the project
does not connect to sewer, applicant
shall comply with the following:
a) Prior to issuance of building
permits, the applicant shall
submit a Soils Report which
includes a sewage disposal plan
referenced to the grading plan
and approved by the Riverside
County Health Department.
b) Prior to release for occupancy,
the developer shall record a
notice entitled "Septic System
Disclosure and Restrictions"
specifying that the property is
served by a septic system and
that no structure or paving may
be placed over the sewage
disposal area or the expansion
area. A copy of the approved
septic system plot plan shall
also be recorded along with
this notice. A copy of this
recorded along with this
notice. A copy of this
recorded notice shall be
provided to the City for
verification.
C) An acknowledgment of receipt of
this notice by the expected
occupant of the property shall
also be submitted to the City.
Condition No. 13: Change 1115 gallon" to "twenty -four-
inch (2411) box ".
Condition No. 33: Color scheme shall be approved by
the Design Review Committee for the
Central Business District.
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER BUSINESS ITEMS
7 AND 8 CONCURRENTLY.
Assistant Planner DeGange presented the following proposals as
listed:
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 18
Single - Family Residences - 16565 Marshall and 16846 McPherson
- Daniel Lee (New World Development) - Henry Miller - Minor
Design Review for two single - family dwellings, 1,882 square
feet in size with 562 square foot garages. The structure at
16565 Marshall is placed on a 13,068 square foot lot located
approximately 430 feet east of the intersection of Swan and
Marshall Avenues. The structure at 16846 McPherson is placed
on a 6,970 square foot lot at the intersection of Pierce and
McPherson.
Single- Family Residences - 16575 Marshall and 16838 McPherson
- Daniel Lee (New World Development) - Henry Miller - Minor
Design Review for two single - family dwellings, 1,763 square
feet in size with 470 square foot garages. The structure at
16575 Marshall is placed on a 15,682 square foot lot located
approximately 380 feet east of the intersection of Swan and
Marshall Avenues. The structure at 16838 McPherson is placed
on a 10,019 square foot lot at the intersection of Pierce and
McPherson.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Henry Miller, stated that he would like to keep the roof
the same on all projects, but alter the color schemes. He
then asked for an in -lieu fee instead of planting the trees,
condition number 13.
Discussion ensued on condition number 13, with regard to
planting of trees and location, out of the right -of -way or
easement.
Mr. Daniel Lee, owner, stated there is some confusion on the
color schemes, and proposed the following color schemes:
Two -story dwellings - Light gray stucco with a darker
gray accent and blue -gray trim.
One -story dwellings - Light blue stucco and white
trim.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 4,
recommended this be replaced with the standard language;
condition number 13, change 1115- gallon" to "twenty- four -inch
(2411) box ".
Commissioner Brinley commented on the need for architectural
enhancements on the two -story dwellings to alleviate the stark
appearance.
Commissioner Brown commented on structures to be placed on
McPherson having elevations viewable from the right -of -way,
and adding double windows to the garage on the two elevations
facing the street or expand the existing window.
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Single- Family
Residences at 16565 Marshall (33 Conditions) ; 16846 McPherson
(38 Conditions) ; 16575 Marshall (32 Conditions) , and 16838
McPherson (38 Conditions) based on the Findings and subject to
the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the
following amendments:
16565 MARSHALL: 16846 MCPHERSON; 16575 MARSHALL AND 16838
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 19
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES - 16565 MARSHALL: 16846 MCPHERSON; 16575
MARSHALL AND 16838 MCPHERSON CONTINUED
Condition No. 4: A revised site plan and elevation
plan shall be submitted to the
Planning and Building Departments by
the applicant prior to Building
Division issuance of permits which
reflects all Conditions of Approval.
These revised plans shall become the
approved plot plan only upon the
review and approval by the Community
Development Director or his
designee.
Condition No. 13: Change 1115 gallon" to "twenty -four-
inch (2411) box ".
16846 MCPHERSON
Condition No. 23: Architectural enhancements, expand
existing window or add double
windows to the garage, shall be
added to the two elevations facing
McPherson Street, subject to the
approval of the Community Develop-
ment Director or his designee.
16838 MCPHERSON
Condition No. 39: Architectural enhancements, expand
existing window or add double
windows to the garage, shall be
added to the two elevations facing
McPherson Street, subject to the
approval of the Community Develop-
ment Director or his designee.
Second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Commission
that Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, at their board
meeting this evening, will consider a Water Conservation Ordinance,
which would put restrictions upon uses of water in the area.
Staff's recommendation was to go to a Stage Three Conservation
Program, which creates some issues relative to new construction,
meters, etc. We have staff members at this meeting, and will
report back once we have the outcome.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Chairman Saathoff:
Asked if another date has been set for the Workshop on Title 17.
Community Development Director Gunderman responded in the negative.
Commissioner Brinley:
Nothing to report.
Minutes of Planning Commission
February 6, 1991
Page 20
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS`
Commissioner Gilenson:
Asked for the status of the stop signs requested at the northbound
exit of Highway 74.
Commissioner Brown:
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey:
Nothing to report.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 10:33 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
ved,
Bill Saathoff,
Chairman
Respectfully ubmitted,
inda Gr ddstaff �
Secretary
MINUTES OF
LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1991
THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS CANCELED DUE TO LACK OF
A QUORUM.
ved,
Bill Saathoff,
Chairman
Respectfully s "mitted,
Linda Grin staff
Secretary
MINUTES
HELD ON THE
OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
6TH DAY OF
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
MARCH 1991
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Brown, and
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wilsey
Also present were Planning Manager Strandgaard, Assistant Planner
DeGange, Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry, and Senior Civil Engineer
O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of February 6,
1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to receive and file Minutes of
February 20, 1991, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Zone Change 90 -8 Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised;
Commercial Project 90 -11 Revised - Thomas Brothers (Kentucky
Fried Chicken) - Continued from January 2, 1991. Assistant
Planner DeGange stated the Commission continued these items
pending architectural modifications, at this time, these
modifications have yet to be submitted. Staff is requesting
these items be continued for a period of time not to exceed
180 days or September 4, 1991.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Zone Change 90 -8
Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised; Commercial
Project 90 -11 Revised for a period of time not to exceed 180
days or September 4, 1991, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC
HEARING NUMBER 2 AND 3 CONCURRENTLY.
2. Tentative Tract Map 25478 Revised - L.D. Johnson (Hunsaker &
Associates) - A request to amend a previously approved 271 lot
single - family subdivision plus five (5) letter lots to a 303
lot single - family subdivision plus four (4) letter lots on
131.3 acres, located in the Ramsgate Specific Plan Area on
Ramsgate Drive and Elsinore Hills Road.
3. Tentative Tract Map 25479 Revised - L.D. Johnson (Hunsaker &
Associates) - A request to amend a previously approved 210 lot
subdivision including 205 single - family lots, 3 letter lots,
2 commercial lots, a school lot, a multiple - family lot and a
park lot. The amended map will include 218 single - family lots
with all other lots remaining the same. The site is located
in the Ramsgate Specific Plan Area on Ramsgate Drive and
Highway 74. Total acreage is 149.4.
Staff is requesting these items be continued indefinitely, as
the Ramsgate Specific Plan needs to be amended to allow for
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 6, 1991
Page 2
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25478 AND 25479 CONTINUED
the approval of the two tract.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to continue Tentative Tract
Map 25478 and Tentative Tract Map 25479 indefinitely, second
by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
4. Single - Family Residence - 17296 McBride - John and Andrew
Wright - (Continued from February 20, 1991) - Assistant
Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design Review of
a relocated single - family dwelling with associated modifi-
cations that is 1,258 square feet in size with a 465 square
foot garage placed on a 7,200 square foot lot. The site is
approximately 186 feet west of the intersection of Herbert
Street and McBride Street.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. John Wright, applicant, stated he was in agreement with
staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 8, with
regard to the existing /new roof. Suggested amending condition
number 8, by adding language: "If the applicant can present
evidence that the existing roof is structurally sound then the
existing roof need not be replaced. The roofing material
utilized for the expansion of the garage area shall match the
existing roof, if not replaced."
Commissioner Brown inquired about the percolation test for the
site.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family
Residence at 17296 McBride based on the Findings and subject
to the 35 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report
with the following amendment:
Condition No. 8: If the applicant can present evidence
that the existing roof is structurally
sound then the existing roof need not be
replaced. The roofing material utilized
for the expansion of the garage area
shall match the existing roof, if not
replaced. Applicant shall use roofing
materials with a Class "A" fire rating.
A three dimensional roofing material or
equivalent to be used, and shall be
subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
Second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
5. Residential Project 90 -17 - George Wimpey, Inc. - Morrison
Homes - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request for
Minor Design Review of twenty -eight (28) single - family
residential units on an eight (8) acre site (Tract 24235),
located on the southeast corner of Macy Street and Lake Ridge
Road.
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 6, 1991
Page 3
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -17 CONTINUED
Assistant Planner DeGange referred to the Memorandum of March
6, 1991, requesting the Planning Commission add an item to the
Agenda, which is related to this proposal: Perimeter Walls in
excess of eight -feet (81) in height for Tentative Tract Map
24235.
Chairman Saathoff suggested this matter be taken -up as a
separate item.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving
no response, he asked for discussion at the table. There
being no discussion at the table, he called for a motion.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to re- affirm Negative
Declaration 89 -8 and approve Residential Project 90 -17 based
on the Findings and subject to the 27 Conditions of Approval
listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO ADD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA THE MEMORANDUM OF MARCH 6, 1991, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
GILENSON.
APPROVED 4 -0
Subject: Perimeter Walls for Tentative Tract Map 24235.
Assistant Planner DeGange stated that before staff can approve
the applicant's grading plan it is necessary for the Planning
Commission, per Section 17.14.080.C, to approve the proposed
perimeter walls along the southern boundary of Tract 24235.
Along the two portions of this boundary the walls exceed
eight -feet (81) in height, because a retaining wall is
necessary and the six -foot (61) high perimeter fencing is
placed directly on top. The combination of these two walls
reaches a maximum height of 14.55 feet at one point. This
tract is directly adjacent to Tract 20296 which is also
proposing residential lots that will eventually do consider-
able grading adjacent to this boundary and its walls. Grading
from Tract 20296 is expected to produce fill up to the retain-
ing walls for Tract 24235; therefore, leaving only the six -
foot perimeter wall exposed.
Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve the
applicant's perimeter walls for Tentative Tract 24235 which
exceed eight -feet (81) in height.
Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table.
A brief discussion was held on the grade of Tentative Tract
Map 24235. There being no further discussion, Chairman
Saathoff called for a motion.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve the perimeter walls
in excess of eight -feet (8') in height for Tentative Tract Map
24235, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0
Residential Project 90 -24 - Donald C. Miller - Associate
Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for Minor Design
Review approval of a duplex. The site is approximately 9,150
square feet and is located on the west side of Langstaff
between Pottery and Flint.
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 6, 1991
Page 4
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -24 CONTINUED
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry requested that condition
number 4 be amended as follows:
Condition No. 4: Materials and colors depicted on the
materials board shall be used unless
modified by the Community Development
Director or his designee. Asphalt
shingle roofing material shall be three
dimensional random tab.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Miller, applicant, stated he was in agreement with staff
recommendation.
A brief discussion was held on the proposal being within the
Central Business District, and whether the Design Review
Committee for the Downtown Area has reviewed said proposal.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Residential Project
90 -24 based on the Findings and subject to the 37 Conditions
of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following
amendment:
Condition No. 4: Materials and colors depicted on the
materials board shall be used unless
modified by the Community Development
Director or his designee. Asphalt
shingle roofing material shall be three
dimensional random tab.
Second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
7. Amendment to Uniform Sign Program Shoppers Square Phase I -
Howard Palmer /Elsinore Investments - We Are Sign Makers -
Planning Manager Strandgaard presented a request for a tower
sign, approximately 43 square feet in area on a 32 -foot high
tower element, for Building #4 (Don Jose Restaurant) of the
Shoppers Square Phase I development, located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Casino Drive and Railroad Canyon
Road.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving
no response, he asked for discussion at the table.
Chairman Saathoff asked for the tower width, and letter size.
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded that the sign width is
ten -feet (l0'), and it takes up 87 percent of the tower face.
Staff is requesting this be reduced to 70 percent, and the
letter size be reduced to 12 and 18 inch channel letters.
Commissioner Gilenson
totally. We are trying
did not want them there
their report, one sign
live with that one.
through we allowed one
Palmer, has been here
denied them.
stated that he was in opposition,
to get away from those tower signs - -we
to begin with. As staff points out in
was approved in error so we have to
When the original sign program came
freeway pole sign. The applicant, Mr.
before with these tower signs and we
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 6, 1991
Page 5
AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM SHOPPERS SQUARE PHASE I
Commissioner Brinley stated she was in agreement with
Commissioner Gilenson.
Commissioner Brown stated he felt the same.
Chairman Saathoff stated that he had to go along with the
other Commissioners. In Shoppers Square- -and we have
suggested this to Mr. Palmer before - -a sign program was
established years ago and, because of changes or new tenants,
if some one wants to come back and amend the sign program I
think this is what should be done, rather than coming up each
time with an individual situation on these projects, so that
we can look at the entire thing.
Planning Manager Strandgaard stated the applicant's argument
was that it actually encompassed more of the store frontage,
door ways.
Commissioner Gilenson stated that he designed the building.
If he designed it with that thing blocking that part of the
building - -we did not design it for him. This is my feeling.
Commissioner Brown stated we have had a Master Sign Program
for that center, for how many years?
Commissioner Gilenson stated that every time a new tenant goes
in he tries to change it.
Commissioner Brown stated this is the situation and the
purpose of a Master Sign Program is to establish conformity
throughout the project. There has been a series of arguments
ever since then. Would defer back to the original approval,
and if they want to amend the entire sign program and
conceivably take down what exists and replace with something
else, that would be a different issue.
Chairman Saathoff called for a motion.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to deny the Amendment to the
Uniform Sign Program for Shoppers Square Phase I, second by
Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
8. Reconsideration of Condition of Approval No. 8 - Single - Family
Residences 501 and 503 Adobe Street - Arnold Mundy - Assistant
Planner DeGange stated the Planning Commission approved these
projects on June 6 and May 2, 1991, respectively. Condition
No. 8 requires the use of random tab extra dimensional asphalt
shingles or a three - dimensional roofing material. At this
time, both structures have been constructed with 3 tab two -
dimensional asphalt shingles. Staff requested these projects
be brought before the Planning Commission once again due to
the applicant's misunderstanding of Condition No. 8. Staff is
requesting direction regarding the enforcement for random tab
extra - dimensional asphalt shingle requirements.
Chairman Saathoff asked if the applicant was present. Receiv-
ing no response, he moved that these items be continued to the
meeting of March 20, 1991, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Planning Manager Strandgaard informed the Commission of the delays
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 6, 1991
Page 6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
associated with the updating of Title 17, and the possibility of
scheduling Workshops at the next Planning Commission Meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report
Commissioner Brown
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey
Absent
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
roved,
� a
Bill Saathoff,
Chairman
Respectfully s bmitted,
L nda Gri staff
Planning ommission
Secretary
MINUTES
HELD ON THE
OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING:
20TH DAY OF
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
MARCH 1991
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Wilsey, and Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley and Brown
Also present were Planning Manager Strandgaard, Assistant Planner
DeGange, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Commissioner Gilenson commented on Page 4, item number 7, requested
that the Minutes be expanded to reflect all discussion, as an
appeal has been filed on this item.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the applicant having an approved
Sign Program, and any additional signage he wanted to request
should be through an amendment to the Master Sign Program. Asked
if this was not really what the Commission wanted. Commissioner
Gilenson responded this was not what he wanted.
Commissioner Gilenson stated they could have come in with a revised
Sign Program. Believes the intent of City Council, and direction
to the Commission, was not to have three or four tall freeway signs
in each shopping center. One in each shopping center is fine, they
don't need five per shopping center. That was the intent of
Council.
Chairman Saathoff stated we have had several requests from these
people before, and felt that the Commission was lenient in the
past. I felt it was the Commission's desire not to allow any more
variances, unless they wished to come to Planning Commission /City
Council with a new Sign Program.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he would agree as a general rule. But
in that specific shopping center there are already two or three
pole signs. Whether they came to us with a revised Sign Program
or not, it would still be against what I feel was the intent of
Council, and that is what I want put across to Council in the
Minutes.
Chairman Saathoff stated he thought the discussion primarily
centered around the fact that - -it was denied, because we did not
feel it conformed to the approved Sign Program. If he wanted to
request a change of the entire Sign Program that is fine, it may or
may not be approved.
Commissioner Wilsey stated it would also be advisable to let
Council know, at this time, we also have a non- conforming sign
there, does not conform to the sign ordinance.
Chairman Saathoff stated this is one of the reasons - -the crux I
felt, that before we approve any additional signs in that
particular project, that if the applicant desires to bring a new
Sign Program for that entire center showing what he has and what he
would like to have for Planning Commission /City Council consider-
ation that is fine. But at this point, it is a done deal - -he is
over and above his Sign Program, and any signs he requests is going
to be denied. If he wants to change the Sign Program that is his
prerogative. We need to relay to City Council that the Commis-
sioners feel that he has more than what was originally called for
in the Sign Program. We feel we cannot approve any additional
signs, unless he wants to request an entire new Sign Program.
Isn't that what we are saving?
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 20, 1991
Page 2
MINUTE ACTION CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson responded that he did not believe so. The
way you are wording it, or coming across with wording it, is: that
if he wants to put up more signage he has to come in with a new
Sign Program and we will let it go through. I don't think that is
our intent.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that he believes this conversation is
irrelevant at this point. All we have to work with is the Minutes
and the tape from the previous meeting.
Planning Manager Strandgaard suggested the Secretary get as much
information from the tape as possible, and copies of the corrected
Minutes be hand deliver to the Commissioners for review, so that
they can accompany the appeal.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to table the Minutes of March 6,
1991, to the next meeting, second by Chairman.
Approved 2 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstaining)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Reconsideration of Condition of Approval No. 8 - Single - Family
Residences 501 and 503 Adobe Street - Arnold Mundy (Continued
from March 6, 1991) - Assistant Planner DeGange stated the
Planning Commission approved these projects on June 6 and May
2, 1991, respectively. Condition No. 8 requires the use of
random tab extra dimensional asphalt shingles or a three -
dimensional roofing material. At this time, both structures
have been constructed with 3 tab two - dimensional asphalt
shingles. Staff requested these projects be brought before
the Planning Commission once again due to the applicant's
misunderstanding of Condition No. 8. Staff is requesting
direction regarding the enforcement for random tab extra -
dimensional asphalt shingle requirements.
Chairman Saathoff asked if the applicant was present and if
there were any concerns.
Mr. Arnold Mundy,, 503 Adobe Street, informed the Commission
that he went to the,wrong location and this is the reason he
did not make it to the meeting. He then stated that he did
not know what staff,was specifying, but has since seen it on
a manufactured roof and could not tell the difference. He
stated that he brought in samples and was told to go ahead.
He then informed the; Commission of the financial hardship this
would place on him if he had to replace the roof.
Planning Manager Strandgaard stated that she did not believe
this to be a problem, in the past, but if this situation should
occur again, it makes it difficult on staff and Planning
Commission. Assistant Planner DeGange and I are going to
figure out a way to ;:assure that applicants understand what is
in the Conditions of Approval. Maybe a visual aide, notice or
emphasis in the letter to the applicant.
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 20, 1991
Page 3
RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 8 - SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCES 501 AND 503 ADOBE STREET CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson asked staff, when condition number 8
states "and shall be subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director ", what does this mean?
Assistant Planner DeGange stated, essentially, that is what
this means. We are at the point where we would do a Certi-
ficate of Occupancy.
Chairman Saathoff stated that this is the problem, staff is
upholding condition number 8, and they could not release it
because of condition number 8.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he understands this.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that he believes what Commissioner
Gilenson is trying to ask, if that is the case, why we have
the language "subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director ".
Commissioner Gilenson stated that the way he understands
condition number 8 is, the applicant should get approval prior
to putting it up. Community Development Director approval
means that you bring it in, show it to the Community
Development Director and they signs it off. Then there
wouldn't be a problem when it comes time for a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Planning Manager Strandgaard commented on the knowledge of the
contractor versus an applicant, and suggested emphasis be
placed in the letter sent to the applicant with regard to the
Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Gilenson stated taking your statement, the
contractor should know what he is doing. On that basis, and
strictly on that, I think that we should uphold our Conditions
of Approval. Condition number 23, states that the applicant
has to sign_ and acknowledge the Conditions of Approval, so
taking it at face value, that they sign and acknowledge means
that they understand. Assuming that the applicant read it,
understands it and has a knowledgeable contractor, we can not
interpret it any other way.
Commissioner Wilsey, stated he believes that discussion is
being held on two different issues. The issue at hand is, the
immediate problem of the roof and how we are going to take
care of this problem. The overlying issue is to create
verbiage or policy that will eliminate this problem.
Commissioner Wilsey asked for the difference between the
roofing material the applicant used and what we requested, is
it aesthetic or is there some other criteria the roofing
material used did not meet - -fire standards, construction
material grade. Assistant Planner DeGange responded primarily
it is an aesthetic issue.
Chairman Saathoff stated the Uniform Fire Code requires Class
"A" fire retardant material. The design is not by code - -only
a request, discretionary condition, the Planning Commission
has placed on many builders. The reason we have done this is
to try and upgrade and make properties look a little better,
perhaps in all cases this is not necessary. He then stated
that the applicant may have well missed this due to a mis-
understanding, possible miscommunication between Planning
Commission and staff.
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 20, 1991
Page 4
Commissioner Wilsey stated he agrees with Chairman Saathoff.
Believes this was an honest mistake.
Commissioner Gilenson stated for a while we were getting
material boards at every meeting, then they stopped.
Suggested that nothing come before the Commission without a
materials board, and a materials board check -off be done
before building permit is issued. If we change the materials
board they have to change it before they come in and get a
building permit.
Chairman Saathoff stated this is a good idea. In addition, if
the applicant is not present at the meeting, at the time we
discuss the conditions, suggested continuing the matter. The
applicant should be here and hear the conditions, understand
the conditions, and have the opportunity to address any
concerns. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he disagrees with
this.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that an individual walks in to our
Planning Department, sits down with a planner works up these
details, goes over the plans. Theoretically, he has been
working one on one and talked about these problems; it is
indicated all of the time, in our packets, that minor changes
have occurred and, for this reason, the applicant has been
notified that this is the way staff would like to see
something. So when you are talking about an individual home,
this is a formality.
Commissioner Gilenson stated that he agrees. But taken what
you have just said, when the applicant originally came in with
a non three tab dimensional roofing material, it was discussed
with them by staff, why wasn't it brought up at that time?
Chairman Saathoff asked whether staff advises applicants that
Planning Commission will require a three dimensional roofing
material. Assistant Planner DeGange responded in the
affirmative.
Assistant Planner DeGange commented on the materials board,
stating that when you get a single sample it is just a piece
of asphalt shingle. So in that sense, it is difficult to
ascertain the material the applicant intends to utilize.
Commissioner Gilenson asked if they do not have spec sheets.
Assistant Planner DeGange responded that they do not always
bring in the building plans and they do not specify on the
plans the material utilized. This is why we bring it out in
the Staff Report, bring it to the Commission's and applicant's
attention that we are asking for the upgrade of shingles.
Chairman Saathoff suggested putting this in the Building Code,
as a requirement.
Associate Planner DeGange suggested putting it in the Zoning
Code.
Chairman Saathoff asked for the consensus of the Commission as
far as reconsideration of the approval of condition number 8.
Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would have to stand by
the letter of the condition.
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 20, 1991
Page 5
RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 8 - SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCES 501 AND 503 ADOBE STREET CONTINUED
Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would definitely go for a
change on condition number 8, approve what the applicant has
already installed.
Moved by Commissioner Wilsey to approve the roofing material
that the applicant has already installed, second by Chairman
Saathoff.
Approved 2 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no)
2. Single - Family Residence - 31771 Via Cordova - Anthony & Anna
Skowronski (Rudy Rodriguez) - Assistant Planner DeGange
presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 1,442 square
foot manufactured dwelling with a 400 square foot garage, to
be placed on a 6,954 square foot lot within the Ortega West
Manufactured Home Community.
Chairman Saathoff asked if the applicant was present and if
there were any concerns. Receiving no response, he asked for
discussion at the table.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the sixteen -foot (161) driveway
proposed by the applicant, and Municipal Code requirement for
an eighteen -foot (181) driveway width, how this will be
handled?
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded this is established in
the Zoning Code and the applicant will have to apply for a
variance.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 8, we are
not requiring the three dimensional roofing material, why?
Commissioner Wilsey informed Commissioner Gilenson of
problems, in the past, with condition number 8 for manu-
factured housing, and we found that we could not do it.
Commissioner Gilenson stated if you go back through the
record, believes we have found through Mr. Brown, that it is
available, and all they do is change the roof.
Assistant Planner DeGange responded that staff did consult
with the building inspectors with regard to this matter. In
some instances, where you have manufactured homes, the homes
have not been constructed and they can specify, at the time,
that they want random tab shingles installed. However, in
this case, the structure has already been constructed - -it is
being purchased as is. In staff's opinion it would be an
unnecessary hardship on the applicant to replace the roof.
Planning Manager Strandgaard stated this also brings up a
legal problem of how far can we go, and we're requiring
certain design elements in single - family residential. The law
precludes us from doing that with the mobile home type
situation. We need to get the City Attorney's opinion,
because it causes some concern, and how we deal with people at
the counter.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 15, with
regard to fencing - -the standard condition is 6 -feet, why are
we reducing it to 5 -feet?
Assistant Planner DeGange responded the Mobile Home Community
designation of the Municipal Code only requires a 5 -foot fence.
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 20, 1991
Page 6
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 31771 VIA CORDOVA CONTINUED
Commissioner Wilsey asked staff to elaborate on the Mobile
Home Community, stating that this is not a Mobile Home Park.
Assistant Planner DeGange responded that the zoning classifi-
cation is Mobile Home Community.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 12, with
regard to screening of swamp coolers. Suggested amending this
condition by adding the following language "screening plan
shall be approved by the Community Development Director or his
designee ", and this language added to the standards list of
conditions.
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family
Residence at 31771 Via Cordova based on the Findings and
subject to the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff
Report with the following amendment:
Condition No. 12: All exterior air conditioning units,
electrical boxes or other electrical or
mechanical equipment incidental to
development shall be ground mounted and
screened so that they are not visible
from neighboring property or public
streets. Any roof mounted central swamp
coolers shall be screened, and screening
plan shall be approved by the Community
Development Director or his designee.
Second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 3 -0
Residential Project 91 -1 - Steve Kant /Kant Construction -
Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review of a two -story triplex 2,431 square feet in size with
three (3) 200 square foot garages placed on a 7,500 square
foot lot. The site is approximately 50 feet west of the
intersection of Dutton and Franklin Streets.
Assistant Planner DeGange stated the Design Review Committee
(DRC) for the Central Business District reviewed this proposal
on March 11, 1991, and gave an overview of their concerns and
recommendation.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the multi -paned windows, and
asked what is meant by plant -on ledge, and the need to be more
specific, condition number 28.
Assistant Planner DeGange, referred to the posted rendering,
and explained that the DRC was referring to some type of
relief or ledge.
Chairman Saathoff inquired about a flower box. Assistant
Planner DeGange responded that a flower box would be
considered a plant -on ledge.
Commissioner Gilenson informed Chairman Saathoff that a plant -
on ledge, could be a two -inch ledge that is not built into the
structure - -its not attached to the sill, its attached to the
siding.
Chairman Saathoff asked if the applicant was present and if
there were any concerns.
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 20, 1991
Page 7
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -1 CONTINUED
Mr. Steve Kant, applicant, stated that he did not have a
problem with the DRC's recommendation for the multi -paned
windows, a flower box ledge, or anything like that. He then
stated that he was planning on using a random tab three
dimensional asphaltic shingle roofing material.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Kant when he went before the DRC
and they wanted a plant -on, what he envisioned?
Mr. Kant stated he envisioned putting a ledge with some
corbels underneath, maybe some scallops underneath the ledge,
and maybe drilling some holes where you can put flower pots.
Commissioner Gilenson and Chairman Saathoff suggested this be
included as part of the condition.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 8, would
like additional verbiage added to the end "and shall be
approved by the Community Development Director or his designee
prior to issuance of building permits ". Would also like this
verbiage added to the Standard Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 9, asked if
this project will connect to sewer.
Mr. Kant responded in the affirmative, stating that he has
contacted Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 12, with
regard to screening of swamp coolers. Suggested amending this
condition by adding the following language "screening plan
shall be approved by the Community Development Director or his
designee ".
Commissioner Gilenson suggested that any Condition of Approval
requiring Community Development Director approval be amended
by adding language "prior to issuance of building permit ".
A brief discussion ensued on the elimination of miscon-
ceptions or misunderstandings with this amendment.
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Residential Project
91 -1 based on the Findings and subject to the 40 conditions
listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendments:
Condition No. 8: Applicant shall use roofing materials
with a Class "A" fire rating. Roofing
materials shall consist of random tab
three dimensional asphaltic shingles, and
shall be approved by the Community
Development Director or his designee
prior to issuance of building permits.
Condition No. 12: All exterior air conditioning units,
electrical boxes or other electrical or
mechanical equipment incidental to
development shall be ground mounted and
screened so that they are not visible
from neighboring property or public
streets. Any roof mounted central swamp
coolers shall be screened, and screening
plan shall be approved by the Community
Development Director or his designee,
prior to issuance of building permits.
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 20, 1991
Page 8
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -1 CONTINUED
Condition No. 28: Applicant shall make both windows on the
south elevation multi -paned and add a
decorative plant -on ledge, such as
corbels or scallops underneath the ledge
with holes for flower pots, subject to
the Community Development Director or his
designee's approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
Second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 3 -0
PLANNING MANAGER'S COMMENTS
Planning Manager Strandgaard stated that staff has been approached
by the owner of the Travel Lodge to allow a wrought iron fence with
stucco columns twelve -foot (121) on center, and presented a
memorandum.
A brief discussion was held on whether or not the standard
conditions would cover this aspect, location and visibility of
fencing.
It was the consensus of the Commission to allow the wrought iron
fence with stucco columns twelve -foot (12') on center.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Asked Planning Manager Strandgaard if she was currently Acting
Community Development Director. If we say Community Development
Director would that be you?
Planning Manager Strandgaard stated that she is actually the
Planning Director, my title is Planning Manager. At this point,
there is a Building Manager, Kevin Shear, who is in charge of the
Building Department, and I am in charge of the Planning Department.
Asked if the wording in the conditions should be changed from
Community Development Director to Planning Manager. Planning
Manager Strandgaard responded that the conditions could be amended
in order to make it clear.
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
In the next few sessions, we will probably have light meetings and
I hope that a great deal, of consideration would be given, talk to
Mr. Molendyk or I will talk to him, to the scheduling of Workshops
for Title 17, to bring it into conformance with the General Plan.
Planning Manager Stranagaard responded this is the intent.
Although, we no longer have the use of consultants and there have
been staff cutbacks,; a certain portion of Senior Planner
Delgadillo's time will be" spent on re- writing Chapters of Title 17.
Agrees that light Plannig Commission Meetings would be ideal for
workshops.
Minutes of Planning Commission
March 20, 1991
Page 9
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Commissioner Brown
Absent.
Commissioner Brinley
Absent, attending the League of California Cities Conference.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 3 -0
ved,
Bill Saathoff,
Chairman
Resp tfully submitted,
C�'ct �z�1�
Linda Gri dstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF LAKE
HELD ON THE 3RD DAY
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Co;
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson,
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF APRIL 1991
7:00 P.M.
nmissioner Wilsey.
Brinley, Brown, Wilsey, and
Also present were Planning Manager Strandgaard, Senior Planner
Delgadillo, Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry, and Senior Civil
Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of March 6,
1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved: 4 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstaining)
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of March 20, 1991,
as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved: 3 -0 (Commissioners Brinley and Brown abstaining)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Variance 91 -1 and Amendment to the Uniform Sign Program - Norm
Harris - Planning Manager Strandgaard presented a request to
allow a freeway pole sign for the Travel Lodge and to amend
the Uniform Sign Program to allow a freeway pole sign,
located north of Casino, west of San Jacinto Road.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Harris stated he agrees with staff recommendation, but
would like to request the Commission reconsider- -where you
have denied the 4' -7" x 15' Travel Lodge Sign - -I propose that
we move the existing sign, take it down since it is not
necessary with a 45 -foot pole sign, which is #6 on the overall
plot plan, and place this sign in position #3, which we
requested and was denied. This would allow visibility from
Mission Trail.
Mr. Harris informed the Commission that he was notified today
that Travel Lodge is going to become Holiday Express, and the
only thing that will change is the copy.
Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in
favor. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak in opposition. Receiving no response, he asked if
anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response,
the public hearing was closed at 7:07 p.m.
Commissioner Gilenson stated for the record, he met with the
applicant and discussed the Variance request, and is in favor.
Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows:
• Read -a -board is new, would like to have staff's comments.
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 2
VARIANCE 91 -1 AND AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM CONTINUED
We did a sign review and adopted a Sign Program for this
center, which this was included in, correct? If I
understand correctly, you are asking for a variance on
these particular items of signage, but not asking to
update or bring before review the Sign Program for the
entire center, is this correct?
Mr. Harris responded he was not aware this was necessary.
Commissioner Wilsey responded this is standard procedure,
so that we can review this along with the other elements
of the Sign Program, and come out with something that is
harmonious with the entire center. There are some good
ideas here, but I question whether we shouldn't be
looking at the entire package, rather than piece -meal.
• They are requesting a variance on the pole sign, because
they do not have enough freeway frontage, according to
code. We should be looking at the entire package, if in
fact the alterations were made -- because now we are going
to be piece - mealing this already approved Sign Program.
• The potential for a pole sign on the undeveloped parcel,
reference Building 3.
Whether visibility studies had been done, primarily
regarding the pole sign.
Mr. Harris responded that they have tried to look at it
from both sides of the freeway, thinks that it is really
necessary for the north bound traffic. The south bound
traffic has the advantage of sign number 6 on the low
building and when they get close enough they can see it,
but we are going to remove it.
• Exhibit "B ", south corner, is the only place where we
have a tenant sign on the building within this center,
correct? We have changed our criteria for facia
building signs- -were can signs approved for this center
and, possibly, this would be a good time to update.
• Whether or not the Plaza del Sol tenant sign is really
necessary for this center, because we are talking about
putting a tenant sign, monument style, within 20 feet of
that building and we have a small tenant sign on that
corner. We have been trying to get away from the
individual tenant signs, and this is in conflict with
that idea.
• Visibility of the Travel Lodge monument sign; relocation
of signs and the number of lobby signs; analyze pole sign
potential, and height of pole sign. Concern is, conflict
with the way the corner will be balanced with the Plaza
del Sol tenant monument sign.
Commissioner Brinley stated that she thought the applicant was
requesting relocation of the existing sign #6 to position #3.
Mr. Harris stated they are requesting a change -- moving sign
number 6 to position #3. But we have requested two (2) new
signs, the 45 foot pole sign and the monument sign for Plaza
del Sol. The signage on the property, at this time, is in
conformance with the Sign Program, and we are not really
altering that - -with the exception of the two signs we are
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 3
VARIANCE 91 -1 AND AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM CONTINUED
requesting.
Chairman Saathoff inquired about the units covered under the
original Sign Program.
Mr. Harris responded that both properties are covered, the
Travel Lodge and Plaza del Sol. One item that was missing
when they first requested their signage was the monument sign
for tenants in Plaza del Sol.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Harris if there was a place for
another development within this particular plaza /center. Mr.
Harris responded in the negative, stating that it is an
irregular shape and across the front you have considerable
frontage, in excess of 300 feet.
Discussion ensued on whether this vacant parcel was included
in the Sign Program; this parcel being undevelopable, and
ownership of said parcel.
Commissioner Brown commented as follows:
Concern expressed by Commissioner Wilsey on the
possibility of an additional pole sign on the vacant
parcel.
Informed Mr. Harris of the previous problems associated
with access and maintenance of pole signs, for centers.
Read -a- board.
Mr. Harris stated this has been taken away, referred to
staff's recommendation for the 8' sign, and I agree it
should not be a dual purpose sign. If there is a monu-
ment sign there it will be exclusively for Plaza del Sol.
Whether Casino Drive is still considered a state highway,
if so they are entitled to a pole sign.
Mr. Harris responded that they tried to comply with the sign
requirements. The Travel Lodge is running at 20 percent
occupancy, it can not survive without visibility.
Commissioner Brown stated that he had no problem with this,
but do we amend your problem or look at, as Commissioner
Wilsey mentioned, the entire signage program for the entire
center, and prohibit that part from having a pole sign.
Mr. Harris responded that decision can be made now, there is
no need for a pole sign on the Plaza del Sol- -will concede to
that right now. I want the sign for the Travel Lodge, Plaza
del Sol does not need a pole sign, even in the future. I will
agree to prohibiting any signs on the Plaza Del Sol property
and agree to prohibiting any other signage other than the
motel.
Discussion ensued on the height of the building and topo-
graphy.
Commissioner Brown stated that he has no problem with the pole
sign, but wants to see it come back as an entire amendment to
the Sign Program. Wants to look back and see a final for the
Master Sign Program, with correct exhibits, for the entire
project, and at that time we can formally re -adopt it.
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 4
VARIANCE 91 -1 AND AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM CONTINUED
Discussion ensued on whether can signs or channel letters were
approved for the Master Sign Program.
Chairman Saathoff commented on number of signs, sign #5 not
recommended for approval, and the location of the additional
1x4 lobby sign;
Discussion ensued on number of signs; location of said
signage; signage that will be relocated and /or removed; type
of lettering for signage; height of pole sign and visibility.
Mr. Harris responded that if it will assist the Commission in
making a decision he will delete the monument sign.
Commissioner Wilsey suggested a study session on sign
criteria.
Chairman Saathoff stated he agrees with Commissioner Brown, no
problem in approving the Sign Program as it stands. Feels it
will be compatible with what exists - -we are not in a position/
situation to make radical changes in requesting that signage
be eliminated. However, I do feel, before final approval,
that the request here should be incorporated into the Master
Signage Program for the entire center. He then stated staff
should take into consideration, when we have variances in
areas that already have existing Signage Programs, the request
for a variance should come as an entire package and not an
isolated case. I have no problem with the requested monument
sign and the landscaping proposed around it. I would recommend
approval, and that the approval be suspended until such time
that this can be incorporated into the Master Sign Program and
that is approved.
Discussion ensued on Chairman's term of "approval be
suspended ".
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Variance 91 -1, to the
Sign Ordinance requiring 150 feet of frontage, approving Sign
#8 at a height of 45 feet, eliminating Sign #6, eliminating
Sign #5, approving Sign #4, eliminating Sign #2, approving
Sign #3, approving Sign #1 and Sign #7 in concept. Final
approval will be with re- approval of the Master Sign Program
for the entire center with actual dimensions on sign #3 and
revised exhibits, brought back to the Commission on April 17,
1991, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Wilsey voting no)
2. Zone Change 91 -2; Variance 91 -2 and Residential Project 91 -3 -
ESI Builders /Rodney Pence - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry
presented a request to consider a Zone Change from R -1 to R -3,
to consider a Variance to allow the creation of two (2)
substandard lots as a result of a Lot Line Adjustment, and to
consider Design Review for two (2) triplexes, located on
approximately .35 acres on the east side of Lewis Street
between Graham Avenue and Heald Avenue.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Rodney Pence, stated he was in agreement with staff
recommendation, and would answer any questions that may arise.
Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in
favor. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak in opposition. Receiving no response, he asked if
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 5
ZONE CHANGE 91 -2; VARIANCE 91 -2 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -3
anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response,
the public hearing was closed at 7:53 p.m.
Chairman Saathoff inquired about the width of the landscape
strips in the driveway, and who will maintain said strips.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded that the landscape
strip is 2.5 feet wide.
Mr. Pence stated maintenance of the landscape strips will be
provided by the owner.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following Conditions of
Approval:
Condition # 8, amend to include new standard verbiage,
reference Minutes of March 20th, page 7.
Condition #22, change the word "center's" to "complex's ".
Condition #25.e, regarding parking lot and associated
planters and shading. Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry
stated this condition should be eliminated.
Condition #25.i, add the words "prior to" after the word
installed.
Condition #28, amend to include standard verbiage for
interior clear space.
Condition #31, reciprocal access easement - -who is this
agreement with?
Conditions 51, 52 and 54, do they apply to this project?
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry stated there are some County
Fire Department conditions that do not apply to this project,
but staff decided not to alter the Fire Department conditions.
Commissioner Gilenson stated that if the Commission approves
the project, as it stands, they will have to have sprinklers
in each unit.
Mr. Pence stated they plan on doing condition number 53, but
would prefer to have the other conditions deleted.
Commissioner Gilenson recommended that conditions 51, 52 and
54 be deleted.
Discussion ensued on County Fire Department conditions.
Chairman Saathoff suggested the Fire Department conditions
remain and add verbiage "or as amended and approved by the
Fire Department ".
Commissioner Gilenson recommended conditions 45 through 58 be
deleted, and a new condition 45 which will read: "comply with
all conditions of the County Fire Department" be added.
Commissioner Wilsey stated his only concern is, taking one
standard and one substandard lot and making two substandard
lots. Asked Mr. Pence why he decided to go this way rather
than combine the lots.
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 6
ZONE CHANGE 91 -2° VARIANCE 91 -2 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -3
CONTINUED
Mr. Pence stated the area of the lots is still over the area
required, still within the area limits for standard lots - -its
just a width realign of 60 foot. He then gave a brief
explanation on bank loan qualifications for triplexes.
Commissioner Brinley commented on aesthetics and the landscape
strip.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council
approval of Zone Change 91 -2 based on the Findings listed in
the Staff Report, and approve Variance 91 -3 and Residential
Project 91 -3 based on the Findings and subject to the 58
Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the
following amendments:
Condition No. 8: Asphalt - ____.g__ reefing material: _.____ _-
three (3) dilaensienal randefa tab
Applicant shall use roofing materials
with a Class "A11 fire rating. Roofing
materials shall consist of random tab
three dimensional asphaltic shingles, and
shall be approved by the Planning Manager
or designee, prior to issuance of
building permit.
Condition No. 22: Any proposed metal mailbox shall be
treated to blend with theter's
complex's design theme. Mailbox plans
shall be submitted for approval prior to
issuance of building permits, and shall
be subject to the approval of the postal
service and the Planning Manager or
designee.
Condition No. 25e: _____ -_ -r_ planters shall be r- -- -_-_ ..i ._ parking let shading in
. te parking let shade tree te
0
fifteen ( 1 _5) DELETE
\ / years.
Condition No. 25i: All landscaping and irrigation shall be
installed prior to ^` the t-Ame a Certifi-
cate of occupancy request. All planting
areas shall include plantings in the
Xeriscape concept, drought tolerant
grasses and plants.
Condition No. 28: Garage shall be ee staFia_ted a-_ previde -
minimum ef ten feet by twenty feet \ 1.. m
26'—a€ iIrteriar elea:- spaee. Garage
shall be constructed to provide a minimum
of nine -feet- six - inches by nineteen -
feet- six - inches (91611 x 191611) of
interior clear space for two cars for a
total interior clear space of nineteen -
feet by nineteen- feet - six - inches (19' x
191611) .
Condition No. 45: The Fire Department is required to set a
minimum fire flew €er the— rer::ed•_l er
using the preeedure established in
Ardinanee 546Y DELETE
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 7
ZONE CHANGE 91 -2; VARIANCE 91 -2 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -3
CONTINUED
Condition No. 46: Previde er s hew there exists a water
-- __ - - -- _r_- -____� y___ - =___ -- ______ _seer_ be
--- _ - - - -_ seer__ any _errs_ iris__ errs ____ -_
is r----- -- the j--- site. DELETE
Condition No. 47: The __g__- -- fire _less shall
frem a super fire hydrant (611 x 411 x 2
1/'1 —x 2 1f2 11 ) , leeated —net less than
twenty five (25) feet er nerre than ,
t_a^el_ways. DELETE
Condition No. 48: r_ -1 _ __t 1devel -p ^r shall be respensible
a e` eemp :n i neting the l eeatien _f the
emisting fire hydrant and that the-
existing water system is eapabl a e€
delivering —I-AAA G-MI -fire flew fer —ate
heur dur-atien at 29 Pr, T- residual
eperating— pressure. if a —water - ,, —`__-
eurrently dees net exist,
- ---- sirs -- arrangements = have sirs --
DELETE
Condition -
readway, the 20 feet wide driveway shall
be allewed. Please be advis-e-A that If
any future buildings te rear ef preper-ty
DELETE
Condition No. 50: The -- q---ed fire flew may be adjusted --
a later —peint in the perm -- preees- --
re €leet ehanges in design, - _stru .s : en
type —area separratien er la__ -`___n five
preteetien mea sure -- DELETE
Condition No. 51: install a eemplete fire sprinkler syste-
in all buildings requiring a fire flew ef
1509 GRI er greater. The pest�ldi� r
twenty five (-25) feet €rem the
building(s). A statement — that —the
page of the building plans. DELETE
Condition No. 52: instal_! a supervised . ate - f-1 ew . nice ,._.. g
fire alarm system. Plan — must —be
submitted to the Fire Department —€ar
appreval prier to installatien Fire
Alarm Systen must be supervised by an U
er R! eerti €ied reeeieing statien.. UL e-
of fire -department �,�< _ DELETE
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 8
ZONE CHANGE 91 -2; VARIANCE 91 -2 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -3
Condition No. 53:
Condition No. 54: A statement that the building :iz} be
autematleally— €ire sprinklered must
appeav en the title page ef the building
plans. DELETE
Condition No. 55: Geeupaney separatien will be required as
per the Hniferm Building Gede, Seetien
503. DELETE
Condition No. 56: instal pertabl- fire extinguishers � rrt n
aminimam rating e€ 2A IOBG. Gentaet
plaeement of equipment. DELETE
Condition No. 57:
ender in the ameant of $558.99 te tkke
eheamk fees. DELETE
Condition No. 58: Blue -det ...e fle..ters shall
direetly- in line with fire hydrants-.
DELETE
Condition No. 45: Applicant shall comply with all condi-
tions of the County Fire Department.
Second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Commissioner Brown asked staff, if this is for the purpose of
a construction loan, could we not require that prior to
Occupancy of the second building or Certificate of Occupancy
that these lots be merged instead of creating two substandard
lots.
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded, technically, you could
require this. However, I do not know what burden is placed on
the applicant.
Mr. Pence commented on the difficulty in qualifying /obtaining
construction loans.
Chairman Saathoff inquired about the depth of the lots. Mr.
Pence responded 50 by 150 feet.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called
for the question.
Approved 5 -0
At this time, 8:07 p.m., the Planning commission recessed.
At this time, 8:14 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened.
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 9
BUSINESS ITEMS
3. Single- Family Residence 1006 West Pottery - Mario De La Torre
- Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for
Minor Design Review of a 3,420 square foot two -story dwelling
placed on a 9,000 square foot lot, located at the southeast
corner of Silver and Pottery.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was any one present
representing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Mario De La Torre stated that he was in agreement with
staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilenson recommended that condition number 8 be
deleted, as the applicant is using clay tile roofing.
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family
Residence at 1006 West Pottery Street based upon the Findings
and subject to the 35 Conditions of Approval listed in the
Staff Report with the following amendment:
Condition No. 8: Asphalt shin_ -- reefing material shall be
three • dimensien -- rande- tab. DELETE
Second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
4. Residential Project 90 -23 - Michael Brown - Planning Manager
Strandgaard presented a request to consider Design Review
approval for a five unit apartment complex, located on
approximately .36 acres on the north side of Joy Street
between Riverside Drive and Machado Street.
Planning Manager Strandgaard informed the Commission of the
letter dated April 3, 1991, received from the Law Office of
John Giardinelli, representing Richard Murphy, owner of the
property immediately adjacent and behind this proposal,
stating:
• Mr. Murphy has not worked out a satisfactory resolution
with the developer and the project, as it stands, will
landlock Mr. Murphy and severely hamper any developments
that he, or the owner of lot 005 (AP # 379 - 131 -005) might
have.
• Apparently, there are some significant concerns that Mr.
Murphy has relative to Fire Department requirements and
to a turn - around that might be required on his property.
Moreover, Mr. Murphy is concerned that he will be
required to devote even more of his property to both
adjacent landowners if this matter cannot be worked out.
• It seems to me that this is a problem that should be
worked out with the impacted property owners in order to
avoid or mitigate substantial detriment to all of the
property owners. I am willing to meet with Mr. Brown,
his engineers, or their attorney in order to attempt to
resolve this matter equitably and in the best interest of
all parties concerned. I would therefore request that
this matter be continued to another agenda and that Mr.
Brown be instructed to either contact me or to have his
representatives contact me in order that we might attempt
to sit down an work this matter out in an informal and
positive manner.
therefore, staff request this proposal be continued for 2 to
4 weeks, in order to allow the property owners to work together.
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 10
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -23 CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff inquired about the easement proposed, is it
the driveway itself? Planning Manager Strandgaard responded
in the affirmative.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was any one present
representing the applicant.
Mr. Brown commented on the re- design of the proposal due to
the widening of Joy Street. My brother, Michael Brown, is the
applicant and he is the one who has had correspondence with
Mr. Murphy about acquiring his property or working out a
resolution. The other parcel 005, the owners reside in the
bay area, and Mike has sent several letters to them and has
not received a response. I have met with Karen Kiefer,
Riverside County Fire Department, about access to the property
to the rear.
Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak on the
matter.
Mr. Dick Murphy, 34600 Washington Street, Winchester,
California, commented on the previous condition, condition
number 59 placed on Residential Project 89 -9, and how the
applicant was able to proceed without complying with this
condition; also concerned with open space and density of the
proposal. Requested that this item be continued.
Chairman Saathoff referred to condition number 45, and asked
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell if the applicant has met any
one of the three conditions: purchase the property, develop
property concurrently or provide an easement. Senior Civil
Engineer O'Donnell responded in the negative.
Commissioner Brown commented on access being provided to lot
006 and relying upon someone else to provide it to lot 005- -
this is not as the original condition read. This project does
not address what the original project was suppose to do, and
I do not see how we can approve this proposal.
Commissioner Gilenson stated that he did not think the
Commission should approve this, based on the landlock, it
would only lead to litigation. Suggested a 30 day continuance
to see if it can be resolved.
Commissioner Brown suggested that the proposal be continued
until the original conditions of Residential Project 89 -9 are
met.
Discussion ensued on time frame for said continuance, with the
consensus being to continue the proposal for a period of time
not to exceed 180 days.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Residential Project
90 -23 for a period of time not to exceed 180 days, second by
Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
INFORMATIONAL
1. Title 17 Update - Chapter 17.54 - Senior Planner Delgadillo
presented a draft copy of Business Park Ordinance.
Discussion was held on scheduling a workshop for April 17,
1991, after adjournment of the regular Planning Commission
Meeting. An Agenda for said workshop to be posted.
Minutes of Planning Commission
April 3, 1991
Page 11
TITLE 17 UPDATE CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson inquired about the Freeway and Mixed Use
Ordinance, and asked that they be supplied copies.
PLANNING MANAGERIS COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brown
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 8:50 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
prov d,
a
Bill Saathoff,
Chairman
Respectfully ubmitted,
dA j&
inda Gri dstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF
HELD ON THE
LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
17TH DAY OF
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brown.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson,
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
APRIL 1991
Brinley, Brown, Wilsey, and
Also present were Planning Manager Strandgaard, Senior Planner
Delgadillo, Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry, Associate Planner
Restivo and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Minutes of April 3, 1991,
as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved: 5 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Chris Bachman, Design Concepts West, requested to speak on the
La Mirage Apartment Project.
Chairman Saathoff informed Mr. Bachman that he could comment at
this time, or wait for the item to come up on the agenda. Mr.
Bachman responded that he would wait for the item to come up.
There being no further requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Variance 91 -2; Conditional Use Permit 91 -1 and Minor Design
Review, Granny Flat Unit - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry
presented a request to vary from Section 17.17 of the
Municipal Code requiring second units to be attached to the
main dwelling; a Conditional Use Permit to allow a second unit
on a single - family lot, and Minor Design Review approval for
the Granny Flat Unit, consisting of 625 square feet, to be
located in the rear yard of an existing single - family resi-
dence, located at 29062 Tangerine Way.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Richard Price, applicant, presented a letter explaining
their intent and purpose, which states:
1. Our parents have lived with us for 5 years.
a) Our parents were missionaries and we had their
parents living with us for 6 years.
b) Our parents are 84 and 80 years old.
2. We lived in our last home for 22 years.
3. I retired last February. (Income: Pension and
part time computer graphic business out of our
home) .
4. As our parents' health deteriorates we need
additional room.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 2
VARIANCE 91 -2; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -1 AND MINOR DESIGN REVIEW.
GRANNY FLAT UNIT CONTINUED
a) Currently when they have visitors they can
entertain in the whole house.
b) As they spend more time in bed, visitors have
to stand in their bedroom.
C) This was brought graphically to us when Dad
recently broke his hip. We had to put a
hospital bed, walker and other medical
equipment in his room (no room).
5. We originally were going to build the room
anticipating the time when, in order to care for
them at home, we would have to build the "Granny
Flat ". We were going to use the room for an
office, I have a computer graphic art business out
of the home until they needed to move into it.
6. Michelle, our youngest daughter, was recently laid
off due to budget cuts and is moving back home in
order to go back to college. Michelle was a place-
ment counselor for Goodwill.
7. Daughter Michelle lost her leg to bone cancer at
age 8.
a) Book written about Michelle and family.
b) Because of the book, we have had many speaking
engagements schools /hospital visits to
encourage others.
1) Interfering with school.
2) Wants to go to college /day care provides
vehicle.
3) Without a college degree coupled with not
having a leg makes it difficult in
today's economy to secure a job.
8. When we checked on what we needed to do at the
Planning Office we were asked if we knew of anyone
who might object to us building the Granny Flat.
We told the person assisting us that our next door
neighbor, who we had words over their three barking
dogs, might object. We were advised to contact
them and see if they would object before paying all
of the fees. This we did. We showed Bill the
plans and he said he had no objections. We asked
if he would like us to show Loren the plans and he
said no there wouldn't be any problems. We took
him at his word. The next thing we heard was from
several neighbors who called us and told us that
Bill was trying to talk them into coming and
protesting at this meeting. We haven't talked to
Bill and Loren about the situation but we were told
that because of Loren having a baby she felt that
having people in our back yard would cause her dogs
to bark and disturb her. We had previously offered
to pay to have their dogs debarked when we asked
them if they could do something about their dogs
barking excessively. Dad had just had a major
heart attack and needed his rest. They were not
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 3
VARIANCE 91 -2; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -1 AND MINOR DESIGN REVIEW,
GRANNY FLAT UNIT CONTINUED
sympathetic to Dad's situation. As an aside ... the
couple we bought the home from, after the sale,
told us that one of the main reasons they moved
were the barking dogs.
Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in
favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those opposed.
Mr. Bill Chase, 29064 Tangerine Way, commented on the notice
sent out by the City being misleading with regard to the
location of the proposal, and the City's feeling that this
only affects people within 300 -feet of the dwelling, when
actually this should affect everyone that is a homeowner in
our tract. What these people are actually proposing to do, as
Dick mentioned, was to move their daughter in but also start
a day care center. Looking at the plans, they are proposing
a bachelor apartment. What happens when their parents pass
on? What happens if they move? What will happen to the
structure - -it can be rented out for several different things.
This is what I am opposed to.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in opposition.
Mr. Joe Garcia, resident on Tangerine Way, commented on a
document (CC & R's) recorded in the County of Riverside for
this tract, stating that there would be no structures built
outside of a Jacuzzi, swimming pool, patio or something for
recreation. Everyone had to sign this document before buying
a home. Asked for definition of a Granny Flat unit.
Chairman Saathoff informed Mr. Garcia that staff would provide
a definition after the close of the public hearing. He then
asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition.
Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to speak on
the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was
closed at 7:16 p.m.
Planning Manager Strandgaard stated staff met with the City
Attorney and the two gentlemen regarding this issue. She then
read the definition of a Granny Flat unit as stated in the
Government Code.
Planning Manager Strandgaard stated the applicant's request is
that this not be attached to the main building. I believe
that if the second unit were to be attached to the main
building that it would answer the concerns of the neighbors.
However, you are allowed to approve a detached unit. A
detached unit requires a Variance, because our Zoning Code
does not provide for a detached unit.
Chairman Saathoff commented on detached units requiring a
Variance. If it were an attached unit it would not need a
Variance and they would just go through the City Building
Department and meet all requirements. He then asked the
following questions:
• If attached means that it could be attached through the
means of a breezeway?
Planning Manager Strandgaard referred to the Uniform
Building Code stating she believes this allows an
attached unit. However, I do not know if this answers
the aesthetic concerns of the neighbors.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 4
VARIANCE 91 -2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -1 AND MINOR DESIGN REVIEW
GRANNY FLAT UNIT CONTINUED
If it is an attached, Granny Flat, unit are they allowed
cooking facilities?
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded in the
affirmative, according to our City Attorney's
interpretation of the State Code.
Chairman Saathoff stated he recalls, sometime ago, that if it
were an attached Granny Flat cooking facilities were not
allowed. The reason for concern is, it then could easily
become, regardless of these conditions, a rental unit if it
had all of the amenities. It was my thinking that cooking
facilities were not allowed to eliminate the possibility of it
becoming a rental unit at a later time.
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded one way to preclude it
from becoming a rental unit is the small size of the unit
itself. The intent of the law was to keep it small, 640
square feet. I think, if it were attached to the home there
might be less of a chance for a teenager or someone not
related to the family to move in.
Commissioner Gilenson asked staff, there appears to have been
some CC & R's recorded with the County. If the CC & R's
prohibit a second dwelling unit on the premises, what is our
standing on that?
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded that CC & R's do not
supersede Government Code.
Commissioner Gilenson stated the last three words on condition
number 6 should be deleted, duplication.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he has the same concerns as the
opposition -- turning it into a rental unit, and not having
control that I feel the neighborhood would have by making it
an attached dwelling. It can still become a rental unit, but
by making it an attached unit the occupant of the home would
be more careful in the screening of who it is rented to. I am
in favor of the Granny Flat unit, but would like to see it
attached with more than a breezeway. I would like to see it
physically attached to the dwelling.
Commissioner Brinley commented on the roofing material, and
roofing material to match existing roof. Associate Planner
Naaseh - Shahry referred to condition number 15, which refers to
all exterior materials being identical to the main dwelling.
Commissioner Brinley stated she would like to see it attached
to the home. It still gives the Granny unit, and I am in
favor of the Granny unit and taking care of our parents. She
then inquired about the exact location of the proposal.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry referred to the exhibit
included in the packet.
Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the location of the
proposed structure to the main structure, and the amount of
clear space between the structures. Associate Planner
Naaseh - Shahry responded ten -feet.
Commissioner Wilsey stated, for practicality sake, if you
wanted to have this attached to the main building by lattice
work or whatever, it should be probably no more than five -feet
apart.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 5
VARIANCE 91 -2; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -1 AND MINOR DESIGN REVIEW.
GRANNY FLAT UNIT CONTINUED
Commissioner Wilsey then commented on condition number 7,
referring to the garage. I understand that they have an
existing three car garage, suggested this condition be
deleted.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he also agrees, it would serve the
goals of all if the two structures were attached.
Commissioner Brown commented on whether or not we have an
adopted Second Unit Ordinance; do these criteria meet - -we must
approve this based upon the Government Code and our ordinance,
the unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded that the City has an
adopted Second Unit Ordinance.
Commissioner Brown then read portions of the Government Code
pertaining to Granny Flat units. The only thing it suggests
that we have not done is, to designate certain areas within
the City that we would normally entertain Granny Flats. Does
not see how we can deny it legally, if it meets the criteria.
However, it does state that it must be by one or two occupants
and they must be over 60 years of age.
Commissioner Gilenson stated the age limitation has been
changed. This has been updated, there is no age restriction.
Commissioner Brown stated his concern is that you live in a
single - family residential area, and someone has the ability to
build a second unit, now it becomes a multi- family unit.
There are restrictions to prevent that from happening, but
especially, if the age has been lowered what is to prevent
everyone in a single - family tracts from building a Granny Flat
unit and turning it into a rental.
Discussion ensued on the Government and Local Code require-
ments and if attached there is no need for a Variance, it
would just come before the Commission for Minor Design Review,
and structural connection of the structures.
Commissioner Wilsey stated the two structures could be
connected through a breezeway, it would not require the wall
to be torn down and a new common wall built.
Commissioner Brown stated he wants Mr. Chase and Mr. Garcia to
understand the reason that the State got so tough on Granny
Flat units is because too many cities were denying them. He
then informed Mr. Chase and Mr. Garcia that State Law
supersedes local law.
Chairman Saathoff stated he feels very strongly that it should
be attached - -it should not be a detached entity, whatsoever.
It would be my recommendation for denied.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested approving the proposal with a
condition that it be physically attached to the building,
wall -to -wall, would this be appropriate?
Commissioner Brown stated he would still like to see this for
Minor Design Review. If approved, I don't think we would see
it.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested continuation with that
direction.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 6
VARIANCE 91 -2; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -1 AND MINOR DESIGN REVIEW.
GRANNY FLAT UNIT CONTINUED
Commissioner Wilsey stated there is criteria in our packets
for Design Review with regard to matching the primary
structure.
Chairman Saathoff stated the questions was: if they go to the
Building Department and request that it be attached via other
than wall -to -wall, then it comes back for Design Review for
compatibility of the breezeway or whatever.
Commissioner Gilenson stated his suggestion was to approve it
with a condition that it be attached wall -to -wall, subject to
the approval of the Planning Manager. We already have the
condition that the rooflines meet.
Chairman Saathoff responded this creates another problem if
they decide that they want to go with this and not go wall -to-
wall, but use some other means of attachment, then he will
have to come back.
Commissioner Gilenson stated they would have to submit a whole
new project.
Commissioner Brown stated that after reading the Government
Code, we can not make any unusual conditions on this project
as far as attachments, or unusual requests as far as Design
Review, and currently we do not require any attachment to be
done wall -to -wall.
Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like to see it
denied, appeal without prejudice to City Council and get some
feedback.
Chairman Saathoff stated this is one of the reasons he
suggested denial, if they wish to re- design they have that
opportunity. If it is denied, they have the right to appeal
to City Council.
Moved by Commissioner Brinley to deny Variance 91 -2, second by
Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
:1430k11D&Xi64a)yvK
2. Variance 91 -1 and Sign Program Modification - Holiday Inn -
Norm Harris (Continued from April 3, 1991) - Senior Planner
Delgadillo presented the applicant's request for modification
of the Plaza del Sol Sign Program, to construct a 45 -foot high
pole sign and center identification sign. At the April 3rd,
meeting the Planning Commission approved, in concept, the
Variance and Sign Program modifications.
Chairman Saathoff stated if it pleases the Commission, rather
than getting into a long dissertation about what happened at
the past meeting on the exiting Sign Program, would like to
center on what is actually proposed.
Senior Planner Delgadillo stated Attachment #4 is a site plan
of the current site, and these are the signs proposed to
identify the Travel Lodge and the Plaza del Sol center:
Sign #1, is a monument sign off of Casino Drive adjacent to
the drive entrance to the now Holiday Inn Express. This is
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 7
VARIANCE 91 -1 AND SIGN PROGRAM MODIFICATION CONTINUED
shown as a freestanding monument sign, 6 feet high by 514"
wide. It is a cabinet sign internally illuminated.
Chairman Saathoff asked if this replaces the existing sign.
Senior Planner Delgadillo responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he would like to see the base of
Sign #1 changed to the base illustrated on the old Sign #1,
instead of the box have an arch, as it would match the Plaza
del Sol monument sign.
Commissioner Brown stated this sign is considerably higher,
the sign itself, that means the base would have to be smaller,
so the overall height will not be more than 6 -feet, even
taking into consideration the new base.
Commissioner Wilsey stated 6 -feet from the curb, correct?
Senior Planner Delgadillo responded 6 -feet from finished grade
to the top of the cabinet. There is no height difference from
the old versus the new.
Sign #2, is a cabinet wall sign that would be located on the
west elevation facing Casino Drive. It is 4 -feet high by 13'-
8" wide, which says Holiday Inn, and will replace the current
logo sign. The bear logo sign will come down.
Discussion was held on the bear logo facing south, and the
proposed sign facing west. If this is a can sign, and whether
the original Sign Program prohibited can signs.
Sign #3, is a lobby sign, 1 -foot by 4' wide, located on the
west elevation above the registration office, and will replace
the existing office sign on the south elevation.
Sign #4, Plaza del Sola center identification, 8 -feet high by
12.5 feet wide, which has a reader or message board currently
on it, located in a landscaped area adjacent to Casino Drive.
Commissioner Wilsey asked for discussion on the height of this
sign, stating that we have not been allowing monument signs
over 6 -feet tall.
Sign #5, a 45 -foot high pole, with stucco surround, which will
be adjacent to the east elevation and the I -15 Freeway.
Commissioner Wilsey inquired as to whether the Commission
wanted the pole portion to be square and textured not round,
so that it would more closely match the Mediterranean style of
the building.
Chairman Saathoff asked the applicant to address the comment
regarding the height of Sign #4, why an 8 -foot monument sign
is necessary.
Mr. Norm Harris, applicant, stated that originally the
monument sign was designed at 16 -feet. I did not agree with
this, either. We agreed to come to 8- feet - -I think it would
require 8 -feet to hold proportions and still maintain the
space necessary for the tenants, as they move into Plaza del
Sol. I would like to hold at 8 -feet, and recently you have
approved a sign that was 8 -feet in height at the Lakeshore
Center.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Harris to address the comment made
on the shape of the 45' sign.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 8
VARIANCE 91 -1 AND SIGN PROGRAM MODIFICATION CONTINUED
Mr. Harris stated that he did not have a problem with this,
and personally would agree with square versus round.
Commissioner Brown stated there would not be any reader board
over the hotel lobby, correct?
Mr. Harris responded in the negative.
Commissioner Brown stated there will be no other signs other
than these signs -- everything that is there is coming down and
being replaced by new signs. How about the sign that is
currently on Building #3 (LOANS).
Chairman Saathoff stated this is a tenant sign and all tenant
signage will be allowed.
Mr. Harris stated this sign was approved in the prior Signage
Program.
Commissioner Brown inquired about signage for the rear eleva-
tion of the building. Mr. Harris responded there were no sign
approved for the back of the building, only on the front
surface.
Discussion ensued on Building #3 with regard to front and rear
surface; location of tenant signage and what tenant signage
was approved in the original Sign Program; the existing
"LOANS" sign on Building #3 being a non - conforming sign.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on Sign #4, stating that he
feels it should be no higher than 6' tall, and would eliminate
the read -a -board concept.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the existing sign that is
acknowledged to be on the side (Building #3 "LOANS ") Planning
Commission should take note that Code Enforcement should check
into this.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Variance 91 -1 with
conditions, second by Commissioner Brinley with discussion on
whether the Conditions of Approval were to be amended.
Commissioner Gilenson amended his motion to approve Variance
91 -1 and the Amendment to the Uniform Sign Program based on
the Findings and subject to the 7 Conditions of Approval
listed in the Staff Report of April 3, 1991, with the
following amendments:
Condition No. 2: The Plaza del Sol center identification
sign shall be a total height of 8' and be
consistent with Attachment 4. The
texture and color of the structure shall
match the main building. A 50 square
foot planter with a minimum dimension of
5 -feet shall be provided at the base of
the center identification sign. The
landscape plan for the planter area shall
be consistent with the overall project
landscaping scheme and be subject to the
approval of the Planning Manager or
designee. Plans must be approved prior
to issuance of sign permits. The center
address at 6" high must be displayed on
the Plaza del Sol center identification
sign.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 9
VARIANCE 91 -1 AND SIGN PROGRAM MODIFICATION CONTINUED
Condition No.
3: The 45 -foot high freeway "pole" sign
shall be boxed and stuccoed, consistent
with Attachment 4. The texture and color
of the structure shall match the main
building. A 100 square foot planter area
with a minimum dimension of 5 -foot shall
be provided. The landscape plan for the
planter area shall be consistent with the
overall project landscape scheme, and
subject to the approval of the Planning
Manager or designee. Plans must be
approved prior to issuance of sign
permit.
Condition No.
8: The base of Sign #1, monument sign
(Holiday Inn Express) off of Casino Drive
adjacent to the drive entrance, shall be
changed to incorporate a small arch to
match the Plaza del Sol monument sign.
Commissioner
Brinley amended her second to include the
amendment to
the motion.
Approved 5 -0
At this time, 8:00 p.m., the Planning commission recessed.
At this time, 8:10 p.m., the Planning commission reconvened.
3. Single - Family Residence - 307 Mohr Street - Tony Villacana -
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for Minor
Design Review of a 1,161 square foot single -story dwelling
with a two car garage to be placed on a 8,625 square foot lot,
located at the west side of Mohr 170 feet north of Sumner.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Villa -
cana stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilenson asked staff if we have implemented a
check and balance safeguard specifically in regard to condi-
tion number 7. Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded in
the affirmative.
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey
dence at 307 Mohr based on the
Conditions of Approval listed
Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
to approve Single - Family Resi-
Findings and subject to the 33
in the Staff Report, second by
4. Single - Family Residence 29431 Pierce Avenue - Ben Antell
(Active Land) - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a
request for Minor Design Review of a 1,643 square foot two -
story dwelling with a two car garage to be placed on a 6,900
square foot lot, located at the north side of Gunnerson Street
120 feet west of Ulmer Street.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Antell
stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation.
Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. There
being no discussion, he called for a motion.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 10
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE 29431 PIERCE AVENUE CONTINUED
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Single- Family Resi-
dence at 29431 Pierce Avenue based on the Findings and subject
to the attached 29 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff
Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
5. Residential Project 89 -18 - Joseph Fitzpatric (Bradley &
Lilleana Thompson) - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented
a request for Minor Design Review of a twenty (20) unit
apartment complex, located on approximately 1. 12 acres on the
west side of Robertson Street between Riverside Drive and
Shrier Drive.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Chris Bachman, representing Design Concepts West, stated
instead of providing 20 pairs washer /dryer facilities they
would like to come in with 10 and stagger them throughout the
unit. Because the concept is that we want to rent to people
who can come in and be able to utilize their existing facili-
ties, if they brought in their own, condition number 32.
Chairman Saathoff inquired whether all unit have washer /dryer
facilities built in. Mr. Bachman responded that hook -ups are
available, and it is basically a townhouse situation with full
hook -up and storage in the garage.
Commissioner Brown stated that he has a problem with condition
number 32, why would we drop this requirement. Asked Mr.
Bachman if they were also proposing to use common facilities.
Mr. Bachman responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Brown stated this is then applicable, that you
are going to provide washer /dryer facilities. Suggested that
the word "hook -up" be added after the word dryer, condition
number 32.
Planning Manager Strandgaard referred to the Municipal Code,
Laundry Facilities for R -3 Zoning, which states: "to provide
laundry facilities adequate to accommodate the number of units
proposed within the project, and there shall be a minimum of
one washer /dryer for each unit nine units; however, there
shall be no less than one washer /dryer provided." In other
words, for those units that do not have facilities in them he
needs to provide a washer /dryer elsewhere in a common area.
Chairman Saathoff stated his interpretation of what staff is
saying is, that not only - -he does not have to provide the
washer dryer hook -ups.
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded in the negative,
stating he needs to provide a washer and dryer in addition to
the hook -ups. He does not have to provide them in each unit -
providing them in each unit is above the Code requirements.
However, if he removes them from ten of the units he needs to
provide common facilities somewhere on the project site.
Discussion ensued on condition number 32, with regard to the
laundry facilities required and location.
Planning Manager Strandgaard stated he has to provide the
minimum number of one washer /dryer for each nine units, so he
has to provide a minimum of three (3) washers /dryers in a
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 11
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -18 CONTINUED
common area, or he can put them in individual units. But if
he takes them out of ten of the units, does just half, he has
to provide at least two (2) washer /dryer facilities in a
common area.
Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Bachman if they have a common
area in which they can do this. Mr. Bachman responded in the
negative, stating that if this is going to create a conflict
they will go with the 20 units required in the condition.
Commissioner Brown commented on Shrier Drive and Robertson
Street -- believes the concerns expressed the last time we
looked at this, cul- de- sacing Shrier Drive because of the
ingress /egress problem from Riverside Drive; certainly, less
than the recommended 300 -feet from intersection to inter-
section that sits on a blind curve -- constant site of traffic
accidents because of people trying to turn left onto Shrier.
The other ingress /egress is an unpaved road. I do not think
that it is the responsibility of this project to improve all
of Shrier down to Robertson, and all of Robertson to Riverside
Drive. How are we going to get all of this traffic in and out
without doing something about those streets?
Commissioner Brown commented on the drawings stating the
drainage will go out the driveway to the right -of -way or the
parking lot, asked the applicant where he thought the drainage
would go.
Mr. Bachman responded, at present, we have plans for the
drainage to be subterranean and out to Riverside Drive.
Commissioner Brown stated it would definitely go out to River-
side Drive and go from there where, because it drains back to
the property or floods the property next door.
Mr. Bachman responded they have been discussing sewer and
drainage problems with the property owner of the complex. The
owner, Mr. Thompson, has been handling all negotiations with
property owner along with some other property owners in that
area. There is some concern with the drainage as well as
being able to access the sewer. I am not sure of what has
been reached as far as the drainage is concerned, but there
has been some discussion about joint venturing into a common
trunk line that would go underground and service most of the
area.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Bachman for his experience about
trying to get in and out Shrier Drive, coming from Four
Corners and trying to make a left. Theoretically, according
to staff, this project will produce up to 160 car trips a day.
How are they going to come in? Are they going to come in on
Robertson, which is an unimproved road, and does not hold
maintenance for more than 30 days with its current use.
Commissioner Brown stated that Engineering was going barricade
Shrier Drive at Riverside Drive because of the situation. I
realize it is not your problem to do off -site work, but how do
we approve a project that we know won't work with the current
circumstances, and then create another 160 car trips.
Mr. Bachman asked whether there were some reimbursement
agreements the City would get involved with. Commissioner
Brown responded this is a possibility, but would have to
discuss this with the Engineering Department.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 12
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -18 CONTINUED
Mr. Bachman commented on the area being zoned for R -3 type
uses.
Commissioner Brown responded this is a great place for your
project, and has been zoned R -3 for hundreds of years. It
does not mean that it is practical, or now is the time to do
it, if the infrastructure is not there to support the project.
I don't believe anyone would think that Shrier Drive could
handle that traffic, or even guess to say that Robertson
could, so what do we do about it?
Mr. Bachman responded this is left for the City and the owners
to determine, discuss and come up with some reasonable
compromise. I believe there are some limitations as far as
the extent of development that needs to be addressed. I do
not think that we should be obligated to go in and fix a
problem that is not only ours, but other people - -such as the
triplex.
Discussion ensued on the existing triplex with regard to
access, conditions placed on said project, approved access
being from Riverside Drive as access from Shrier and Robertson
was prohibited.
Commissioner Brown commented on off -site improvements with
regard to sidewalk, and whether any of the existing Palm trees
on Shrier Drive or Riverside Drive would be removed.
Mr. Bachman responded they were going to relocate the trees
that were in the entryway.
Commissioner Brown advised the applicant not to relocate these
trees as they are the wrong type of Palm Trees - -Date Palms,
and extremely dangerous when the leaves fall.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition numbers 28 and 30,
with regard to a 5 -foot block wall and a 6 -foot retaining wall
along Riverside Drive, does not see this as an architectural
enhancement to our community. Is it possible to move the
retainer wall back, so a landscape buffer can be provided.
Mr. Bachman responded the southeasterly corner would be the
worse portion of the project that would actually entail an 11-
foot wall and then taper back. As you went north and west it
would taper off down to approximately a 6 -foot wall to keep
the barrier constant around the perimeter.
Commissioner Wilsey suggested amending condition number 30, to
read: "Retaining wall portion shall be crib wall construction
along Riverside Drive and match the six -foot (6') high
perimeter wall."
Chairman Saathoff stated the interior appearance would be 6-
feet and the exterior is going to be 6 to 11 -feet, correct?
Mr. Bachman responded in the affirmative, stating this would
only fall along the leg of Riverside Drive and then up along
the easterly property line.
Commissioner Wilsey asked how much landscape enhancement and
setback do you have between the curb and where that wall
starts, 5 -feet. Mr. Bachman responded that he is not sure
what Cal -Trans is requiring.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that you know what your dedication
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 13
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -18 CONTINUED
for Cal -Trans is going to be, so how many feet back from your
dedication line is that wall, is it on the line? Mr. Bachman
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Wilsey asked if this can be moved back another 5-
feet, create some type of landscape berm that is going to off-
set that 11 -foot wall.
Chairman Saathoff asked about mounding.
Mr. Bachman responded that another alternative, at some point
down along the line, is to go with a crib wall to where we
could plant it and then set a retaining wall on top.
Commissioner Wilsey responded this would work, but it would
need a little angle on that.
Chairman Saathoff stated the retaining portion would be crib
wall construction and the perimeter portion would be 6 -feet,
so that it might be 1 -foot and expand to 5 -feet.
Commissioner Wilsey asked Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell if
he had any comments on the crib wall. Mr. O'Donnell stated
that his only comment would be: you are going to put a regular
wall on top of a crib wall - -does not believe you can do this,
because you don't have the right footings.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that you might have to put the
decorative wall a foot or so behind that actually. Mr.
O'Donnell stated if it is back away from the crib wall it is
fine, but does not believe that you can put it on top of the
crib wall.
Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the size of the crib wall
blocks, usually 3 -feet. Mr. O'Donnell responded about 3 -feet
square.
Commissioner Wilsey stated if a crib wall is used, in that
area, he would still have to off -set his decorative wall, on
top, back at least 3 -feet to get off the crib wall. Mr.
O'Donnell stated that you would need to talk with a Soils
Engineer about the distance, type of soil, and the height of
crib wall and decorative wall.
Chairman Saathoff suggested the following language be added to
condition number 30 "subject to the City Engineer's approval ".
Mr. Bachman commented on Commissioner Brown's statement with
regard to off -site improvements. Condition number 36 gives a
statement to provide an in -lieu payment for future off -site
improvements prior to building permit. I assume this will
come into effect as we are working with the Engineering
Department to determine the amount. I believe this condition
covers Commissioner Brown's concerns.
Commissioner Brown responded it does not.
Chairman Saathoff stated this project has been going on for a
long time, and there are a number of concerns: on -site and
natural drainage. It does not appear to be totally resolved
unless the Commission is satisfied with condition number 45
and 46.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated there is another
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 14
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -18 CONTINUED
condition for drainage on Riverside, condition number 48. I
do not have a solution and hoping that the City, Cal -Trans and
the applicant can work together and find something that is
economically feasible.
Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 48, with
regard to the drainage, and drainage will not flow along
Riverside but across Riverside towards the property.
Chairman Saathoff stated he is concerned with the traffic on
Shrier Drive, and whether condition number 36 is adequate.
The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with City
Staff to see if there is a possibility of off -site improve-
ments being up front. Because of the street situation, I feel
that Shrier Drive should be dead -ended or cut -off at Riverside
Drive.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated this was a City
project, we were working on it and it got put on the back
burner. We will put this on the front burner again and get
that street closed off. He then suggested, as a trade -off, if
the applicant can DG Shrier to his site and Robertson and put
an oil base, this will give at least 5 years of wear.
Chairman Saathoff asked Commissioner Brown what he thought of
Mr. O'Donnell's suggestion. Commissioner Brown responded 160
car trips on a DG road, no. He then asked if we had any other
high density housing within the City sitting on an unimproved
road, no.
Motion by Commissioner Brown to deny the project until the
traffic is resolved otherwise, the project is fine, second by
Commissioner Brinley.
Commissioner Brown stated he is comfortable with the design.
I do not think the drainage issue can be resolved until a long
term plan is taken - -the drainage comes across the road and
drains to what I believe to be northeast of this project, so
it would drain immediately into the intersection we are
talking about. He has resolved his impact, but not the total
impact. I just don't see it on the traffic, so tell me how to
word this. I am satisfied with the conditions on drainage.
Unless you would like a denial without prejudice and he can go
to City Council for resolution - -with the recommendation that
we believe that the streets are not adequate for the type of
traffic they are generating. It might be best served that
way.
Commissioner Brown rescinded his motion. Commissioner Brinley
rescinded her second.
Motion by Commissioner Brown to deny without prejudice Resi-
dential Project 89 -18 because of traffic issues only, second
by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
Planning Manager Strandgaard informed the applicant of the
appeal process, and suggested that staff be contacted.
6. Residential Project 91 -2 - A. J. Gallo (Henry Miller) -
Associate Planner Restivo presented a request for Minor Design
Review of an eighteen (18) unit apartment complex consisting
of 16,192 square feet proposed on 33,750 net square feet,
situated easterly of Lakeshore Drive southerly of Riverside
Drive, between Rose Avenue and Palm Street.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 15
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -2 CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Gallo
stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation.
Commissioner Brown stated that Palm, Rose and Illinois are all
dirt roads. Palm is virtually Robertson Street. Great
project, but concerned with access.
Commissioner Wilsey stated his feelings are the same as on the
last project. Thinks it might behoove us to send them both
before City Council at the same time, if appealed.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to deny without prejudice
Residential Project 91 -2, reference condition number 40, in-
lieu payment for future off -site improvements are inadequate,
streets should be improved streets, second by Commissioner
Wilsey.
Planning Manager Strandgaard informed the applicant of the
appeal process, and suggested that staff be contacted.
Commissioner Brown stated he would appreciate it if a letter
would go from the Commission, with both projects, stating
exactly what our feelings are about this to Council.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called
for the question.
Approved 5 -0
7. Residential Project 91 -5 - Centex Homes - Planning Manager
Strandgaard presented a request for Minor Design Review of a
60 unit single - family residential development and a 4 unit
model complex on a 32 acre site, located between the eventual
intersection of Lincoln Street, Grand Avenue and Broadway
within the West Lake Elsinore Assessment District.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Mike Aller, representing Centex Homes, stated this is the
first model complex of two that will be brought forth. He
then gave a brief history on their marketing and in -house
thinking for this proposal - -going back to a more traditional
approach. In addition, we are going to be using a variation
of front yard landscaping - -a different plant pallet for each
elevation. He then commented on the setback and dormer
requirements proposed by staff, conditions 33 and 34.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 20, with
regard to the roofing material, and suggested this condition
be amended, as follows: Applicant shall use tile roofing
materials, as shown on materials board, with a Class "A" fire
rating.
Chairman Saathoff stated the applicant did not necessarily
disapprove of staff recommendation on the dormers, but
indicated the absence from option "C" was to give variation in
appearance, asked for consensus of the Commission.
Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Aller if he feels this is going
to restrict him too much in the variation of pallets, one to
another. Mr. Aller responded in the negative.
It was the consensus of the Commission to accept staff
recommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 16
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -5 CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Aller if he felt the curvature of
Northpoint Street is adequate to eliminate the effect of row -
housing, condition number 34. Mr. Aller responded they are
not all identical.
Planning Manager stated condition number 34 is a Code require-
ment, whereas condition number 33 is staff recommendation.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Residential Project
91 -5 based on the Findings and subject to the 36 Conditions of
Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following
amendment:
Condition No. 20: Applicant shall use tile roofing
materials, as shown on materials board,
with a Class 11A" fire rating.
second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
PLANNING MANAGER'S COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brown
Would respectfully request that City Council - -we are getting to
Weed Abatement time, very firm supporter of the program, but would
appreciate it for some areas of the City, that they mow instead of
disk. For those of us who live in areas that are surrounded by
fields have to put up with City contractor and several different
contractors disking around our homes and covering us with dust.
Asked staff if we currently have an ordinance that specifically
addresses borings and excavations done for percolation tests. What
is happening all over the Country Heights area - -there is a lot of
real estate activity, everybody is doing percolation tests and
leaving pits open for months, and if it doesn't pass perc they
leave it that way, if it does pass eventually they build a house.
There are four different locations in the Country Club Heights
area, near these projects, where approved pits have been open for
4 -5 months, some are trenches some are bore holes.
Planning Manager Strandgaard asked Commissioner Brown if he has
addresses.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 17, 1991
Page 17
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Commissioner Brown asked if special permits have to be obtained.
Planning Manager Strandgaard responded our Senior Civil Engineer
should be able to address this.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded this is done on private
property, and would be handled through Code Enforcement.
Commissioner Brown stated he would appreciate it if we could adopt
an ordinance for any percolation, boring, and excavation of any
type. If we have an adopted ordinance, we can notify the local
soils companies that they must get a permit and back -fill it
immediately, and protect the excavation during the test -- whether it
be some fine or something.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded they could try and find
some type of mechanism to track this type of operation.
Commissioner Brown stated this is another policing problem for the
City, but we require developers and builders to protect their
excavations, and these guys are going around and doing 3 a day and
not doing anything about it.
Chairman Saathoff
Suggested that Commissioner Brown make note to Code Enforcement in
reference to the triplex on Shrier and Robertson. If in fact, they
are starting to do something with that dwelling, lets see that they
meet their requirements, conditions.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
re d ed,
I
Bill aathoff,
Chairman
i
Respectfully s bmitted,
Lind' a Grin staff
Planning Commission
Secretary
HELD ON THE
OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
1ST DAY OF
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
MAY 1991
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson,
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Brinley, Brown, Wilsey, and
Also present were Special Projects Planner Ballew, Building and
Safety Manager Shear, Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry, and Senior
Civil Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of April 17, 1991,
as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved: 5 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Dick Knapp, 29690 Dwan Drive, Lake Elsinore, stated that he
would like to have Resolution 87 -64, Country Club Heights Landscape
Slope Easement, dissolved. Asked if this could be brought to a
public meeting, or through the Planning Commission have this item
brought forward to City Council, rescind or establish more
guidelines.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the resolution needing to go
before City Council, as he does not believe the Commission has the
authority to pull it back for decision.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the recently adopted General Plan
and perhaps some changes, as indicated in the Circulation Element,
could be looked into.
Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Knapp if he was not a member of the
Country Club Heights Steering Committee. Mr. Knapp responded this
is no longer in existence.
Special Projects Planner Ballew suggested staff research this
resolution against the conditions, check with Council and Manage-
ment, and see if we might not bring it back as a discussion item
before this body for recommendation before it goes to Council.
There being no further requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Single - Family Residence - 641 Acacia Street - John and Phyllis
Schulz - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request
for Minor Design Review of a 1,247 square foot two -story
dwelling with a two car garage to be placed on a 6,830 square
foot lot, located at the north side of Acacia Street 332 feet
west of High Street.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving
no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the
table.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 1, 1991
Page 2
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 641 ACACIA STREET CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson suggested that windows be added to the
left elevation, second story. He then commented on condition
number 7, disagrees with staff mandating concrete roofing- -
random tab three dimensional is an upgrade and still within
the pricing for affordable housing, suggested this condition
be deleted and replaced with the standard condition.
Commissioner Brinley commented on the need for windows and
trim on the left elevation. She then commented on the roofing
material, agrees with staff recommendation for the upgrade.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that he agrees with the upgrade of
roofing material, condition number 7. Believes the additional
cost will off -set itself in the resale value. In this case,
believes condition number 7 is site specific.
Commissioner Brown expressed concern on dictating roofing
material /color -- condition is too restrictive, and does not
afford the applicant any leeway in roofing materials.
Chairman Saathoff stated that he agrees with Commissioner
Brown, condition number 7 is too restrictive. The applicant
should have an opportunity to suggest to Design Review various
roofing materials: clay tile, lightweight concrete tile - -S
tile, simulated shingle, quality three tab dimensional or
better.
Considerable discussion ensued on roofing materials, and the
applicant having an opportunity for leeway in roofing material
and color.
Special Projects Planner Ballew suggested the following
language be added to condition number 7 "alternatives may be
submitted by the applicant, subject to the approval of the
Planning Department ". If staff and the applicant cannot reach
a conclusion it can come back to the Commission.
Chairman Saathoff stated staff needs to inform the applicant
that better product demonstrations need to be provided, so we
can see exactly what roofing material will be used.
Commissioner Gilenson asked whether lightweight concrete was
being set as a standard minimum. Chairman Saathoff responded
in the negative. The wording in condition number 7 needs to
be revised so that it is not so restrictive, but the applicant
needs to demonstrate they are, in fact, putting on a quality
roof.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested the roofing material come back
before the Commission until such time the language for
condition number 7 is established.
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family
Residence at 641 Acacia Street based on the Findings and
subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff
Report with the following amendments:
Condition No. 7: Applicant shall use roofing material with
a Class "A" fire rating. A lightweight
concrete roofing material shall be used,
or applicant may submit an alternative
roofing material subject to the approval
of the Planning Manager or designee prior
to issuance of building permit.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 1, 1991
Page 3
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 641 ACACIA STREET CONTINUED
Condition No. 19a: Applicant shall provide two (2) windows
on the north elevation of the second
story.
Second by Commissioner Brinley.
Special Projects Planner Ballew commented on the location of
the windows suggested for the second story, north elevation.
Asked for latitude - -would like to work with the applicant on
placement of said windows.
Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to give staff latitude
to work with the applicant on the placement of the windows on
the north elevation, second story -- condition number 19,
Commissioner Brinley amended her second.
Approved 5 -0
2. Single - Family Residence - 16751 Gunnerson - Nikolaus & Melania
Schussler (Larry Shurtz -The Architects) - Associate Planner
Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for Minor Design Review of
a 1,755 square foot two -story dwelling with a 493 square foot
garage to be placed on a 6,648 square foot lot, located at the
corner of the intersection of Ulmer and Gunnerson Streets.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no
response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table.
Commissioner Brinley commented on the need for window enhance-
ments on the upper elevation.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 8, with
regard to roofing material, and suggested the same verbiage be
used for consistency, condition number 7, 641 Acacia.
Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 8, would like
amended to read: "A Class "A" fire rating dimensional roofing
material other than asphalt shingles shall be used."
Discussion ensued on whether this amendment would eliminate
dimensional asphalt roofing material -- amendment eliminating
asphalt shingles.
Commissioner Brown stated dimensional roofing could be S tile,
simulated shingle, slate, or a variety of other materials.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there were good quality composition
roofs that were aesthetically pleasing in certain aspects.
Discussion ensued on architecture and roofing material
compatibility; definition of quality- -type of roofing not
quality.
Special Projects Planner Ballew stated in my view - -being an
architect, quality in building materials reflects quality and
aesthetics. I am not trying to eliminate asphalt shingles or
asphaltic products. The roofing material should go with the
architecture and we should stress quality and texture.
Discussion ensued on asphalt shingle, whether the applicant
could prove this material to be first class roofing material;
applicant having some leeway in roofing materials; condition
number 8 language needs further discussion.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 1, 1991
Page 4
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 16751 GUNNERSON CONTINUED
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Single - Family Resi-
dence at 16751 Gunnerson based on the Findings and subject to
the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report,
second by Commissioner Brinley.
Commissioner Gilenson asked for discussion. Asked if the
motion included the change to condition number 8 and addition
of the windows.
Commissioner Brown commented on the addition of windows and
concerns with Title 24 calculations. We can not create a
situation where the person can not meet Title 24 calculations.
Commissioner Brown amended his motion to include the window
enhancements on the east elevation, Commissioner Brinley
amended her second.
Commissioner Gilenson asked that condition number 8 be amended
to read as the previous project for consistency.
Special Projects Planner Ballew commented on condition number
8, suggested wording: "the applicant may use dimensional
roofing other than asphalt roofing."
Chairman Saathoff stated this was a suggestion and not
included in the motion. He then stated the motion on the
floor is, as is. There has been an amendment for the
enhancement on the upper right elevation. He asked for
further discussion on condition number 8. There being no
further discussion, he called for the question.
Approved 5 -0
Condition No. 22a: Applicant shall provide window enhance-
ments on the east elevation of the second
story.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he would like condition number 7 for
the previous project brought back to the table for reconsideration,
as there is some difference of opinion on the motion. Chairman
Saathoff stated this item will be brought back at the end of the
agenda.
3. Single- Family Residence - 308 Mohr Street - O'dell and Ruth
Gardener (Zahi Mazarrani) Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry
presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 1,415 square
foot single -story dwelling with a 616 square foot garage to be
placed on a 7,125 square foot lot, located approximately 180
feet north of Sumner, east of Mohr Street.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Frank
Salame, NSS Construction, representing the applicant, stated
that his only concern would be the roofing material, condition
number 8.
Chairman Saathoff asked Special Projects Planner Ballew to
address condition number 8, roofing material.
Special Projects Planner Ballew stated he would like to see
language added to have the applicant submit a real sample of
the roofing material proposed, and if it is the dimensional
material, we have been talking about, then I don't have a
problem with it.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 1, 1991
Page 5
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 308 MOHR STREET CONTINUED
Considerable discussion ensued on condition number 8, roofing
material, quality with alternatives, alternative roofing
materials being submitted to the Planning Manager who can
determine they are equal /similar; adopted policy statement in
the Staff Report; need for further research and discussion on
language for condition.
Chairman Saathoff recommended the language from 641 Acacia be
used on condition number 8. Commissioner Brown stated, other
than that, asphalt shingles are allowed. Commissioner
Gilenson suggested dimensional asphalt shingles.
Chairman Saathoff asked for comments from the table on the
proposed colors. Commissioner Gilenson suggested the trim be
a dark brown. Commissioner Brown stated it is a matter of
subjection, anything within the same color spectrum and
harmonious in color.
Special Projects Planner Ballew commented on the proposed
colors stating there is not enough contrast to the building,
plus the limited amount of overhang. Suggested a darker trim
and the overhang extended on the sides.
Commissioner Brown commented on access to the garage - -front
elevation facing Mohr, left elevation facing the alley,
visibility from the street, and fencing. Suggested the
fencing start at the center, or rear, of the fireplace, and
change the front and right elevation of the garage. On the
front elevation add a bay window to match the house, and a
like window on the side elevation (two (2) bay window), or two
(2) halves.
Discussion ensued on the starting point of fencing, condition
number 15.
Commissioner Brown recommended fencing start on the fireplace
side - -no further back than the rear of the fireplace, and on
the other elevation start the fencing equal to the front
elevation of the garage, or if the applicant chooses to put in
a window it may start in the area of the door, condition
number 15.
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Resi-
dence at 308 Mohr Street based on the Findings and subject to
the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with
the following amendments:
Condition No. 8: Applicant shall use roofing material with
a Class "A" fire rating. A lightweight
concrete roofing material shall be used,
or applicant may submit to the Planning
Manager or designee an alternative
roofing material, including asphalt
shingle, subject to the approval of the
Planning Manager or designee prior to
issuance of building permit.
Condition No. 15: A six -foot (61) high wood fence or
masonry wall shall be constructed along
the side and rear property lines and
shall conform to Section 17.14.080
(Fences and Walls), subject to the
approval of the Planning Manager or
designee prior to issuance of building
permit. Start fencing on the fireplace
Planning Commission Minutes
May 1, 1991
Page 6
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 308 MOHR STREET CONTINUED
side - -no further back than the rear of
the fireplace, and on the other elevation
start the fencing equal to the front
elevation of the garage, or if the
applicant chooses to put in a window it
may start in the area of the door.
Condition No. 21a: The front and right elevation of the
garage shall be changed to include: On
the front elevation add a bay window to
match the house, and a like window on the
side elevation (two (2) bay windows or
two (2) halves).
Second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
4. Waiver of Condition of Approval, 17455 Sunnyslope - David E.
Hartzheim - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a
request for waiver of condition number 15, construction of a
six -foot (61) high wood fence on the perimeter of the
property.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Ms. Dolores
Hartzheim commented on the fencing requirement with regard to
topography and retention of view.
Commissioner Brown suggested that slopes over a certain
percentage of grade not have fencing, and staff can check with
other cities that have hillsides issues to see how they
amended their ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Brown to Waive Condition Number 15 for
Single- Family Residence at 17455 Sunnyslope, second by
Commissioner Wilsey.
Approved 5 -0
Commissioner Gilenson requested that condition number 7, for
Single - Family Residence at 641 Acacia Street be brought back for
reconsideration.
It was the consensus of the Commission to reconsider condition
number 7 on Single - Family Residence at 641 Acacia Street.
Chairman Saathoff asked Commissioner Gilenson if he wanted condi-
tion number 7 to reflect what was done on the other projects.
Commissioner Gilenson responded in the affirmative.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to amend condition number 7, for
Single - Family Residence at 641 Acacia Street, as follows:
Condition No. 7: Applicant shall use roofing material with
a Class "A" fire rating. A lightweight
concrete roofing material shall be used,
or applicant may submit to the Planning
Manager or designee an alternative
roofing material, including asphalt
shingle, subject to the approval of the
Planning Manager or designee prior to
issuance of building permit.
Second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
Planning Commission Minutes
May 1, 1991
Page 7
PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brown
Supports the concept of re- addressing the minimum standards for
housing i.e. roofing, elevations and landscaping. If the general
policy is going to change would suggest a Study Session with City
Council and staff.
Commissioner Wilsey
Concurs with Commissioner Brown.
Chairman Saathoff
Concurs with Commissioners Brown and Wilsey.
Informed the Commissioners of the Riverside County Economic
Development Agency Meeting to be held on May 9, 1991, and suggested
that Commissioners attend, since we are the host city.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
/ oved,
GW °
Bill Saathoff,'
Chairman
Respectfully submitted,
nda Gr Zstaf f '
inda Gri dstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES
HELD ON THE
OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING
15 TH DAY OF
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson,
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Brinley, Brown, Wilsey, and
Also present were Building and Safety Manager Shear, Associate
Planner Naaseh - Shahry, Contract Planner Christen, and Senior Civil
Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of May 1, 1991,
as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey.
Approved 5 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Saathoff stated staff has requested the following items be
continued to the meeting of June 5, 1991:
1. General Plan Amendment 91 -1 - to revise the land use designa-
tion for this portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan
area, to provide for an eighteen hole golf course, to increase
from 2235 to 2735 the allowable residential uses, to modify
the existing allowable residential, commercial, and open space
uses, and to make related and miscellaneous changes to such
portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area;
2. Alberhill Specific Plan 89 -2 Amendment No. 1, to implement the
land use designations set forth in General Plan Amendment No.
91 -1;
3. Zoning regulations for the Brighton Alberhill Specific Plan
area, and the rezoning of this portion of the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan area, to implement the designations and
standards set forth in Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment No.
1; and
4. Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement between the City
and Brighton Alberhill Associates.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental
Quality Act an addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report
89 -2 has been prepared.
The subject site is bounded generally by Interstate 15 to the
north, Terra Cotta Road /Nichols Road to the south, Pacific
Clay Company to the east, and Robb Road /Lake Street to the
west.
Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue to the meeting of
June 5, 1991, General Plan Amendment 91 -1; Specific Plan 89 -2
Amendment No. 1; Zoning Regulations for the Brighton Alber-
hill Specific Plan Area, and; Development Agreement Amendment
No. 1, second by Commissioner Wilsey.
Approved 5 -0
Minutes of Planning Commission
May 15, 1991
Page 2
BUSINESS ITEMS
5. Commercial Project 91 -1 - Center Development /Wells Fargo Bank
- Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for
Design Review approval for the construction of a 4,698 square
foot Wells Fargo Bank building on a .57 acre parcel, on the
northwest corner of Mission Trail and the main entrance of the
Town Center Shopping Center.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Ms. Susan Bemis, representing Wells Fargo Bank, stated they
were in agreement with all of the conditions except condition
number 20, trellis work.
Ms. Bemis then commented on the pad elevation -- eight -feet (8')
below the adjacent street level; building height limitations;
visibility of signage from the street and on the east side of
the building. Requested additional signage on the north
elevation on the tower, referring to posted renderings.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, he asked for
discussion at the table.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he has no problem with the
applicant's proposal for signage. He then expressed concern
on the following:
• Screening of roof top equipment, condition number 7.
Whether or not air conditioning units can be housed in
the towers.
Building & Safety Manager Shear stated the applicant's
architect may be able to design a sunken mechanical well on
the roof. The towers are not centered in the building, and
usually they like to have the mechanical equipment centered.
• Roofing material and line of sight from Mission Trail.
Balance and dimension of building being thrown off if
parapet wall is raised.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry stated the applicant's
architect would have to address the issue on raising the
parapet wall, or provide alternative screening.
Commissioner Wilsey suggested the air conditioning units be
housed in the towers, and requested further discussion from
the table.
Discussion ensued on roof mounted equipment, condition number
7, with regard to recessed mechanical wells or placement in
the tower, grade elevation difference, and equipment not being
visible from Mission Trail.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested the screening be alleviated,
and if there is any visibility from the street then it is not
approved -- equipment is to be either in mechanical well with no
sight visibility from Mission Trail, or placed in the tower.
Commissioner Gilenson asked for staff's opinion on applicant's
request on the trellis work, condition number 20.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry stated he did not have a
problem, and the sign can go where proposed. It is not a high
Minutes of Planning Commission
May 15, 1991
Page 3
COMMERCIAL PROJECT 91 -1 CONTINUED
tower and is in line with the other signs proposed by Wells
Fargo.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he has no problem with leaving
the trellis work off and deleting this condition.
Commissioner Brown stated signage is not being approved,
correct? Chairman Saathoff responded that signage was not
being approved.
Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council
adoption of Negative Declaration 91 -6 and approval of
Commercial Project 91 -1 based on the Findings and subject to
the 22 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with
the following amendments:
Condition No. 7: All roof mounted mechanical equipment
incidental to development shall not be
visible from Mission Trail, nor shall
architectural screening be visible.
Condition No. 20: AiBplieant shall add reueFh —sawn weed
DELETE.
Second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
1. The driveway for the triplex at Robertson and Highway 74 faces
Highway 74 and has been poured - -exit onto Highway 74. I do
not believe approval was given for ingress /egress onto Highway
74.
Building and Safety Manager Shear responded the plans show
approval of the driveway on Highway 74, and the applicant has
received Cal -Trans approval for same.
Commissioner Brown stated it is the impression of the
Commission that ingress /egress was not approved onto Highway
74, and requested that staff check the Conditions of Approval
on this project.
2. Inquired about the Zoning Updates, and asked when staff will
get back on line.
Mr. Shear responded this is an on -going process, and hopefully
within the next 2 -3 weeks we can come up with a time frame.
Commissioner Brinlev
Nothing to report.
Minutes of Planning Commission
May 15, 1991
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brown
Asked if staff has worked anything out with the applicant on off -
site improvements for the condo project on Shrier, Residential
Project 89 -18.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated this item went before City
Council on May 14, 1991. Council has sent it back for further
review of street improvements, so we are back at the negotiating
table with the applicant.
Chairman Saathoff
In discussion with some of the Commissioner, concerns and questions
have been raised with regard to the Brighton Homes proposals, which
were continued this evening, and the need for adequate time to
review said documents. Inquired whether the Commission would like
to schedule an individual meeting with the applicant and staff, or
whether a Joint Study Session should be scheduled.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested a Joint Study Session or a Planning
Commission Study Session to review said documents, since it is a
large and involved project.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Shear to bring the Commission's
concerns on this matter to the attention of city management, and
see if they feel that we should have another joint study session,
or if the Commission should meet with the applicants prior to the
hearing.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 7:29 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
roved,
(�G
Bi 1 Saathoff
Chairman
lly ,ubmit�ted,
67 �
Linda Grindstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE
HELD ON THE 5 TH DAY OF
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING' ''COMMISSION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brown.
ROLL CALL:
JUNE 1991
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Brown, and Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wilsey
Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner
Christen, City Attorney Burns, Senior Planner Delgadillo, Associate
Planner Restivo, Assistant Planner DeGange and Senior Civil
Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Minutes of May 15, 1991, as
submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION THAT PUBLIC HEARINGS 4, AND
5 ALONG WITH THE BUSINESS ITEMS BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND TAKEN UP
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 1, 2 AND 3.
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER ZONE CHANGE 91 -1
AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -10 SEPARATELY WITH SEPARATE MOTIONS.
4. Zone Change 91 -1 - William A. Seers - Associate Planner
Restivo presented a request to re -zone 15 acres from
Commercial Park District (C -P) to General Commercial (C -2),
located approximately 50 feet south of Eisenhower, on the west
side of Riverside Drive.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. John Carmona, 371 Lexington Street, Upland, representing
the applicant, gave a brief history on the proposal.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 7:O8 p.m.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council
adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -23 and approval of Zone
Change 91 -1 and Commercial Project 90 -10 based on the Findings
listed in the Staff Report.
Chairman Saathoff asked that the motion be amended to exclude
the Commercial Project.
COMMISSIONER BRINLEY AMENDED HER MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 -23 AND APPROVAL OF
ZONE CHANGE 91 -1 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
APPROVED 4 -0
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 2
4. Commercial Project 90 -10 - William A. Seers - Associate
Planner Restivo presented a request for design review of a
17,250 square foot commercial retail building, located
approximately 50 feet south of Eisenhower, on the west side of
Riverside Drive.
Chairman Saathoff stated the Design Review does not neces-
sarily have to be a public hearing, but will treat it that way
since it was listed that way. He then opened the public
hearing at 7:10 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in
favor.
Mr. John Carmona, representing the applicant, stated he would
like to request clarification of a couple of conditions, and
deletion of a couple of conditions.
Chairman Saathoff informed Mr. Carmona that he would be called
back to the podium for further comments. He then asked if
there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no
response, he asked for those opposed. Receiving no response,
he asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving
no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. He
then called Mr. Carmona back to the podium.
Mr. Carmona requested clarification /deletion of the following
conditions:
Condition No. 15, outside storage limitations- -would like
language added "except for designated enclosed storage
areas ".
Condition No. 37, walls - -would like to clarify our
intent. The front parking lot area wall, facing the
parking lot, Mr. Seers envisions having this open with
columns and wrought iron for security purposes. There is
room for landscaping, suggested a 3 or 4 foot buffer be
placed in front of it and included on the landscape plan.
Condition No. 27, development of a master signage
program -- request this be deleted.
Condition No. 52, contribution for the design and
construction of half a median on Riverside Drive -- request
this condition be deleted, adjusted or waived until the
total site is developed, or look only at the 300 foot of
improvement.
Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table.
Commissioner Brinley commented as follows:
• Landscaping for the project, referring to colored site
plan submitted, number of trees on the lot and within the
parking lot, whether landscaping was to be provided on
the vacant parcel. Recommended that the vacant parcel be
hydroseeded and maintained.
• Arches on the front and south elevation, what staff is
looking for with regard to architectural treatment.
• Condition number 27, master sign program, should remain.
At some time, there will be stores coming in and we
should set the sign program up now.
Commissioner Gilenson recommended the following amendments to
the conditions:
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 3
COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -10 CONTINUED
Condition No. 24.e., add "minimum 24" box trees to be
used.
Condition No. 26, add "subject to Design Review Planning
Commission approval ", if condition number 27 is deleted.
Prefer that condition number 27 remain, and condition
number 26 be deleted.
Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 24, landscap-
ing plan, coming back before the Planning Commission for
review and approval rather than the Community Development
Manager. He then stated he was in agreement with the comments
made on the master sign program requirement and the vacant
parcel.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the vacant parcel - -with the
water shortage concerned about requirement for landscaping.
Commissioner Brown suggested the development of a program in
lieu of planting, where the parcel shall be maintained in a
weed free condition.
Discussion ensued on maintenance program, vehicle and enforce-
ment of maintenance, applicant coming up with a program to
maintain the site and include it with the landscape design.
Mr. Carmona suggested a covenant with cost to be borne by the
owner of the property, after reasonable notice by the City - -30
days, that weeds for fire purposes be taken care of.
Mr. Burns commented on the City's Weed Abatement Program or
Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, in which the owner would be
responsible and liable for charges to clean his property. He
stated he would not recommend a covenant as it would only give
the right for enforcement, and be no better position than if
you enforced Weed Abatement.
Commissioner Brown stated that abating the weeds for fire
purposes is not the point. Has no problem with the applicant
coming back with a proposal to keep it clean, weed free, trees
trimmed and so forth, for the remainder of time that parcel is
undeveloped. It does not necessarily have to be hydroseeded --
it can be disc four times a year, plus drip irrigation.
Mr. Carmona stated there is another avenue - -there is an
existing conditional use permit, which I believe is still
valid for this site in terms of the master plan allowance.
That conditional use permit has, to me, more authority to the
overall site, and any conditions you would put to that would
have more effect on the balance of the site. Perhaps we
should be looking at a conditional use permit amendment and
put conditions to that for the whole site, rather than design
review.
Discussion ensued on the amendment to condition number 24
being: the Commission reviewing the overall landscape plan,
and the applicant being required to come back with some type
of maintenance program for the unbuilt acreage - -disc four
times a year, or as necessary and trees trimmed; amending
condition where all improvements are done and approved prior
to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90 -23 AND APPROVAL OF
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 4
COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -10 CONTINUED
COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -10 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO
THE 53 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH
THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 15. No outdoor storage shall be allowed
for any tenant, except for
designated enclosed storage areas.
Condition No. 24. The final landscaping /irrigation
plan and maintenance program for the
undeveloped acreage is to be
reviewed and approved by the City's
Landscape Architect Consultant and
the Planning Commission, prior to
issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy. A landscape Plan Check
Fee will be charged prior to final
landscape approval based on the
Consultant's fee plus twenty percent
(20 %).
e) Landscape planters shall be
planted with an appropriate
parking lot shade tree, minimum
24" box trees to be used, to
provide for 50% parking lot
shading in fifteen (15) year.
Condition No. 26: All J _ _J ____ shall ' e by Gity ^_r%i'
'" 'l l
DELETE
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
APPROVED 4 -0
Chairman Saathoff stated staff has requested the following items be
continued to the meeting of July 3, 1991:
5. Zone Change 91 -4 and Residential Project 91 -4 - Don Miller -
A request to change the Zoning of a 9,147 square foot parcel
from R -2 (Medium Density Residential) to R -3 (High Density
Residential), and to construct a four -plex, located approxi-
mately 120 feet south of the intersection of Heald Avenue and
Lindsay Street.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO CONTINUE TO THE MEETING OF
JULY 3, 1991, ZONE CHANGE 91 -4 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -4,
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
APPROVED 4 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
Garage at 29610 Nichols Street - William & Helen Monteleone -
Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review approval of a 1,536 square foot two -story garage placed
on .85 acre lot with an existing single- family residence.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Ms. Grace Messello, applicant's sister, 15141 Chinchay Street,
Lake Elsinore, stated that her brother was not able to be here
tonight, and she would answer any questions that may arise.
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 5
GARAGE AT 29610 NICHOLS STREET
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 17,
prohibiting water, gas, and sewer hook -up. Concern is this
prohibits the applicant from having washer /dryer accommo-
dations.
Discussion ensued on condition number 17 with regard to
utility hook -up; this being a detached structure, and hook -up
accommodations provided within the existing garage.
Commissioner Brown recommended that condition number 17, be
amended by adding no conduit, plumbing or electrical be
allowed within this structure, or minimum 25 amp electrical
panel.
Commissioner Gilenson asked Ms. Grace Messello if they had a
problem with the amendment to condition number 17. She
responded that the amended condition was acceptable.
Chairman Saathoff commented on condition number 8, roofing
material, asked staff if they wanted to specify that the
roofing material match the existing structure. Assistant
Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE MINOR DESIGN REVIEW
OF GARAGE AT 29610 NICHOLAS STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 27 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 8: Applicant shall use roofing
materials with a Class "A" fire
rating, and shall match existing
structure.
Condition No. 17: Water, sewer, and gas hook -ups, to
this structure shall be prohibited.
Also, there shall be no conduit,
plumbing or electrical, minimum 25
amp electrical panel, allowed within
this structure.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON WITH CORRECTION OF THE STREET
NAME, TO NICHOLS STREET.
COMMISSIONER BRINLEY AMENDED HER MOTION TO CORRECT THE STREET
NAME TO NICHOLS STREET.
APPROVED 4 -0
7. Single - Family Residence at 29900 Illinois Street - Charles
Hickman - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request for
Minor Design Review approval of a 1,350 square foot single -
story structure with a 420 square foot garage placed on an
8,000 square foot lot, located approximately 290 feet west of
the intersection of Strickland Avenue and Illinois Street.
Assistant Planner DeGange referred to the memorandum,
presented this evening, on the new language developed for
roofing material.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Jim Brundge, representing the applicant, stated they were
in agreement with staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 8, roofing
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 6
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29900 ILLINOIS STREET CONTINUED
material. Does not agree with the new condition as worded.
Chairman Saathoff stated he understands where the city is
coming from, and wants the same thing, but to say no asphalt
roofing materials will be permitted -- agrees with Commissioner
Gilenson. If the problem is asphalt shingles, then we are
going to have to classify it - -a certain standard /grade. We
need guidelines.
A lengthy discussion ensued on the condition for roofing
materials: quality, type, and grade of material.
Mr. Burns inquired whether the Commission was viewing this on
aesthetics, and being on firm ground with proper studies. But
if viewing building material under the Uniform Building Code,
State Law, you may not vary from the Uniform Building Code
standards unless you make local topographical, geological, or
climatic findings.
Discussion ensued on this being an aesthetic issue - -the
materials become an aesthetic issue, appearance and quality of
materials; standards imposed by the Uniform Building Code.
Chairman Saathoff asked for the Commission's desire on the
wording for condition number 8.
Commissioner Gilenson recommended condition number 8 be
amended to read: Three tab, three dimensional roofing
material subject to Community Development Manager or designee
approval, prior to issuance of building permits.
MOVED BY CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE
AT 29900 ILLINOIS STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO
THE 33 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH
THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No. 8: Applicant shall use roofing
materials with a minimum of Class
"B" fire rating. No asphalt roofing
material shall be permitted on any
sloped roofs. Roofing material to
be used shall be subject to the
approval of the Community Develop-
ment Manager or designee, prior to
issuance of building permits.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED 3 -1 (COMMISSIONER GILENSON VOTING NO)
8. Residential Project 90 -17 Revised - George Wimpey /Morrison
Homes - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to
replace a 1,857 square foot model with a 2,017 square foot
structure, the site is located on the southeast corner of Macy
Street and Lake Ridge Road.
There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Saathoff
called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROWN TO RE- AFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION
89 -8 AND APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -17 REVISED, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED 4 -0
AT THIS TIME, 8:15 P.M., THE COMMISSION RECESSED.
AT THIS TIME, 8:25 P.M., THE COMMISSION RECONVENED.
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 7
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED
Senior Planner Delgadillo stated he would like to give a brief
summary on the overall proposal and then focus on the individual
proposals. Brighton Homes is requesting approval of a General Plan
Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amend-
ment to modify the 997 acre portion of the approved Alberhill
Specific Plan 89 -2, bounded by Lake Street /Nichols Road and the
I-15 Freeway.
1. General Plan Amendment 91 -1 - to revise the land use
designation for this portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan area, to provide for an 18 hole golf course; remove the
existing Exhibit II -2 from the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, and replace it with a revised land use map consistent
with the proposed Specific Plan.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor of General Plan
Amendment.
Mr. Ken Meddock, Director of Land Development for Brighton
Homes, spoke in favor. He then requested, at the suggestion
of their attorney, the Commission consider the following
changes to Resolution 91 -1:
Section 1, subsection a: delete words "Specific Plan" and
replace with "General Plan"
after the word undertaken, add "the
proposed changes to the General Plan
will not require any important
revision to FEIR 89 -2"
b: delete words "Specific Plan"
Add subsection d: No new information of substantial
importance to the proposed General
Plan project has become available.
Section 2, makes certain findings, our attorney advises that
General Plan findings are not necessary. His recommendation
was to delete Section 2. If the City Attorney wishes to leave
it in, it does not make a difference to us.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed.
Mr. Alex Bowie, attorney for the Lake Elsinore Unified School
District, submitted a letter dated June 5, 1991, expressing a
summary of different decisions, which have come down - -one as
early as yesterday, in regard to school facilities, for the
record. He then commented on the following:
• Previous contacts with the developer in order to resolve
school impacts.
• Murrieta Decision holds that the California Environmental
Quality Act is applicable to general plan amendments and
zone changes, which means school impacts have to be
mitigated before you can act on them.
• Adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Impact
Report. Absent mitigation measures, it is not possible
to approve the General Plan or Specific Plan proposal
under the Supreme Court's affirmance of the Murrieta
Decision.
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 8
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
Condition number 7, is totally unacceptable.
Condition number 8, states reservation of school site
disappears 180 days after a tentative map is applied.
• Student generation rates and cost, financial impact on
the community, state funding, bonds for communities and
survey performed.
• The language placed in the General Plan for the school
district has not happened, in this instance. There were
references added to try and build this relationship. The
developer either has to get a signed agreement, or have
a condition. The condition that we think, subject to
concurrence with the superintendent and board, is:
Prior to submittal of an application
for any tentative map or parcel map
an agreement mitigating the school
impacts of the project shall exist
between Lake Elsinore Unified School
District and the applicant, Brighton
Homes, or their successor.
Mr. Bowie stated that reserving his right to review the
conditions, reserving the right to raise issues at City
Council, and if you change condition number 7 to the above
wording and delete condition number 8, this is all we can do --
other than that it is not legally permissible for you to
approve this, in our opinion, and we would ask that you
continue, deny or modify the condition as indicated.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak on the matter.
Mr. Meddock stated they met with Mr. Bowie prior to the start
of the meeting and agreed to the condition. If it is the
desire of the Commission, I will address those issues. He
then stated the condition that was written pertains to the
Specific Plan Amendment, and would have advised the Commission
of this late agreement when the Specific Plan Amendment came
up for discussion. Since it has come up as part of the
General Plan, and important to Mr. Bowie that not even the
General Plan be approved without said condition, then Brighton
Homes agrees to the condition as part of the General Plan, and
agrees to the deletion of condition number 8.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m.
Chairman Saathoff asked counsel if there were any concerns or
problems with the language Mr. Bowie proposed.
Mr. Burn expressed concern on receiving a 5 page letter with
a 19 page attachment a few minutes before the meeting. If the
Commission is inclined, would recommend continuance so that
counsel can review and respond to this letter. Would also
recommend, if you go forward or whatever time you do make
approval, that you also include an indemnification provision
that the applicant shall indemnify and hold the City harmless
in case there is litigation. This can be included in the
General Plan, Specific Plan or Development Agreement
Amendment.
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 9
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
Commissioner Brinley stated she was under the impression that
the school district was included - -this should be continued
until counsel has time to study the issue, and moved for
continuance, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Chairman Saathoff stated the parties involved are here, and
preparation has been made for public hearing. Commission
should conduct the public hearing, and then if they want to
deny or continue the matter it is their prerogative.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on counsel's request, and the
lengthy amendments received from staff. Asked counsel if the
public hearings are opened and continued, then Commission is
precluded from discussing any problems with the developer in
a private forum, correct?
Mr. Burns responded in the affirmative, and suggested the
public hearings be opened, testimony taken and then closed.
Counsel could respond to the letter submitted by Mr. Bowie,
and Commission could make a decision without re- opening the
public hearings. He then informed the Commission of the
procedure to avoid a due process problem.
Discussion ensued on taking public testimony, and applicant
responding to concerns; insufficient time to review revised
documents and Staff Report; continuing proposals - -when public
hearing is re- opened announcing any contact with the developer
for the record, and the proposals being legislative actions,
and the due process issue does not arise.
At this time, Commissioner Brinley rescinded her motion and
Commissioner Gilenson rescinded his second.
Chairman Saathoff asked for further discussion on the General
Plan Amendment. Receiving no response, he called for motion
to continue this proposal.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 91 -1 TO JUNE 16, 1991, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BRINLEY.
APPROVED 4 -0
Discussion ensued on the date for continuance.
COMMISSIONER BRINLEY AMENDED HER MOTION TO CORRECT THE DATE,
JUNE 19, 1991, COMMISSIONER GILENSON AMENDED HIS SECOND.
APPROVED 4 -0
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS,
RECEIVE TESTIMONY, AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PUBLIC HEARING
NOS. 2 AND 3.
2. Alberhill Specific Plan 89 -2 Amendment No. 1, to revise the
distribution and intensity of land uses, to increase the
allowable residential units from 2,235 to 2,735, to modify the
existing allowable residential, commercial, open space uses,
and to allow an 18 hole golf course, to implement the land use
designations set forth in General Plan Amendment 91 -1; Zoning
regulations for the Brighton Alberhill Specific Plan area, and
the rezoning of this portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan area.
At this time, Senior Planner Delgadillo directed the Commis-
sion's attention to the Revised Staff Report, Revised Conditions,
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 10
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
incorporating six (6) new condition, which staff would like to
revise further, and Resolution 91 -2 will also need to be
revised to incorporate these modifications:
23. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Lake Elsinore to guarantee that the applicant shall
participate in the formation and funding of a (Mello -
Roos) community facilities district or pay equivalent
fees to fund the necessary improvements and facilities to
ensure that an adequate level of fire and police
protection services are provided to the project.
24. Concurrent with the submission of the first tentative
map, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Public
Services study for fire and police services, to the City
Council for review and approval. The study shall be
prepared in cooperation with the Riverside County Fire
and Sheriff's Departments, and the City of Lake Elsinore.
The study shall, at a minimum, indicate the amount of
project development that can occur with out the
construction of new facilities and a development schedule
of new services concurrent with the build out of the
project. However, prior to the preparation of the study,
the applicant shall meet with the City, Fire and
Sheriff's Department's to determine the exact scope of
the study. DELETE
25. Applicant shall participate in a Waste Management Plan to
be prepared by the City.
26. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each
parcel, the applicant shall have an approved Waste
Management Plan from the Director of Community
Development. DELETE
27. All habitat resources planned for removal, preservation,
creation, or enhancement are subject to the review and
permit issuance of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and State Department of Fish and
Game. Copies of all permits and conditions attached to
the permits shall be submitted to the Director of
Community Development for review prior to the removal of
any habitat.
28. Prior to the removal of any habitat, any newly created or
enhanced habitat must be in place for a minimum of two
years. The applicant shall submit to the Director of
Community Development the two year evaluation of the
created habitat. Should the evaluation indicate that the
created habitat has not successfully established itself,
no existing habitat shall be removed until the two year
maintenance and monitoring report shows that the habitat
has successfully established itself. DELETE
Senior Planner Delgadillo stated that staff has no problem
with the revision of condition number 7, as proposed by Mr.
Bowie, and the deletion of condition number 8.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor of Specific Plan
89 -2 Amendment No. 1.
Mr. Ken Meddock, Director of Land Development for Brighton
,;M
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 11
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
Homes, requested the following amendments:
• Requested the following language be added to Resolution
91 -2 "and recommending approval of the Zoning Regulations
for the Alberhill Specific Plan No. 111, or a separate
resolution provided, since State law requires the zoning
regulations that govern Specific Plans be adopted as
separate resolutions.
Chairman Saathoff informed Mr. Meddock that the Zoning
Regulations were going to be addressed separately.
Mr. Meddock continued with his requested amendments:
• Resolution 91 -2, referred to the language provided for
the General Plan Amendment Resolution would like the same
language added:
Section 1, subsection a: after the word undertaken, add
"the proposed changes to the
Specific Plan will not require
any important revision to FEIR
89 -2"
Add subsection d: No new information of sub-
stantial importance to the
proposed Specific Plan project
has become available.
• Requested deletion of condition number 2, as it states
the Specific Plan will expire when the Development
Agreement expires. The Specific Plan is the zoning and
does not expire.
• Condition number 7 and 8, we would agree to the deletion
of condition 8, and the revision of condition number 7 as
proposed by Mr. Bowie.
• Condition number 11, would like to add to the end of the
condition "the traffic studies shall address the
cumulative impacts of recent nearby developments as well
as the project's impacts on the overall circulation
system."
• Condition number 19, would like add "as part of this
landscaping plan, ownership and identification of
responsibility for maintenance of all open space within
the project including natural areas and slopes shall be
identified."
• Condition number 23, would like to add to the end of the
condition "if such district is formed on a city -wide
basis."
• Condition number 29, requested the words "grading permit"
be changed to "building permit ".
• Condition number 31, would like to add language "with
respect to landscaping in medians, parkways, expanded
parkways and adjacent slopes to be maintained by the city
or landscape maintenance district. Landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be approved by the Public Works
Manager and City's Landscape Architect."
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 12
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
Requested condition 36 and 37 be deleted, as condition
number 11 addresses this issue, and with the expansion of
condition number 11 addressing cumulative and project
impacts believes these conditions to be redundant.
Condition number 38, deals with roadway standards:
Local Street: at the time Engineering Department
responded to staff request for comments we had 250
foot minimum radii and they asked that it meet the
City Standard of 350 foot. The document before you
has been changed to 350 foot as the minimum radii.
Maximum Grade: they also asked that the minimum
grade not be more than 15 percent, and we have
changed the document to address the 15 percent.
Maximum cul -de -sac length: the City Standard is 660
feet, we think this standard is too conservative.
The prior projects approved by the City have been
1,000 feet in length, and our Specific Plan, if
adopted, addresses 1,000 feet. We have moved it
down from 1,300 feet to 1,000 feet.
Sidewalk width: the minimum standard for a local
street is 6 feet. Our Specific Plan has sidewalks
on major, arterial, collector and all unloaded
streets at 6 feet. But we have asked that local
streets have 5 foot sidewalks.
If we leave the Specific Plan as it currently reads then
we no longer need condition number 38 and it can be
deleted.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 9:32 p.m.
There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Saathoff
called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1991, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED 4 -0
THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE BRIGHTON ALBERHILL SPECIFIC PLAN
WERE PULLED FROM THE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT.
Zoning regulations for the Brighton Alberhill Specific Plan
area, and the rezoning of this portion of the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan area.
Senior Planner Delgadillo stated the Zoning Regulations are
merely the development standards for the project; staff has
reviewed and has no problems, and referred to the revisions
submitted by the applicant.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 9:34 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Ken Meddock, Director of Land Development for Brighton
Homes, spoke in favor, and referred to the revised document
and characteristics used for amendments to said document.
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 13
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m.
There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Saathoff
called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE THE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR BRIGHTON HOMES TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 19,
1991, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED 4 -0
3. Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement between the City
and Brighton Alberhill Associates, adding Section 30 -- adoption
of Specific Plan Amendment No. 1.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Ken Meddock, Director of Land Development for Brighton
Homes, stated this amendment recognizes that a new Specific
Plan has been adopted and it is the proper Specific Plan. He
then requested the following changes to Resolution 91 -3:
Section 1, subsection a: change the words "Specific Plan
Amendment 91 -1" to Development
Agreement Amendment ", and "General
Plan" to "Development Agreement"
b: delete words "Specific Plan"
Add subsection d: No new information of substantial
importance to the proposed
Development Agreement project has
become available.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 9:38 p.m.
There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Saathoff
called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE AMENDMENT NO. 1 OF
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR BRIGHTON HOMES TO THE MEETING OF
JUNE 19, 1991, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED 4 -0
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Brinle
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsev
Nothing to report.
Minutes of Planning Commission
June 5, 1991
Page 14
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Commissioner Brown
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Nothing to report.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brown,
second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0
A
_ARproved,
Q
Bi 1 Saathoff,
Chairman
RRespVc tfully s bmitted,
rl°. d��%
ind/a Gri dstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON THE 19 TH DAY OF JUNE 1991
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, Wilsey, and Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brown
Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner
Christen, Associate Planners Restivo and DeGange and Senior Civil
Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Commissioner Gilenson referred to Page 5, comments on condition
number 17 (Garage at 29610 Nichols Street), would like to add to
the Minutes that I questioned the applicant regarding the amendment
to condition number 17 and the amended condition was acceptable to
them.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of June 5, 1991,
as corrected, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 3 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstaining)
CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT HE IS IN RECEIPT OF
A LETTER FROM JEFF BROWN, DATED JUNE 9, 1991, ADDRESSED TO THE
MAYOR, RESIGNING HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
SUBMITTED SAID LETTER FOR THE RECORD.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE BUSINESS ITEMS BE
BROUGHT FORWARD AND TAKEN UP PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC
HEARINGS.
BUSINESS ITEMS
10. Single - Family Residence - 29401 Hague Street - Francisco
Hernandez - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for
Minor Design Review approval of a 3,315 square foot tri -level
structure with a 462 square foot garage placed on two adjacent
parcels, located 90 feet north of the intersection of Bond
Avenue and Hague Street.
Associate Planner DeGange stated originally the applicant
proposed an asphalt roofing material. Since that time, the
applicant has conveyed his wishes to use a concrete tile
roofing material.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present
representing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at the table.
There being no discussion at the table, he called for a
motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 29401 HAGUE STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No. 8: Applicant shall use roofing materials
with a minimum of Class "B" fire rating.
Concrete tile roofing material, as
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 2
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 29401 HAGUE STREET CONTINUED
submitted by the applicant, shall be
used and subject to the approval of the
Community Development Manager or
designee, prior to issuance of building
permits.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
APPROVED 4 -0
11. Single - Family Residence - 30085 McBurney - Malachi Tobin -
Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review approval of a 1,548 square foot two -story structure
with a 395 square foot garage placed on two adjacent parcels
located at the intersection of Strickland and McBurney
Avenues.
Associate Planner DeGange stated the Staff Reports indicates
the structure is to be built on two distinct parcels; however,
the applicant is only proposing to build on one parcel, at
this time. Also, the applicant originally proposed an asphalt
roofing material. Since that time, the applicant has conveyed
his wishes to use a gray glazed clay tile roofing material.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present
representing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Tobin stated that he was in agreement with staff recom-
mendation and the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on the lot merger requirement,
condition number 32, suggested deletion since the applicant is
only building on one parcel.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested condition number 8 be amended
to reflect the gray glazed clay tile roofing material proposed
by the applicant.
Chairman Saathoff inquired about lot size, and whether the lot
is of adequate size for the proposal. Associate Planner
DeGange responded in the affirmative and referred to the
Exhibit included with the Staff Report.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 30085 MCBURNEY BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT
TO THE 32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT
WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 8: Applicant shall use roofing materials
with a minimum of Class "B" fire rating.
The gray glazed clay tile roofing
material, as submitted by the applicant,
shall be used and subject to the approval
of the Community Development Manager or
designee, prior to issuance of building
permits.
Condition No. 32:
Preeess and meet all pareel merger-
requirements to issuanee e€
building permit. DELETE
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
APPROVED 4 -0
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER SHEER STATED THIS IS A CONTINUATION
OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE ALBERHILL RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMEND-
MENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENT TO
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, CONTINUED FROM JUNE 5, 1991.
1. General Plan Amendment 91 -1 - to revise the land use
designation for this portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan area, to provide for an 18 hole golf course; remove the
existing Exhibit II -2 from the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, and replace it with a revised land use map consistent
with the proposed Specific Plan.
Chairman Saathoff re- opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition,
asking for new testimony only.
Mr. Eric Doering, Bowie, Arneson, Kadi & Dixon, representing
Lake Elsinore Unified School District, stated his comments
pertain to items 1 -4 equally, and submitted a letter dated
June 18, 1991, expressing a summary of different decisions in
regard to school facilities, and protests on the proposals for
the record.
Mr. Doering stated in the future they would prefer to reach
agreement regarding mitigation of school impacts prior to
approval of the project. In this instance, we support the
project provided the proposed condition number 6, as drafted
by the City Attorney, is included. He then commented on the
State Funding issue raised at the last meeting and presented
the Commission with a copy of the 1991 Capital Outlay and
Infrastructure Report from the State Department of Finance,
and referred to page 3, paragraph 3.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to speak.
Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:15
p.m.
Chairman Saathoff stated for clarification believes that Mr.
Doering was addressing the Specific Plan Amendment Resolution
91 -2, this is where condition number 6 appears, correct?
Mr. Doering stated that his comments apply to all proposals.
Chairman Saathoff stated before the matter is brought to the
table, would like to give the applicant an opportunity to
address any changes.
Mr. Meddock, Director of Land Development for Brighton Homes,
stated they concur with the Staff Report. He then stated for
the record, they are supportive of the school district - -the
needs that they have. We have had many discussions with Mr.
Bowie since we last met with the Commission. Whereas, we do
not concur with condition number 6 as written, we none the
less believe, we have brought forward a very worthwhile
project that stands on its own merit, and would ask for
approval of that project and of the General Plan Amendment,
which is required before we can even proceed with item number
2.
Chairman Saathoff asked for questions or concerns from the
table on General Plan Amendment 91 -1 and Resolution 91 -1.
Receiving no response, he called for a motion.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 4
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
89 -2 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -1 BASED ON THE
FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT OF JUNE 5, 1991, AND
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
91 -1 FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ALBERHILL SPECIFIC
PLAN LAND USE EXHIBIT II -2; BOUNDED BY
INTERSTATE 15, TERRA COTTA ROAD /NICHOLS,
PACIFIC CLAY AND ROBB /LAKE STREET; FILED BY
BRIGHTON HOMES
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED: 4 -0
2. Alberhill Specific Plan 89 -2 Amendment No. 1 - to revise the
distribution and intensity of land uses, to increase the
allowable residential units from 2,235 to 2,735, to modify the
existing allowable residential, commercial, open space uses,
and to allow an 18 hole golf course, to implement the land use
designations set forth in General Plan Amendment 91 -1; Zoning
regulations for the Brighton Alberhill Specific Plan area, and
the rezoning of this portion of the Alberhill Ranch Specific
Plan area.
Chairman Saathoff re- opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition,
asking for new testimony only.
Mr. Meddock, Director of Land Development for Brighton Homes,
stated there are only two items of concerns:
• Condition number 6, impact on school, this has already
been addressed.
• Condition number 29, pertains to local street radii,
maximum grade, maximum cul -de -sac length and sidewalk
width. We have no problem with the local street radii or
maximum grade of roads. Requested the following changes:
Maximum cul -de -sac length: the City Standard is 660
feet, we think this standard is too conservative.
We would like to request this be 1,000 feet.
Sidewalk width: the minimum standard for a local
street is 6 feet. Our Specific Plan has sidewalks
on major, arterial, collector and all unloaded
streets at 6 feet. But we have asked that local
streets have 5 foot sidewalks.
Mr. Meddock, stated he would answer any questions that may
arise. Also, a number of consultants, who were involved with
the proposal, are present this evening and if I cannot answer
your questions I am sure they can.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to speak.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 5
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
Mr. Eric Doering, Bowie, Arneson, Kadi & Dixon, reiterated the
school district supports the project with condition number 6,
as drafted by the City Attorney.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to speak.
Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:25
p.m.
Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows:
• Condition number 29, would prefer the condition stand.
Staff and the applicant can get together an work out an
amenable solution, prior to Council.
• Water conservation, nothing in the Specific Plan
addressing infrastructure for reclaimed water for the
golf course, medians or anything of that type.
Mr. Meddock stated there is a condition that specifically
requires us follow the reclaim water requirements of the water
purveyor, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and they
do not have a reclaim water policy at this time. I think, I
can say fairly concretely, that the golf course and all major
slopes and medians will be reclaimed water. But, it is all
relative to the policy of the water purveyor.
• The applicant's trail proposal shall coincide with the
City's Master Plan of Trails Overlay, condition number
10.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the need to be more specific on
the type of trails -- required trails, improved trails. Commis-
sioner Gilenson suggested verbiage "as shown on the City's
Master Plan of Trails" be added to said condition.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the Specific Plan Document
as follows:
• Page 10, Section 1.a. and b.: totally against lot sizes
under 6,000 square feet. The argument is that the
Development Agreement allowed the extra homes in exchange
for the golf course. Yes, I agree it does, but it did
not make any allowance for small lots.
• Page 12, 3rd paragraph: does not feel this adequately
mitigates the EIR on the school problem. Does not feel
that the EIR should be certified at this point.
• Page 14, Open Space & Parks: we have had some study
sessions on this, and not sure if this is what the City
really wants. City liability on all open spaces, certain
open space that the city has specifically said they do
not want with the slopes.
• Page 32, subsection b.i.: would like to have the 5- gallon
minimum container size changed to 24" box.
• Page 46, subsection c: this states asphalt shingles,
three - dimensional random tab may be used. Seems like
there is a conflict - -I am in agreement with this three -
dimensional random tab. The City has elected not to
allow three - dimensional random tab in residential
projects and confused as to why we are allowing it here,
but not anywhere else in the city. Would like to see it
changed or the standard condition gone back on all our
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 6
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
single- family residences.
Page 57, Section 3.a.iv., this is in conflict with
itself, and the same comments as on Page 46 apply.
Exhibit 31, Wall Mounted Sign: delete can signs.
Commissioner Brinley stated her concerns on roofing, lot size
and use of reclaimed water have been covered by Commissioners
Gilenson and Wilsey. She then commented on the school site
and inquired whether there is any information on the school
district's plans for this site.
Considerable discussion ensued on school impact and mitiga-
tion, condition number 6. If the proposed site is not
selected as a school site the type of uses that would be
allowed.
Chairman Saathoff asked for any further discussion from the
table.
Commissioner Wilsey requested that Commissioner Gilenson's
comments on the Specific Plan document be brought back for
discussion, page at a time and elaborate.
Page 10, Section l.a. and b.: Lot size. Chairman
Saathoff stated this is addressed by condition number 26,
Resolution 91 -2.
Commissioner Gilenson reiterated his opposition to the small
lot size. Would prefer to see nothing under 6,000 square feet
as greed to in the original Development Agreement.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he recalls the various meetings/
discussions and arriving at these exact numbers to work up to
the golf course. Commissioner Gilenson stated this was in the
approved Development Agreement, nothing in the current
Development Agreement.
Mr. Meddock stated that Commissioner Wilsey is correct in his
recollection of the discussion that took place. At the same
time, Commissioner Gilenson is correct that there is no
expressed language in the Development Agreement that says we
are entitled to have lots of any size. It is our understand-
ing that the Development Agreement, in recognition of the golf
course, 500 additional units, the fact that the size of the
property has not changed - -it is fixed. The fact that 200
acres now has to be dedicated to the golf course that you end
up with smaller lots. I think the issue of smaller lots was
discussed, there is not expressed language in the Development
Agreement, but implicitly we have that right.
Commissioner Brinley stated she recalls discussion on the
6,000 square foot lots in exchange for the golf course.
Discussion ensued on lot sizes and nothing in the Development
Agreement addressing smaller lots; the original Development
Agreement having two alternatives, with and without the golf
course.
Page 12, 3rd paragraph: School mitigation. No further
discussion this has been addressed.
• Page 14, Open Space & Parks: Chairman Saathoff inquired
whether or not this was covered in the conditions. Mr.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 7
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
Meddock stated this is addressed by condition number 17.
• Page 32, subsection b.i.: Change to 24" box is standard,
no further discussion.
• Page 46, subsection c and Page 57, Section 3.a.iv.:
Chairman Saathoff stated that asphalt shingles to be
deleted per City Policy.
Commissioner Gilenson stated this is not what the condition
states in single - family residential.
Chairman Saathoff stated City Policy is, no asphalt shingles
on single - family residences. However, the applicant and /or
the City may request Design Review to allow asphalt shingles.
• Exhibit 31, Wall Mounted Sign: Can signs to be deleted,
no further discussion.
Mr. Meddock stated the last three items talked about, with the
exception of the asphalt singles, are conditions and have
asked our consultants to incorporate the City's Landscaping
Standards into the Technical Appendix of this document.
Chairman Saathoff asked for further comments from the table.
Receiving no response, he called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
89 -2, APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH
CHANGES AS NOTED AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT OF JUNE 5, 1991, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2,
ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE APPROVAL OF BRIGHTON SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT #1 FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ALBERHILL
SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2; BOUNDED BY INTERSTATE 15,
TERRA COTTA ROAD /NICHOLS, PACIFIC CLAY AND
ROBB /LAKE STREET; FILED BY BRIGHTON HOMES
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED: 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no)
AT THIS TIME, 8:00 P.M., THE COMMISSION RECESSED.
AT THIS TIME, 8:11 P.M., THE COMMISSION RECONVENED.
3. Zoning regulations for the Brighton Alberhill Specific Plan
area, and the rezoning of this portion of the Alberhill Ranch
Specific Plan area.
Chairman Saathoff re- opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition,
asking for new testimony only.
Mr. Meddock, Director of Land Development for Brighton Homes,
requested approval of the Zoning Regulations, and referred to
Resolution 91 -2 which requires specific items to come back
before this body for approval. He then stated he would answer
any questions that may arise.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 8
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to speak.
Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:14
p.m.
Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion from the table.
Commissioner Gilenson stated to remain consistent with the
last vote will have to vote no. He then reiterated his
concern on school impacts, does not feel this mitigates- -
Resolution states that only minor technical changes and
additions are necessary to make the EIR adequate.
Chairman Saathoff asked for further comments from the table.
Receiving no response, he called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
89 -2 AND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS BASED ON THE
FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT OF JUNE 5, 1991, AND
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 91 -3, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -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 THE ZONING REGULATIONS
FOR THE BRIGHTON /ALBERHILL SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2;
BOUNDED BY INTERSTATE 15, TERRA COTTA
ROAD /NICHOLS, PACIFIC CLAY AND ROBB /LAKE
STREET; FILED BY BRIGHTON HOMES
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY
APPROVED: 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no)
4. Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement between the City
and Brighton Alberhill Associates, adding Section 30 -- adoption
of Specific Plan Amendment No. 1.
Chairman Saathoff re- opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition,
asking for new testimony only.
Mr. Meddock, Director of Land Development for Brighton Homes,
stated they are not amending the Development Agreement as the
title of the Resolution implies. We are merely adding a
paragraph recognizing the previous action was to approve new
Zoning Regulations and a Specific Plan Amendment.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to speak.
Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:17
p.m.
Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion from the table.
Commissioner Gilenson stated to remain consistent with the
last vote will have to vote no. Same concerns.
Chairman Saathoff asked for further comments from the table.
Receiving no response, he called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
89 -2 AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE DEVELOPMENT
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 9
BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED
AGREEMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT OF
JUNE 5, 1991, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 91 -4, ENTITLED AS
FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -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 THE BRIGHTON / ALBERHILL
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ADDING SECTION
30, FOR THE ALBERHILL SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2;
BOUNDED BY INTERSTATE 15, TERRA COTTA
ROAD /NICHOLS, PACIFIC CLAY AND ROBB /LAKE
STREET; FILED BY BRIGHTON HOMES
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED: 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no)
5. Conditional Use Permit 90 -7 and Commercial Project 90 -1 -
Ervin Palmer (Continued from December 19, 1990) - Chairman
Saathoff stated that staff has requested these items be
continued indefinitely, and called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 90 -7 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -1 INDEFINITELY, SECOND
BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
APPROVED: 4 -0
6. Associate Planner Restivo presented the following proposals:
Variance 91 -4 - John Outhuijse (Streamline Cabinets) - A
request to vary from the standard landscape setback from
parking area and the public right of way.
Variance 91 -5 - John Outhuijse (Streamline Cabinets) - A
request for reduced parking requirements. After further
analysis it was determined this Variance was not necessary for
project approval, and staff agreed to applicant's request for
withdrawal.
Industrial Project 90 -4 - John Outhuijse (Streamline Cabinets)
- Minor Design Review of a 2,597 square foot covered storage
area at the existing Streamline Cabinet site. The proposed
storage building is situated to the east of the existing
Streamline Cabinet building on the rear of the approximate
13,000 square foot lot. The site is located approximately
2,000 feet east of Chaney Street, south of Minthorn. The
project address is 506 West Minthorn.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 8:19 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Ray Grage, representing the applicant, stated they agree
with the Conditions of Approval, with the exception of
condition number 20, dedication of underground water rights,
which we will accept under protest. He then stated he would
answer questions that may arise.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed, or wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no
response, the public hearing was closed at 8:21 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 10
VARIANCE 91 -4. 91 -5 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -4 CONTINUED
Commissioner Wilsey suggested condition number 22 be deleted
since water service exists in the main building, no need for
a will -serve letter. He then commented on the temporary
storage containers -- assumes these containers will be removed
since there is no longer room, correct? Mr. Grage responded
in the affirmative.
Commissioner Brinley stated her concern was on the temporary
storage containers and this has been addressed.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he was glad to see condition
number 13, and would like to see on all projects, including
single - family residential.
Chairman Saathoff commented on access /location of loading
doors, and trash receptacles, referring to the rendering
posted.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
91 -7, APPROVE VARIANCE 91 -4 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -4 BASED
ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 34 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE DELETION OF CONDITION
NUMBER 22, AND TO ACCEPT UNDER PROTEST CONDITION NUMBER 20,
AND ACCEPT WITHDRAWAL OF VARIANCE 91 -5 PER THE APPLICANT'S
REQUEST, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Submit a "W!3A- ('ov_-cFo" letter- t the GA
Condition No.22: __ -_m__ _ - -�_1
Engineering Department, frem
applieable water distriet, ..}_t:__ that
water and sewer arrangements have been
made €er this prejeet. Submit this
letter prier to applying €fig
permit. DELETE
Chairman Saathoff commented on the motion indicating that
condition number 20 was at the applicant's statement under
protest not the Commission. Commissioner Brinley asked if the
Chairman would like the motion amended. Chairman Saathoff
responded in the affirmative.
COMMISSIONER BRINLEY AMENDED HER MOTION TO DELETE STATEMENT
"TO ACCEPT UNDER PROTEST CONDITION NUMBER 20 ", COMMISSIONER
GILENSON AMENDED HIS SECOND BY REFLECT SAID AMENDMENT.
APPROVED: 4 -0
7. Tentative Tract Map 24856 Revised - Newcomb Development, Inc.
(Stoneridge Partners) - Associate Planner Restivo presented a
request to amend Tract 24856 which is comprised of 75 single -
family residential lots on 18.5 acres. The site is located
between the intersection of Rolando Road with Mountain Street
and Running Deer Road west of Robb Road.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. John Newcomb, applicant, stated he concurs with the Staff
Report and proposed conditions. He then requested that
condition number 5 be restated, for clarification:
Condition No. 5: Units located along Running Deer Road
shall incorporate dual - glazed windows.
The dual - glazed windows are just required
on the rear of the houses that back up to
Running Deer Road.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 11
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24856 REVISED CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. The following persons spoke:
Mr. John Sellers, 16510 Mountain Street, Lake Elsinore, stated
he supports the project, and feels it is compatible with the
existing neighborhood.
Mr. Jack McColley, 29072 Palm View, Lake Terrace Tract, voiced
his support for the project. Mr. Newcomb has continually met
with the residents of the Lake Terrace Tract, and feels it is
a compatible use in that area.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed or wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no
response, the public hearing was closed at 8:29 p.m.
Commissioner Gilenson commented as follows:
No problem with the applicant's request on condition
number 5, except that, in the event the units get turned
around would like wording to show that the windows facing
Running Deer Road will be dual - glazed, whether the front,
side or back of the house.
• Condition number 2, add "including but not limited to Lot
12," after the words "All lots ".
Commissioner Wilsey stated he has no problem with the request
on condition number 5. Asked whether we had a standard condi-
tion with regard to sound proofing homes, and whether this
would not be a suitable implementation to add, so homeowners
are protected in the future.
Mr. Newcomb stated Title 24 of the State Energy Code has a
sound insulation section, which would apply. It might be
appropriate to change the condition to state we have to meet
the provisions of Title 24, sound requirements.
Commissioner Wilsey asked staff for wording on the amendment
to condition number 5.
Associate Planner Restivo stated she would prefer the rear
windows facing Running Deer Road incorporate dual - glazed
windows. The City's Noise Ordinance calls out 45 dba /cnel as
the interior noise level that is acceptable. But, having it
in writing allows staff to make sure the plans submitted
incorporate that specifically.
Discussion ensued on adding condition number 6, "comply with
interior noise levels as stated in Title 24 ", incorporating
this language into condition 5, or amend condition number 5 by
adding language "meet the requirements of the City of Lake
Elsinore ".
Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the size of the open field.
Concern is whether a cul -de -sac could be used when this
property is developed in the future.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the straight streets and the
row house effect -- personally likes the cul -de -sacs, why the
change?
Mr. Newcomb responded there are two reasons: one, home buyers
resist double frontage lots. They like the backyard to back
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 12
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24856 REVISED CONTINUED
up against their neighbor's backyard which provides privacy
and security. Also, this is integrating into an existing
neighborhood and to be compatible with this neighborhood it
makes sense for our houses to be the same size, character and
layout.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91 -5 AND APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24856 REVISED BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 9 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 2: Prior to filing of an amended map with
the County Recorder's office, the
applicant shall submit a map for review
and approval by the Community Development
Manager or his designee. All lots,
including but not limited to Lot 12,
within the amended map shall conform to
the minimum dimensional standards of the
R -1 Zoning District.
Condition No. 5: Units with windows facing Running Deer
Road shall incorporate dual - glazed
windows, and shall meet City Standards
for noise control.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Commissioner Gilenson requested further discussion, with
regard to Chairman Saathoff Is concerns. Asked staff if a
condition can be added to vary the roofline and setback to
change the street scene.
Chairman Saathoff stated this would be handled at Design
Review. Commissioner Gilenson asked to yield the floor to
staff for comment.
Associate Planner Restivo stated the most appropriate time
would be at Design Review, but it does not hurt to add
conditions as a reminder. Commissioner Gilenson concurred.
Chairman Saathoff asked if the Commission would like to yield
the floor to the applicant. Commissioner Wilsey yielded the
floor.
Mr. Newcomb stated condition number 6 of Tentative Tract Map
24856, approved October 10, 1989, requires all house plotting,
architectural drawings, floor plans, landscaping and fencing
receive Minor Design Review approval, so this is covered.
Commissioner Wilsey stated this creates a reminder when it get
to Design Review that there was concern with this aspect.
Chairman Saathoff stated with this added as a condition we are
saying he has to vary setbacks, rooflines and so forth, and
maybe this is not the best way to go once we see the entire
project.
Chairman Saathoff asked if the motion on the table was to
stand or be amended, what is Commission's desire?
Commissioner Brinley stated she would like the motion amended
to include this condition as a reminder /option, and rescinded
her second.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 19, 1991
Page 13
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24856 REVISED CONTINUED
O .,: .
COMMISSIONER WILSEY AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION
OF CONDITION NUMBER 5.A., WHICH WILL READ:
Condition 5.a: The building shall incorporate design
standards specified in the Community Design
Element of the General Plan, Design Ordinance
of the City, and consideration to varied
roof lines and setbacks shall be considered, as
acceptable by the Planning Commission Design
Review.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED: 4 -0
8. Tentative Tract Map 25171 Revised - Partin Development
(Courton & Associates) - Chairman Saathoff stated staff has
requested this item be continued to the meeting of July 3,
1991, and called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
25171 REVISED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 3, 1991, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
APPROVED 4 -0
9. Tentative Tract Map 26459 - Partin Development (Courton &
Associates) - Chairman Saathoff stated staff has requested
this item be continued to the meeting of July 3, 1991, and
called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
26459 TO THE MEETING OF JULY 3, 1991, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
GILENSON.
APPROVED 4 -0
INFORMATIONAL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Brinley
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 8:43 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson
second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved: 4 -0
Res ectfully submitted,
inda Gri staff
Planning Commission
Secretary
�Ap 7ved,
`��/ �
B° ill, aathoff
Chairman
HELD ON THE
OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
3RD DAY OF
JULY 1991
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Wilsey, and Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner
Christen, Associate Planners Restivo and Senior Civil Engineer
O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Commissioner Gilenson referred to Page 8, under roll call vote,
correct the descending vote, this should be myself not Commissioner
Wilsey.
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of June 19,
1991, as corrected, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
1. Zone Change 91 -4 and Residential Project 91 -4 - Don Miller
(Continued from June 5, 1991) - Chairman Saathoff stated the
applicant has requested withdrawal of these applications, and
called for a motion.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to accept withdrawal of Zone
Change 91 -4 and Residential Project 9 -14, second by
Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
2. General Plan Amendment 91 -4, Zone Change 91 -6, Tentative Tract
Map 25171 Revised and Tentative Tract Map 26459 - Partin
Development (Courton & Associates) - Associate Planner Restivo
presented the following proposals:
General Plan Amendment 91 -4 - a request to amend the General
Plan Circulation Element to revise the general circulation
pattern 15;
Zone Change 91 -6 - a request to change the zoning from R -R
(Rural Residential) to R -1 (Single Family Residential
District) for 169 acres;
Tentative Tract Map 25171 REVISED - a request to subdivide
89.5 acres into 165 single - family residential lots with a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and the average lot size
being 7,900 square feet;
Tentative Tract Map 26459 - a request to subdivide 79.9 acres
into 181 single- family residential lots with a minimum lot
size of 7,200 square feet and the average lot size being 7,900
square feet. The site is located approximately two miles
easterly from the Interstate 15 /Highway 74 junction, just
southerly and easterly of Wasson Canyon.
Associate Planner Restivo referred to the memorandum of July
3, 1991, requesting the following modifications to the
Planning Commission Minutes
July 3, 1991
Page 2
PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
Conditions of Approval:
Condition 17 for school mitigation fees can be
deleted in favor of condition 6 accepted by
the School District.
Conditions 44 -47 can be deleted in deference
to engineering condition 88 which encompasses
all of the required circulation improvements.
Condition 53 The parkways of Elsinore Hills
Drive, Elsinore Ridge Road, East Cambern Loop
and the loop street within Tract 26459 shall
be landscaped in accordance with adopted City
Public Right of way landscape guidelines, and
include a combination of ground cover, shrubs
and trees. All street trees shall be a
minimum of 24" box. Improvements shall be
installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy
for any units.
Condition 88 Developer shall contribute a pro -
rata share for the design and construction for
the proposed traffic circulation improvements
recommended and as shown on Exhibit 'is" in
Traffic study prepared by Kahn, Kain and
Associates in October 1990 prior to final map.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the proposals.
Mr. Larry Buxton, Courton & Associates, representing the
applicant, gave a brief history on the proposals. He then
commented on:
• The circulation and traffic study for the project.
Community Facility District 90 -3 being formed to finance
the road system, water and sewer facilities to serve
three tracts, which we believe will be implemented in
September.
Area topography and grading.
• Project design and maintenance of slopes, open space
areas and trail system.
• Drainage facilities designed to handle 100 -year flows.
Aesthetic preservation of the site.
• Emergency vehicle access.
Biological evaluations done for the site.
Focused Spring Survey done on the site, and submitted a
draft copy of said survey.
Submitted a letter from Missing Link Investors II,
adjacent property owners to the south, in support of the
two tentative tract maps.
Mr. Buxton stated they were in agreement with staff recom-
mendation and Conditions of Approval, and would answer any
questions that arise.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 3, 1991
Page 3
PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 7:27 p.m.
CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF REQUESTED THE COMMISSIONERS ANNOUNCE ANY MEETINGS
THEY HAD WITH THE APPLICANT, FOR THE RECORD:
Chairman Saathoff and Commissioner Wilsey stated they met with
the applicant this morning, approximately 10:30 a.m. to 12:30
p.m.
Commissioner Brinley stated she spoke with the applicant
today, approximately half -hour, around noon.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he met with the applicant
yesterday, 1:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., approximately.
CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF STATED RATHER THAN DISCUSSING AS A WHOLE WOULD
LIKE TO TAKE AS SEPARATE ITEMS WITH SEPARATE MOTIONS, STARTING WITH
ZONE CHANGE 91 -6.
IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSALS
SEPARATELY WITH SEPARATE MOTIONS, AND COMMENCE WITH THE ZONE CHANGE
REQUEST.
Commissioner Wilsey stated his primary concern is that R -1
Zoning is not suitable in the hillside environment, should be
looking at alternatives. He then commented on the clustering
of lots; lot sizes, dimensions, and lineal streets.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the Single - Family Residential
Zoning District and underlying zones - -if the Commission felt
the zoning should be Single - Family Agricultural or Hillside,
would this require a General Plan Amendment? Associate
Planner Restivo responded in the negative, stating this would
be consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Gilenson inquired about the maximum density for
R -1. Associate Planner Restivo responded the maximum density
would be 3 dwelling units per acre.
Discussion ensued on the underlying zones, lot sizes, density,
and what control the city has on density if the proposal is
sold in the future.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the cut and fill being
insensitive to the hillsides and the visual impacts of said
cut and fill; curvilinear streets, reference condition number
56. Concerned with the zoning designation requested, should
look at alternatives; however unsure of the designation the
property should receive.
Discussion ensued on curvilinear streets; cut and fill within
80 feet of the ridgelines and the extensive visual impacts;
zoning designation and establishment of zoning designation in
the hillside areas requiring 14,000 square foot lots, and
clustering of lots.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on hillside height -- ridges as
high as 1739 feet and cut up to 167 feet, opposed to this,
would prefer that the upper portion of the ridges not be
disturbed.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 3, 1991
Page 4
PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
Mr. Buxton responded the major cut referred to relates to the
project's north /south road. That road, according to the
traffic study, could be in the 60 -68 foot width rather than
the 88 -foot proposed. The 88 -foot width was proposed after
meeting with the Engineering Department, but along with this
larger road came a requirement for a higher design speed- -
which means we had to have the road flatter.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that he was referring to the upper
elevation dropping from 1739 to 1580. This is the area of cut
that I am concerned about - -in what is to be the open space.
Does not believe the tract, as laid out, is sensitive to the
topography. He then stated that condition number 56 does not
address concerns on curvilinear streets.
Discussion ensued on curvilinear streets, condition number 56,
and definition of "substantial conformance ".
Commissioner Brinley stated she agrees with the comments made
by Commissioner Wilsey and Chairman Saathoff. Concern is with
the terrain, and would like to see the applicant come back
with a design more sensitive to the topography.
Discussion ensued on the requested Zone Change from Rural
Residential to Single - Family Residential with said request
allowing standard urban size lots, 6,000 square feet, and the
tentative maps submitted exceeding this requirement. Whether
the requested zoning designation is the proper zoning for the
area.
Chairman Saathoff asked whether the Commission had a problem
with the number of lots. Commissioner Brinley responded in
the negative.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would like to know how much
open space acreage is involved before answering. Mr. Buxton
stated he believes there is 80 acres included in the total
area, and 45 -50 acres in the central ridgeline area.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he has no problem with the number
of lots for this project. If sold, they could have three
dwelling units per acre, total of 577 lots, and that I would
be against. We need some way to protect that.
Chairman Saathoff stated the applicant could propose 577 lots,
it is his prerogative, but whether or not we would allow this -
-this is a concern that I had too. Agricultural Single - Family
is overkill and Hillside Single- Family is a little stringent.
Discussion ensued on density of three dwelling units per acre
already established and the request being for the creation of
lot size.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called
for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 91 -6 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN
THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 3 -1 (Commissioner Wilsey voting no)
Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion on the General Plan
Amendment. There being no discussion, he called for a motion.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 3, 1991
Page 5
PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -4 BASED ON THE FINDINGS
LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
APPROVED: 4 -0
Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion on Tentative Tract Map
25171 Revised and Tentative Tract Map 26459. Asking for
discussion on the overall design, whether the Commission was
comfortable with the grid.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he had no problem with the
layout, with the exception of the "race type" streets.
Commissioner Brinley commented on the cul -de -sacs proposed and
inquired about their location. Utilizing the posted render-
ing, Mr. Buxton illustrated possible cul -de -sac locations.
Chairman Saathoff inquired whether the changes as outlined by
Mr. Buxton would constitute substantial conformance, or should
it be a revised tentative tract map, reference condition
number 56. Associate Planner Restivo responded this would be
difficult to answer without seeing the revisions.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on the following:
Condition number 56, would like to see the changes for
substantial conformance prior to approving, this is my
biggest problem.
• Grading, maintaining the maximum elevation and open space
area, do minimal grading in that area.
• Discuss park mitigation with staff -- concern is with park
mitigation in the entire area.
• Drainage for the project, especially off the mountain
side and down into Wasson Canyon.
• Vagueness of mitigation measures listed in the Environ-
mental Impact Report. Concerned with habitat mitigation,
primarily in the open space areas - -top of ridge area.
Discussion ensued on the ridgeline areas with regard to cut
and fill; Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District service and
storage area.
Chairman Saathoff commented on condition number 56, if the
tract maps are approved, the curvilinear streets should come
back before the Commission and a decision made on substantial
conformance or whether a revised map is required.
Associate Planner Restivo recommended the proposals be
continued until the changes are made, so that the Commission
can see the changes prior to approving the tentative maps.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that if the maps are approved with
those expected changes under condition number 56, which I feel
is inadequate, basically we would be setting the density for
these tracts, and we have indicated we are not comfortable
with the layout as presented. I have questions on whether
they can layout it out, comfortable with the topography, and
maintain the same density without sacrificing lot size.
Discussion ensued on Commissioner Wilsey's statement with
regard to lot size; lot sizes having to conform to the R -1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 3, 1991
Page 6
PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
District, and if reduced having the same basic subdivision
pattern in order to be in substantial conformance.
Mr. Buxton stated they feel the 7,200 square foot average
minimum can be maintained.
A brief discussion ensued on park mitigation and drainage.
Chairman Saathoff inquired about fencing type and locations,
condition number 35.
Discussion ensued on fencing type /location, fencing not
obstructing view; requirement of solid block wall along
Elsinore Ridge Road and requirement for a noise study for
same.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on direction the Commission
has received from City Council with regard to elimination of
block walls. Asked staff to respond.
Associate Planner Restivo stated in the Single - Family District
all lots are required to have solid fencing on side and rear
lot lines. This condition requires side yards that have
fencing exposed to the public right -of -way be block rather
than wood. This condition does not read well, but it should
only be for side and rear lot fencing along the public right -
of -way and not the project perimeter.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on fire protection facilities
as requested by the Fire Safety Specialist, and requested the
addition of the following conditions
"No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued
prior to the fire station at Railroad Canyon
Road and Interstate 15 being completed and in
operation ".
Chairman Saathoff responded the Fire Department may decide
upon a new location, in the future, and if we make it site
specific the map can not be released.
Discussion ensued on adding language "and /or approval from the
Riverside County Fire Department, or six minute response
time ", and there being an existing condition to meet all
County Fire Department requirements.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 83,
concern is if they don't agree or cooperate what happens- -
recommended the following language be added:
"Prior to Certificate of Occupancy applicant
will have agreement with other projects ".
Discussion ensued on condition number 83, and this being
handled through a Community Facilities District.
Mr. Buxton stated there have been two tentative maps submitted
for Ramsgate that covers the two areas. When Tract 25487 was
completed one of the directions given was this same condition,
and we had the same engineer prepare all three maps, so
cooperating with the people to the north has already happened.
We have an agreement with the developers to the south for an
easement for Elsinore Ridge Road that is already executed.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 3, 1991
Page 7
PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson stated he would like something in
writing prior to Certificate of Occupancy, and if it already
exist does not see a problem. He then requested the following
amendments:
Condition No. 32: in between the words "approval" and
"of" add "by City Landscape
Architect ".
Condition No. 33: after "Planning Manager" add "and
City Attorney ", for consistency
between number 31 and 33.
Mr. Buxton stated they are anxious to proceed with the
Community Facilities District, would like to go forward to
City Council, and then get started on the formation of the
assessment district. Asked if there is any way the map and
EIR could be approved, tonight.
Chairman Saathoff asked staff for comments -- stating it would
have to be found in substantial conformance, and discussion at
the table is that it will not be substantially conforming to
the map before us.
Mr. Buxton suggested language "to the satisfaction of Ad Hoc
Committee of the Planning Commission ", rather than substantial
conformance.
Associate Planner Restivo stated since the Commission is not
comfortable with condition number 56, the proposal could be
continued and recommendations incorporated, and come back for
approval.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
25171 REVISED, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459 AND EIR 91 -1, FOR A
PERIOD OF TIME UP TO 120 DAYS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON
WITH DISCUSSION.
Commissioner Gilenson asked staff if it is possible to approve
the proposal as it stands, with a condition that it does not
go to City Council until condition number 56 is brought back
to Planning Commission as a Business Item and approved.
Chairman Saathoff responded in the negative. Commissioner
Wilsey stated that tract parameters are being established.
Discussion ensued on continuing proposal and having to re -open
the public hearing; continuing to a date specific; state law
requirements for public hearings; whether or not the proposal
has to be re- advertised if denied without prejudice, and;
whether the EIR could be approved /certified.
COMMISSIONER WILSEY AMENDED HIS MOTION TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459 TO THE
FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST, (AUGUST 7, 1991), COMMISSIONER
GILENSON AMENDED HIS SECOND TO REFLECT SAID AMENDMENT.
APPROVED 4 -0
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 91 -1, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
APPROVED 4 -0
Planning Commission Minutes
July 3, 1991
Page 8
PARTIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 91 -5,
ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -5
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 -4 TO REVISE THE CIRCULATION
FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTH OF WASSON CANYON,
EASTERLY OF CAMBERN AND DEXTER AVENUES,
NORTHERLY OF CAMINO DEL NORTE.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
APPROVED 4 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
NONE
INFORMATIONAL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brinley
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 8:43 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson
second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved: 4 -0
Re Cectfull submitted,
Linda G ndstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
)App ved
/Bill Saathoff,
Chairman
MINUTES OF
HELD ON THE
LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
FVIW;�D7V 014
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley.
ROLL CALL:
ti1il�►'iVli�
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Wilsey, and Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner
Christen, Associate Planners Restivo and DeGange, Senior Civil
Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of July 3, 1991
as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Conditional Use Permit 91 -2 - Winston Elsinore, Limited
Partnership (Gary Ofstedahl) - Associate Planner Restivo
presented a request for review of on -site parking facilities
at the Winston Tire Center for the expressed purpose of
allowing a restaurant use at 31760 -31762 Mission Trail,
located in Phase II.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Gary Ofstedahl stated he has no problem with staff
recommendation. Requested that after the five year period the
Conditional Use Permit have an extension and the extension be
defined tonight, for a 1, 2 or 5 year period, would like a
five year extension contingent upon the professional parking
study. Also, would like to know when the five year period
would start, will it start now or when we get the restaurant.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor.
Mr. Jock Hunter, representing Winston Tire Company, spoke in
favor of the proposal, and informed the Commission of the
vacancy rate within the center.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 7:07 p.m.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he has no problem with the five
year condition. Does not know if the Commission can address
an additional period of time until the professional parking
study has been received and reviewed, after the five years.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he has no problem with the Condi-
tional Use Permit. Agrees with Commissioner Wilsey, we should
not grant the length of time on the extension not knowing what
will be in the center in five years and not knowing what the
traffic study will show. The appropriate time to grant the
Minutes of Planning Commission
July 17, 1991
Page 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -2 CONTINUED
extension and period of time is when we are presented with the
traffic study. As to when the Conditional Use Permit will
commence would defer to staff -- believes it would start when
the restaurant is actually leased, correct? Or would it go
from date of approval? Chairman Saathoff stated he thought it
would go from date of approval.
Associate Planner Restivo responded she believes the Condi-
tional Use Permit would commence on the date a business
license is issued. Chairman Saathoff stated if this is the
case, it should be stated in the Conditions of Approval so
there is no misunderstanding.
Commissioner Brinley stated she has no problem with the Condi-
tional Use Permit, and concurs with Commissioners Wilsey and
Gilenson.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he would like to yield the floor to
Mr. Ofstedahl.
Mr. Ofstedahl commented on the possibility of getting a
restaurant use in with a five year period and then an unknown
time line; financial costs involved; and the square footage of
the restaurant could be 2,500 to 3,500 square feet.
Chairman Saathoff inquired about the open square footage; the
five year period and what the parking study will be based on --
today or in five years; whether there are parking spaces
available for a 3,500 square foot restaurant.
Discussion ensued on square footage of restaurant and required
parking spaces, condition number 3; Staff Report based on
1,800 square feet, and the center's hours of operation.
Chairman Saathoff stated he has no problem with giving 5 years
with an automatic five year extension provided the study
indicates at the end of five years that the parking is still
adequate. With this type of investment needs at least 10 -15
years.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested 10 years with a five year
renewal provided there is no adverse traffic study.
Commissioner Wilsey suggested the applicant be given more
specifics and direction, that we would be agreeable to, and
have it come back to the Commission when they have more
specifics.
Discussion ensued on applicant having to meet the parking
requirements; dining /services area and parking ratios;
condition number 2 indicating that space will be blocked out
to meet parking ratio /requirements.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
91-12 AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -2 BASED ON THE
FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN
THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 1: This Conditional Use Permit approval is
for a single restaurant use in Phase II
of the Winston Tire Center. The Condi-
tional Use Permit is approved for a
period of ten (10) years with a five (5)
year extension contingent on a
professional parking study acceptable to
Minutes of Planning Commission
July 17, 1991
Page 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -2 CONTINUED
the City, and approved by the Planning
Commission, indicating that no parking
impacts are resulting from the restaurant
use at that location. If the study
indicates that existing blocked in and /or
unleased retail area is not necessary to
create parking spaces for the restaurant
use, the blocked area may be leased under
current code requirements.
Condition No. 3: The— r-atie ef restaar.,nt raining area to
seL-aiee area eaa„et ine-rease witheut
and additional bleeked in/unleased retail
area is— previded within the Phase 11
building. DELETED
New Condition 3: Conditional Use Permit shall commence on
business license issuance.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 4 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Single - Family Residence - 17326 Lakeview - Bill Gray -
Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review of a 2,635 square foot two -story single - family dwelling
with a 670 square foot three car garage on two adjacent
parcels, totalling 17,255 square feet size.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present
representing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Bill Gray presented a letter dated July 16, 1991, address-
ing concerns on conditions 15 and 34, as follows:
Condition No. 15: Requires either a six -foot high wood
fence or masonry wall shall be
constructed along the side and rear
property lines.
Suggested a compromise which blends in with the existing
adjacent fences. This would consist of using wrought iron on
all fences adjacent to public streets, six -feet in height,
supported by concrete pilasters on approximately ten -foot
centers. The side yards would be fenced with a six -foot high
chain link fence which would either be covered with
Bougainvillea or, after a suitable growth period, a six -foot
high hedge of Oleander would be established and the chain link
fence removed.
Condition No. 34: Requires applicant to redesign driveway.
The present driveway was designed with the following
parameters in mind:
Safety: For both pedestrian and vehicular traffic it is
much safer to enter and exit the property without
backing up. The street is narrow, approximately
twenty -feet wide across the front of our property,
and we are situated on the start of a blind curve
with another blind curve located within five -
hundred -feet to the west.
Minutes of Planning Commission
July 17, 1991
Page 4
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 17326 LAKEVIEW CONTINUED
Appearance: Our property has a large concrete light
foundation situated in city property and on
the lot line between lots 37 and 38.
We will redesign the driveway in such a
manner, as to provide a clean separation of
the driveway at the property line if and when
the street is widened.
Mr. Jim Smathers, architect, gave a brief history on the
proposal and discussions with staff on the design of the
driveway. He then commented on the driveway with regard to
the elevations -- grade /slope conditions, access and setback
requirements, condition number 34.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the site plan with regard to
elevation, and moving the structure back.
Commissioner Brinley stated she is concerned with setbacks and
the driveway and asked staff to address the driveway design,
condition number 34.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that nearly half of the
circular driveway is in the public right -of -way; there is a
site distance problem out of either driveway. If the driveway
in front of the house were eliminated this would lessen the
problem. Also, there is a ten -foot slope.
Discussion ensued on the circular driveway with regard to
setbacks and hillside zoning, grades, whether the structure
could be flip - flopped, driveway cannot be constructed within
the public right -of -way and the ten slope easement, City
liability of having a private driveway in public property.
Mr. Gray stated that they have to
easement and inquired whether this
that we will be liable for the
portions of the driveway that are
could specify some other material.
our property.
provide a ten -foot slope
could be modified to state
removal of the concrete
on city property, or you
But we do need access to
Discussion ensued on access and there being no concern with
crossing the public right -of -way, the problem is constructing
in the public right -of -way.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on the hillside location and
associated problems, inquired whether a condition could be
added requiring the applicant to bond for the removal of
driveway improvements at the time of road widening.
Discussion ensued on access to the driveway, reducing the
driveway by ten feet, setback requirements, and future
development of the street.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the Engineering Department
concern with City liability, cost to the City to remove
improvements within the public right -of -way. If the structure
is not flip - flopped or moved back the problem is if and when
the street is widened. There has to be a condition that this
is going to be the responsibility of the property owner, and
this must be on the deed, but for what -- removal, get own
access to roadway bed regardless of where it goes?
Mr. Gray suggested as an alternative solution they make no
improvements in the City property, make improvements just
Minutes of Planning Commission
July 17, 1991
Page 5
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 17326 LAKEVIEW CONTINUED
within lot line and access over the City property over
existing decomposed granite which we will grade to line up
with our driveway.
Chairman Saathoff stated the concern the City has indicated is
in the future when that road is to be improved - -now we have to
match the driveway.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell referred to the second
sentence of condition number 34, can only construct driveway
connection from property line to existing roadbed.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested the words "circular driveway"
be deleted from condition number 34, and amended to read:
Applicant must redesign driveway, developer can only construct
driveway connection from property line to existing roadway
subject to Engineering Department approval.
Chairman Saathoff asked staff to address condition number 15.
Associate Planner DeGange stated the Code states solid
fencing. Suggested some type ratio of wrought iron to block
fencing, perhaps three -feet of block to three -feet of wrought
iron.
Commissioner Wilsey suggested deleting condition number 15,
due to topography constraints.
Planning Manager Shear stated the Zoning Code allow fencing
requirements to be waive on hillsides.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 17326 LAKEVIEW BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT
TO THE 34 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT
WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 15:
e-r-
masenry wall shall
the side and rear preper- tomes --and
shall een €erm to Seetien 17. &4.989
DELETED
Condition No. 34: Applicant must redesign driveway,
developer can only construct driveway
connection from property line to existing
roadway subject to Engineering Department
approval.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
Approved 4 -0
3. Single - Family Residence - 625 Acacia Street - John Schulz -
Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review of a 1,247 square foot two -story single - family dwelling
with a two car garage placed on a 6,830 square foot lot.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present
representing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. John Schulz stated his only concern is on condition number
7, roofing materials. The only tile roof I could use is
called a "Maxi - the ", which is light enough and could be put
over existing engineering, but it is only in an "S" tile.
Minutes of Planning Commission
July 17, 1991
Page 6
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 625 ACACIA STREET CONTINUED
They do not make a flat tile that would be in conjunction with
the architecture of the house, and an "S" tile would not fit.
Between engineering, material and labor the additional cost is
$1300- 1600.00 for the other tile. He then presented samples
of Premium Choice and Presidential Shake roofing material,
requesting one of these materials be approved.
Commissioner Gilenson recommended deletion of existing condi-
tion number 7, and new condition to read: Applicant shall use
roofing material of Presidential Shake three dimensional
asphalt roofing shingles, as shown on material board.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he has no problem with the
amendment to condition 7, in this instance. Wonders how much
deviation we will be seeing with condition number 7 as these
items come before the Commission.
A brief discussion ensued on roofing materials and the City
intent for upgraded roofing materials.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 625 ACACIA BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO
THE 32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH
THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No. 7: Applicant shall use roofing material of
Presidential Shake three dimensional
asphalt roofing shingles, as shown on
material board.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
Community Development Manager Shear stated in comment with the
roofing materials this type of design, Presidential Shake, and
design of the building is acceptable, reference 625 Acacia. We
will always be asking for the no- asphalt condition when we see the
typical asphalt roofing material.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Wilsey
The article received on Hillside Development was most informative.
We should be pursuing more in depth grading, as well as other types
of alternatives in our hillsides. I strongly recommend that we
suggest to Council that we set -up an Ad Hock Committee to start
working on this, possibly get together and go out and view some of
these grading concepts.
Commissioner Brinley
On I -15 Freeway going towards Railroad Canyon Road, in the middle
of a vacant lot, there is a 40 -foot semi - trailer on a concrete slab
with a plastic sign indicating McDonalds. Asked staff if anything
is being done on this.
Community Development Manager Shear responded that Code Enforcement
is already working on having the owner remove that, and if not done
in a timely fashion the City will be processing a nuisance
abatement hearing, and removing it.
Minutes of Planning Commission
July 17, 1991
Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Commented on the Hillside Grading Ordinance, asked staff if they
had a boiler plate ordinance, or something to start with, inquired
whether or not there was anything the Commission could do to assist
staff in fine tuning.
City Planner Christen responded that staff was hoping to put on a
joint workshop, and review numerous images /slides of various
projects, and look at some existing hillside ordinances.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO ENDORSE THE MEMORANDUM OF JULY 11,
1991, FROM CITY PLANNER CHRISTEN, REGARDING A JOINT STUDY SESSION
ON HILLSIDE GRADING /HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
oved,
Bill S athoff,
Chairman
Re iact/dstaff bmitted,
/Linda G
Plannin sion
Secretary
MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991
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, Wilsey, and Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner
Christen, Associate Planners DeGange and Naaseh - Shahry, Senior
Civil Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of July 17, 1991
as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Tentative Tract Map 25171 Revised and Tentative Tract Map
26459 - Partin Development (Courton & Associates) - Continued
from July 3, 1991.
Chairman Saathoff stated staff is requesting these items be
continued to the meeting of September 4, 1991, and called for
a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459 TO THE MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 4, 1991, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
Approved: 4 -0
2. Tentative Parcel Map 26890 - Ayres Construction (Butter-
field /The Keith Companies) - Associate Planner Naaseh- Shahry
presented a request to subdivide 2.02 acres into three (3)
parcels, located at the terminus of Avenue 12 and south of
Casino Drive.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry referred to the memorandum of
August 7, 1991, clarifying the Staff Report, as follows: the
75 unit single - family dwelling project was approved on 70
existing lots. This parcel map and a previously approved
parcel map provides the remaining five lots for the 75 unit
project. Each lot will contain only one single - family
dwelling. He then referred to the Engineering Department
memorandum of August 7, 1991, requesting the addition of
condition number 10:
Condition No. 10: Mill Street shall be designed with a
minimum 300 foot horizontal radius or a
smaller radius with a positive super -
elevation as approved by the City
Engineer.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. Mick Brown, Butterfield /Keith Companies, stated they
concur with staff recommendation.
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 2
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26890
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor.
Mr. Doug Ayres stated he concurs with staff recommendation,
and the addition of condition number 10. However, would like
to state for the record, this comes after the fact that we
have completed grading on the project, and we have tentatively
approved those designs, now we have to change that.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to
speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public
hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m.
There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Saathoff
called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26890 BASED UPON THE FINDINGS
AND SUBJECT TO THE 9 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No. 10: Mill Street shall be designed with a
minimum 300 foot horizontal radius or a
smaller radius with a positive super -
elevation as approved by the City
Engineer.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 4 -0
3. Conditional Use Permit 91 -3 - James & Dorothy Maltbey (Lois L.
Metters) - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for
review of a preschool /day -care facility at 30001 Riverside
Drive. He then presented the following background /operation
information:
April 23, 1985 City Council approved Conditional
Use Permit 85 -1 (convert residence at 30001 River-
side Drive to a preschool /day care) with 41 Condi-
tions of Approval. On April 23, 1988, this permit
expired, presently the applicant is bringing forth
a proposal to establish a new CUP for this site.
The proposed preschool /day -care is to be operated
within an existing preschool /day -care facility,
approximately 1,940 square feet in size including
1,490 square feet of classroom area, 4 bathrooms, a
kitchen, an office, and 2 outdoor playground areas.
The preschool program is designed for children
ranging in age from 2 to 5 with extended day -care
for ages 2 through 12. Hours of operation are from
8:00 AM to 2:30 PM with expanded day -care hours
extended to 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM. The operation will
facilitate a maximum of 45 children and be
administered by at least 3 full -time staff members.
Eight (8) Conditions of Approval established by CUP
85 -1 that are still applicable and have not been
met or adhered to.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -3 CONTINUED
Mr. James Maltbey gave a brief history on the preschool /day
care operation, stating they had met all conditions that were
applicable, except conditions where Cal -Trans controls the
highway, at that time, these were deferred. He then informed
the Commission that the facility was re- inspected in 1988, two
violations found: a sign violation, which was corrected
immediately, and a condition pertaining to the slats in the
fence along the back property line. This was not done at the
neighbor's request; we placed shrubbery across the back which
has died for lack of maintenance by the neighbor.
Mr. Maltbey commented on the memorandum received to upgrade
the marking in the parking lot and post required signs, which
has been done. other than the highway, which Cal -Trans
controls, we are up to specifications.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor.
Ms. Lois Metters requested approval of the use permit, and
commented on the need for child care facilities in the valley.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to speak in
favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those opposed.
Receiving no response, he asked for anyone wishing to speak on
the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was
closed at 7:18 p.m.
Commissioner Wilsey abstained.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the expiration of the CUP,
Staff Report states the CUP expired in April 1988, what the
applicant is saying -- apparently they have been in business
without a CUP, is this correct?
Associate Planner DeGange stated the permit was granted in
1985 for three years, and there is no record on file granting
an extension.
Chairman Saathoff inquired about the opening /closing date of
the facility. Mr. Maltbey responded the facility ceased
operation December 1989.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on Page 2 of the Staff Report,
conditions 21, 22, 29, 38 and 40, being subject to Cal- Trans,
and inquired about compliance of condition 18 and 24.
Ms. Patricia Hoffer, 29843 Colinga Court, Sun City, one of the
owners, stated at the time the preschool was being constructed
Cal -Trans did not want any improvements done to the state
highway nor Richards Street.
Commissioner Gilenson expressed concern on:
Residential placement of a child care center.
Accommodating 45 children from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm.
Noise and inconvenience to neighbors.
Safety of the children with facility on Highway 74.
Commissioner Gilenson then commented on conditions for CUP 91-
3, and requested the following modifications, if approved:
Conditions 3, 41 5: Add verbiage "provide proof to the
Community Development Director or
designee prior to Certificate of
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -3 CONTINUED
Occupancy ".
Condition 10: Add the word "maximum" between the words
total and number; at end add "subject to
approval of county and state licensing
agency ".
Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Maltbey if they have documenta-
tion from Cal -Trans with regard to deferment of improvements
on Highway 74 and Richards Street. Mr. Maltbey responded in
the affirmative. She then requested copies of said documents
be provided to the City and included in the case file.
Commissioner Brinley stated after visiting the site, concerns
are:
Back fencing has barbed wire and the redwood slats are in
poor condition - -dry rot, this is an endangerment to the
children.
Double gates coming across the front off of Riverside
Drive. There is no deadbolt- -just a chain. A child
could get injured or gain access through the gates onto
a heavily traveled highway. Would like to see this gate
removed and replaced with a single sliding gate.
• Parking lot is bare of landscaping; needs to be re- marked
and cleaned up. In front, there is no landscaping and
the sprinkler heads extend too high, 4 -5 inches above
ground.
• Location of trash barrels near doors to entrance and
where children play. Should provide separate area or
enclosure for trash receptacles.
• Use in a residential area with neighbors in such close
proximity; hours of operation, 6:30 am, whether children
would remain in doors until after 7 -8:00 am.
Commissioner Gilenson reiterated his comment on the use being
in a residential area, and there already seems to be problems
with the neighbors. One neighbor continues to put up barb -
wire, and another doesn't want slats in the fence.
Discussion ensued on the back fencing; said fencing belonging
to the neighbor and located on the property line and existed
prior to operation of said use.
Commissioner Brinley stated if the barbwire cannot be removed
permanently or the back fencing does not belong to the appli-
cant, would like to see another fence erected, six -foot block
wall, for the children's safety. Commissioner Gilenson stated
if a block wall is to be provided then it should also face
Highway 74.
Discussion ensued on replacement of the chain link (barbwire)
fencing with a six -foot block wall, and there being an exist-
ing block wall along Highway 74.
Chairman Saathoff gave a recap of the modifications to be made
to the conditions, if approved:
Condition No. 3: Applicant shall obtain all required
permits and approvals from County Day -
Care Licensing, and provide proof to the
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -3 CONTINUED
Condition No. 3: Community Development Director or
designee prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
Condition No. 4: The Conditional Use Permit shall be
subject to all applicable State
Regulations, reference Child Care Center,
Division 12, and provide proof to the
Community Development Director or
designee prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
Condition No. 5: All State and County requirements
concerning open space, seating space and
bathroom space for day care centers are
to be met prior to occupancy, and provide
proof to the Community Development
Director or designee prior to Certificate
of Occupancy.
Condition No. 10: The total maximum number of children
allowed with the current plot plan shall
be 45, subject to approval of county and
state licensing agency.
Condition No. 12: Meet all applicable conditions for CUP
85 -1. Provide to Planning /Engineering
Departments copies of documentation from
Cal -Trans with regard to deferment of
improvements on Highway 74 and Richards
Street.
Condition No. 14: Re -mark parking lot.
Condition No. 15: Replace all chain link fencing with a
six -foot block wall, or four -foot block
and two -foot wrought iron, to match the
existing block wall along Highway 74.
Replace front gate with a one -piece
sliding gate.
Condition No. 16: Upgrade and repair landscaping and
sprinkler system, subject to Community
Development Director or designee's
approval.
Condition No. 17: Provide separate area or enclosure for
trash receptacles, subject to Community
Development Director or designee's
approval.
Ms. Hoffer requested that they be allowed to address the
Commission. Chairman Saathoff so yielded.
Ms. Hoffer stated the school was in operation for three -and-
one -half years, in that time there were no accidents, nor did
any children escape the grounds. She then stated that if the
Commission is uncomfortable with chain link fencing would
propose a redwood fence. Block wall fencing is just too
expensive, and redwood fencing would give the same type of
protection as a block wall.
Mr. Maltbey requested the Commission reconsider the block
wall; referred to the St. Frances preschool that just opened
and they are using a wood fence. He then stated they have not
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -3 CONTINUED
had any spiteful problems with the neighbors because of the
use at its location.
Ms. Lois Metters asked if the school ran in operation under
the same conditions, there were never any state license
restrictions, no children lost, the same fence and dwelling in
existence, why is there a problem now?
Commissioner Gilenson responded that as the City grows
building standards change.
Commissioner Brinley stated the building is located on a
heavily traveled street, and the block wall is for the
protection of the children, as well as the school.
Chairman Saathoff commented as follows:
Believes a solid block wall is overkill. Appreciates the
concern for the safety of the children, but feels this
can be corrected by other means. Chain link with some-
thing other than redwood slats, to provide a solid
appearance, would be adequate.
Feels a letter from the adjacent property owner stating
that he would not replace the barbwire in the future
would be adequate.
• Feels that the county and state will place sufficient
requirements on the use.
Chairman Saathoff asked for further discussion from the table.
Commissioner Brinley commented on things falling through the
cracks, and this is what we are trying cover.
There being no further discussion from the table, Chairman
Saathoff called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91 -3 FOR TWO WEEKS (AUGUST 21, 1991), SO THAT STAFF AND
THE APPLICANT CAN RESOLVE THE ISSUES, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BRINLEY.
Approved 2 -1 (Chairman Saathoff voting no and Commissioner
Wilsey abstaining)
BUSINESS ITEMS
4. Residential Project 91 -4 REVISED - Don Miller - Associate
Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for a Minor Design
Review of a duplex, located on the east side of Lindsay Street
between Heald and Graham. He then presented the following
background information:
originally a four -plex was proposed for the site,
which received opposition from the neighborhood.
The applicant withdrew this proposal and withdrawal
was accepted by the Commission on July 3, 1991.
The applicant revised the project to a duplex, and
staff contacted the neighborhood homeowners and
they have expressed no concern with the duplex.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry then stated the applicant has
submitted an alternative roofing material, concrete tile.
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 7
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -4 REVISED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mrs. Cathy Miller stated they concur with staff recommenda-
tions.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 20, not
the standard condition, would like it changed to no roof
mounted equipment. Also, Staff Report did not include
material and color section.
Associate Planner Naaseh- Shahry responded he did not include
this information as the proposal meets all requirements.
Commissioner Gilenson stated if staff is not going to condi-
tion a proposal because it is in compliance, then staff needs
to work out a condition referencing the material board. He
then suggested that this be added as condition number 3.a.
Commissioner Brinley commented on the location of the second
entrance and aesthetics.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition 15.g., inquiring
whether we continue to request landscape bonding on duplexes.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
91 -4 REVISED BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 28
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No. 3a.: Applicant shall use stucco siding with
wood trim as indicated on materials
board. Roofing material to be used shall
be concrete tile, per sample material
submitted.
Condition No. 20: All exterior air conditioning units, or
mechanical equipment incidental to
development shall be ground mounted and
screened so that they are not visible
from neighboring property or public
streets.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
5. Amendment to the Shopper's Square Phase II Uniform Sign
Program - Joel Burnstine - A request for a freeway pole sign
for the Unocal 76 Lake Elsinore Car Wash located in Shopper's
Square Phase II.
Chairman Saathoff stated the applicant has requested this item
be continued to the meeting of August 21, 1991, and called for
a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO CONTINUE AMENDMENT TO THE
SHOPPER'S SQUARE PHASE II UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM TO THE MEETING
OF AUGUST 21, 1991, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
6. Room Addition 512 Heald - Secondino Garcia /Frank Sandoval -
Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review of a two -story 1,400 square foot addition and a 500
square foot garage to an existing 912 square foot single -
family dwelling located at the southeast corner of Lindsay and
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 8
ROOM ADDITION 512 HEALD CONTINUED
Heald Streets. He then referred to the memorandum of August
7, 1991, requesting the modification of condition number 8:
Condition No.8: 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.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Sandoval addressed staff's concern on the potential
conversion of the structure, stating that Mr. Garcia Is concern
was to provide an additional exit in case of a fire.
Mr. Sandoval stated they have no problem with the conditions
with the exception of condition number 35, provide street
lighting. He stated there are existing street lights at the
corner of Heald and Lindsay, and almost at the end of the
property across the street on Heald.
Chairman Saathoff asked staff to respond to condition number
35. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that it is city
policy that street lighting be provided at any corner inter-
section. If street lighting exist at the corner intersection
this is adequate.
Commissioner Gilenson stated his concern is with the exterior
staircase, condition number 23, inquired about alternatives to
allow the staircase to remain but prevent the conversion.
Associate Planner DeGange responded all options were explored,
and this was the only way to discourage the conversion.
Commissioner Brinley stated she was also concerned with the
staircase.
Chairman Saathoff stated that conventional two -story homes do
not have outside staircases -- access is provided through inside
staircases. He stated his concerns are the same as staff,
this is not necessary and the applicant could provide
alternative safety measures.
Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the complexity of changing
the staircase from exterior to interior, are we looking at
major structural changes? Chairman Saathoff responded that
an interior staircase is provided, and the exterior staircase
is only a second avenue of escape.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE ROOM ADDITION AT 512
HEALD BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 35 CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENTS:
Condition No.8: 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
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 9
ROOM ADDITION 512 HEALD CONTINUED
shall be subject to the approval of the
Community Development Manager or
designee, prior to issuance of building
permits.
Condition No. 35: Provide street lighting and show lighting
improvements on street improvement plans
as required by the City Engineer. If
street lighting exist at the corner
intersection this will be deemed
adequate.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 4 -0
7. Single - Family Residence - 211 Pepper Drive - Claudette Boyd -
Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review of a 1,614 square foot two -story structure with a 456
square foot garage, situated on a 4,452 square foot lot,
located approximately 70 feet north of Dawes, on the west side
of Pepper Drive. He then referred to the memorandum of August
7, 1991, requesting the modification of condition number 8:
Condition No.8: 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.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. William Boyd commented on the roofing material and color
proposed for the structure. Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Boyd
if he was familiar with Presidential Shake roofing material.
Mr. Boyd responded this is the material he uses.
A brief discussion was held on the color proposed for the
structure. There being no further discussion at the table,
Chairman Saathoff called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 211 PEPPER DRIVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 35 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No.8: 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.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 10
8. Single - Family Residence -1051 Dawes Street - Claudette Boyd -
Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review of a 1,586 square foot single -story structure with a
454 square foot garage, situated on a 5,535 square foot lot,
located approximately 165 feet west of Pepper Drive, north of
Dawes. He then referred to the memorandum of August 7, 1991,
requesting the modification of condition number 8:
Condition No.8: 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.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent-
ing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. William Boyd inquired about the procedure to reverse the
siding from the bottom to the top. Associate Planner DeGange
stated this could be done administratively.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he would prefer the siding remain
as illustrated, on submitted plans, for aesthetic and safety
purposes.
Chairman Saathoff stated the Commission accepts the project as
submitted, and expects it to be that way when completed, and
informed Mr. Boyd that he could redesign and resubmit.
Mr. Boyd referred to the two -story structure at 211 Pepper,
inquired about continuing the siding half -way up or down to
break up the starkness, because even with window trim this is
a dull house - -would this require coming back before this body?
Chairman Saathoff referred to his previous statement.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on previous conditions for
embellishments and this not coming back to the Commission for
review.
Chairman Saathoff stated that 211 Pepper can be brought back
for further discussion after action has been taken on 1051
Dawes. He then asked for further discussion on the Dawes
Street proposal, there being no further discussion, he called
for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 1051 DAWES STREET BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 35 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No. 8: 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.
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 11
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE -1051 DAWES STREET
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON THAT SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT
211 PEPPER BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE TABLE FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 4 -0
Mr. Boyd stated he is proposing to take the upper seven -feet,
just below the windows -- almost second floor level, and use
siding to break up the starkness of the three bare walls.
Chairman Saathoff asked if the siding is allowed whether trim
on the bottom windows should be provided, just even with the
upper portion of the window.
Commissioner Gilenson responded he does not want siding on the
top half for aesthetic reasons.
Associate Planner DeGange stated the upper story windows are
visible from the right -of -way and believes this is why staff
required the trim.
Chairman Saathoff stated if siding is allowed on the upper
story then trim would not be necessary, correct? Associate
Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Brinley inquired about the type of siding to be
used. Mr. Boyd responded the material is a Masonite lap
siding. Commissioner Brinley stated she has no problem with
the siding.
Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Boyd if siding is used whether
he would still want to place trim around the upper windows.
Mr. Boyd responded that he does this anyway. Commissioner
Wilsey suggested this be added as condition number 23.a.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 211 PEPPER DRIVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 35 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 8: 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. 23.a: Masonite lap siding to be allowed on
second story, three sides, with the front
elevation lap siding entirely, and upper
story windows must be fully trimmed,
subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 4 -0
Minutes of Planning Commission
August 7, 1991
Page 12
INFORMATIONAL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
Community Development Manager Shear informed the Commission that
Gabrielle Restivo has resigned her position as Associate Planner,
and accepted a position with the City of Huntington Beach. Her
last work day will be August 9th.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Chairman Saathoff
At the last meeting we discussed and passed a motion to have a
Joint Study Session regarding Hillside Grading. We do have a
project coming before us in the latter part of September, and I
want to be sure that we have an opportunity to see some hillside
projects, plans and ordinances. If correct, would like to have as
an agendized item on the next Commission Agenda and, at that time,
City Planner Christen will either have something or suggest a tour
that we might take.
Commissioner Gilenson inquired about the delay in scheduling a
Joint Study Session. Chairman Saathoff responded that Council may
wish to wait until they have appointed a new Planning Commissioner.
He then commented on Council /Commission priorities - -feels this is
something the Commission should stay abreast of; whether staff is
prepared for the type of presentation Council desires.
Commissioners Wilsey and Brinley stated they concurs with Chairman
Saathoff.
Commissioner Wilsev
Noting to report.
Commissioner Brinle
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
-.
Chairman
r
Res "ctfu/Ost�a bmitted,
cl�� ��
inda Gri f
Planning sion
Secret ary
MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 1991
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley.
LOYALTY OATH: Robert Sellevold was publicly sworn in by City Clerk
Kasad.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold, Wilsey and
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Community Development Manager S4ear, City Planner
Christen, Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry, Senior Civil Engineer
O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of August 7, 1991
as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Sellevold abstaining)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Jeff Brown, 17281 Shrier Drive, presented a Maintenance Agree-
ment for landscaping, utilized by the City of Perris, stating this
agreement can be modified to fit the City's needs. Requested the
Commission review and give consideration to utilizing, as an
enforcement tool, said agreement for commercial retail developments
and tracts.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on utilizing the agreement on
tracts - -once a homeowner's association is established the developer
is out of the picture. Mr. Brown responded they assume the same
liabilities as the developer. It would not be enforceable in a
subdivision that did not have a homeowner's association.
Commissioner Wilsey inquired about type of tool or mechanism to
relay this agreement to successors in ownership. Mr. Brown stated,
traditionally, commercial developments are required to record the
conditions of approval on the maps and /or documents that go with
the project, does not see this being any different -- record with the
title.
There being no further requests to address the Planning Commission,
Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Conditional Use Permit 91 -3 - James & Dorothy Maltbey (Lois L.
Metters) - Continued from August 7, 1991 - Chairman Saathoff
stated staff has requested this item be continued to the
meeting of September 4, 1991, and called for a motion.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY
PERMIT 91 -3 TO SEPTEMBER 4,
GILENSON.
Approved 5 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE
1991, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
2. Amendment to the Shopper's Square Phase II Uniform Sign
Program - Joel Burnstine (Continued from August 7, 1991) -
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for a
freeway pole sign for the, Unocal 76, Lake Elsinore Car Wash
located in Shopper's Square Phase II.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 1991
Page 2
AMENDMENT TO THE SHOPPER'S SQUARE PHASE II UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present
representing the applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Joel Burnstine, applicant, gave a brief history on the
proposal; commented on the amount of time spent in discussion
with Mr. Brown and deciding it appropriate to come back before
Planning Commission to request the freeway sign; assistance
from Mr. Brown in the design, size and appearance of the
freeway sign. He then commented on:
tower
signs
are not the most appealing and were not a
part
of the
original
design. We would take the tower
signs
down in
lieu of
a freeway pole sign.
Visibility - -it is necessary for our business, as we are
not getting the freeway exposure we had intended by
building as close to the freeway as we did. The signs
that are there are adequately read at night, because they
light up. But during the day it is too far away and
there is not enough freeway visibility.
Mr. Burnstine stated he would answer any questions that may
arise.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address
this project.
Mr. Brown explained his involvement with the proposal, over
the past year - -since he was the most vocal in denying the
original request for the pole sign, and had informed Mr.
Burnstine he would generate discussion on the matter, but
could not say how he would support the proposal. He then
stated he assisted Mr. Burnstine in deciding appropriate
signage, footage and trade - offs - -where the city would benefit
as well as the applicant. However, the application was
submitted after my resignation from the Commission.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address
this project. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion
at the table.
Commissioner Gilenson commented as follows:
Legality of amendment to the Sign Program since the
applicant, in this case, is not the applicant of record.
Believes it can be reviewed as a straight stand alone
sign request, but not an amendment.
• Aesthetics of tower signs and tower signs not giving
adequate freeway visibility. Basically, this is a day
function /business and believes the applicant needs
freeway visibility during the day.
Commissioner Wilsey stated Commissioner Gilenson covered his
concern on legality of the amendment and suggested this be put
before the City Attorney. Informed the Commission of his
discussion with Mr. Burnstine, and indication to him that he
was not in favor of any more pole signs in that area. He then
commented on:
the original sign program and the applicant's need for
additional signage.
• square footage of the existing tower sign and pole sign,
suggested additional embellishments to the tower sign.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 1991
Page 3
AMENDMENT TO THE SHOPPER'S SQUARE PHASE II UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM
continuation of request to the next meeting in order
obtain information on:
Visibility - sight distance review
by staff from the freeway, both
directions, with regard to the
existing tower element.
Tower element - applicant's sign
company to provide proposals on the
square footage and see what signage
can be placed on the tower element.
Commissioner Brinley commented on the size and dimension of
the sign, inquired about the Lakeview Inn and Pizza Hut
signage, are these all the same dimension?
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded in the negative,
stating the Pizza Hut sign is 150 square feet (101x15'), the
Lakeview Inn is 80 square feet (8 11x101). The applicant is
proposing 82 square feet, and the Municipal Code allows 60.
Commissioner Brinley commented on setting a precedence for
pole signs and not wanting numerous freeway pole signs, as
discussed on the original sign program. Concurs with Commis-
sioner Wilsey with regard to legality and embellishments for
the tower sign, or bringing the sign into scale with the
existing signs.
Chairman Saathoff stated the legality issue can be handled, if
approved, and asked staff for clarification on the size of
sign and Municipal Code requirement on square foot frontages,
60 square feet maximum allowed. Associate Planner Naaseh-
Shahry expanded on the requirements for signage and frontage,
per Municipal Code.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the proposal being under the
Master Signage Program for Shopper's Square; parcelization of
the site and approved signage was to be used by the carwash
and motel -- problems with access and maintenance, no reciprocal
easement. Does not believe this should be a request from the
applicant to amend the Shopper's Square Sign Program, as he is
not the applicant of record. If the Commission desires to
allow this sign, would accept approval subject to verbiage
that it is a request from the individual - -if acceptable,
according to City Code and the City Attorney. He then
commented on:
• pole signs versus tower signs, agrees with comments from
the table and staff.
• the towers, at this particular location, were not
designed for signage; tower sign not viable and em-
bellishments will not help, would prefer the tower sign
come down.
would accept the pole sign, square footage, although it
exceeds the ordinance; under the circumstances, the
signage proposed is less than what it could have been.
would recommend the application be approved - -it might be
an amendment to the Sign Program, but approve as a
request from the individual.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 1991
Page 4
AMENDMENT TO THE SHOPPER'S SQUARE PHASE II UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM
Commissioner Gilenson questioned whether this can be approved
as it sits - -would have to approve as a stand alone sign which
would require a variance, fees and conditions. A viable
alternative is continue to a special meeting; submit variance
application and bring back before the Commission.
Commissioner Sellevold commented on allowable square footage
and uniformity of signs in this area.
Discussion ensued on the tower element and square footage of
same; continuing proposal for two weeks so that all informa-
tion /alternatives can be reviewed.
Mr. Burnstine requested permission to address the Commission.
Commissioner Brinley so yielded.
Mr. Burnstine stated the square footage is 35.3 square feet
per face. There is 106 square feet coming down and we are
asking for 82, as replacement. We are trying to stay
symmetrical and dimensional with the other signs that exist.
He then stated if a variance is required, would submit, pay
the fee right away, and would not have a problem with staff
coming up with conditions along the lines of being
symmetrical, dimensional and matching the existing design
architecture and colors.
Chairman Saathoff asked if two weeks would be a problem. Mr.
Burnstine responded in the negative. Would like to point out,
that somehow this turned into an amendment to the sign program
and this was not our intention. We are an individual business
making an individual request for a stand alone sign.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST TO
SEPTEMBER 4, 1991, WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF THAT THE APPLICANT
SHALL RESUBMIT AS AN INDIVIDUAL STAND ALONE SIGN, WITH A
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIZE, UNDER THE APPLICANT'S NAME ONLY
OR THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL, WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SECOND
BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
Approved 5 -0
At this time, 7:42 p.m., the Commission recessed.
At this time, 7:52 p.m., the Commission reconvened.
INFORMATIONAL
3. Hillside Grading - City Planner Christen presented an outline
for Hillside Development. The final presentation before
Planning Commission and City Council will be at a Joint Study
Session.
Mr. Christen stated the intent is to arrive at a baseline of
project information that will be required of developers
designing projects in the hillside areas of our city. This
baseline information will allow staff and decision makers to
better assess hillside projects as they are designed and
processed through the City. Some of the components of this
baseline are:
1. Existing conditions
2. Elevation /view analysis
3. Slope factors (yield and usability)
Average slope (slope density)
Slope analysis
4. Grading concept /site plan
5. Cut and fill
Planning Commission Minutes
August 21, 1991
Page 5
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Chairman Saathoff
Hillside Grading - -this is a very good beginning. There is
information that I wish we had in reviewing previous proposals.
Requested that Council be informed that Commission is pushing for
a Joint Study Session on this matter.
Maintenance Agreement, utilized by the City of Perris, brought to
our attention by Mr. Brown. If agreeable with the Commission,
would like to placed it on the next agenda for discussion. Also,
include the standard language for landscaping.
Commissioner Gilenson
Glad to see that Commission will be receiving the raw land
depictions as opposed to a final grading plan on tract map.
Welcome Commissioner Sellevold.
Commissioner Brinley
Hillside Grading - thanked Mr.
presentation.
Welcome Commissioner Sellevold.
Commissioner Wilsey
Welcome Commissioner Sellevold.
Commissioner Sellevold
Nothing to report.
Christen for a very informative
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson,
second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
ved,
67 Qi
Bill Sa thoff,
Chairman
Re ctfully ubmitted,
in �Gri dstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON THE 4Th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1991
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Sellevold.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold, Wilsey and
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner
Christen, Associate Planners DeGange and Naaseh - Shahry, Senior
Civil Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of August 21,
1991 as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission, chair-
man Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Zone Change 90 -8 Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised;
Commercial Project 90 -11 Revised (Continued from March 6,
1991) - Thomas Brothers (Kentucky Fried Chicken) - Chairman
Saathoff stated the applications have expired and staff is
requesting they be removed from the Agenda.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO REMOVE ZONE CHANGE 90 -8
REVISED; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -6 REVISED, AND COMMERCIAL
PROJECT 90 -11 REVISED FROM THE AGENDA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BRINLEY.
Approved 5 -0
2. Tentative Tract Map 25171 Revised and Tentative Tract Map
26459 - Partin Development ( Courton & Associates) - Continued
from August 7, 1991. Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry
presented the following proposals:
Tentative Tract Map 25171 Revised - subdivision
of 89.5 acres into 170 single - family lots plus
5 non - buildable open space lots.
Tentative Tract Map 26459 - subdivision of
79.9 acres into 185 single - family lots plus 3
non - buildable open space lots.
Project site consists of 169 acres approxi-
mutely 2 miles easterly from the I -15 /Highway
74 junction, southerly and easterly of Wasson
Canyon.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry then gave a brief background
report and highlighted the redesign of the projects, grading,
modified conditions, and the addendum to the Environmental
Impact Report.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the proposals.
Mr. Larry Buxton, Courton & Associates -- Engineer and Planner
for the project, gave a brief history on the proposals high-
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 2
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459
lighting the grading plan, drainage course, and the major road
system -- Community Facilities Districts 91 -4 and 91 -5. He then
requested the following modifications and clarification:
Condition 29: If it is your intent we can loop on -site or if
allowed we can loop off -site. If allowed to
loop off -site we would like to change the
words "on Tract 26459" to "for Tract 26459 ".
Chairman Saathoff commented on the circulation problems if a
loop street is permitted, and inquired about the original off -
site request. Mr. Buxton stated this was for traffic flow.
Also, because we had a drainage area, going in that area, we
were going to have some modifications to the edge of the pro-
perty to allow the drainage to flow around. If we push the
drainage back onto our site then we are going against the
grade and we preferred to leave it, as close as possible, to
its existing flow line. He then resumed his request for
modification to the Conditions of Approval.
Condition 32: Would like the word "major" inserted before
the word "manufactured ". The reason is, if we
have slopes 5, 6, 7, 10 or 15 feet high that
is a difficult area for contour grading.
Condition 33: We understand this to mean slopes that are 30
feet, because that is the Building Code
requirement.
Condition 36: Again, we think you mean major slopes rather
than the small slopes between neighbors. We
would request the word "major slopes or slopes
exceeding 30 feet in height" be included.
Mr. Buxton then questioned the need to redraw the map stating,
at this point in time, they have a City Council hearing date
for September 24th. Believes all the changes can be handled,
particularly if you concur that the contour grading is on
major slopes. We think the Conditions of Approval are well
written and concur with the changes that staff has proposed.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Buxton what he meant by major, 30
feet? Mr. Buxton responded in the affirmative.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to
speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those
opposed. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed
at 7:37 p.m.
Chairman Saathoff asked the Secretary to make note of the
letter given to the Commission by Bruce Eichorn, 19085 Wasson
Canyon, expressing his opposition and concern with regard to
access roads and grading easements for the proposals. He then
asked for discussion at the table.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following:
Staff Report, Page 2, Tract 26459, statement: "Therefore,
this project could have economic feasibility considera-
tions by the amount of grading that will be required.
Additionally, substantial off -site grading and street
improvements will be required in order to provide access
to the site." How does this statement affect the
Negative Declaration to be issued on the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)?
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 3
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded the grading has
improved, compared to the previous project -- reduced by half -
million yards, and assumes the EIR has already addressed this.
Conditions 28 through 34 and 37, staff stated they would
prefer the applicant to comply prior to City Council.
Would like this changed to mandatory.
Chairman Saathoff asked if Commissioner Gilenson was request-
ing a new tentative map to be drawn. Commissioner Gilenson
responded in the affirmative.
Staff Report, Page 6, requested staff explain Finding #4
and what is required from the Commission, no idea of what
the discharge is going to be on this project. How can we
say it is not going to be a violation, at this point we
have no control.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded this is a standard
Finding as applied by the Subdivision Map Act. Hopefully, this
will be taken care of when the project hooks up to the sewer
system.
Chairman Saathoff stated the Commission is not in a position
to make this Finding. If this statement is to be included
then it has to be reworded in some way that if Elsinore Valley
Municipal Water District (EVMWD) does not feel it is going to
meet these specific requirements they should notify the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he raised this question in the past
and staff indicated that it is covered in the conditions. They
have to follow the conditions of EVMWD or the water and sewer
service provider, by doing that we meet this Finding.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he disagrees. This Finding
should refer to the conditions as set forth on this project.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry stated approval of the project
also includes the Conditions of Approval, which includes a
letter from EVMWD.
Chairman Saathoff suggested the following language be included
in Finding #4: "the Planning Commission shall determine by
certification and /or letter from the governing sewer disposal
agency, which is EVMWD".
Community Development Manager Shear referred to condition
number 41, requirement for will -serve letter.
• Condition 21, Future mitigation may include site
redesign, do we want it to come back here? If so, need
to add a provision that it shall come back before
Commission.
• Condition 29 elimination of "H" Street, when Missing Link
is developed - -does staff have any insight as to traffic
circulation of "H" Street, will that street be going
through? If it does then agrees with Chairman Saathoff.
Community Development Manager Shear stated that Missing Link
is not planning on having a street next to "H" Street,
according to the preliminary plans submitted - -if it is a loop
it will become a T- intersection and they are not planning on
putting houses in because of the grading.
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 4
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459
Discussion ensued on whether "H" Street should be eliminated;
proximity of "H" Street and Elsinore Ridge Road; eliminate "H"
Street and make "B" and "C" Streets loop streets on Tract
26459. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was any further
discussion on condition number 29.
Commissioner Sellevold asked why eliminate "H" Street, if
there are no homes on the south side of the street - -why not
leave it the way it is? Why do we want to make that a loop?
Associate Planner Naaseh- Shahry responded the sole purpose is
to serve the subdivision off -site. Secondly, it creates a
bottleneck - -a major street coming in and passing through this
intersection and narrowing down to a local street.
Commissioner Sellevold asked why not make "H" Street the same
size as Elsinore Hills Road, so more access is provided into
this subdivision. Commissioner Gilenson responded it is off -
site. Chairman Saathoff stated he believes Commissioner
Sellevold is saying, allow "H" Street to go in off -site, loop
street -- access is provided to some 80 homes and provides
relief for the other two streets.
Discussion ensued on condition number 29 with regard to access
and not creating a bottleneck; place on -site; traffic circula-
tion and safety.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell commented on the design of "H"
Street stating part of the reason is it is off -site, but the
main reason is going from a secondary street, on one side of
the intersection, down to a local street. The reason "H"
Street is looped is because it is so long - -it does not meet
the cul -de -sac requirement of 660 foot minimum. We are asking
that it be looped to provide emergency access and for safety.
Commissioner Brinley asked that Mr. Buxton address the letter
received from Mr. Bruce Eichorn and to identify, on the map,
the access roads and grading easements referenced.
Mr. Buxton, referring to the posted map, identified slopes
where they were going to work with Mr. Eichorn on grading, but
a decision was made not to encroach onto Mr. Eichorn's
property. We are not proposing any roads through the adjacent
property. We are saying, should this road ever be built to
service their property it is logical to have a point of
connection. If we provide the connection to the Eichorn
property there would be slight amount of grading. If we
eliminate this connection all of the grading will be on -site,
and the Eichorn property would not be affected by this
project.
Commissioner Brinley commented on the following:
• Grading factor and access road connection, asked the
Commission for their feelings on this matter. Consensus
was to eliminate this access road connection.
Chairman Saathoff recognized Mr. Bruce Eichorn. Mr. Eichorn
stated he reviewed these plans approximately 30 days ago and
it showed two access roads. The one road I mentioned goes
through my property, this is my concern.
Chairman Saathoff asked if the tentative maps illustrate
access roads going through the Eichorn property, at present.
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 5
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459
Mr. Buxton responded in the negative, and stated a map was
drawn for Community Facilities District 90 -3, which showed the
general circulation pattern.
Mr. Eichorn asked if two access roads are not required. Chair-
man Saathoff responded two access roads are provided, Ramsgate
Drive and Camino Del Norte.
Chairman Saathoff asked staff if there was a condition for the
stub road and the rating. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell
responded the traffic study addresses the use of this road for
access, circulation and loading. Questioned whether the
traffic study would have to be redone, this is a good
circulation for the area. Asked Mr. Buxton whether the
extension for Cambern Road was within the assessment district.
Mr. Buxton responded in the negative, but it makes sense to
provide the stub allowing Mr. Eichorn the opportunity.
Discussion ensued on the stub road and not illustrating it on
the grading plan; Mr. Eichorn not wanting grading on his
property; adding a condition for the stub off; maps presented
illustrating an easement to the Eichorn property and there
will be no development.
Mr. Buxton stated for clarification, since some grading was
illustrated to accommodate this road, maybe the Commission
should give direction to eliminate the indication of grading
to accommodate this stub, but retain the easement right so
that it becomes Mr. Eichorn's decision as to what he wants to
do. Chairman Saathoff suggested this be added as condition
number 73.
Commissioner Brinley resumed her comments:
The amount of off -site grading. Mr. Buxton responded
this will be dependent upon the Missing Link plan.
Decision on "H" Street. Chairman Saathoff responded that
the consensus was to loop on -site.
Hillside grading and balance of grading per acre.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on:
• Condition number 13, bonding 100% for erosion control
landscaping. Would like this raised to 120 %.
• Condition number 24, consideration shall be given to cut
slopes exceeding 2:1. Asked about changing this to
reflect no slopes will exceed 2:1, concern is with
aesthetics.
• Hillside Grading Ordinance, if those concepts are applied
this is a very severe project under the proposed guide-
lines. There is extensive cut, fill, grading and
benching. Balance for preserving hillsides, contour of
hills and balance of grading.
• Questioned the need of Cambern loop on the back side.
Would propose the tentative tract maps stand on their
own. Suggested the maps go back for redesign and work
more closely with the topography.
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 6
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459
CONTINUED
Commissioner Sellevold commented on:
Concerned with the amount of grading, whether grading
would be done at one time for the tracts.
Likes the layout of the tract as presented, as it leaves
the hilltops.
Understands the bottleneck with "H" Street, but would
like to see more access into the tracts.
Chairman Saathoff recognized Mr. Buxton. Mr. Buxton responded
to Commissioner Wilsey's comment on the road system. The
reason the loop road was eliminated on the southern portion
was not to have extensive grading in the Missing Link area and
similarly on the north /south road, which is Elsinore Hills
Road. We have put in some minor bends, if done as indicated
we would be grading on Mr. Eichorn's property, and if we go to
the east with that road then we would be slicing off the top
of the hill. If neither is done, the road would be steep at
the top and there would be a sight distance problem. The
north /south road can not go anywhere other than the way it is,
given the constraints.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Buxton to address Commissioner
Wilsey's suggestion that the maps stand alone, eliminate the
connecting road. Mr. Buxton responded that if this road is
eliminated they are back to the former circulation pattern,
road on the bottom -- recreating the grid system, and back to
where they were in July.
Discussion ensued on the recommended changes, if approved:
Environmental language to be included on Finding #4;
• Condition 13, change to 120 %.
• Condition 21, if redesign is required it shall come back
before the Planning Commission.
• Condition 29, remains - - "H" Street will be eliminated with
"B" and "C" Streets looped on -site.
• Conditions 32, 33 and 36, applicant's request to add the
words "major slopes or slopes exceeding 30 feet in
height ". Asked staff whether 30 feet is an understood
fact. Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded 30 foot
is required by Code, no problem with amending condition
32 and 33; however, would prefer that condition 36 remain
as stated.
Chairman Saathoff recognized Mr. Buxton. Mr. Buxton questioned
whether this means road slopes - -not the slopes between the
lots. Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded that this
includes all slopes adjacent to the right -of -way for Elsinore
Hills Road.
Commissioner Wilsey asked whether maintenance by the HOA was
being confined to just the slopes along Elsinore Hills Road.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded in the negative,
stating this qualifies condition number 36 and the City's
option to take over from the HOA. Condition number 35 covers
all other slopes and condition number 68 takes care of the
same thing.
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 7
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459
Discussion resumed on recommended changes, if approved:
Condition number 73, Eliminate the indication of grading
to accommodate stub road, but retain the easement right
on east Cambern Avenue.
Condition number 74: Increase radius on East Cambern loop
and eliminate "H" Street. "B" and "C" loop to be shown
on the tentative map prior to going to City Council.
Commissioner Gilenson stated the wording he had for condition
74, was: redraw the tentative tract maps prior to submittal to
City Council reflecting the Conditions of Approval.
Chairman Saathoff stated this is a tentative map - -if those are
final conditions, once a final map comes in it has to meet
substantial conformance, they have to show that on the final
map. Questions the redrawing of the maps for minor changes.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he does not see these as minor
changes. Believes tentative maps should be sent to City
Council reflecting Planning Commission changes.
Chairman Saathoff asked for any further discussion. Receiving
no response, he called for a motion.
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459 AS SUBMITTED, WITH
THE CHANGE AS INDICATED ON PAGE 6 FINDING #4, AMENDMENTS TO
CONDITIONS 13, 21, 32, 33, 36, AND ADDITION OF CONDITION 73.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459 BASED ON THE
FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 72 CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE CHANGE TO FINDING 4, AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS
13, 21, 32, 33, 36, AND ADDITION OF CONDITION 73 AND 74.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459 FOR 120 DAYS AND
REDRAW MAPS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO REACTIVATE HIS MOTION,
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Chairman Saathoff asked for further discussion. Commissioner
Brinley inquired about preparation of new maps and meeting the
24th hearing date. Commissioner Brinley was informed that
this is irrelevant. There being no further discussion
Chairman Saathoff called for the question.
Vote 2 -3 (Commissioners Sellevold, Wilsey and Saathoff
voting no)
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
26459 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 72 CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH AMENDMENT TO
FINDING #4, AND THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
FINDING #4: The Planning Commission shall determine by
certification and /or letter from the governing
sewer disposal agency, which is EVMWD, whether
the discharge of waste from the proposed
subdivision into the existing sewer system
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 8
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26459
would result in a violation of the require-
ments as set out in Section 13000 et seq. of
the California Water Code. If the Planning
Commission finds that the proposed wasted
discharge would result in or add to a
violation of said requirements, the Planning
Commission may disapprove the Tentative map or
maps of the subdivision. (Government Code
Section 66474.6).
Condition 13:
Interim and permanent erosion control measures
are required. The applicant shall bond 120%
for material and labor for one (1) year for
erosion control landscaping at the time the
site is rough graded.
Condition 21:
A focuses spring survey to determine sensitive
plant species prior to final map is required.
Future mitigation may include avoidance (site
redesign) , transplanting, purchase of occupied
habitat, propagation programs etc..., and /or
as recommended by State Fish and Game. If
redesign is required it shall come back to the
Planning Commission.
Condition 32:
All major manufactured slopes exceeding 30-
feet in height shall be contour graded.
Condition 33:
All major manufactured slopes exceeding 30-
feet in height shall provide room for bench
drains.
Condition 36: All major slopes outside the right -of -way for
Elsinore Hills Road shall be maintained by
HOA. The City may, at its option, decide to
maintain these slopes after reviewing the
tract landscape plans.
Condition 73: Eliminate the indication of grading to
accommodate stub road, but retain the easement
right on east Cambern Avenue.
SECOND BY CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF.
Approved 3 -2 (Commissioners Gilenson and Wilsey voting no)
At this time, 8:30 p.m., the Commission recessed.
At this time, 8:44 p.m., the Commission reconvened.
Conditional Use Permit 91 -3 - James & Dorothy Maltbey
(Continued from August 21, 1991) - Associate Planner DeGange
presented a request to renew a conditional use permit for a
preschool /day -care facility at 30001 Riverside Drive, and gave
a brief history on modification requested by Planning Commis-
sion. He then stated after meeting with the applicant and
members of the Planning Commission, staff is proposing the
following additions and /or alterations to the Conditions of
Approval:
Alteration of Condition 17: to include the gate along
Riverside Drive as part of the approval by Riverside
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -3 CONTINUED
County Fire.
Alteration of Condition 18: to exclude the portion of the
condition which requires the eastern perimeter portion of
the fencing to be double faced.
Addition of Condition 19: all redwood slats placed in the
chain link fencing shall be removed.
Addition of Condition 20: the lighting within the parking
area if determined to be inadequate shall be upgraded
subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director of his designee.
Addition of Condition 21: the access way from the rear
play area to the adjacent vacant property shall be
removed.
Addition of Condition 22: a lattice covering shall be
placed over the trash enclosure.
Addition of Condition 23: the fencing for the interior
petting enclosure shall be removed.
Addition of Condition 24: additional landscaping shall be
installed along the side yard and the parking area four
feet on center and of the same species type to match
existing shrubbery. In addition, a plant species with
climbing capabilities shall be planted in the same
general area between the existing and proposed shrubbery.
Addition of Condition 25: block wall and chain link
fencing shall be built adjacent to the trash enclosure to
complete the side yard,fencing.
Chairman Saathoff reopened the public hearing at 8:54 p.m.
asking for anyone wishing to address the Commission. Receiving
no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:55 p.m.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 2 with
regard to the three year time line, would like this changed to
five years.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the wood fence - -type and
quality of fence required, condition number 18. Believes that
a wood fence is not required. There is an existing chain link
fence and it is adequately slatted. If the Commission wants
a wood fence then wants quality involved.
Discussion ensued on fencing requirements; specifics for
fencing to be listed in the conditions; material and quality
of fencing to be approved by Community Development Director.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 18
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 2: If Conditional Use Permit 91 -3 operation
commences within one (1) year, it will
expire five (5) years from the date of
approval and shall be subject to annual
review.
Condition No. 17: The entry gate on Riverside Drive and the
gate at the front of the project shall
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 10
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -3 CONTINUED
receive Riverside County Fire Department
approval and proof of that approval shall
be submitted to the Planning Department
for inclusion in the case file.
Condition No. 18. Wood fencing shall be erected with the
slats facing inward inside all portions
of the existing chain link fencing which
will be accessible to children. The
eastern perimeter pertien e€ the — €enee
shall be deuble €aeed €er— aesthetie
pur-peses
Condition No. 19: All redwood slats placed in the chain
link fencing shall be removed.
Condition No. 20: The lighting within the parking area if
determined to be inadequate shall be
upgraded subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director of his
designee.
Condition No. 21: The access way from the rear play area to
the adjacent vacant property shall be
removed.
Condition No. 22: A lattice covering shall be placed over
the trash enclosure.
Condition No. 23: The fencing for the interior petting
enclosure shall be removed.
Condition No. 24: Additional landscaping shall be installed
along the side yard and the parking area
four feet on center and of the same
species type to match existing shrubbery.
In addition, a plant species with
climbing capabilities shall be planted in
the same general area between the
existing and proposed shrubbery.
Condition No. 25: Block wall and chain link fencing shall
be built adjacent to the trash enclosure
to complete the side yard fencing.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD.
Approved 3 -0 (Commissioners Gilenson and Brinley abstaining)
BUSINESS ITEMS
4. Minor Design Review of a Freeway Pole Sign - Joel Burnstine
(Continued from August 21, 1991) - Chairman Saathoff stated
staff has requested this item be continued to the meeting of
September 18, 1991, and called for a motion.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO CONTINUE MINOR DESIGN REVIEW
OF A FREEWAY POLE SIGN TO SEPTEMBER 18, 1991, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 5 -0
5. Single - Family Residence - 313 Lewis Street- Stan Wojnilowicz -
Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review of a 1,717 square foot single -story dwelling with a 455
square foot garage placed on a 9,000 square foot lot, located
180 feet south of the intersection of Pottery and Lewis
Street.
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 11
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 313 LEWIS STREET CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Mark Lovich, 25545 Calle Becerra, Laguna Niguel, addressed
staff concerns on the elevations, windows.
Chairman Saathoff commented on condition number 15, with
regard to the construction of a six -foot wood /masonry fence,
and the requirement for two additional windows on the left
elevation. If it is behind a fence why put two windows in?
Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the height of the existing
wrought iron fencing. Mr. Lovich stated he believed the owner
was going to put up a six -foot fence, but there is not a fence
at the present time.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested the following changes:
• Condition 13, change "building permit" to "Certificate of
Occupancy ".
• Condition 15, remain with a caveat: if the neighbor next
door is putting in a fence he can go in conjunction with
that and split it on the property line.
Discussion ensued on condition number 15 with regard to
fencing, adding language that a shared neighbor fence would be
acceptable, subject to Community Development Director.
• Condition No. 22 and 23: Delete
• Proposal falls within the Downtown Business Association,
asked if the Downtown Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed
plans, what were their comments.
Associate Planner DeGange responded that DRC has not reviewed
the plans. The City's Consultant Architect reviewed the plans
and he had no comment.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the formation of the Down-
town Review Committee by City Council for specific review of
plans before they come to Planning Commission. Believes this
item should be continued with direction to go to DRC for their
input.
Discussion ensued on project location being within the Central
Business District, and reviewing bodies.
Commissioner Sellevold requested explanation of condition
number 33, looks like he has to install a fence or block wall
on the back of his property and it is two feet in from the
property line, who maintains? There is also a power pole.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated the property owner
would maintain the two foot strip; assumes this is an Edison
power pole and they have an easement so the owner would have
to work this out with the utility company.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 313 LEWIS STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 35 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 13: Applicant shall plant street trees,
selected from the City Street Tree List,
a maximum of 30 feet (301) apart and at
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 12
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 313 LEWIS STREET CONTINUED
least twenty- four -inch (2411) box in size
as to meet the approval of the Planning
Manager or designee prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy.
Condition No. 15: A six -foot (61) high wood fence or
masonry wall shall be constructed along
the side and rear property lines and
shall conform to Section 17.14.080
(Fences and Walls), subject to the
approval of the Planning Manager or
designee prior to issuance of building
permit. A shared fence, neighbor, is
acceptable, if the neighbor is putting in
a fence applicant can go in conjunction
with that and split it on the property
line,
Condition No. 22:
Develepment — Direeter er• his designee.
DELETE
Condition No. 23: riae windews shall be added to the lit
Hevelepment— Dir-eeter er his ' --gnee _
DELETE
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 5 -0
6. Single - Family Residence -231 Pepper Drive - Carroll B. Gibson
(William Boyd) - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request
for Minor Design Review of a 2,070 square foot two -story
dwelling with a 456 square foot garage placed on a 4,560
square foot lot, located 80 feet south of the intersection of
Park Way and Pepper Drive.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no
response, he asked for discussion at the table.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested deletion of condition number
24. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff
called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 231 PEPPER DRIVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 36 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No. 24: The - yellew eelering prepesed €erne
deers and shutters shall b be _ _p _ _a b
face ^ and trim. DELETE
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
Approved 5 -0
At this time, Chairman Saathoff stated the motion on Tentative
Tract 25171 Revised and Tentative Tract Map 26459 did not include
the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and called for a
motion.
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 13
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25171 REVISED AND TENTATIVE TRACT 26459, SECOND
BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 5 -0
At this time, Chairman Saathoff turned the gavel over to Vice -
Chairman Gilenson.
7. Landscape Maintenance Agreement - Community Development
Manager Shear stated this agreement was discussed with City
Attorney Harper, he did not have a problem with the concept.
The form would have to be modified to meet City Standards. He
then commented on the problems associated with gaining access
onto private property, maintenance, time frames and costs
involved.
Commissioner Wilsey stated the City would not have to maintain
this landscaping, if they did not choose to do so. They could
go out to bid and have a landscaping firm perform maintenance,
correct? Community Development Manager Shear responded in the
affirmative, but if the City initiates the contract basically
we would be doing the work.
Vice Chairman Gilenson asked how the enforcement differs from
Nuisance Abatement? Community Development Manager Shear
stated, as explained to me, we have to go through a public
hearing and lien the property if we do the work, and this does
not insure reimbursement until the property is sold. I
informed the City Attorney that under the Weed Abatement
Program we automatically place a lien on the property, with
the taxes. The Government Code has to be researched to see if
something like this can be used. He then stated alternatives
for refinement are being researched and this agreement will be
refined and brought back before the Commission.
Chairman Saathoff returned to the table, and asked if the City
Attorney felt this was more viable than the 120% bonding, now
being done. Community Development Manager Shear stated the
major discussion was on reimbursement of funds.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he thought this would be handled in
the same manner as Weed Abatement. Community Development
Manager Shear stated that Weed Abatement has an exact statute
that it follows.
At this time, Vice - Chairman Gilenson turned the gavel over to
Chairman Saathoff.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 4, 1991
Page 14
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Sellevold
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Nothing to report.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
p ved,
4illaSaath.fl,
Chairman
Res tfully su mittedL
IL nda G d aff
anning Co mission
Secretary
MINUTES
HELD ON THE
OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
18TH DAY OF
F03!il0:4";]:M Glil
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Sellevold, Wilsey and
Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner
Christen, Associate Planners DeGange and Naaseh - Shahry, Senior
Civil Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Chairman Saathoff referred to Page 7 and 8, correcting the
following:
Page 7, condition number 73: street name, Cambern Avenue.
Page 8, descending vote, should be Commissioners Gilenson and
Wilsey) .
Page 8, condition number 32:
Page 8, condition number 33:
Page 8, condition number 36:
should read "all major slopes
exceeding 30 feet in height ".
should read "all major slopes
exceeding 30 feet in height ".
delete language "or slopes
exceeding 30 feet in height ".
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of September 4,
1991, as corrected, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission, Chair-
man Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Variance 91 -6 - Joel Burnstein - A request to vary from
Section 17.94.180.I.3.1.a, to allow an eighty -two square foot
free - standing freeway sign in place of a sixty square foot
sign, located on a 1.01 acre site, on the east side of Casino
Drive (31784 Casino Drive) approximately 1,500 feet south of
Railroad Canyon Road.
Chairman Saathoff stated that staff has requested this item be
withdrawn from the Agenda and called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO WITHDRAW VARIANCE 91 -6 FROM
THE AGENDA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 5 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Freeway Sign - Joel Burnstine (Continued from September 4,
1991) - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request to
amend the Shoppers Square II Sign Program to allow an eighty -
two square foot by forty -five foot high freestanding freeway
sign on 1.01 acres, located on the east side of Casino Drive
approximately 1,500 feet south of Railroad Canyon Road.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 1991
Page 2
FREEWAY SIGN CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Joel Burnstine commented on the following conditions:
Condition 2, color codes on the existing signs do not seem to
be available, but will match as close as possible.
Condition 3, there is an existing 100 foot planter that is 45
inches deep, plus a 6 inch curb, at the end of the property
where the sign is proposed. The planter that exists on the
back end of the property is 15 feet deep and runs 210 feet.
I would ask that the Commission to allow these planners to
meet the criteria called out.
Condition 4, requested the removal of the tower signs and
installation of the pole sign be concurrent.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address
this item. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at
the table.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following:
• Condition No. 4: no problem with applicant's request, and
amend to state "at the time of installing the new pole
sign all signs will be removed from the tower element ".
Add Condition No. 7: Planters be landscaped and landscap-
ing be bonded, standard condition 100 -120 %. If applicant
wishes to use the existing planters - -no problem with
using those as long as this condition applies to those
two planters.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on the following:
• Condition number 2, suggested the word "identical" be
replaced with the word "matched ".
Chairman Saathoff inquired whether this should be subject
to Community Development Director.
Condition number 3, Code requirement for planter areas,
and not meeting Code requirements without this condition.
Prefers this condition remain.
Commissioner Brinley commented on setting a precedence.
Commissioner Sellevold commented on the need for signage and
its location.
Chairman Saathoff inquired about location of signage, the
square footage of planter areas and landscaping.
Discussion ensued on condition number 3, pertaining to land-
scape requirements and bonding for landscaping -- insurance for
maintenance of landscape planter areas; condition number 4,
pertaining to installation and removal of signage.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry suggested condition number 4
be amended by adding the word "face" between the words "sign
permit ".
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE THE FREESTANDING
FREEWAY SIGN FOR THE 76 CAR WASH BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 1991
Page 3
FREEWAY SIGN CONTINUED
SUBJECT TO THE 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 2: All colors and materials used shall be
matched to the previously approved
freeway pole signs for Shoppers Square
II, subject to the Community Development
Director's approval.
Condition No. 4: Prior to the issuance of sign face
permit, all signs shall be removed from
the tower element.
Condition No. 7: Planters be re- landscaped and 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.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Chairman Saathoff asked for further discussion, stating he
would vote yes as suggested without the addition of condition
7, and no with the bonding and additional planting. He then
asked for any further discussion. There being no further
discussion he asked for a roll call vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Wilsey
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley, Sellevold, Saathoff
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF TO APPROVE AMENDMENT TO SHOPPERS
SQUARE II SIGN PROGRAM FOR A FREESTANDING FREEWAY SIGN FOR THE
76 CAR WASH BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 6
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 2: All colors and materials used shall be
matched to the previously approved
freeway pole signs for Shoppers Square
II, subject to the Community Development
Director's approval.
Condition No. 4: Prior to the issuance of sign face
permit, all signs shall be removed from
the tower element.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD.
UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sellevold, Wilsey and Saathoff
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley
3. Single - Family Residence - 669 Lake Street - Claudette Boyd -
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for Minor
Design Review of a single - family dwelling with 1,716 square
feet of floor area and a 427 square foot garage placed on a
4,100 square foot parcel located at the north side of Lake
Street, 200 feet west of High Street.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 1991
Page 4
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 669 LAKE STREET CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Boyd responded
in the negative.
Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. There
being no discussion at the table, he called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 669 LAKE STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT
TO THE 27 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT,
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 5 -0
4. Single- Family Residence - 30220 Palm Drive - Claudette Boyd -
Associate Planner Naaseh- Shahry presented a request for Minor
Design Review of a single - family dwelling with 1,692 square
feet of floor area and a 427 square foot garage placed on a
4,530 square foot parcel located at the east side of Palm
Drive, 450 feet south of Coolidge.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Boyd responded
in the negative.
Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. There
being no discussion at the table, he called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 30220 PALM DRIVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
Approved 5 -0
5. Residential Project 91 -6 - Centex Homes - Associate Planner
DeGange presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 130
unit single - family residential development and a 4 unit model
complex site placed on 44 acres, located in and around the
eventual intersection of Broadway Avenue and Lincoln Street
within the West Lake Elsinore Assessment District.
Associate Planner DeGange stated Page 2 of the Staff Report,
Floor Plan Breakdown, Plan 5 should be corrected to read 28 %.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Mike Aller, representing Centex Homes, stated he would
answer any questions that arise regarding the project, and
would direct any question regarding the houses to the
architect with him this evening.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address
this item. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at
the table.
Commissioner Brinley commented on:
condition number 21, roof and ground support equipment,
for clarification suggested this be changed to the
standard condition.
alternative plan number 6 and the number planned for
construction - -no figure given. Mr. Aller responded two.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 1991
Page 5
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -6 CONTINUED
Commissioner Gilenson commented on:
Extension of siding as referenced on Page 3 of the Staff
Report and this not included in the conditions, suggested
this be incorporated into condition number 34.
condition number 21, suggested this be amended to read:
"Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall be
screened, and screening plan shall be approved by the
Community Development Director ".
Chairman Saathoff inquired whether architectural
screening of ground support or mechanical equipment was
to be included. Commissioner Gilenson responded that
this is covered in condition number 22.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on the house plotting plans and
inclusion of variations on lineal streets. There will be
variations to the streetscape, correct? Mr. Aller responded
in the affirmative, 3 foot setback variation.
Commissioner Sellevold commented on embellishments to be
provided on elevations, condition number 33.
Commissioner Gilenson asked Commissioner Wilsey if he would
like the staggered setbacks added to the conditions of
approval. Commissioner Wilsey responded that it is part of
the house plotting plans, now. Associate Planner DeGange
stated this is part of the Code which they would have to meet.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO RE- AFFIRM EIR 88-2 AND
APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -6 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 36 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 21: Any roof mounted central swamp coolers
shall be screened, and screening plan
shall be approved by the Community
Development Director, prior to issuance
of building permit.
Condition No. 34: Add extension of siding and additional
architectural enhancements around all
major windows in the form of pop -
outs /wood framing or gables /dormers for
all elevations on all lots where
appropriate subject to the Community
Development Director or designee's
approval.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 5 -0
INFORMATIONAL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
Nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 1991
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSIONER °S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Sellevold
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Nothing to report.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson,
second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
o ed,
Bill Saa hoff,
Chairman
L Respebtfull submitted,
L'nda Gr�ndstaff 2
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES
HELD ON THE
OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
2ND DAY OF
OCTOBER 1991
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 Naaseh - Shahry, Senior Civil Engineer
O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of September 18,
1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission, chair-
man Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I� to) a:4
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Single - Family Residence - 221 Pepper Drive - Associate Planner
Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for Minor Design Review of
a single- family dwelling with 1,614 square feet of floor area
and a 456 square foot garage placed on a 4,462 square foot
parcel located at the west side of Pepper Drive approximately
110 feet north of Dawes Street.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no
response, he asked for discussion at the table.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on conditions 16 through 22,
recommended the following language be added "subject to
Community Development Manager or designee's approval ".
There being no further discussion Chairman Saathoff called for
a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 221 PEPPER DRIVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 34 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 16: The second story window on the front
elevation in the masterbedroom shall be a
pop -out type, subject to Community
Development Manager or designee's
approval.
Condition No. 17: All windows on the front elevation shall
have mullions, subject to Community
Development Manager or designee's
approval.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 2, 1991
Page 2
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 221 PEPPER DRIVE CONTINUED
Condition No. 18: One window shall be installed on the
second story right elevation in the
study, subject to Community Development
Manager or designee's approval.
Condition No. 19: One window shall be installed on the
second story left elevation in
masterbedroom, subject to Community
Development Manager or designee's
approval.
Condition No. 20: One window
second story
number 2,
Development
approval.
shall be installed on the
left elevation in bedroom
subject to Community
Manager or designee's
Condition No. 21: All windows shall be fully trimmed for
all elevations, subject to Community
Development Manager or designee's
approval.
Condition No. 22: A stucco trim shall be installed between
the first and second story wall as a belt
running around the whole building
parallel to the ground except for the
front elevation, subject to Community
Development Manager or designee's
approval.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 5 -0
2. Single - Family Residence - 1307 Sumner Street - Associate
Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a request for Minor Design
Review of a 815 square foot second story addition to an
existing 1,268 square foot single -story dwelling placed on a
8,250 square foot parcel located at the north side of Sumner
Avenue, approximately 100 feet east of Davis Street.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. James King,
representing the applicant, responded in the negative. He
then asked for discussion at the table.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following:
Condition 5, whether property is currently on septic or
sewer.
Condition 4, use of alternative roofing condition when
the applicant proposed concrete tile. Suggested this
condition be amended to reflect concrete tile as shown on
the materials board.
Conditions 6, 7 and 9, does not believe these conditions
are applicable to an addition, recommended deletion.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on whether conditions 10, 11 and
12, are applicable to an addition. Discussion ensued on these
conditions with the determination that condition 11 and 12 are
applicable, but not condition 10.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 2, 1991
Page 3
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 1307 SUMNER STREET CONTINUED
There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman
Saathoff called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO APPROVE SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 1307 SUMNER STREET BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 34 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 4: Applicant shall use concrete tile roofing
material as shown on materials board.
Condition No. 6: Gaffe -__- -- be Bens true ___ te pre vide _--
Minimum ef nine feet six inehes
nineteen feet six inehes (91611 x 3:916LL}
e€ inte -Fier- elear spaee fer twe (2) ears
€er a tetal interier elear spaee of
feetbynineteen feet six inehes
DELETE
Condition No. 7: All exaesed sleaes in emeess of three
permanent irrigatien system and eresien
ee ---- veyetatien ins talled -- meet he
designee, prier -- ---- -- ee -- - -- -----_
p___--it. DELETE
Condition No. 9: Applieant shall plant streettreee,
tutu- - ° - - - -y tutu tutu-- (-- ) tutu in - --
-
-- tutu- _ -- -- - -_-• -- r - ° -- -° - -- °tutu --
b__,a:_g permit. DELETE
Condition No. 10: A six feet (61) high weed fenee e-r
masenry —wall shall b be eenstrueted a = g
the side and rear— preperty lines nes and
shall eenfer-m to Seetien 17-14.080
(Fenees and Walls), to the
permit. DELETE
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY.
Approved 5 -0
3. Flag - Joe Deleo - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented
a request for Minor Design Review of a freestanding flag
fabricated from clay tile and glazed as the American Flag,
seventeen feet high and twenty -four feet wide with an area of
408 square feet. The proposed flag will be built in the front
of the Deleo Tile building facing Chaney Street on the south-
west corner of Collier Avenue and Chaney Street.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Joe Deleo, gave a brief history on the proposal, and
stated this would be good advertising for the city because it
will be know all over - -in the paper, pictures, and we will
have an unveiling.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 2, 1991
Page 4
FLAG CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to speak on
this item. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at
the table.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he would have no concern if the
applicant wanted to erect a giant flag pole and flag. After
inspecting the flag, as it lays on the ground out by Chaney
Street, my impression is that it is a giant materials board,
using materials manufactured by the applicant and veiled in
red, white and blue.
Commissioner Sellevold stated he concurs with Commissioner
Wilsey. It looks beautiful and patriotic, but it doesn't go
with the existing building, and it looks like advertisement.
Commissioner Brinley stated she concurs with the statements
made. It would be different if the applicant wanted to erect
a large flag pole and flag.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he concurs with the statements
made. Basically, this is a materials board, colored as the
American Flag.
Chairman Saathoff stated he concurs with staff. Does not see
this as aesthetically pleasing or apropos. Feels this is a
product display, and does not meet any requirements of the
Building Code or Title 17.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO DENY MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF
THE FREESTANDING FLAG BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 5 -0
4. Residential Project 90 -23 - Michael Brown - Associate Planner
Naaseh- Shahry requested this item be continued for two weeks,
October 16, 1991.
Chairman Saathoff recognized the following persons:
Mr. Robert Danko, Law Offices of Giardinelli & Winkler,
representing Richard Murphy an adjacent land owner, commented
on a condition placed on the project requiring the two parcels
be given access to the street and not be landlocked, and an
amendment to the plan granting an easement to Mr. Murphy's
property. Also, we are trying to secure representation of the
other property owner, Mr. Halpin.
Mr. Danko stated the proposed plan severely impacts his
client's ability to develop the property given the restric-
tion, and requested this item be continued indefinitely, so
they may continue negotiations.
Mr. Michael Brown, 30947 Steeplechase, San Juan Capistrano,
informed the Commission of his attempts to resolve this issue.
He then commented on developability of the landlocked parcels
and providing an easement to Mr. Murphy's property, according
to State Law.
Mr. Dick Murphy, 34600 Washington Street, Winchester, stated
he has no correspondence (copy) from Mr. Brown to his
attorney. He then commented on the previous condition placed
on Residential Project 89 -9, and how the applicant was able to
proceed without complying, and reiterated his concern for
ingress /egress for his property.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 2, 1991
Page 5
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -23
Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to address this
item. Receiving no response, he asked Mr. Danko whether they
had received the letter from Mr. Brown dated August 12, 1991,
and whether a formal response was made. Mr. Danko responded
they received said letter, but not sure about the response.
Chairman Saathoff recommended this item be continued for two
weeks, which gives the parties involved time to try and
resolve this issue.
Commissioner Gilenson requested staff obtain a written opinion
from the City Attorney on the landlock issue. As soon as we
have the City Attorney's opinion we should act.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT 90 -23 TO OCTOBER 16, 1991, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BRINLEY.
Approved 5 -0
5. Residential Project 89 -11 Revised - Associate Planner Naaseh-
Shahry presented a request for Minor Design Review of a fifth
model floor plan for this project. This model is a substitu-
tion for a variable number of the previously approved models
on twenty -five lots within the development. The project is
located south of Grand Avenue, east of Ortega Highway and west
of Sangston.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no
response, he asked for discussion at the table.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the Project Concerns
identified in the Staff Report, and omission of said concerns
from the Conditions of Approval.
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded the street pattern
and pad elevation created situations where lots are visible
from more than one right -of -way, and this was the reason for
requiring window treatment, condition number 2.
There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman
Saathoff called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT 89 -11 REVISED BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE
3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPROVED CONDITIONS FOR RESI-
DENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 ON NOVEMBER 1, 1989, LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
Approved 5 -0
INFORMATIONAL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
City Planner Christen gave an update on the following:
1. General Plan - the clean up process is underway and
should be completed early next year.
2. Zoning Code and conformance with General Plan - this
involves new designations and hopefully a modification to
make it easier to understand. This would be performed by
an outside consultant with a tremendous amount of in-
house cooperation. We are in the process of negotiating
contracts.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 2, 1991
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSIONERIS COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Sellevold
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Nothing to report.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
ved,
L
O7Saathoff,
Chairman
Respectfully s mitt_ed,
Li da Grindstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1991
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Sellevold.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Sellevold, Wilsey and Saathoff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley
Also present were Community Development Manager Shear, City Planner
Christen, Associate Planners Naaseh - Shahry and DeGange, Senior
Civil Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of October 2,
1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission, Chair-
man Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Tentative Financial Parcel Map 25638 Revision #1 - Bedford
Properties (NBS /Lowry) - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry
presented a request to revise Tentative Financial Parcel Map
25638 dividing the original Parcel 4 into a 133.8 acre parcel
and a 51 acre remaining parcel and extending the right -of -way
for Nichols Road to the easterly property line. This revision
will create five parcels for financial purposes, located on I-
15 and Nichols Road. This proposal has been reviewed pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act and determined to
be exempt.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Ms. Christie Starr, representing NBS /Lowry, stated they concur
with staff recommendation, and prepared to answer any
questions that arise.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to speak in
favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those opposed.
Receiving no response, he asked for anyone wishing to speak on
the matter. Receiving no response, he closed the public
hearing at 7:05 p.m., and asked for discussion at the table.
There being no discussion at the table, he called for a
motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE FINANCIAL PARCEL MAP 25638 REVISION #1
BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 8 CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Single - Family Residence - 16731 Gunnerson - Julius P. Arocha
(Neil Tidmus) - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a
request for Minor Design Review of a 1,426 square foot, two -
story dwelling with a 488 square foot detached two car garage,
located at the east side of Gunnerson Street approximately 60
feet south of Ulmer Street.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 16, 1991
Page 2
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 16731 GUNNERSON CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Neil Tidmus commented on drainage and access, asked if
something could be worked out with the drainage in front of
the property, condition number 22.
Mr. Arocha commented on the long /short term problems
associated with this four -foot dedication, condition number
22. Asked that the Engineering Department not withhold a
modest design, so drainage continues to be conveyed and
traverse this area, and allow a driveway over it. Requested
this be included in the MOU until such time as Gunnerson is
fully widened and improved.
Chairman Saathoff asked that staff respond to the access and
drainage issues.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated the entire site is
below the road, back of the lot is 8 -9 foot below grade of the
road. Gunnerson is a collector - -68 foot right -of -way, and
that is the reason for the four -foot dedication, this has
nothing to do with drainage. Concern is with the drainage at
the rear, as there is an arroyo going through almost the
middle of that lot.
Discussion ensued on condition number 22, with regard to
drainage and water course, street grade, allowing construction
of the driveway over the four -foot dedication until such time
as Gunnerson is fully improved.
Mr. Arocha requested condition number 8 be abated, as there
are existing Palm Trees which are approximately 100 years old.
Discussion ensued on location of the existing Palm Trees,
whether they are within the right -of -way, if they should
remain, be removed and replaced, or delete condition 8.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested the following language be
added to condition 8 "or as an alternative the existing trees
shall remain ".
Chairman Saathoff suggested the following language be added to
condition 8 "the existing trees presently in the four -foot
area to be dedicated to the City shall remain. In the event
the applicant elects to remove them then condition shall
apply ".
Commissioner Sellevold commented on the location of existing
trees and ownership.
Commissioner Wilsey suggested the following language be added
to condition 8 "existing Palm Trees in the right -of -way shall
remain until the City chooses to widen and improve Gunnerson
Street ".
Chairman Saathoff inquired about maintenance responsibility of
said trees.
Mr. Neil Tidmus commented on condition number 9, and the
problems associated with a wood fence because of the drainage
discussed earlier- -can not divert the water, must leave
natural flow.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 16, 1991
Page 3
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 16731 GUNNERSON CONTINUED
Discussion ensued on type of fencing and fencing being subject
to Community Development Manager approval, which should
suffice.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 16731 GUNNERSON BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT
TO THE 29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT
WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:
Condition No. 8: The existing Palm Trees in the four -foot
area to be dedicated to the City shall
remain.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
3. Single - Family Residence - 16741 Gunnerson - Maxwell C. Cohn
(Neil Tidmus) - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented a
request for Minor Design Review of a 1,933 square foot,
single -story dwelling with a 691 square foot attached two car
garage, located at the east side of Gunnerson Street
approximately 60 feet south of Ulmer Street.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Commissioner Wilsey stated this proposal is adjacent to the
previous project and surmises that condition number 8 will be
amended to reflect the previous action. Community Development
Manager Shear responded, looking at the site, there is a
portion that does not have existing Palm Trees.
Mr. Neil Tidmus commented on condition number 19, four -foot
dedication. The applicant wishes to add a third car garage;
with the four -foot dedication and the twenty- five -foot setback
he does not have enough space for a third garage. Asked
whether the house could encroach into the rear yard setback
approximately three -feet.
Mr. Tidmus was informed this would require a variance which
staff could not support, no hardship.
Mr. Cohn, owner, commented on discussions with staff and
possible changes that could be made over the counter.
A brief discussion was held on alterations to the plans that
could be approved over the counter.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called
for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 16741 GUNNERSON BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT
TO THE 26 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT,
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
Approved 4 -0
4. Residential Project 90 -23 - Michael Brown (Continued from
October 2, 1991) - Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry presented
a request to consider Design Review for a five (5) unit
apartment complex, on a .36 acre site located on the north
side of Joy Street between Riverside Drive and Machado Street.
This proposal has been reviewed pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act and determined to be a Class 3
Categorical Exemption.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 16, 1991
Page 4
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -23 CONTINUED
Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry requested that Exhibit "A" be
changed to Exhibit "B" in condition number 8.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Michael Brown, applicant, stated he has no problem with
staff recommendation.
Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to address this
item, and recognized the following persons:
Mr. Robert Danko, Law Offices of Giardinelli & Winkler,
representing Richard Murphy an adjacent land owner, reiterated
his comments expressed at the last meeting, with regard to the
previous condition placed on the project requiring the two
parcels be given access to the street and not be landlocked,
and his client's opposition to this plan.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Danko if he had seen the letter
from the City Attorney. Mr. Danko responded in the negative.
The Secretary provided Mr. Danko with a copy of said letter.
Chairman Saathoff stated essentially the City Attorney is
saying, at this particular time, the applicant, by providing
this access easement is in fact satisfying anything that might
be required by law, correct? Mr. Danko stated he could not
respond.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the access easement provided by
said proposal, and access to the rear parcels for emergency
purposes.
Mr. Dick Murphy, 34600 Washington Street, Winchester,
reiterated his comments made at the last meeting with regard
to the condition placed on Residential Project 89 -9 and
ingress /egress.
Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak on the
matter. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at the
table, requesting that discussion on the project take place
with concerns on the easement addressed separately.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following conditions:
Condition No. 5, whether roof mounted air conditioning
equipment would be allowed. Suggested the words "roof
mounted" be deleted, and the standard condition for no roof
mount equipment be added as 5.a. or incorporated into 5.
Condition No. 8, type of fencing to be placed along rear
property line next to the landlocked areas. Associate Planner
Naaseh - Shahry responded the Code would require a six -foot high
masonry wall along the project perimeter.
Condition No. 9, whether hook -ups or washer /dryer units are to
be provided, clarification. Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry
responded that washer /dryer units are to be provided.
Condition No. 28, add period after the word "acre" and start
a new sentence with the word "if ".
Condition No. 29, suggested amending to read: developer shall
provide a recorded access and utility easement to parcel 379-
131 -006, prior to building permit.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 16, 1991
Page 5
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -23 CONTINUED
Commissioner Wilsey stated Commissioner Gilenson covered his
concern, condition 29.
Commissioner Saathoff asked for further discussion.
Commissioner Gilenson referred to the Conditions of Approval
listed in the Staff Report of April 3, 1991, condition number
45, an easement or other means was required to allow access to
the rear parcels, as approved by City Council, and nothing has
been done to allow access to both parcels.
Community Development Manager Shear stated the Staff Report of
April 3, 1991, was the original report prepared for Planning
Commission and has not gone before City Council. Condition
number 29 is a result of discussions with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Wilsey stated we dealt with a condition similar
to this on the approval of the townhouses, inquired about the
language used in that condition.
Mr. Michael Brown, 30947 Steeplechase, San Juan Capistrano,
gave a brief history on the purchase, consolidation of
property for Residential Project 89 -9 and this proposal, and
the desire to keep these proposals separate.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on the easement provided to the
landlocked parcels, depth of said parcels, alternative ease-
ment locations and the creation of additional undevelopable
parcels.
Commissioner Sellevold stated he does not see where it is
landlocked - -there is a 24 -foot wide dedicated easement and the
back property is not developed; at another given point, if
this property is developed it could have another easement.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
90 -23 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 29 CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 5: All exterior air conditioning units,
electrical boxes or other mechanical
equipment incidental to development shall
be ground mounted and architecturally
screened or shielded by landscaping so
that they are not visible from neighbor-
ing property or public streets.
Condition No. 8: Stucco walls having a minimum height of
six feet (61) should be placed around the
perimeter of the patios and balconies
indicated in Exhibit "B ". Three -foot (3')
high walls shall be sufficient along the
north walls of the patios.
Condition No. 28: The developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City to mitigate
drainage impacts by payment of a Drainage
Mitigation Fee. A Master Plan of
Drainage was developed by Riverside
County Flood Control District (RCFCD) for
the West End and indicated a fee of
$4,000 per acre was in order. The
developer shall deposit $4,000 per acre.
If a Drainage Assessment District is
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 16, 1991
Page 6
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -23 CONTINUED
formed in the West End and that drainage
fee is lower than the present fee, a
partial refund will be returned. The
agreement shall be executed prior to
building permits.
Condition No. 29: Developer shall provide a recorded access
and utility easement to parcel 379 -131-
006, prior to building permit.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY.
Approved: 4 -0
At this time, 8:30 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed.
At this time, 8:35 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened.
5. Residential Project 91 -7 - Newcomb Development - Associate
Planner DeGange presented for Minor Design Review a 75 single -
family residential development (Tract 24856), including a
three unit model complex on a 18.5 acre site, located off of
Rolando Road between Mountain Street and Running Deer Road.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. John Newcomb, applicant, stated he concurs with the
changes and suggested changes proposed by staff. He then
expanded on the east perimeter wall and presented illus-
trations of Schemes A, B, and C.
Discussion was held on the three schemes presented, associated
problems with Scheme A and B, staff's recommendation is Scheme
C, type of material for fencing, view potential, and privacy
in rear yard.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that continuation of the pilaster
effect would have to be continued if wrought iron is used in
order for it to work properly, and not in favor of 20 foot on
center pilasters, too wide.
Chairman Saathoff requested consensus from the table on using
Scheme C with strictly wrought iron and pilaster, whether this
is adequate for privacy.
Commissioner Gilenson stated it would be a 6 foot block wall
with 3 foot wrought iron and divided by pilasters. commis-
sioner Wilsey stated this would break it up and give
continuity.
Chairman Saathoff stated Scheme C is then being modified,
making it a 3 foot retaining, plus 3 foot block wall, plus 3
foot wrought iron. Commissioners Gilenson and Wilsey
responded in the affirmative.
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Newcomb for his thoughts on the
modification to Scheme C. Mr. Newcomb responded since these
lots are going to be higher than the adjacent property,
concern is seeing a 6 foot wall with 3 foot wrought iron - -not
very symmetrical and may look peculiar. Can understand
putting in more pillars, maybe every 10 feet, on top of the 3
foot retaining wall and then the wrought iron in between.
Chairman Saathoff expressed concern with use of all wrought
iron, regardless of where the pilasters are placed. If we do
not have something above grade then we are going to have a mix
of materials put up by property owners.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 16, 1991
Page 7
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -7 CONTINUED
Mr. Newcomb suggested a 3 foot retaining wall, 2 additional
feet of masonry and then 4 feet of wrought iron, so there is
more of a balance with the materials. Consensus from the
table was to accept Mr. Newcomb's suggestion.
Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak on the
matter. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at the
table.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on:
• Analysis of grading concepts the adjoining property might
see when developed.
Condition No. 25.g. add, signage to identify Xeriscape
landscaping for model complex.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on:
Condition No. 13, whether this is applicable to resi-
dential development.
Associate Planner De Gange stated this applies to the model
complex. Commissioner Gilenson suggested the words "model
complex" be added to the end.
• Condition No. 21, not standard condition. Suggested this
be amended to the standard condition.
Chairman Saathoff commented on the following:
Whether condition 27 needs to be changed or a specific
condition added to address fencing for the easterly
portion of the property.
Associate Planner De Gange responded that a condition for
perimeter fencing was placed on the Tract Map, and this is
condition number 4 of Tract Map 24856.
Discussion ensued on perimeter fencing, whether condition
number 4 of Tract Map 24856 could be amended to specify that
perimeter fencing shall be 3 foot retaining wall, 2 foot
concrete and 4 foot wrought iron, with pilasters at 10 feet,
subject to Community Development Manager approval, and whether
block material is to be decorative.
Mr. Newcomb stated they envision decorative block wall for the
subdivision and between the homes that are visible from the
street. But the side and rear yards, not abutting a street,
use good neighbor wood fencing.
Associate Planner DeGange suggested that side and rear
fencing, where not visible from the right -of -way, be wood and
this stipulated in the Conditions of Approval.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
91 -7 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 38 CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENTS:
Condition No. 21: All air conditioning units or other
mechanical equipment incidental to
development shall be ground mounted and
architecturally screened or shielded by
landscaping so that they are not visible
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 16, 1991
Page 8
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -7 CONTINUED
from neighboring property or public
streets.
Condition No. 25g: One of the proposed lots of the model
complex shall be Xeriscaped and signage
provided identify Xeriscape landscaping.
Condition No. 27: A six foot (61) high masonry wall or
decorative block wall shall be
constructed along the side and rear
property lines and shall conform to
Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls) and
Section 17.14.130. Side and rear
fencing, where not visible from the
right -of -way, may be wood, subject to the
approval of the Community Development
Director or designee, prior to issuance
of building permit.
Condition No. 27a: Perimeter wall on the easterly property
line and a portion of the southerly
property line shall be 3 foot retaining
wall, with a combination of 2 foot
decorative concrete, 4 foot wrought iron
and 6 foot high pilasters at 10 foot
intervals, on top, subject to the
approval of the Community Development
Manager or designee.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
6. Commercial Project 90 -12 - Chief Auto Parts - Associate
Planner Naaseh - Shahry gave a brief history on the proposal,
and stated in lieu of condition number 30 a bond was collected
for future compliance. The decision for collection of the
bond was based on the excessive number of signs this condition
would place in a small area. The reason this item is before
the Commission is to come up with an alternative plan to
discourage auto repairs in the parking lot.
The applicant proposed sixteen signs to be located in the
parking lot planters, Exhibit "A ". Exhibit "B" shows the sign
copy which would have been placed on seven -foot poles. Staff
was concerned about the number and height of these signs, as
they will clutter the parking lot, and will not produce an
aesthetically pleasing view of the shopping center from
Mission Trail.
Staff proposes the installation of a total of five outside
signs, which will be 5' 3" high from the bottom of the sign
and three inside signs which will be visible to the customers.
If additional signage is deemed necessary by Planning Commis-
sion four additional signs can be placed in the parking lot
planters per Exhibit "E".
Staff recommends that condition number 30 be implemented as
follows:
The warning signs shall be placed on the
outside of the building per Exhibits "C ", "D",
and inside the building on the walls and next
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 16, 1991
Page 9
COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED
to the cash register subject to approval of
the Community Development Manager. The height
of the outside signs shall be 5' 3" from the
bottom of the sign.
Commissioners Wilsey and Sellevold stated they concur with the
Staff Report.
Commissioner Gilenson stated he agrees with the Staff Report
with one addition, include Exhibit "E".
Chairman Saathoff commented on Exhibit "E", does not see the
advantage. Feels the signs on the building and inside are
adequate. He then asked if the Commission wished to take
action on this item this evening; if so, need a motion to move
this from an INFORMATIONAL ITEM to BUSINESS ITEM.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO MOVE INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON
CHIEF AUTO, COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12, TO BUSINESS ITEM FOR
DISCUSSION AND ACTION, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD.
Approved 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no)
There being no further discussion, he called for a motion.
MOVED BY CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF THAT ORIGINAL CONDITION NUMBER 30
ON COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 BE CHANGED TO THE CONDITION AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IN THE MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 11, 1991,
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD.
Approved 3 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no)
CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF INQUIRED WHETHER THE MOTION ON RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT 91 -7 INCLUDED RE- AFFIRMATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 91 -5.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY TO RE- AFFIRM MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION 91 -5 FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 91 -7, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 4 -0
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
City Planner Christen informed the Commission that a Joint Study
Session /Workshop on Hillside Development is in the process of being
scheduled.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Sellevold
Nothing to report.
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 16, 1991
Page 10
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Brinley
Absent.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Motion by Commissioner
Sellevold, second by Commissioner Gilenson.
Approved 4 -0
;aatill hoff,
Chairman
Respectfully s matted,
Linda Grindstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF
LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 6, 1991
THE REGULAR MEETING WAS CALLED DUE TO LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS.
Respectfully submitted,
r / -
�a'
Linda Grindstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES
HELD ON THE
OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
20TH DAY OF
1U011V4 I.) Do 11 5301
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 City Planner Christen, Associate Planner DeGange,
and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of October 16,
1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey.
Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Brinley abstaining)
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to receive and file the Minutes of
November 6, 1991, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to address the Planning Commission, Chair-
man Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Tentative Financial Parcel Map 27291 - Long Beach Equities
(NBS /Lowry) - City Planner Christen presented a request to
divide approximately 500 acres into 2 parcels for conveyance
purposes only, located on the north side of I -15 on both sides
of Lake Street. This proposal has been reviewed pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act and determined to be
exempt.
Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.,
asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor.
Mr. John Friedman, Long Beach Equities, commented on this
being a logical extension of the already approved Specific
Plan and the proposed future plan. He then objected to
condition number 4, stating:
• The text of the General Plan states "if a road is not
shown on the circulation map it is a 60 -foot right -of-
way"; presented an excerpt of the Circulation Element,
which does not show Walker Canyon Road. Walker Canyon
Road was constructed by Cal- Trans, and lies within their
right -of- way - -did not have time to research who
physically maintains a road that is in Cal -Trans right -
of -way.
• Condition number 1 states that this map is for sale and
financing purposes only, does not feel this is the
appropriate time to look for dedication.
Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to speak in
favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those opposed.
Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:10
p.m.
Minutes of Planning Commission
November 20, 1991
Page 2
TENTATIVE FINANCIAL PARCEL MAP 27291 CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked that Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell
address condition number 4. Mr. O'Donnell commented as
follows:
• Only Secondary Streets and up are indicated on the
General Plan Circulation Element Map.
• The General Plan is in the process of being revised - -we
have a consultant working on the revision, we believe the
revised Circulation Element will be completed within 180
days. This has been discussed with the Director and it
is logical that this will be a Secondary Street, but no
guarantee.
• Under the Subdivision Map Act, if you are in the process
of revising the General Plan you can ask for future
requirements.
• Necessity -- Walker Canyon Road will be the connection
between Lake Street and Nichols Road.
• Financial Maps receive subdivision and property rights;
the only difference is, the applicant does not have to
bond or install improvements.
Commissioner Brinley inquired whether there would be a problem
taking it from 88 -foot to 60 -foot or if it should be left at
88 -foot and make the change on future proposals, if necessary.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded it could be a future
requirement.
Commissioner Wilsey suggested condition 4 be amended to read:
Dedicate sufficient land along Walker Canyon Road for up to a
maximum of 88 -foot street right -of -way, as needed by the City.
He then stated that the Specific Plan for this property will
require a traffic circulation study.
Chairman Saathoff commented on condition number 4, clarify
prior to City Council hearing; concerned with placing a
maximum and not knowing type of development that will take
place, and this being an important street as it will link
Nichols Road and Lake Street.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated the General Plan will
determine the street classification regardless of the develop-
ment proposed for the site.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE FINANCIAL PARCEL MAP 27291 BASED ON THE
FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN
THE STAFF REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON.
Approved 5 -0
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Single - Family Residence - 1109 Heald Avenue - Vang Pao -
Associate Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design
Review of a 1,937 square foot, single -story dwelling with a
462 square foot attached two car garage placed on a 8,250
square foot parcel, located at the north side of Heald Avenue
and fifty -feet east of Campus Way.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no
Minutes of Planning Commission
November 20, 1991
Page 3
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 1109 HEALD AVENUE CONTINUED
response, he asked for discussion at the table.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on the Design Review Committee
(DRC) review process and suggested staff include a segment in
the Staff Report on discussion from said committee.
Assistant Planner DeGange responded since this proposal is not
part of the Downtown Overlay District it is not subject to DRC
review, only the City's Architectural Consultant, Ballew and
Associates.
At this time, Chairman Saathoff excused himself from the table
and turned the gavel over to Vice - Chairman Gilenson.
Vice - Chairman Gilenson asked for further discussion from the
table. Receiving no response, he called for a motion.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRINLEY TO APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 1109 HEALD AVENUE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO THE 28 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SELLEVOLD.
Approved 4 -0 (Chairman Saathoff absent from the table)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS
City Planner Christen informed the Commission of the following:
1. There are several major Specific Plans that
are nearing the submittal stage. Also, there
are two major Specific Plans which will
probably be scheduled before this body in
early 1992:
a) Elsinore City Center, Railroad
Canyon and Grape
b) Murdock /Alberhill
2. Joint Study Session on Hillside Development, we are
working on establishing a Joint Study Session in
December, barring any problems with the holidays it may
go into January.
Commissioner Wilsey inquired whether a Specific Plan Committee
would be established, as in the past.
Mr. Christen stated Murdock is trying to establish one now. Our
suggestion was, they may want to wait until the first part of the
year - -not too far in advance and the project hasn't changed
significantly, but still allow a couple of months for review and
comment. However, City Center has not looked at this, but will
suggest it.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Minutes of Planning Commission
November 20, 1991
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Commissioner Sellevold
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Absent from the table.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey,
second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 4 -0 (Chairman Saathoff absent from the table)
Approo ed,
CS —�
Bill S athoGff,
Chairman
Respectfully s mitted
L nd ndstaff
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1991
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson.
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, and Assistant Planner Villa.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of November 20,
1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley.
Approved 5 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Saathoff stated he has received several requests to speak
on Residential Project 89 -11 Revision No. 2, 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.
There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed
the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
I- DRI0.i *X =*YblSi
1. Residential Project 89 -11 Revision No. 2 - MacLeod Develop-
ment Company - Associate Planner DeGange presented a request
for Minor Design Review approval of two additional models,
which will replace fifty -eight (58) previously approved models
(1 through 4), and includes a total of seven (7) different
models /floor plans, and re- affirmation of Environmental Impact
Report and Addendum adopted September 13, 1984 and April 9,
1985, respectively.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no
response, he asked for those wishing to speak on the proposal.
Mr. Peter Dawson, 32933 Cedar Drive, Lake Elsinore, requested
his statements be entered into the record.
"December 4, 1991
Planning Commission
I am Vice President of Landowners Mutual Corporation, the
small beach tract of homes on Marie and Ethlene Drives.
We are just downstream from the MacLeod Development,
across Grand Avenue. We are in the County area, however,
the problem arises from the MacLeod Development which is
within the city. Our problem should be familiar to you,
since the city was appraised of this problem and
potential problem last year thru our legal counsel. I
would like briefly to appraise you and the listening
public of our situation as it has been, as it is today,
and the potential damage we face in the future if
mitigation measures are not enforced.
Minutes of Planning Commission
December 4, 1991
Page 2
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NO. 2 CONTINUED
Our problem began two years ago as ground was broken for
the new MacLeod Development known as Prestonwood. The
winter of 1989/90 began for us with minor flooding of
several homes on Grand Avenue with an accompanying silt
layer from the hillside above. It was serious enough to
require fire and county flood crews to sandbag. MacLeod
crews came in after each storm that year and removed the
silt which had washed down from their newly cleared land.
Then, in the winter of 1990/91, with some roads in, a few
homes up, and the area cemented or blacktopped over
(perhaps 5 %), the first storms hit. They were not big,
but they did serious damage, flooding and silting yards
and homes. Fire and flood crews were again busy
sandbagging, and this time they used heavy equipment as
well. MacLeod sandbagged at the low end of the
development in an attempt to slow down the water as it
raced off the steep incline. This sandbagging approach
is still his only method of control here, and can be
viewed today. As the potential danger became apparent
from these early winter light rains, we called all
appropriate government agencies, but received very little
response. At this point we had several flooded homes, a
flooded business, a layer of silt in yards and roads up
to several inches thick, and these were just minor rains.
MacLeod informed our association that he would no longer
provide cleanup crews.
Our response was to hire an engineering firm and a legal
firm both well qualified specialists in their field, and
they addressed and looked at the Environmental Impact
Report which obviously had addressed this subject several
years before. The EIR provided several avenues for
relief, most of which have still not been provided for.
The solution to our problem appears on page 18, item #3
of the EIR which you are here to study tonight.
Our legal counsel wrote letters to each of the major
players, including the City of Lake Elsinore, so you
should be aware of our plight. County Flood Control
accepted our letter and gave a response; developer
MacLeod responded finally to our third letter thru his
insurance company, who has so far, paid us over
$17,000.00 in damages. The City of Lake Elsinore has yet
to officially respond to our letter of last year.
The damage is caused by runoff from a development within
the city and that construction should never have been
allowed without providing for the neighbor's relief,
whether or not those neighbors were in the same
jurisdiction.
The problem, as it now exists, is potentially worse than
it was last year, when, late in the season the March
rains hit. The water runoff from March rains eroded our
blacktop streets, silted many yards, flooded many homes,
and provided a truly dangerous situation on our beach,
where the sand was eroded six feet down, and up to thirty
feet across, totally destroying our beach, and exposing
a major community sewer line.
With the exception of sandbags, there have been no
corrective measures which will prevent a re -run of last
years' disaster. According to our engineer's
calculations, the potential threat for this season is
Minutes of Planning Commission
December 4, 1991
Page 3
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NO. 2 CONTINUED
approximately twenty times as great as last season
strictly due to the increase in land covered by roofs and
roads at this point, that is not considering a
potentially wet winter. As if this were not enough, a
new curb has been added, not parallel to Grand Avenue,
but at an oblique angle, which aims the runoff across the
street and straight to our doors. The potential will be
apparent to anyone who takes the time to see first hand
what we face.
If E1 Nino hits this winter, as some predict, what will
be the response? Will it be total shock and surprise at
the damage? Will you folks come and help sandbag each
time Dr. George predicts rain? Will you help shovel out
the homes? Will you sympathize with the child that falls
in the eroded holes in our beach, because, mark my words,
the potential is truly severe. If such comes to pass,
and if, God forbid, someone is killed as a result, it
will be difficult to hide from the media that the
governing agencies were aware of this potential disaster
long before it struck.
Let us work together to solve this problem and hazard
before the damage is done."
Mr. J.L. Mansbridge, 32877 Marie Drive, Lake Elsinore, a
member of the board of Landowners Mutual Corporation,
commented the drainage problems, stating there are two major
areas of concern, both are regarding water runoff and are
addressed in the EIR: 1) The hill behind the project which
collects water from above the project, identified by area "B"
on page 19 of the EIR. 2) The development area itself,
generally within area "C" on page 19 of the EIR. He then
commented on the drainage system, collecting culverts /drainage
pipe and stated that corrective measures are needed to avoid
disaster this winter. We have much information to share and
several solutions to this problem.
Ms. Margaret Downie, 15992 Grand Avenue, Lake Elsinore,
President of Landowners Mutual Corporation, reiterated
concerns on the drainage situation, and commented on the
amount of damage sustained from the rains in the last two
seasons.
Ms. Bonnie Dowling, 32895 Marie Street, Lake Elsinore, a
member of the board of Landowners Mutual Corporation, stated
they have a chronological picture history and video tapes of
the flooding of properties - -the system is not working and
something must be done.
Commissioner Gilenson suggested the item be continued as the
developer is not present to respond to the charges; would like
time to look into the EIR; never saw a letter from the
attorney addressing this point, and does not believe it
appropriate to vote on this item tonight.
Commissioner Brinley stated she concurs with Commissioner
Gilenson.
Commissioner Wilsey stated he concurs, and inquired about an
update or some insight on the problem. Community Development
Manager Shear responded that he was unaware of said letter,
but could check the file.
Minutes of Planning Commission
December 4, 1991
Page 4
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NO. 2 CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff asked Mr. Dawson if he could recall when the
letter was forwarded to the City. Mr. Dawson responded around
January of last year and it was addressed to City Council.
Community Development Manager Shear stated the City Engineer
should be contacted and a meeting scheduled to discuss the
problems.
Chairman Saathoff stated he concurs with the continuance.
Requested staff advise the applicant and the Engineering
Department of the statements made this evening, and indicate
that this matter was continued until satisfactorily resolved.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILENSON TO CONTINUE RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT 89 -11 REVISION NUMBER 2, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
BRINLEY.
Approved 5 -0
Chairman Saathoff requested staff provide a progress report at
the next meeting. Commissioner Wilsey requested that the
information also be relayed to the people who spoke this
evening.
PLANNING DEPARTMENTBS COMMENTS
Community Development Manager Shear stated that City Council is
looking to schedule a Joint Study Session the first two weeks in
January, late in the afternoon. If there are any conflicts, please
let us know. The topics are:
Hillside Development Workshop
Annexation Policy Direction
General Plan Clean -up
Zoning Clean -up
GIS Update
City Planner Christen introduced Armando Villa, Assistant Planner.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Sellevold
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Absent from the table.
Commissioner Brinley
Scheduling of the Joint Study Session, would request that it not be
scheduled the same day as a Commission Meeting.
Minutes of Planning Commission
December 4, 1991
Page 5
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley,
second by Commissioner Sellevold.
Approved 5 -0
pro ed,
C
1 athoff,
Chairman
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Grindstaff,
Planning Commission
Secretary
MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1991
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Sellevold.
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 Senior Civil Engineer
O'Donnell.
MINUTE ACTION
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of December 4,
1991, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey.
Approved 5 -0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There being no requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the
PUBLIC COMMENTS Section.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Residential Project 90 -8 Revision #1 and #2 - Pardee
Construction - Assistant Planner Villa presented a request to
revise the original approval which will encompass modifying
the approved color /materials board and replacing Plan #4 with
a smaller one -story at the Remington models, and increasing
the total square footage of all the models at Crestview. The
site is located at the southeast intersection of Railroad
Canyon Road and Cottonwood Hills Road, east of I -15.
Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone representing the
applicant and if there were any concerns.
Mr. Mike McGee, Project Manager for Pardee Construction, gave
a brief history on the proposal. Commented on the housing
market demands and color schemes - -will add additional color
schemes, if necessary. He then commented on the following
conditions:
Condition No. 2, suggested the word "Model" be changed to
"Tract ".
Condition No. 3, requirement of two additional parking spaces.
Condition No. 4, solid block fencing, the approved Specific
Plan document addresses this matter. Inquired about
compliance with Section 17.14.130.d of the Municipal Code and
rights vested under the approval of Residential Project 90 -8
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848.
Commissioner Brinley commented on the type block fencing and
color scheme integration.
Community Development Manager Shear responded that fencing
requirements will be accomplished through Condition Number 11
of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848.
Minutes of Planning Commission
December 18, 1991
Page 2
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -8 REVISION #1 AND #2 CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff commented on deleting condition number 4;
number of plans and whether the percentage of mix is being
changed. Mr. McGee responded in the negative.
Commissioner Gilenson commented on compliance with Condition
Number 11 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848; no problem
with the project itself, but still feels Environmental Impact
Report is inadequate.
Commissioner Wilsey commented on fencing - -must meet provisions
of the approved Specific Plan, condition number 4; color
scheme - -not having the sameness of color throughout the tract;
condition number 2, upgrade of window treatments, suggested
mullions be provided on corner lots where exposed to public
view and on second floor elevations.
Chairman Saathoff commented on providing stucco framing when
in public view and mullions optional.
Discussion ensued on window enhancements to be provided, and
staff to come up with exact language.
Motion by Commissioner Brinley to re- affirm Environmental
Impact Report 88 -1 and approve Residential Project 90 -8
Revision #1 and #2 based on the Findings and subject to the 6
Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the
following amendments:
Condition No. 2: Both tracts shall be upgraded to provide
window enhancements for rear and side
elevations where visible from public
view, subject to approval of the
Community Development Manager.
Condition No. 4: Applieant -hall -- .. -_rm with previsien
17.14.130.d —e€ the- -Lak -E �rlsi_
,., eek F......; _. DELETE
Condition No. 5: The applicant shall comply with the
color /material board submitted and
approved.
Second by Commissioner Wilsey.
Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no)
PLANNING DEPARTMENTIS COMMENTS
Community Development Manager Shear stated at the last meeting
staff was directed to information the Engineering Department of the
statements made on the MacCleod Development, and provide a progress
report. The Engineering Department is still working on resolving
those issues.
Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell gave a verbal report on the
MacCleod drainage /flooding issues. At this point, sandbags are
being utilized to direct the seasonal run -off, and it is felt that
the developer has reduced the run -off to an insignificant level.
There will still be some run -off, but the problems will not be as
severe as last March. The portion of Grand Avenue that is subject
to periodic flooding is in the County, and since Grand Avenue is
not fully improved there will still be some flooding where lots are
at street grade.
Minutes of Planning Commission
December 18, 1991
Page 3
PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS CONTINUED
Chairman Saathoff stated that additional information is needed and
suggested the Commission go out to the site with Mr. O'Donnell.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Commissioner Gilenson
Asked if a date had been set for the Study Session. Community
Development Manager Shear responded in the negative.
Commissioner Brinley
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Sellevold
Nothing to report.
Commissioner Wilsey
Nothing to report.
Chairman Saathoff
Extended appreciation to the City and Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District for working together - -may provide a lake to Lake
Elsinore.
Commented on the meeting of January 1, 1992 (New Year's Day) and
whether this meeting would be conducted. The Secretary responded
since this is a Holiday and there are no agenda items listed this
meeting will be called.
There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning
Commission adjourned at 7:47 p.m. to the Regular Meeting of January
15, 1992. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner
Gilenson.
Approved 5 -0
A owed,
Bi 1 S a- o ,
Chairman
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Grindstaff,
Planning Commission
Secretary