Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-1990 NAHMINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Manager Thornhill, Associate Planner Restivo, Assistant Planner Fairbanks and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of December 20, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Gilenson asked for discussion, and referred to Page 7, Planning Commissioners comments. His comment on Machado and Lakeshore for clarification this should read at the northeast corner and not the northwest corner. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the minutes of December 20, 1989, with said correction, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION THAT BUSINESS ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND TAKEN UP PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single - Family Residence - 15132 Via Valle - Fred & Jessie Drewett (TR Construction) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to place a single - family mobile home containing 1,976 square feet with a detached garage of 484 square feet on a 7,591.2 foot lot, located at the northwest side of the intersection of Via Valle and Via Cordova. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on condition number 14, with regard to definition of permanent foundation, stem wall foundation and pier foundation; whether or not the mobile would be placed on piers or a solid foundation; if the mobile is above ground level it be placed on a solid foundation and eliminate the skirting; if skirting is utilized it shall be of decorative block or brick; whether or not condition number 18 and 26 are duplicate conditions and if so delete condition number 26; condition number 10 pertaining to roof mounted equipment and amending this condition by adding "no roof mounted equipment except for swamp coolers ". Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 15132 Via Valle based on the Findings and subject Minutes of Planning Commission January 3, 1990 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE _ 15132 VIA VALLE CONTINUED to the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 10: "All exterior air conditioning units, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equipment incidental to development shall ground mounted and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened." Condition No. 14: Mobile home shall "skirts" or low profile skirting is utilized it brick, subject to the Community Development designee." second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 De provided with foundation. If shall be block or approval of the Director or his Single - Family Residence - 15136 Via Valle - Russell & Elizabeth Barter (TR Construction) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to place a single - family mobile home containing 1,976 square feet with a detached garage of 484 square feet on a 7,591.2 foot lot, located at the northeast side of the intersection of Via Valle and Via Cordova. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. The same concerns were raised on conditions 10 and 14, as stated on 15132 Via Valle. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 15136 Via Valle based on the Findings and subject to the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 10: "All exterior air conditioning units, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equipment incidental to development shall ground mounted and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened." Condition No. 14: "Mobile home shall "skirts" or low profile skirting is utilized it brick, subject to the Community Development designee." second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 oe provided with foundation. If shall be block or approval of the Director or his Minutes of Planning Commission January 3, 1990 Page 3 3. Monument Sign for Commercial Project 88 -14 - Joel Burnstine (Fuller's Sign and Design) - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request for a seven -foot high, eight -foot wide free - standing monument sign, signage area is 40 square feet, for the Lake Elsinore Carwash, to be located approximately ten -feet from the Casino Drive property line on the east side of the western most entrance. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Bruce Fuller, Fuller's Sign & Design, representing the applicant stated that they were in agreement with staff recommendation. A brief discussion was held on condition number 7, pertaining to the base grade of the planter area. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Monument Sign for Commercial Project 88 -14 based on the Findings and subject to the 9 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with condition number 7 amended, to read as follows: Condition No. 7: "The sign height shall not exceed six -feet (61) above the base grade of the planter area or six -feet (61) above the top of the curb line, whichever is less. Any mounded areas of the landscape planter shall be around the sign so that the sign height does not exceed six -foot (6') above the base grade of the planter area." second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 4. Final Landscape Plans for Commercial Project 88 -11 - Erwin Palmer - Associate Planner Restivo presented the final landscape plans, as required by condition number 7, for Commercial Project 88 -11, a 6,150 square foot pavilion, 600 square foot gatehouse /store and a five foot high slumpstone wall, located in Elsinore West Marina which is 42.37 acres located southerly of Riverside Drive, east of Grand Avenue, and west of the State Park. Associate Planner Restivo requested that condition number 2.a. be amended, to read as follows: Condition 2.a.: "A sidewalk is to be constructed one - foot (11) from the slumpstone block wall along Riverside Drive. Ficus Pumila (creeping fig) is to be planted in the one -foot (11) area as specified by the City's Landscape Architect. Any other landscaping in this area will be upon recommendation of the City's Landscape Architect." Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Erwin Palmer stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. Commissioner Gilenson suggested that the standard landscape bonding verbiage be added as condition number 5. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 2.a. pertaining to the practicality of the one -foot planter area and the Minutes of Planning Commission January 3, 1990 Page 4 FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88 -11 difficulty in maintaining said area due to foot traffic. Recommended having the sidewalk right up against the wall except that every 100 feet bring it out (meandering sidewalk), put in 4 -6 foot planters, something that is practical and will take in the topography., Commissioner Wilsey stated that according to the Staff Report the primary concern with regard to the meandering sidewalk was the first 150 feet, approximately, and suggested that the sidewalk be up against the wall for that 150 feet and then work into the meandering sidewalk. Discussion ensued on condition number 2.a. pertaining to the type of sidewalk to be constructed due to the grade differential and the 750 square feet of landscaping; continuing the proposal to allow resolution of condition number 2.a. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue the Final Landscape Plan for Commercial Project 88 -11, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER BUSINESS ITEMS 5 AND 6 CONCURRENTLY. Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented the following proposals as listed: Residential Project 89 -20 - Albert Leon - A proposal to construct a two -story duplex, located 150 feet east of the southeast corner of Heald Avenue and Chestnut Street. The proposal is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Residential Project 89 -21 - Albert Leon - A proposal to construct a two -story duplex, located 180 feet north of the northeast corner of Pottery Street and Lindsay Street. The proposal is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Albert Leon, applicant, questioned condition number 15 pertaining to fencing on both projects. Discussion was held on landscape bonding and the standard landscape bonding verbiage added as condition number 13.a.; condition number 15, pertaining to fencing requirements, and architectural enhancements for the structure. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 89 -20 based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition 13.a.: "All landscape improvements to be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and re- leased at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for materials and labor for one year." Minutes of Planning Commission January 3, 1990 Page 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -20 AND 89 -21 CONTINUED Condition 15: "Walls shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls), subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 89 -21 based on the Findings and subject to the 35 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition 13.a.: "All landscape improvements to be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and re- leased at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for materials and labor for one year." Condition 15: "Walls shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls), subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 7:55 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:09 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. 7. Determination of Substantial Conformance with General Plan - Riverside County - Community Development Director Gunderman stated that staff requests that this item be continued to the meeting of January 17, 1990. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to meeting of January 17, 1990, second by Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS continue this item to the Commissioner Gilenson. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING #2 PRIOR TO #1. 2. Development Agreement - Brighton Homes - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested this item be removed from the agenda, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to remove the Development Agreement for Brighton Homes from the agenda, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 1. Tentative Tract Map 23988 - Ortega Partners (Continued from December 20, 1989) - Planning Manager Thornhill stated that the applicant submitted a revised Tentative Tract Map on December 14, 1989, in an attempt to address the previously expressed concerns of the Planning Commission and adjacent property Minutes of Planning Commission January 3, 1990 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23988 = ORTEGA PARTNERS CONTINUED owners. The revised map differs from the previous map as follows: 1. The number of lots has decreased from 283 to 266, a difference of seventeen (17) lots. 2. The density has decreased from 3.9 dwelling units per acre to 3.7 dwelling units per acre. 3. Terra Cotta has been redesigned to reduce straight sections near the southwesterly corner of the property. This was done to address concerns over traffic speeds and to limit access southerly to the adjacent neighborhood. 4. Parcel sizes along the southerly and easterly boundaries have been substantially increased and are more consistent with the 75% ordinance criteria; the parcels range from approximately 66% to 108% of adjacent parcels, except for lots located adjacent to the Flood Control District property and the Wilsey property. 5. Lots 151 -155 (which are now re- numbered as lots 168, 169, 170, and 205) have been re- configured to reduce traffic conflicts; these lots no longer take access off of Terra Cotta. Commissioner Wilsey asked to be excused due to possible conflict of interest. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8 :15 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 23988. Mr. Jeff Kenyon, Senior Project Manager with California Communities, stated that he agrees with Mr. Thornhill's analysis, and would like to emphasize that substantial changes have been made that do benefit the community and the map. Mr. Kenyon then stated that there were some minor changes requested on November 29, 1989, concerning some of the Conditions of Approval and though Mr. Thornhill was going to read them into the record. Planning Manager Thornhill stated that he believes the changes can be discussed at the time the Conditions of Approval are discussed. Mr. Kenyon stated they have had their civil engineer, Michael Hunt, work closely with staff and believes the concerns of the Commission have been improved, accomplished or mitigated. Mr. Hunt has also met with some of the homeowners. Mr. Kenyon stated that one concern that may not have been addressed by staff or brought up previously is, the type and size of house that is anticipated for construction. We are talking about housing that will be, rough approximation, 1,800 -1,900 square feet up to 2,400 -2,500 square feet, possibly even larger. Mr. Kenyon stated that he would like to have Mr. Michael Hunt, answer any technical questions concerning the changes that have been made, and would like to reserve the right to address the Commission later on if need be. Mr. Michael Hunt, Pacific Coast Engineering, representing Ortega Partners and California Communities, stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Minutes of Planning Commission January 3, 1990 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23988 _ ORTEGA PARTNERS Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 23988. Mr. John Mandrell, Keith Companies Butterfield Office, stated that they have been working with eight (8) property owners, of which this is one, over the past two (2) years in an effort to form the West Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District (CFD), which will provide certain infrastructure to serve this area. The map before you has 266 lots, this is slightly less than was originally anticipated. From an overall district standpoint we are very interested in the final unit count, because the cost has escalated beyond what was originally anticipated. If there are any questions from the standpoint of the CFD, I will try to answer them. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 23988. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The following persons expressed concern on Tentative Tract Map 23988 as follows: design and layout of tract; excessive slopes, landscaping and fencing; density; configuration of the knuckle on "J" Street which turns into Princo Street, and Princo should be a dead end street; drainage /flooding in the area; traffic impacts on Alvarado, Princo and Timey Streets and public safety in the area; two -story homes should be changed to single -story ranch homes which would be conducive with existing; a green belt should be provided; Timey Street should be closed; recreational trail; impact on schools, Lot "A" bordering the small lots being undeveloped City property. Scott Josefsen, 15070 Alvarado Street; Rita Wilsey, 15015 Lincoln Street; George Pratt, 15058 Christina Court; Rosemary Connelly, 30516 Princo Street; Edward Kane, 15431 Alvarado Street; James Brown, 30537 Princo Street; Peggy McCormack, 30560 Timey Street; Teri Ducar, 30520 Timey Street; Mark Hollingsworth, 15161 Alvarado Street; Dan Grimes, 15371 Alvarado Street; Betty Ballewski, 15750 Alvarado Street; Richard Baine, 30521 Timey Street; Ed Stewart, 2157 Calle Alverte, San Juan Capistrano; Alvie Baker, 30580 Coplas Street; Si Carnagey, 30536 Princo Street Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. Chairman Brown commented on the following concerns brought up: density, slopes, flooding /drainage, issues on Lot "A ", and mitigation measures to resolve these concerns being placed on the proposal as conditions of approval which the applicant must meet. Mr. Kenyon commented on the following concerns brought up: consistency of density and the 75 percent ordinance require- ment; traffic concerns in the area particularly with Timey and Princo - -if staff recommends that Timey Street be closed would not be opposed to this closing, and the extension of Princo has already been approved via the Marinita Tract. Minutes of Planning Commission January 3, 1990 Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23988 = ORTEGA PARTNERS Mr. Michael Hunt, Pacific Coast Engineering, commented on concerns raised, as follows: - Significant slopes and the rear property lines; - Density consistency with surrounding approved tracts, Premier tract to the north approved at 3.6, Art Nelson's tract to the southeast approved at 3.94, Marinita tract was approved at 2.8, Tomich tract, which is to the west of the Premier tract, was approved at 3.6, and the density we propose right now is 3.7 dwelling units per acre; - "J" Street knuckle - -the double cul -de -sac was created to deter traffic movement to Princo. The cul -de -sac to the west could be extended through, similar to the way the old map was and that knuckle could be replaced in order to negate or address the concern of traffic storage, volume and quick right /left turn movements onto Princo; - Drainage, believes that this has been adequately addressed. The assessment district is planning on putting in that trapezoidal channel down to Machado up into the McVickers Canyon with a debris basin which becomes a dam, and acts as a retention basin of 40 foot. The in tract drainage has been setup so that we actually divert water, that historically went to the area to the south, into the channel. We have proposed a storm drain line on that plan that goes all the way to the westerly tract boundary. - Traffic on Alvarado, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the traffic for the overall area. As far as the in tract circulation, we have added extra turn movements to deter people from driving suddenly to Princo and to Timey Street and, as stated by Mr. Kenyon, if it comes down to closing off Timey Street we are not opposed to that. However, would like to point out that we do need two (2) points of fire access and this would create a problem if we were to close Timey. The access onto Princo was approved via the Marinita Tract. Green Belt, we have easterly and southerly belt and has access traffic. Believes that meeting, suggested that access as opposed to an proposed a 95 foot strip along the ooundary that would act as a green for both equestrian and pedestrian Commissioner Wilsey, at the last this be called a recreational public equestrian access. - School issues - Mr. Kenyon needs to address this issue. - Equestrian issue was addressed with a 25 foot strip. - Lot "A ", being the flood control area. Mr. Kenyon contacted the title company to get an opinion of who actually owned that area, and all of the information that we have at this time is, that is owned and was dedicated under Map 19402 -1 to the City for flood control purposes. Commissioner Saathoff requested that Mr. Mandrell comment briefly on the West End Assessment District. Mr. Mandrell stated that the key issue on the West End District was the drainage problem, and specifically the major drainage Minutes of Planning Commission January 3, 1990 Page 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23988 - ORTEGA PARTNERS CONTINUED facilities to serve the west end of lake. This consisted of, as it relates to this project, the diagonal channel that travels through the site. The West End Assessment District proposes to build two (2) major facilities: 1) This facility from Machado up to McVickers Canyon along with the necessary debris basin in McVicker Canyon; 2) Line "C", which is called out on the West Lake Elsinore Master Plan of Drainage which goes from the Lake up to Rice Canyon. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Brinley commented on density, drainage /flooding and traffic concerns in the area, continuing the proposal to allow sufficient time to resolve the concerns, and suggested that the property owners select a representative or representatives and meet with the applicant to discuss and resolve the concerns. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the density, figures listed in the Staff Report being inconsistent; density being con- sistent with the General Plan, but there should be continuity with surrounding homes and the new development in the area, and continuing the proposal for thirty (30) days to allow resolution of the concerns. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to continue Tentative Tract Map 23988 for 30 days, second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Saathoff asked for discussion, asked for Engineer- ing Department input on Timey Street. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that they would prefer that those streets not be cul- de- saced. From an engineering standpoint, the circulation for the tract is pretty good. Commissioner Saathoff commented on Lot "A" and the concern with the small lots that border Lot "A"; lot sizes, density and the proposal being compatible with surrounding area; traffic impacts. Chairman Brown asked that the homeowners select a representa- tive and an alternate representative, someone who could make at least two meetings within the next two weeks, and these names and telephone numbers given to Mr. Kenyon and staff. Chairman Brown also suggested that the representative obtain all the necessary documents, Staff Report, Conditions of Approval, and the Environmental Impact Report, from City Hall. If there is anything that you do not understand contact staff or myself. Discussion ensued on the earliest possible meeting time the homeowner's representative and the applicant could meet with regard to resolution of the concerns, and a time line for continuation. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Vote: 2 -2 Commissioners Saathoff and Brown opposed. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Tentative Tract Map 23988 to January 17, 1990, second by Chairman Brown. Approved: 3 -1 Commissioner Gilenson opposed. Minutes of Planning Commission January 3, 1990 Page 10 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Commission of the following: Gabrielle Restivo was promoted to Associate Planner, effective Monday, January 1, 1990. Saied Naaseh - Shahry will be on board January 22, 1990, as an Associate Planner. We now have one Assistant Planner position open, due to Gabrielle's promotion. We are now recruiting for the Senior Planner and Assistant Planner Positions. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Requested status on the stop sign at Machado and Lakeshore, which was brought up at the last meeting, as there was another accident there. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that he believes that the Director issued a memorandum on that, and it has something to do with the utility station there and the right -of -way. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that a response will be provided by January 5, 1990. Blast From the Past is coming up in two weeks, its a 50's dance and the proceeds go to United Cerebral Palsy. Commissioner Brinlev Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsev Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m.. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5 -0 Res ctfully inda Grin Planning Com Secretary tted, taff mission MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Manager Thornhill, Associate Planner Restivo, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of January 3, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 89 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore at the request of Deleo Clay Tile (Continued from December 6, 1989) - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request to amend the Parking Ordinance, Chapter 17.66.030.0 of the Municipal Code, to allow flexibility and /or reduce parking requirements for single manufacturing enterprises. The Zone Code Amendment will affect parking requirements for manufacturing /industrial uses City -wide. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 89 -3. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the parking determination not running with the land. If the use were to change or the facility sold the new occupant would have to increase the parking or build out the parking requirements, correct? Community Development Director Gunderman responded that if the use is substantially different than what was approved then they would have to come back to the Commission for another parking determination. If they can demonstrate that the parking needs are the same, as they were under the parking waiver, then they could continue to occupy the building. But there would have to be a review at the time a business license is taken out or any other action is taken on the building. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the fee range for the parking determination. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that it would probably be the industrial design review type fee with perhaps a slight additional fee for analysis of the documents involved to meet the findings. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he believes this can be monitored easily if there is a substantial change in the business or a new business license. Concern would be if the Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1990 Page 2 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 89 -3 applicant requested fewer parking spaces based on the number of employees, work hours, etc. The applicant retains the building and substantially increases his work force or changes hours. If there is no restriction on the number of employees or the hours of operation, how would you monitor this? Community Development Director Gunderman responded that there are two ways: 1) During the Design Review process we would request to the Commission a continuous six month review of the project to ensure compliance; 2) Periodic inspections through code enforcement. Commissioner Saathoff responded that this is feasible but difficult to implement, and puts a substantial burden on the City. If this is done then the applicant should initiate, once ever six months or annually, something to substantiate the fact that parking spaces required originally are still adequate, and put the burden on the applicant not the City. This should be included whether it be in the amendment or on a case -by -case basis. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that the intent was for a case -by -case basis, rather than including it in the ordinance. Chairman Brown stated that he had the same concerns. Suggested that number 2.b, be amended to read: "An initial parking study and an annual review which supports the findings that the number of parking spaces actually needed for a development and /or use is less than that required by the Code." Commissioner Saathoff stated that there may be certain situations where there would not be a need for an annual report. On a case -by case basis, we could require more frequent reports or less frequent reports. Commissioner Saathoff commented on number 2.g. with regard to an applicant requesting reduced parking spaces and increasing the size of the building. Chairman Brown stated that he would like this to go back for further review. The parking issue will have to be addressed - -you may not have to improve the other area which would otherwise be dedicated for parking, but you have to go ahead and dedicate enough area on the plot plan to meet the original code. Discussion ensued on whether or not the convertible area could be utilized for storage; parking spaces to be provided so that they run with the building if the use should change and additional parking is required; continuing the proposal for further review. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Zone Code Amendment 89 -3 to a future meeting, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 2. Tentative Tract Map 23988 - Ortega Partners - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to February 7, 1990, and asked if there were any comments from the table. Community Development Director Gunderman gave a brief overview on the meeting of January loth between the applicant, property owners' representative and staff. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1990 Page 3 TRACT MAP 23988 CONTINUED At this time, 7:23 p.m., Commissioner Wilsey left the table. Chairman Brown asked if the proposal was on schedule for the meeting of the 7th. Planning Manager Thornhill stated that this depends on whether or not we can get together with the applicant and the property owners' representative again prior to the next meeting. There is a meeting tentatively scheduled for Monday, January 22, 1990. Chairman Brown informed the people in the audience present for this item, that staff has recommended this item be continued to February 7th with a possibility that it could be continued again. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Tentative Tract Map 23988 to February 7, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey absent from the table) 3. Tentative Parcel Map 25157 - Bainbridge Investment, Inc. - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to February 21, 1990, and asked if there was anyone in the audience here for this item. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Tentative Parcel Map 25157 to February 21, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey absent from the table) At this time, 7:26 p.m., Commissioner Wilsey returned to the table. 4. Tentative Tract Map 24624 - Centex Homes - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a proposal to subdivide 203.4 acres into 589 single - family lots, generally located south of the extension of Mountain Avenue and west of the terminus of Broadway Avenue. Anticipated environmental impacts for this proposal are addressed by Environmental Impact Report 88 -2 which was certified by the City Council on December 12, 1989. Planning Manager Thornhill stated that the Engineering Department has requested that condition number 34 be deleted, and condition number 30 amended to read, as follows: Condition No. 30: "I" Street from Grand Avenue to northerly tract boundary shall have an 80 foot right -of -way with 64 foot curb -to -curb, a landscaped median, a 6 foot parkway on the west side and a 10 foot parkway on the east side. The east side parkway shall have a 6 foot sidewalk the entire length and the west side parkway shall have a 6 foot sidewalk from Grand Avenue to the first street north of "I -I" Court." Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 24624. Mr. Mike Aller, Centex Homes, stated that they agree with the conditions of approval; however, has not had an opportunity to review the revised condition on the roadway width, and would like to request that staff work with us regarding reimbursement for that portion of the design that is over the needs of this development. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1990 Page 4 TRACT MAP 24624 Mr. Aller stated that the exact unit count is 590, and the density -- thinks it is important to include the park site of 26 acres which is to the south of the project. Once you consider that into our total acreage the density is reduced to 2.6 dwelling units per acre, which is below the adjacent development. Mr. Aller commented on condition number 16.e. pertaining to the preservation of the single coast live oak tree, stating the problem with the tree is that it is located directly in the centerline of the flood control channel that the assessment district is building. We would like this reworded that we will replace that tree with a 10:1 ratio to be planted in the oak grove, which is a 2.37 acre parcel, or plant the trees in the rectangular riparian area. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24624. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Mr. William Bishop, 40492 Corta Lucia, Murrieta stated that his property touches the Centex property line for about 40 feet at Lot #592. Concerned with the access to his property at the southeast corner. Requested that the approval of Lots 590 and 591 be delayed until he can have discussions with Centex, Butterfield Engineering and the Planning Division about this access. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Mr. Robin Johnson, 15018 Vista View, commented on the impacts on the neighborhood pertaining to traffic and possible loss of view. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the restriction of access Mr. Bishop referred to. Considerable discussion ensued on this access. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the northerly extension of "I" Street, and the need for stop signs to be placed at some of the intersections. Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows: - condition number 16.e., pertaining to the oak tree, asked about the tree planting formula used for Cottonwood Hills and whether or not this formula could be adopted for this proposal. - Suggested that the developer get together with the property owners in the area and alleviate any concerns. - The multi - purpose trail running through the development, recommended the following be added as as a condition: "Project shall coordinate with the City and the Riverside County Parks Department to construct the portion of the recreational trail system that runs through the project." Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1990 Page 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24624 CONT, Discussion ensued on the multi - purpose trail system with regard to dedication of land, width of trail, development of design standards, and responsibility of maintenance. Commissioner Saathoff suggested dedication and construction of a multi - purpose trail with approval subject to the Community Development Director or his designee. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the requirement for multi- purpose trail system placed on adjacent tracts, and the need to complete the design criteria for said trail systems. Discussion ensued on the multi - purpose trail system with regard to requiring dedication of land only; location of said trail; trail system to come back before the Commission, and elimination of the Class "A" Bike Trail for the all purpose trail. Chairman Brown commented as follows: - Condition number 4, change the word "grading" to "building ". - Condition number 7, delete the words "or grading ". - Condition number 16.d., add second sentence: "Slope and erosion control plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of grading permit." - Condition number 16.e., add: "if possible, if not replace at a ratio of 10:1 with two year growth trees, 20:1 at one year and 30:1 if less than one year mature. - Notification to property owners and when the last mailing was done. Recommended addition of condition number 49: "Temporary access /right -of -way shall be provided to the Bishop parcel, and permanent access shall be provided and recorded with the final map." Recommended addition of condition number 50: "All attempts will be made to dedicate area sufficient to coincide with the County's trail system, at the beginning of the terminus to match as closely as possible with that trail system. A final design and required dedication to be directed by the Community Development Director and if he is unable to do it then it shall come back to the Commission." Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24624 based on the Findings and subject to the 48 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 4: "House plotting, architectural drawings, floor plans, landscaping and fences /walls shall require Minor Design Review approval prior to issuance of building permits. All standards of development and procedural steps in effect at the Minor Design Review submittal shall apply for this project." Condition No. 7: "Applicant shall submit and receive approval of landscape and irrigation plans for model homes (if such are Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1990 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24624 desired), back -up wall areas, street trees and slope planting in accord with the City Landscape Guidelines, prior to issuance of building permit. At least one (1) model home to include a Xeriscape landscaping theme." Condition No. 16.d: "Native plant material shall be used for re- landscaping of cut and fill slopes. Slope and erosion control plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of grading permit." Condition No. 16.e: "The fresh water willow pond located on the southern corner of the proposed park shall be set aside and protected from intrusion from the local mining operation. A single coast live oak overlooking the pond shall also be preserved if possible, if not replace at a ratio of 10:1 with two year growth trees, 20:1 at one year and 30:1 if less than one year mature. Condition No. 30: "I" Street from Grand Avenue to northerly tract boundary shall have an 80 foot right -of -way with 64 foot curb -to -curb, a landscaped median, a 6 foot parkway on the west side and a 10 foot parkway on the east side. The east side parkway shall have a 6 foot sidewalk the entire length and the west side parkway shall have a 6 foot sidewalk from Grand Avenue to the first street north of "I -I" Court." Condition No. 34: "I" Street from Grand Avenue to "F" Court shall have 80 foot right -of -way and 64 foot curb -to -curb. DELETE. Condition No. 49: "Temporary access /right -of -way shall be provided to the Bishop parcel, and permanent access shall be provided and recorded with the final map." Condition No. 50: "All attempts will be made to dedicate area sufficient to coincide with the County's trail system, at the beginning of the terminus to match as closely as possible with that trail system. A final design and required dedication to be directed by the Community Development Director and if he is unable to do it then it shall come back to the Commission." Second by Chairman Brown with consideration by the table on addition of condition number 51, which will read: Condition No. 51: "City to draft a reimbursement agreement for the oversizing of "I" Street. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to include the addition of condition number 51. Approved 4 -0 At this time, 8:30 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:42 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1990 Page 7 5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25274 - Pardee Construction - Planning Manager Thornhill stated that the applicant could not make the meeting due to weather conditions and requests that this item be continued. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25274 to February 7, 1990, second by Chairman Brown. Approved 4 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION THAT BUSINESS ITEMS 8, 7 AND 9 BE MOVED TO THE BEGINNING OF THE BUSINESS ITEMS. 8. Industrial Project 89 -8 - Paul Carrara - Associate Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct an 18,255 square foot industrial building on approximately one acre, located 135 feet south of Minthorn Street, east of Third Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Paul Carrara stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. A brief discussion was held on condition number 17, pertaining to roof mounted equipment. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -38 and approval of Industrial Project 89 -8 based on the Findings and subject to the 45 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 7. Residential Project 89 -22 - Pardee Construction - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request for continuance on this proposal, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Residential Project 89 -22 to February 7, 1990, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 9. Industrial Project 89 -11 - Jess Rodriguez - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request for continuance on this proposal, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Industrial Project 89 -11 to February 7, 1990, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 6. Determination of Substantial Conformance with General Plan - County of Riverside (Continued from January 3, 1990) - Planning Manager Thornhill stated that this is a request for conformity with the General Plan for the disposal of 3.11 acres of property located on the south side of Railroad Canyon Road, approximately one -half mile southwest of its intersection with Cottonwood Canyon Road. Government Code Section 65402 states that whenever real property is acquired or disposed of, a determination of General Plan consistency shall be made by the Planning Commission. Pardee Construction is proposing to purchase the property from the County of Riverside; in order to effectuate the sale, the Government Code determination must be rendered prior to disposal by the County. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1990 Page 8 OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to notify the County of Riverside that the property is in substantial conformance with the General Plan for the City of Lake Elsinore, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 10. Commercial Project 89 -8 - Krouse Builders - Associate Planner Restivo presented a proposal for the construction of a 7,250 square foot commercial building on .344 gross acres, located at the northeast corner of Scrivener Street and Graham Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Surveys /The Keith Companies, stated that they prepared the map and would try to answer any questions that arise. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -53 and approval of Commercial Project 89 -8 based on the Findings and subject to the 56 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman stated that Ramsgate will be coming before the Commission soon, and there are a number of issues that are likely to be a part of this project. We felt that it would be appropriate to set up a subcommittee, consisting of two Planning Commissioners and two Councilmembers, to sit with staff and the developer to discuss and resolve major issues prior to public hearing. Therefore, we would request that the Commission appoint two Commissioners to serve on this subcommittee. We hope that there will not be more than two meetings and a follow -up meeting to insure that all issues have been complied with. Commissioners Saathoff and Gilenson were appointed to serve on this subcommittee, and Commissioner Wilsey as an alternate. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Inquired about the multi - purpose trail standard implementation status. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that this was discussed today with Community Services Director Watenpaugh, who has responsibility for developing those standards, and he expects to have a standard ready for review within 30 days. Commented on the 75% rule for zoning, and possibly the need for a meeting with City Council to discuss interpretation and guidelines for this 75% rule, and how staff should be handle this. The trail information that we have dealt with in the past, the most recent was on the Marinita Tract, should be made available to City Council. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1990 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Commented on major streets within the City being flooded, and asked if there was anything that could be done to alleviate some of the flooding, short of major reconstruction. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that this is one of the reasons that we have been so involved in assessment districts, so that we can get the funds available to do those types of things. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Requested that staff contact the City Attorney to see if it is included in the CC & R's that we have a right to enforce CC & R's assigned to or extended to the City. The apartment unit at Robertson and Riverside Drive is being vandalized again, the bank should be notified that they have 15 days in which to board up the building and secure the property or we shall start abatement procedures. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that we can post the building and temporarily secure the property, and then we will begin the notification process. Commissioner Brinley Absent. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 Approved, Jeff Brown, Chairman Respectfully submitted, *Linda Griindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Manager Thornhill, Associate Planner Restivo, Assistant Planner Fairbanks and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Minutes of January 17, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Brinley abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Tract Map 23988 - Ortega Partners (Continued from January 17, 1990) - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request to subdivide 72.5 acres into 259 lots, located northwesterly of Machado Street at the terminus of Lincoln Street. Environmental Impact Report 88 -2, previously certified by City Council, addresses the anticipated environ- mental impacts of this project. Planning Manager Thornhill requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 18: "Subdivider shall provide a 25 foot multi- purpose recreation trail identified as Lots "C", "D" and "E". Design and improvements, subject to the approval of the Community Services Director, shall include: a) Proper grading for drainage. b) Finish grade to be hydroseeded with low maintenance natural vegetation to prevent erosion. C) Trail to be improved to 5 foot wide with a D/G Surface, consistent with City General Plan, as amended December 10, 1985. d) The dedicated parcels, Lots "C", "D" and "E", will be incorporated with the City's Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District. e) Easements for trail access need to be provided adjacent to Lot "A" from Lot "E" to Terra Cotta Street along pro- perty boundaries of Lots 41 and 255. This condition to sunset if flood control easement is approved by Flood Control District for public trail usage." Minutes of Planning February 7, 1990 Page 2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Condition No. Commission 23988 CONTINUED 48: "Install stop Coplasa Street of Occupancy." sign on Timey Street at prior to first Certificate Commissioner Wilsey asked to be excused, due to possible conflict of interest. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 23988. Mr. Jeff Kenyon, Senior Project Manager for California Communities, gave a brief overview on the proposal and the changes that have taken place. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 23988. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Scott Josefsen, property owners' representative for the west end, stated that they (the residents) are still concerned with the following: density; incompatibility with existing lot sizes in the area; traffic impacts; need for sidewalks and street lights; public safety, and presented a petition with 200 signatures. The following persons expressed concern on Tentative Tract Map 23988 as follows: density; traffic circulation; the need for a stop sign at Princo and a signal at Lincoln and Machado. Mark Soderburg, 15058 Heather Lane; Alvie Baker, 30580 Coplas Street Rosemary Connelly, 30516 Princo Street; Rita Wilsey, 15015 Lincoln Street Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. The Secretary stated that written communication was received from Mr. Earl Doyle, 32173 Michele Drive, and a petition from the Laurel Point residents, 97 signatures, expressing concern on density. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Saathoff commented on lot sizes, and the stop sign at Princo. Commissioner Brinley commented on the density and lot sizes. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 4, pertaining to CC & R's, asking if there will be a homeowner's association to enforce the CC & R's, or will this be signed over to the City for enforcement? Planning Manager Thornhill responded that the City currently does not enforce CC & R's, and a homeowner's association is not anticipated. Chairman Brown commented on the traffic signal at Lincoln and Machado. Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23988 Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 23988 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and subject to the 47 Conditions of Approval with the following amendments: Condition No. 18: "Subdivider shall provide a 25 foot multi- purpose recreation trail identified as Lots "C", "D" and "E". Design and improvements, subject to the approval of the Community Services Director, shall include: a) Proper grading for drainage. b) Finish grade to be hydroseeded with low maintenance natural vegetation to prevent erosion. C) Trail to be improved to 5 foot wide with a D/G Surface, consistent with City General Plan, as amended December 10, 1985. d) The dedicated parcels, Lots "C", "D" and "E", will be incorporated with the City's Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District. e) Easements for trail access need to be provided adjacent to Lot "A" from Lot "E" to Terra Cotta Street along pro- perty boundaries of Lots 41 and 255. This condition to sunset if flood control easement is approved by Flood Control District for public trail usage." Condition No. 48: "Install stop sign on Timey Street at Coplasa Street prior to first Certificate of Occupancy." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Commissioner Wilsey returned to the table. 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25274 - Pardee Construction Company (Continued from January 17, 1990) - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request to continue this item indefinitely, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue indefinitely Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25274, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 3. Tentative Tract Map 24490 - Jones & Tomich - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request to continue this item to March 7, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Tentative Tract Map 24490 to March 7, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 4 4. Tentative Tract Map 24618 - George Wimpey /Morrison Homes - Associate Planner Restivo presented a proposal to subdivide 10.24 acres into 38 lots averaging 7,260 square feet for property located approximately 850 feet south of Grand Avenue, east of Grandview Avenue and west of Ortega Highway. Associate Planner Restivo requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 12: "Bond for drip or sprinkler irrigation system for common areas, prior to issuance of building permits. If a crib wall is proposed rather than a standard retaining wall, a planting /irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved, prior to issuance of grading permits, subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Consultant and the Community Development Director." Condition No. 22: Delete "Grandview Avenue, "A" Court and Trabuco Avenue." Condition No. 28: "Property lines shall be at the top of slopes with downslope areas to be considered common areas, and maintained as indicated in condition number 22, with the exception of Grandview Avenue and Trabuco Avenue." Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 24618. Mr. Jim Bolton of Butterfield Surveys, representing the applicant, requested clarification on the amended conditions. Associate Planner Restivo clarified amendments to conditions 12, 22 and 28. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 24618. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey commented on conditions 17, 18, 19, 20, asking if these were new conditions and will be included on future proposals. Assistant Planner Restivo responded that we are standardizing our conditions of approval, and these conditions will appear on future proposals. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 26, pertaining to the combination 4 foot high decorative block wall with 2 foot wrought iron. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he likes the idea of the crib wall. Chairman Brown commented on the Landscaping and Lighting District with regard to slopes. Considerable discussion ensued on height and maintenance of slopes; location and maintenance of crib wall; homeowner's association having an easement for maintenance of slopes along Ortega Highway, condition 22; delete the word "common" from Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 5 TRACT MAP 24618 CONTINUED condition 12 and 22 and replace with the word "slope "; delete from condition 28, the words "considered common areas" and replace with "maintained as stated in condition 22 "; how the crib wall could be landscaped or buffered. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -47 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 24618 based on the Findings and subject to the 59 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 12: "Bond for drip or sprinkler irrigation system for slope areas, prior to issuance of building permits. If a crib wall is proposed the applicant shall be responsible for landscaping /irrigation for the height and length of the crib wall. A planting /irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved, prior to issuance of grading permits, subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Consultant and the Community Development Director." Condition No. 22: "The developer shall establish a homeowner's association to manage and impose fees to maintain all slopes along Ortega Highway. The retaining wall located on the northeastern most tract boundary shall be maintained by the homeowner's association. All other walls shall be the responsibility of the individual homeowners. The homeowner's association shall be established to current State laws and be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and Community Development Director who shall review all CC & R's and rules for their adequacy and completeness. The City Attorney shall review the CC & R's, homeowner's association documents and all documents to convey title to the homeowner's association." Condition No. 28: "Property lines shall be at the top of slopes with downslope areas to be maintained as indicated in condition number 22, with the exception of Grandview Avenue and Trabuco Avenue." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 At this time, 8:20 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:31 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 5. Tentative Parcel Map 25442 - Doug Reuvers and Sharon Gibson - Associate Planner Restivo presented a proposal to subdivide 3.20 acres into 4 parcels which range in size from .58 acres to .99 acres, located west of Robertson Street and north of Shrier Drive. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 25442. Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25442 Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Surveys, representing the applicant, questioned condition number 14, pertaining to sewer connection. Mr. Crowe stated that the way the street pattern is this will exceed the 200 foot requirement to connect to sewer. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 25442. Mr. Dick Knapp, 29690 Dawn, commented on the notice he received indicating this property was zoned R -2 and the property is actually zoned R -1. Mr. Knapp stated that he feels this is a good project if we maintain the R -1 status. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 25442. Receiving no response, Chair- man Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Mr. Ken Howard, 17540 Grand Avenue, inquired about the zoning, R -1 or R -2; and asked for the proximity of sewer. Mr. Howard stated that he was concerned with percolation from the property above coming down onto his property. Associate Planner Restivo responded that the property is zoned R -1, and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District has provided us with a will serve letter. Mr. Dick Knapp expressed concern on traffic conditions in the area, especially coming off of Highway 74. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey suggested that on any document where it refers to R -2 that it be changed to R -1. The word "tract" should be changed to "parcel" in conditions 1, 2, 8 and 9. The standard language for septic system /sewer should replace the condition requiring sewer connection, condition 14. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he had concern with the intersection of Shrier and Riverside. Asked the City Engineer if Shrier could be blocked off (cul -de -sac) and eliminate a potential traffic hazard. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded there is that possi- bility, and we can have our traffic engineer look at barricading Shrier. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the sewer connection requirement and the distance involved; if it would be practical to implement the standard language for sewer /septic. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like to see it go on sewer. Commissioner Brinley stated she would like to see Shrier blocked off or cul- de- saced, until Riverside Drive is widened. Would like to see sewer, but would recognize option because of the distance. Chairman Brown commented on condition 39, pertaining to drainage and the Hydrology Study. The drainage situation at Robertson and Shrier does not work now, what is going to change? Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 7 PARCEL MAP 25442 Mr. Crowe responded that some method would have to be designed so that the intersection would not be impacted. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see the Hydrology Study come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Crowe responded that this would be acceptable, or if we could have it so that that meant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the drainage concerns were mitigated. Chairman Brown commented on the potential toxicological problem on the site. Discussion at the table ensued on drainage and traffic concerns at Shrier and Robertson; toxicological concerns and whether or not testing has been completed. Chairman Brown recommended that the Planning Commission receive copies of a toxic waste engineering test prior to recordation of final map and this added as a condition. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -49 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 25442 based on the Findings and subject to the 44 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments, and all documents showing the Zoning as R -2 shall be changed to reflect R -1: Condition No. 1: "Tentative Parcel Map 25442 will expire two (2) years from date of approval unless an extension is granted by the City of Lake Elsinore City Council in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act." Condition No. 2: "The Tentative Parcel Map shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and shall comply to all applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Title 16 and 17 unless modified by the Conditions of Approval." Condition No. 8: "Prior to final approval of Parcel Map 25442 the improvements specified herein and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be installed, or the bonds and agreement for said improvements, shall be submitted to the City, and all other stated conditions shall be complied with." Condition No. 9: "Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map by the City Council, all lots within this subdivision shall conform to the minimum dimensional standards of the R -1 Zoning District." Condition No. 14: "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 Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 8 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25442 CONTINUED Condition No. 45 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 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. "Toxic material test to be review prior to recordation of final map (Parcel 32, Book 378)." Second by Commissioner Gilenson with discussion. Commissioner Gilenson inquired about the blocking off of Shrier Drive. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that this be taken up independently, and request a recommendation from the Engineering Department. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 5 -0 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD AND TAKEN UP HEARING NUMBER 6. BUSINESS ITEMS COMMISSION THAT THE BUSINESS ITEMS BE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC 7. Single - Family Residence 16511 Arnold - James Conant - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 1,700 square foot two -story dwelling on a 6,000 square foot lot, located southwest of the intersection of Stoddard and Arnold Avenues. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response Chairman Brown asked for discussion. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Single - Family Residence at 16511 Arnold based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 8. Single - Family Residence - 29503 Nichols Street - Associate Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 3,142 Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 9 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 29503 NICHOLS CONTINUED square foot two -story dwelling on a 9,720 square foot lot, located at the junction of Nichols and Sannelle Streets. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response Chairman Brown asked for discussion. Discussion was held on condition number 22, pertaining to lot merger; property fronting two streets and if Capital Improvement fees would have to be paid for both streets; whether or not you could have a driveway on one side and an entrance on the other side. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 29503 Nichols Street based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 9. Residential Project 89 -22 - Pardee Construction Company (Continued from January 17, 1990) - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request to continue this item indefinitely, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue indefinitely Residential Project 89 -22, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 10. Industrial Project 89 -11 - Jess Rodriguez - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request to continue this item to March 7, 1990 and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to continue Industrial Project 89 -11 to the meeting of March 7, 1990, second by Chairman Brown. Approved 5 -0 11. Tract Map 19750 -1, 2 and 3 - Lewis Homes - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request for reconsideration of a previously approved off -site grading plan for Tract Map 19750, located at the southeast corner of Robb Road and Mountain Street. The City approved a rough grading plan for the project site in July, 1989. However, because of changes in ownership on the adjacent parcel where the off -site grading was proposed, an agreement previously entered into between the prior owners and the original developer became null and void. Chairman Brown left the table at 9:15 p.m., turning the gavel over to Vice Chairman Saathoff. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Discussion at the table was held on maintenance of slopes, and if there is a homeowner's association for the tract. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the Revised Grading Plan for Tract 19750 -1, 2 and 3, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 (Chairman Brown absent from table) PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Development Agreement - Brighton Homes - Mr. Hardy Strozier, Special Projects Consultant for the City, presented the proposed development agreement with Brighton Alberhill Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 10 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT = BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED Associates in connection with a portion of the Alberhill Ranch consisting of approximately 980 acres generally bounded by Interstate 15, Lake Street, Coal Road and Nichols Road. The proposed development agreement provides for a phased, mixed use development consisting of a minimum of 2,235 dwelling units and 2,722,500 square feet of commercial and industrial buildings, together with areas for schools, open space and recreational uses. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and related matters, which was previously approved by the City, is proposed to be recertified as adequate and complete with respect to the development agreement. Chairman Brown returned to the table at 9:26 p.m. Mr. Strozier gave a brief history on the proposal and stated that he would like to take the Commission through a brief description of the tradeoffs on both sides, and focus on some significant points in the development agreement, and requested the following corrections be made to the Staff Report: Staff Report = Proiect Description Brighton Homes has contracted to provide the following: 6. A development agreement fee of $2,000 per dwelling unit, or a total of $6,070,000, payable at building permit issuance. The City would contract to provide the following: 1. Development rights to 3,035 dwelling units and 2,722,500 square feet of commercial land use on 47 acres of land. This is an increase of 800 dwelling units beyond the approvals in the existing Specific Plan. This increase will mainly be comprised of multi - family units. Commissioner Saathoff asked for a definition of civic use. Mr. Strozier stated that he would define "civic use" as some use sponsored by the City. Commissioner Saathoff asked if there would be any substandard lot sizes. Mr. Strozier responded that legally we do not have any under sized lot, because we have an adopted Specific Plan. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he does not understand the language on the commercial and multi- family overlay. In your comment you gave a suggestion that at the whim of the developer they may decide to eliminate a little commercial and add a little more multi - family or vice versa. Mr. Strozier responded that they would not the apartments. They would only be able amount of commercial land area devoted to by taking it out of the multi - family areas. right to apply a zoning overlay, but they the design review process. De able to increase to increase the the commercial use They are given a have to go through Mr. Strozier referred to the Development Agreement and stated that he should point out that this Development Agreement provides vesting on two projects. It provides vesting on the project approved almost a year ago and vesting on this perspective Specific Plan, which you will see in 4 -6 months. He then commented on significant points within the agreement. Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 11 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT = BRIGHTON HOMES The Planning Commission commented on the Development Agreement as follows: Page 5 top of page, second sentence Chairman Brown suggested the the word "contemplate" be changed to "agree" and the word "will" substituted for "may ", in the second sentence. Commissioner Gilenson suggested the following verbiage: "which the City encourages and supports, to establish a PGA /USGA approved 18 -hole public golf course ". Page 6, top of page Chairman Brown asked about timing, and what the improvements of the golf course were being tied to. Would like to see a timing provision on the golf course. Mr. Strozier stated it is his intent to his opinion, that basis, through a p+ residential. They and water treatment of the golf course; that he discussed this with the developer; have the golf course in phase two. It is he only has water supply on a temporary ickage plan, to provide for phase one will be bringing on line a larger sewage facility that would be used for irrigation this would come on line in phase two. Chairman Brown inquired about the number of units in phase one and two. Mr. Strozier responded that phase one has 400 units. Chairman Brown asked if they would be opposed to bringing the golf course on line no later than 900 units. Mr. Strozier asked Commissioner Saathoff if he wanted to raise his issue about the clubhouse meeting space. Commissioner Saathoff stated that it states civic use, but prior to that it stated civic and community organizations, it should be consistent. Mr. Strozier stated that there is a definition section, and suggested that he bring back a definition. Page 88, and 9 Commissioner Gilenson commented on the sentence where it states "and at a rate of Development of its choosing, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement" would like to see a phasing schedule attached to this agreement. Mr. Strozier stated that the concern here is the developer does not want to tie himself, at least in terms of resi- dential, commercial and multi - family, to a contract that bears no relationship to the whims of the private market place. Mr. Strozier stated that he feels you should be focusing your efforts on the public tradeoffs: park, clubhouse, golf course, and not try to dictate when units or commercial space would come on line. This will come on line when the market place proposes it. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that language be added on what will happen to the school /park site if for some reason the school decides not to accept the site. Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 12 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BRIGHTON HOMES Mr. Strozier suggested that the school /park shall be so designed in coordination with the school district so as to minimize disruption of school facilities and programs. Page 15 and 16_ # 7, Amendments Commissioner Gilenson commented on page 15, second paragraph, pertaining to the mention of minor amendments listed: location of buildings, streets and roadways and other physical facilities. Page 16, pertaining to lot line adjustments, changes in the services offered, remodeling projects. Does not see how these are minor amendments - -these are major, would want them to come back before the Commission. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that the word "minor" be deleted if this language is to remain. Discussion ensued on the language in this section with regard to what is considered minor and definition of minor meaning anything not substantial; the Community Development Director's role, and the items coming back before the Commission as a business item. Page 18 Mr. Strozier made the following correction: - The figure on the top of page 18, change from 1,000 to 800 dwelling units. Chairman Brown suggested that the words "in the event of" be deleted and replace with "at approval of the ", at the top of the page. Page 21 and 22 Chairman Brown stated that on page 21, he would like to change the $2,000.00 figure to $4,000.00 plus $1.00 per foot on commercial, with it written into the agreement that the city is forgiving 50% of the residential and 100% of the commercial fee in the spirit of this document which provides for the golf course and amenities. Page 33 Mr. Strozier stated that there was a question raised about the language in the bottom quarter of this paragraph. What this says is that when you sell a home, lease space in a commercial center, rent or lease an apartment building that lessee or new buyer is not obligated with this contact. It does say that if Brighton Homes sells 50 acres then the new buyer is an assignee and is bound by this agreement. Chairman Brown commented on the golf course, stating that he would like to see this broken into sections: 9 holes at the first phase, 400 units, 18 holes at the second phase, 800 units, and a completed facility by 1,000 units, or some variation thereof. Commissioner Gilenson asked for further discussion on the PGA /USGA golf course criteria. Mr. Strozier stated that he would like to bring back to the Commission the PGA /USGA criteria. Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 13 AGREEMENT - BRIGHTON HOMES Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the Development Agreement. Mr. Jim Moore, representative of the Bull Canyon property owners, stated that they would like to see the extension of Nichols Road over to E1 Toro remain open through out all construction. Mr. Moore stated that he has a petition and copies of letters they have written to LAFCO. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the Development Agreement. Mr. Todd Cunningham, President of Brighton Homes, stated that this Development Agreement has been the product of many months of work with staff. There are a lot of issues that were raised tonight which we have addressed. There were three issues raised that would probably preclude us from going ahead with this project, especially with this Development Agreement. Our intention of this Development Agreement is to address both the Specific Plan as well as the future Specific Plan, because at this time we do not know which plan is the one that we will move ahead with. We have one approved, we would rather do this golf course plan because we think it is a far superior plan for us as well as the city. But it is a marginal economic plan compared to the existing plan, and we are in the process of evaluating which plan is the better plan in the long run for us. Mr. Cunningham commented on the standards for the PGA /USGA golf course; location and topography of the proposed golf course; phasing plan and the constraints; civic use; economic value of the school /park site; minor amendments and the Community Development Director's role; multi - family density and commercial property, and the recommendation to impose a $4,000.00 fee on the existing Specific Plan versus the $2,000.00 fee on the new plan. Discussion ensued on minor amendments and the Planning Commission's /Community Development Director's role; changes in service offered should not be included in the minor amendments as they are not guided by ordinance or conditions; the recommendation to increase the $2,000.00 fee to $4,000.00 per residential unit and this applying to the development agree- ment, and the feasibility /incentive for the construction of the golf course. Motion by Chairman Brown to continue the Development Agreement for Brighton Homes until such time that we can agree on what we are going to do, and to adjourn the meeting, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Chairman Brown called for the question. Commissioners Brinley, Gilenson and Brown voted aye (Commissioners Saathoff and Wilsey did not vote) Mr. Strozier requested that the Development Agreement be continued to a specific date, which would allow staff to meet with the developer and come back with some responses. The meeting was re- opened at 11:05 p.m., with discussion on the Development Agreement being predicated on the concept of a golf course; the Development Agreement being changed to predicate this with alternatives provided; incentive provided to prevent the developer from walking away from the commitment of the golf course, and continuing the Development Agreement to a date specific. Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1990 Page 14 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BRIGHTON HOMES Motion by Chairman Brown to continue the Development Agreement to March 7, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Appr d Jeff r wn, Chai n Respectfully bmitted, Lind Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 1990 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, Saathoff and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Wilsey Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Manager Thornhill, Associate Planner Restivo, Assistant Planner Fairbanks and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of February 7, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 25157 - Four Corners A Limited Partnership (Bainbridge Investments) - Continued from January 17, 1990 - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request to continue this item to March 21, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Tentative Parcel Map 25157 to March 21, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 2. General Plan Amendment 89 -9; Zone Change 89 -10; Specific Plan 87 -1 Revised; Variance 90 -1; Tentative Parcel Map 25106, Commercial Project 89 -6; Street Abandonment 89 -3 - Tomislav Gabric & Associates - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial; to rezone the site to C -2 (General Commercial); to consider Tentative Parcel Map 25106 which creates two new parcels, a new street, and indicates the vacation of three City streets, and; a Variance to reduce the front yard setback on the new street. This is a 6.6 acre vacant parcel located between Lakeshore Drive and Parkway, south of Avenue 6. Planning Manager Thornhill presented a memorandum illustrating minor corrections to the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Mark Telford, representing Tomislav Gabric, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if to speak in opposition. Receiving no response asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. response, Chairman Brown closed the public p.m. speak in favor. anyone wished Chairman Brown Receiving no hearing at 7:12 Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1990 Page 2 TOMISLAV GABRIC & ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley commented on the parking area having security lighting, and the hours of operation. Commissioner Saathoff commented on setbacks with regard to the variance requested; security lighting to be provided from dust to dawn, and street lights. Chairman Brown commented on Building "B" with regard to the west elevation and landscaping -- inconsistency of rendering and landscaping plan; emphasis placed on mounding along Avenue 6 and Lakeshore; parking spaces with planters and walkways on the other side these do not work unless elevated, reference Building "B" and "C ". Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -37 and approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -9; Zone Change 89 -10; Specific Plan 87 -1 Revised; Variance 90 -1; Tentative Parcel Map 25106; Commercial Project 89 -6 and Street Abandonment 89 -3 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report as corrected by memorandum dated February 21, 1990, and adopt Resolution No. 90 -4, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION 90 -4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -9 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 6.6 ACRES FROM SPECIFIC PLAN TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Commissioner Brinley asked for further discussion on security lighting. A brief discussion ensued on this issue. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to include the addition of condition number 26.b. to Commercial Project 89 -6, which will read as follows: Condition 26.b: "Security lighting shall be installed and operable from dust to dawn." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 3. Specific Plan 89 -1, First Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps 25472 -25479 - Homestead Land Development - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request to continue these items to March 7, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Specific Plan 89 -1, First Amendment and Tentative Tract Maps 25472 -25479 to March 7, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 4. Variance 90 -2 and Industrial Project 90 -2 - Ronald A. Lloyd - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request to continue these items to March 7, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Variance 90 -2 and Industrial Project 90 -2 to March 7, 1990, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1990 Page 3 BUSINESS ITEMS 5. Commercial Project 89 -9 - Pinnacle /Lakeshore #3 A General Partnership - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request to construct a commercial center consisting of three buildings totaling 31,500 square feet, on five gross acres, located approximately 1,200 feet easterly of Main Street, north of Lakeshore Drive. Associate Planner Restivo requested the addition of condition number 38.e, which will read as follows: Condition 38.e: "The loading area is to be completely screened from view and /or shall be located behind commercial building." Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Stan Dotts, representing the applicant, commented on condition number 25.m, pertaining to hydroseeding the hillside - -would like between now and City Council hearing to get a consultant's opinion on the hydroseeding. Mr. Dotts questioned condition number 20, pertaining to mechanical equipment being ground mounted; stated the mansard roofs are in the rear and not visible to anyone, and this seems like an ideal place to have the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 25.h., pertaining to percentages for bonding of landscape improvements; condition number 20, pertaining to mechanical equipment being roof mounted if not visible, and height of parapet wall, amending condition number 20 to reflect the standard parapet wall condition. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the grading and whether or not there would be any cut into the 1:1 slope; Lakeshore Drive upgrade - -would like to see a mechanism, some way to see that when development is taking place on a major street, like Lakeshore, that both sides are developed; if this is private property or the old railroad right -of -way; blue tile roof; condition number 38.e, pertaining to the loading area being screened from view, what view? Chairman Brown commented on flooding along Lakeshore, and the possibility of the City forming a JV with its lease; if nothing else, put asphalt berm on the other side - -maybe not curb, gutter and sidewalk. There are three places of ponding in that stretch. If we are going to do one side and direct the water to the other side of the street at least try to get it towards the lake somehow. If we (the City) can participate in the improvements at that time - -not necessarily take additional right -of -way, which may be years down the line, at least finish it out to get an even course all the way through there and at least an AC berm all the way down to the entrance of both of those projects. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 25.m, asked if the intent is for newly created slopes or existing slopes; amending this condition to reflect "any slopes created by grading ", and deleting the last sentence. Planning Manager Thornhill requested that condition number 36 be deleted, as it does not apply to this proposal. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -9 and approval of Commercial Project 89 -9 based on the Findings and subject to Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1990 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -9 CONTINUED the 62 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition 20: "All roof mounted equipment shall be at least six - inches (611) lower than the parapet wall or top of equipment well and shall be painted to match the building. Evidence of compliance shall be included in building plans." Condition 25.h: "All landscape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape require- ments approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one year." Condition 25.m: "All slopes created by any grading shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, approved by the Planning Division." Condition 36: "Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay all fees required in Conditions of Approval for ." DELETED Condition 38.e: "The loading area is to be completely screened from public right -of -way view and /or shall be located behind commercial building." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 6. Industrial Project 90 -1 - Ed Carlson (The I.N.O. Associates, Walt Allen) - Associate Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct an 8,000 square foot industrial building, located approximately 420 feet north of Flint Street, west of Langstaff. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Walt Allen, representing the applicant, questioned condition number 34.b, pertaining to location of trash enclosure. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 34.b., pertaining to the location of the trash enclosure, and deleting this condition if relocation creates no problem with maneuverability. Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 34.b, pertaining to vehicle (semi- truck) access, maneuverability, potential safety hazard, and relocation of the trash enclosure; condition number 34.a, pertaining to the front elevation windows. Commissioner Saathoff commented on pertaining to the windows of the open continuous windowed area, and p specific on this condition; asked for and the possibility of enhancing the an outside shade area for employees. condition number 34.a, work shop to provide one roviding something more the number of employee, landscaping by providing Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1990 Page 5 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -1 Mr. Carlson responded that there would be five employees. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 34.b, pertaining to the location of trash enclosure and truck maneuverability condition number 34.a, pertaining to window treatment and suggested continuance of windows through a false window treatment or something of that nature. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -1 and approval of Industrial Project 90 -1 based on the Findings and subject to the 49 Condition of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition 34.a: "The front "open work lengthened provide for similar to rest of the done throe windows." elevation windows of the shop area" shall be and consolidated to a larger window expanse the architecture of the building. This can be igh plant -ons or pane Condition 34.b: "The trash enclosure shall be located as per Exhibit 1. The trash enclosure shall be so located to allow truck maneuverability in the loading area." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 At this time, 8:12 p.m. the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:25 p.m. the Commission reconvened. 7. Center Identification Sign for Firestone Plaza - Joyce Sehi - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request to construct an internally illuminated center identification sign, 22 feet tall and 12 feet wide with 116.5 square feet of sign face, located approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive. Assistant Planner Fairbanks stated that staff recommends that the center identification sign, if approved, not exceed the height of the 17 feet ten inches with the sign face limited to 96 square feet of sign copy per side, and moved back 5 feet from the property line. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Ms. Sehi stated that they were in agreement with staff recom- mendation. A brief discussion was held on perception from the street and setback. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve the Center Identification Sign for Firestone Plaza based on the Findings and subject to the 7 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -1 (Commissioner Brinley voting no) Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1990 Page 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman commented as follows: 1) Informed the Commission that two major projects are coming before the Planning Commission and City Council shortly. One being North Peak by TMC, abutting and north of the Ramsgate Project, and the Mac Arthur Glen project which is on Collier, Nichols and I 15, which is the designer outlet center. We have requested that the Planning Commission appoint two Planning Commissioners, as well as City Council appointing two Councilmembers, to serve as a subcommittee to review those proposals. The first meeting has been scheduled as follows: Thursday, March 1, 1990, at 9:00 a.m. for the a Mac Arthur Glen project and 10:30 a.m. for the TMC project. Commissioner Gilenson and Chairman Brown were appointed to serve on this subcommittee, with Commissioner Brinley as an alternate for Chairman Brown. 2) We will have a new Assistant Planner on board Monday, February 26, 1990. 3) We will have interviews for the Senior Planner position on March 2, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Commented on the condition, flooding, of Lakeshore Drive from Lake Street and Torn Ranch all the way through the City from the last rain. Does not know if the grading from the project and /or homes out there has had any affect on it or what we can do to stop the flooding. The community is up in arms about crime and what can be done about it. City Council has appointed a committee to look into police services and the like. The committee came up with Neighborhood Watch, it is a great program. We had a Neighborhood Watch meeting in our area, and 220 flyers were hand delivered to all the homes, and out of 220 homes 9 families showed. This is not saying a lot for the area. The police can only do so much, we need Neighborhood Watch and we need the neighborhoods to get involved. The Sheriff's Department can let you know who the coordinators are for local areas. Suggest that all areas of the City get involved with the Neighborhood Watch Program. Congratulated to his son who finished boot camp and got a promotion, and will be going to Tennessee for aircraft mechanics training. Commissioner Brinley Inquired about the landscaping status at the K -Mart site. Planning Manager Thornhill responded that a significant amount of new material was planted within the last few months. We can go back out and look at the site. Commissioner Saathoff Asked that Commissioner Wilsey be contacted and asked to sit in on the Ramsgate meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 27th at 9:00, for him. Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1990 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Discussed at the last meeting the feasibility of blocking off Shrier and Highway 74. Would like to asked, if the Commission agrees, to have the Engineering Department at the next meeting or two meetings hence, come back with a feasibility report. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that they have already contacted the traffic engineer, and he is looking at aerials and plans of the area. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like the Commission to receive a copy of this report. Chairman Brown Agrees with Commissioner Gilenson on Lakeshore Drive, and sure that Public Works Department is aware that we have lost probably a quarter of a mile of paving total between Machado and Four Corners, and the holes are probably 6 -10 inches deep. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Com- mission adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 Appro�e\���� - Jeff B�own, l Chairman Respectfully sdbmitted Linda Grindstaff G� Planning Commission Secretary I MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:04 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Manager Thornhill, Associate Planner Restivo, Associate Planner Naaseh, Assistant Planner Fairbanks and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Minutes of February 21, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 Commissioner Wilsey abstaining. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Brown asked Kevin Jeffries and Tere Cherveny if they wished to speak now or wait till the projects were presented. There being no other requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION THAT BUSINESS ITEMS 11, 12, AND 13 BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND TAKEN UP PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. BUSINESS ITEMS 11. Industrial Project 89 -11 - Jess Rodriguez (Continued from February 7, 1990) - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request to continue this item to May 16, 1990 and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Industrial Project 89 -11 to May 16, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 12. Single - Family Residence - 31769 Via Verde - (Ursula D. Weber /Victoria Steadman (Orange County Mobile Home Center) - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a proposal for a Minor Design Review of a single - family dwelling (manufactured home) at 31769 Via Verde. The lot is 7,381 square feet with the proposed structure being 1,464 square feet. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. Ms. Vickie Dierick, 10092 Birchwood Drive, Huntington Beach representing the applicant commented on the type of roofing material staff was asking them to use. Considerable discussion ensued about the type of roofing material that was to be used - asphalt shingles or fiberglass. Discussion at the table was held on Condition 10 being ground mounted, Condition 12 on the five foot high fence and Condition 27 being per code. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 31769 VIA VERDE Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve a Minor Design Review at 31769 Via Verde based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and subject to the 36 Conditions of Approval with the following amendments: Condition 10: All ground mounted support air conditioning units, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be screened with landscaping. No solar energy roof mounted equipment shall be allowed. Condition 12: A minimum six (6) foot high solid fence shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.32.080 (Fences and Walls). Condition 26: The roof shall have an eave and gable overhang of not less than 12 inches measured from the vertical side of the manufactured home and have a pitch not less than that required for conventionally built single - family homes. Condition 27: There shall be a concrete slab or wood deck containing at least two - hundred (200) square feet suitable for outdoor patio or work area per Section 17.32.120.(M)(2). second by Commissioner Brinley Approved 5 -0 13. Single - Family Residence - 32955 Serena Way - Kevin Jeffries - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a proposal for a Minor Design Review for a single - family dwelling at 32955 Serena Way. The lot is located on the west side of Serena Way, approximately 250 feet north of Grand Avenue. The proposed project is a custom built, two -story dwelling on a 6,000 square foot lot. The house is 2,806 square feet. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Jeffries if had any concerns. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve a Minor Design Review at 32955 Serena Way based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and subject to the 27 Conditions of Approval. second by Commissioner Gilenson Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 90 -2 and Tentative Tract Map 24490 (Continued from February 7, 1990) - Jones /Tomich - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request to amend the General Plan designation from Floodplain /Floodway to Low Density Residential (0 -6 dwelling units per acre), and to subdivide 7.6 net acres into 35, R -1 (Single - Family Residential District) lots, for property located approximately 2,500 feet west of the intersection of Shirley Drive and Washington Avenue, south of Washington Avenue, east of Michigan Street and north of the proposed Lincoln Street extension. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -2 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24490 Associate Planner Restivo requested the following amendment to the Conditions of Approval: Condition 17: The developer shall submit plans to Southern California Edison for a layout of the street lighting system. The cost of street lighting, installation shall be the responsibility of the developer and /or the association. Said plans shall be approved by the City and shall be installed in accordance with the City standards. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Larry Truman, Butterfield Engineering, representing the applicant spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Brinley commented on Conditon 26 pertaining to the 100% faithful performance bond. Thought it was 120 %. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council re- affirmation of Environmental Impact Report 88 -2, and approval of General Plan Amendment 90 -2 and Tentative Tract Map 24490 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and subject to the 57 Conditions of Approval with the following amendment, and adopt Resolution No. 90 -7, entitled as follows: Condition 17: The developer shall submit plans to Southern California Edison for a layout of the street lighting system. The cost of street lighting, installation shall be the responsibility of the developer and /or the association. Said plans shall be approved by the City and shall be installed in accordance with the City standards. RESOLUTION 90 -7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -2 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM FLOODPLAIN /FLOODWAY TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 -6 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) ON A 7.6 NET ACRE PARCEL. second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING #3 AND #4 PRIOR TO #2. 3. Specific Plan 89 -1, First Amendment; Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum: Development Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 4 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -1, FIRST AMENDMENT CONTINUED Agreement - Homestead Land Development Corp. (Ramsgate) (Continued from February 21, 1990) - Community Development Director Gunderman stated that staff would like to have a Special Planning Commission meeting to discuss this proposal on March 19, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. in City Hall. Chairman Brown opend the public hearing hearing at 7:29 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development Company, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Larry Buxton, Courton and Associates, stated that they are the engineers for Tract 25171 which is adjacent to the Ramsgate project. We have been working with Ramsgate engineers and designers for sometime and they have been very cooperative with our efforts. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. John Clurman stated that he was in favor and that he had been working closely with Hunsaker and Homestead to develop their property with the infrasturcture of my needs so that the whole area is a master planned community. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Adele Abusomwa, Dana Point, stated he owns 10 acres right in the middle of Ramsgate and is in the process of purchasing another 18 acres contiguous to Ramsgate and that he is in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Motion by Chairman Brown to continue Specific Plan 89 -1, First Amendment; Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum and Development Agreement to a Special Planning Commission Meeting on March 19, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. in City Hall, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 4. Variance 90 -2 and Industrial Project 90 -2 - Ronald A. Lloyd (Continued from February 21, 1990) - a request for relief from Section 17.56.100.B of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code for landscape buffer zone, for both the northeast and northwest property lines; Design Review approval for a Light Industrial Park containing ten (10) buildings with a total floor area of 87,900 square feet, located at the northwest corner of Dexter Avenue and Second Street. Planning Manager Thornhill discussed in great detail the landscape plans. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:40 asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 5 VARIANCE 90 -2 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -2 Mr. Ronald A. Lloyd, owner of North Elsinore Hills Business Park, mentioned there has been a name change to the project. This is Phase I of a four phase project that is located at the northwest corner of Dexter Avenue and Second Street. Phase 2, 3, and 4 of this project are being developed in the County of Riverside and the use will be MSC. Our plan is utimately to annex the project into the City. Mr. Lloyd then went into great detail concerning the changes that have been made to the landscape plan as follows: 1. five foot high wall spanning from building to building; 2. grouped speciman trees (ash) at the buildings; to break up the length of the buildings. 3. planted annual color at the base of each wall to create more interest. and 4. planted bouganvilla on the five foot wall to create more color. Commissioner Saathoff asked the elevation of the building. Mr. Lloyd asked as it relates from the street to the building pad? I believe theres a 4 to 6 foot differentiation from street to pad level. So Second Street would be lower than the buildings. You would be looking up at the buildings. Commissioner Saathoff then asked the height of the buildings. Mr. Lloyd stated they are 22 feet. Condition 29 would read as follows: building permits final elevation foot wall spanning from building to each building facing Second Street. Chairman Brown asked if anyone favor. At this time he asked if Prior to issuance of s shall reflect five (5) building at the rear of else wished to speak in Mr. Glen Eichler, Project Architect, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Larry Buxton, Courton and Associates, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Brinley wanted to know the size of the trees. Mr. Eichler commented they hadn't decided between 15" or 24" box trees. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff if the Variance is granted on this, with regards to the landscape setbacks in the back, would the setbacks that are generated from that Variance meet the Industrial setback codes or would they be substandard to that as well? Planning Manager Thornhill stated that they met the Industrial codes except for the 15 foot separation from the Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 6 VARIANCE 90 -2 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -2 CONTINUED residential uses. Commissioner Wilsey asked for the standard language in Condition 27, delete Condition 29 and Condition 39 expand on the six foot high masonry wall. Commissioner Gilenson asked deliveries, and if so, why platforms for these trucks? if there would be any truck don't we require loading Planning Manager Thornhill stated that its hard to anticipate what each user is going to do with each building. It's not a standard code. Considerable discussion ensued on loading platforms. Commissioner Gilenson then commented on Condition 21 and 23. Chairman Brown stated that he would like the final landscape plan to come back to Planning Commission and amend Condition 28, to read: "Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities, an approved landscape plan shall reflect the following..., and add that the 17 ash trees will be at least 24" box trees or better. Add Condition 44.a., which will read: All areas or pads graded during the grading operation shall be landscaped if permits are not issued for building within 120 days. Chairman Brown stated that if you do alot of massing grading and only do one or two buildings at a time, you will need to hydroseed and irrigate the rest of the pads. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Eichler how he was going to grow bouganvilla? I've been trying for 14 years to grow bouganville and found that it freezes and lasts only one to two years. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Variance 90 -2 and recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -2, and approval of Industrial Project 90 -2 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and the 45 Conditions of Approval with the following amendments: Condition 23: All mechanical and electrical equipment of the building shall be ground mounted. All outdoor ground or wall mounted utility equipment shall be consolidated in a central location and architecturally screened along with substantial landscaping, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. DELETED Condition 27: The final landscaping /irrigation plan is to be •reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect consultant for a $100.00 per plan fee, and return to the Planning Commission for approval. Condition 28: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and ;release of utilites, an approved landscape plan shall reflect the following: d) The 17 ash trees will all be 24" box or better. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 7 VARIANCE 90 -2 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -2 Condition 29: Prior to issuance of building permits final elevations shall reflect placement of "false windows" on the rear of each building facing Second Street. The false window treatment shall be similar in design and materials to the front elevation window treatment. DELETED Condition 39. A six -foot (61) high masonry wall shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls), walls depicted in the rendering 3790 -1. Condition 44. a) All areas or pads graded during the grading operation shall be landscaped if permits are not issued for building within 120 days. second by Commissioner Brinley Approved 5 -0 At this time, 8:09 P.M. the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:20 p.m. the Commission reconvened. 2. Development Agreement - Brighton Homes (Continued from February 7, 1990) - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a Development Agreement with Brighton Alberhill Associates in connection with a portion of the Alberhill Ranch consisting of approximately 980 acres generally bounded by Interstate 15, Lake Street, Coal Road and Nichols Road. The proposed Development Agreement provides for a phased, mixed use development consisting of a minimum of 2,235 dwelling units and 2,722,500 square feet of commercial and industrial buildings, together with areas for schools, open space and recreational uses. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Todd Cunningham, President of Brighton Homes, gave a brief overview of the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provides for us an option to do one of two plans. The approved Specific Plan is for 2,235 residential dwelling units. This New Development Agreement, in exchange for our paying $2,000 dollars per dwelling unit provides for us to increase the number of units in our project to 800 units in the event that we include in the Specific Plan a 18 hole championship golf course. In both cases we are paying $2,000 dollars a dwelling unit. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Tere Cherveny, 1409 West Sumner, stated that she was concerned with some of the items contained in the Development Agreement as follows: the 18 hole golf course; 10% discount on golf fees for employees of the City; $100,000 for another study to determine feasibility for an amphitheater or performing arts theater; give up 24 acre park; increase the density from 2,235 to 3,200. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 8 AGREEMENT CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:35. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would like more time to digest all the information. He suggested setting up a couple of informal meetings to try to work out some of the key issues to our satisfaction, so that we better understand what we're buying into. Commissioner Gilenson had the following comments: Page 1 - Line 11 add: and $1.00 per square foot of commercial usage. Line 15 add: multi - family Page 5 - Line 20 strike: such as add: including but not limited to Page 6 - Line 11 add: multi - family waving of in lieu fees, why? - need discussion. Page 10 - Part C delete: expects to add: will Part D delete: expects to add: will Part E delete: expects to add: will Page 12 - Line 18 through Line 4 page 13 - discuss and change page 12 Line 19 to reflect that developer shall have the vested right and obligation also some dollar penalty for not building the minimum set forth in this section. Page 14 and 15 - Section 7: The changes discussed are not minor changes, therefore, I would want these items brought before the Commission on a Consent Calender for approval. Addition between Page 16 and 17 - Line 3 strike: exceed 20 nor Line 7 and 8 delete: City and Developer....... set -aside funds (expand on what there talking about.) Page 20 - Line 25: add: and $1.00 per square foot of Commercial building. Page 21 - Section 2 - discuss: City cannot change this agreement but developer can change his plan, maps, redivision of property, etc. Page 24 - Line 2 - delete: expedite processing add: processing in the normal flow Line 6 - delete: expeditions add: processing in the normal flow Line 10 - delete: accelerated, expeditious add: processing in the normal flow Page 24 and 25 - Section 4 - explain and strike Line 27 and page 25 Line 28 - reference to golf course and clubhouse if this is not to be developed for certain. Page 25 - Section 11.4 - Line 7 - Line 2 page 26 - discuss and explain why the City is being required to contract with 3rd parties /agencies. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 9 AGREEMENT CONTINUED Page 26 - Section 11.5 - Be more specific on what will be included in the assessment and what will be excluded. Page 26 and 27 - discuss through Line 5 (clarification reimbursement of..... Lines 26 Page 27. of this section) Page 38 - Section 27 - List what this section does not relate to, be specific on what it does relate to (what does operating memoranda relate to) Add to agreement: Section 29 - Hold Harmless Clause Section 30 - Workers Compensation Section 31 - Public Liability and Property Damage Chairman Brown asked that if anyone in the future had such extensive comments to please put them in writing prior to the meeting. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue the Public Hearing on the Brighton Development Agreement to a Special Planning Commission Meeting on March 14, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. in City Hall, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 5. General Plan Amendment 89 -14; Zone Change 89 -14 and Annexation No. 52 - TMP Investments - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to include the site designation of Low Density Residential (0 -6 dwelling units /acre); to consider the pre - zoning of the site to Low Density Residential; consider annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore. The project consists of 36.79 acres of land, lying south of Scenic Crest Drive, west of Greenwald Avenue, north of the current City boundary. Planning Manager Thornhill stated that TMP Investments had relinquished there interest in this project and the request is a request of Homestead Land Development Company for approval of this application. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:58 asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development Corporation, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -46, and approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -14; Zone Change 89 -14 and Annexation 52 based on the findings listed in the Staff Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 10 GENERAL PLAN AMENDEMENT 89 -14; ZONE CHANGE 89 -14; AND ANNEXATION NO. 52 CONTINUED Report and adopt Resolution No. 90 -5, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION 90 -5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -14 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN ESTABLISHING THE DESIGNATION OF 36 ACRES TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0 -6 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE). second by Commissioner Wilsey Approved 5 -0 6. General Plan Amendment 89 -15 & Zone Change 89 -17 - Brookstone Development, Inc. - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a General Plan Land Use designation change from "Environmental Sensitive" to Limited Industrial to allow for a master planned industrial park; to re -zone the property from R -1 (Single - Family Residential) to M -1 (Limited Manufacturing), for 15.29 acres on the northeast corner of Flint and Silver Streets. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 9:02 asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -57 and approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -15 and Zone Change 89 -17 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and adopt Resolution No. 90 -8, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 90 -8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE TO 15.29 ACRES COMMISSION OF THE CITY RECOMMENDING ADOPTION 39 -15 CHANGING THE LAND GENERAL PLAN FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL FOR second by Commissioner Wilsey Approved 5 -0 7. General Plan Amendment 90 -1 & Zone Change 90 -2 - Pentagon Development (Hunsaker and Associates) - Associate Planner Naaseh presented, a, request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential on a 6.042 acre parcel, located at the southeast corner of Grand Avenue and Macy Street. The applicant is Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 11 GENERAL PLAN 90 -1 AND ZONE CHANGE 90 -2 proposing to build a 132 unit apartment building on the site. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 9:10 asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Bill Allen, representing Pentagon Development, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The following persons expressed concerns on General Plan Amendment 90 -1 and Zone Change 90 -2 as follows: density; traffic circulation; crime in apartment complexes; parking; busing; schools; property values; aesthetic values; maintenance and upkeep of apartments tends to deteriorate over the years; storage; and no stop sign. Mr. Kevin Jeffries, 17666 Grand Avenue; Ms. Judy Lippold, 33063 Macy Street; Mr. Keith Banks,33075 Macy Street; Ms. Martha Rusch, 33089 Macy Street; Mr. Steve Fisher, 15701 Shadow Mountain Lane; Ms. Cathy Sloan, 33103 Macy Street; Ms. Gary Rush, 33089 Macy Street; Mr. John Cox, 15600 Half Moon Drive Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Brinley stated she was in agreement with the homeowner's concerning the density; traffic circulation; ingress /egress; parking; schools; police and fire. I am concerned with this project at this density level. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the number of concerned citizens. Concurs with Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Gilenson concured with Commissioner Brinley and Wilsey. Commissioner Saathoff stated that if we allow it to be zoned commercially we will have a more intense traffic problem than if we allow high density. If we do allow the high density we have a better opportunity to control the traffic and the parking than we would with commercial. I would not comtemplate approving this number of units at this time. I feel high density residential is the best way to go on this piece of property. Commissioner Saathoff yielded the floor to Ms. Lippold. Ms. Lippold asked when you say "more in control" with regard to commercial versus R -3 what do you specifically mean by "control ". Commissioner Saathoff stated that we have little control on the amount of traffic thats going to be generated by that commercial entity. We would have better traffic control on Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -1 AND ZONE CHANGE 90 -2 CONTINUED the numer of units to be developed on the project and far superior control on parking. Chairman Brown stated that if you study the land uses you'll find that the existing zoning that is allowed there, will generate ten times as many car trips than this high density residential project. Chairman Brown yielded the floor for questions from the audience. Mr. Keith Banks asked why does it have to be high density residential, I don't understand. Ms. Martha Rush stated that traffic is not there only concern. Mr. Bill Allen, Pentagon Development, gave a brief overview of the project. Chairman Brown stated that a man has the right to develop his project under what it is now, which is commercial. Commercial will generate five to ten times more trips. I would not support this great of density for an R -3 project. On projects such as this, we take into consideration many different factors such as parks, swimming pools, etc. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -4 and approval of General Plan Amendment 90 -1 and Zone Change 90 -2, based on the followings Findings listed in the Staff Report and adopt Resolution No. 90 -6, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION 90 -6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -1 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON A 6.042 ACRE PARCEL. second by Chairman Brown Vote: 2 -3 (Commissioners Gilenson, Brinley and Wilsey voting no). Motion failed to pass. 8. Zone Change 90 -1 - MacLeod Development Company - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request to change the zoning from C -1 (PUD) and R -3 (PUD) (Neighborhood Commercial - Planned Unit Development) to R -1 (Single - Family Residential District - Hillside Planned Development Overlay) for a 46 gross acre site. The proposal is to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan designation, which is required under State Law, Government Code Section 65860. The proposed Zone Change is related to, and on the same site as approved Tract 19.358 (Revised) and Residential Project 89 -11. The above site is located south of Grand Avenue, 865 feet east of Ortega Highway and 1,065 feet west of Sangston Drive. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 9:40 asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Receiving no repsonse, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no repsonse, Chairman Brown asked if Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 13 ZONE CHANGE 90 -1 anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 9:41 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council reaffirmation of the Environmental Impact Report adopted April 9, 1985, and approval of Zone Change 90 -1 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report. second by Commissioner Brinley Approved 5 -0 9. Zone Code Amendment 89 -3 - City of Lake Elsinore at the request of Deleo Clay Tile (continued from January 17, 1990) - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request to amend the Parking Ordinance, Chapter 17.66.030.0 of the Municipal Code, to allow flexibility in the parking requirements for manufacturing /industrial enterprises. This amendment will effect parking requirements for manufacturing /industrial uses City -wide. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 9:42 asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Joe Deleo, Deleo Clay Tile, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Fred Crowe, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no repsonse, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no repsonse, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 9:43 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council, adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -35 and approval of Zone Code Amendment 89 -3, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 At this time, 9:45 p.m. the Commission recessed. At this time, 10:00 p.m. the Commission reconvened. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #10 AND BUSINESS ITEM #14 CONCURRENTLY. Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented the following proposals: Variance 90 -3 - Elsinore Investments - a request to vary from Section 17.44.070 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code allowing a reduced setback for the proposed Manny's restaurant and future furniture store, located within Shopper's Square, on the north side of Casino Drive Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 14 VARIANCE 90 -3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -2 CONTINUED approximately 1,000 feet east of Railroad Canyon 'Road and Commercial Project 90 -2 - Manny's - a commercial structure to be used as a restaurant. The project is 6,118 square feet of indoor area and 504 square feet of outdoor dining, Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 10:04 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Engineering, spoke in favor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. John Grist, Grist Architects, spoke in favor and gave a brief overview of the project. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Howard Palmer, 518 Dwyer, Anaheim, spoke in favor and gave a brief overview of the project. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no repsonse, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no repsonse, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 10:12 p.m. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the open area is facing Casino Drive. His only concern is the prevailing winds and would hate to see some type of canopy or type of wind break allowed there. Unless they could convince me it would not damage the architectural design of the building. I would like to see it part of a condition. Commissioner Gilenson asked about Condition 20 and 21. Which one is it? Chairman Brown stated that Condition 21 would be deleted. Considerable discussion ensued on Condition 7 pertaining to how Manny's will match the existing center exactly. Discussion ensued on the parking requirements and that there is sufficient parking for Mannny's but for other future development, they will need a Conditional Use Permit for a shared parking facility. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Variance 90 -3, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and subject to the 3 Conditions of Approval, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Commercial Project 90 -2 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and subject to the 54 Conditions of Approval with the following amendments: Condition 7: Building shall be constructed to match the existing center in all materials, architecture, texture, and color. The trees to b`e planted will match the rendering exactly. Any wind screening on the outside will be disallowed. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1990 Page 15 VARIANCE 90 -3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -2 to be planted will match the rendering exactly. Any wind screening on the outside will be disallowed. Condition 21: All mechanical and electrical equipment of the building shall be ground mounted. All outdoor ground or wall mounted utility equipment shall be consolidated in a central location and architecturally screened along with substantial landscaping, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. DELETED. second by Commissioner Wilsey Approve 5 -0 DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman stated he would like to go over the calendar planned for next week: March 12, 1990 - 2:00 p.m. subcommittee meeting on Ramsgate for Commissioner Wilsey and Gilenson March 14, 1990 - 6:00 p.m. continued Public Hearing of Brighton Development Agreement March 15, 1990 - 4:00 p.m. Cottonwood Hills Development Agreement - Reimbursement Agreement request for Mello Roos March 19, 1990 - 4:00 p.m. - Special Meeting for Ramsgate Planning Manager Thornhill stated that he is accepting employment in the private sector. I've really enjoyed my time here in Lake Elsinore. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson - wished Gary luck in his new endeavor. Commissioner Brinley - stated it was a pleasuring working with Gary and that she's going to miss him. Asked about Del Taco. Are they going to be opening. Commissioner Saathoff - asked about the Joint Study Sessions with City Council. Commissioner Wilsey - wished Gary luck. Chairman Brown - appreciated all Gary's efforts and wished him luck. Therebeing no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:32. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 ApYBrown Je Chairman Respectfully submitted, O- twLj XLMUiVU1e Colleen Moorhouse Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:13 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: Brown Also present was Community Development Director Gunderman. Being as Chairman Brown was absent, Vice Chairman Saathoff conducted the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chairman Saathoff stated that this is a continuance of the public hearing on the Development Agreement between the City and Brighton Homes /Alberhill, continued from the March 7, 1990, meeting. Vice Chairman Saathoff stated that he would like to bring to the attention of the Commission the revised document submitted by the applicant, addressing various concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting. Suggested that the document be discussed page by page and any concerns addressed. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to make a statement in favor or opposition. Mr. Todd Cunningham, President of Brighton Homes, stated that he would like to go over the changes. Vice Chairman Saathoff informed Mr. Cunningham that this was going to be discussed page by page and the changes could be highlighted at that time. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there were any other comments from the audience. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. The Development Agreement was discussed on a page by page basis with with the following amendments and recommendations being made: Page 1 - Line 11 - delete the verbiage "and $1.00 per square foot of commercial usage ", which was recommended for inclusion at the last meeting. - Line 15 - add: "multi- family ", which was recommended at the last meeting. Discussion ensued on the inclusion of the words multi- family with the recommendation that it remain in order to keep control on density; the need for flexibility, and the issue being addressed in the Amended Specific Plan; recommendation that the words "attached or detached" be inserted in lieu of "multi- family ". - Line 15 add: "attached or detached residential dwelling units ". Page 5 - Line 20 delete verbiage: "such as" add verbiage: "including but not limited to ". Minutes of Special March 14, 1990 Page 2 Planning Commission DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT = BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED Page 6 - Line 4 - add: "Meeting room facilities shall be made available to the City's commissions, committees, boards, City Council, City Manager, by developer not less than two days per calendar month ". Discussion at the table ensued on this item and the definition of City, referred to in Section 2.3 on Page 2, and the definition remaining as stated, but being more specific at individual points throughout the document. - Line 11 add: "additional attached or detached residential dwelling units" Commissioner Brown arrived at 6:35 p.m. Page 10 - Subsections C, D and E: delete words "expects to" and add: the word "will". Page 12 - Line 20 - delete the words "but not the obligation" Page 14 - Section 7. Amendments - Line 26 - change "Planning Director" to "Community Development Director or his designee ". Discussion at the table ensued on minor amendments and whether these should come back to the Commission on a Consent Calendar or as a Business Item. Page 17 - Addition after first paragraph - Delete this section and replace with the following: "Developer agrees that a fair share of affordable housing will be provided within the multi - family zones, under either the existing Specific Plan or the Specific Plan as may later be amended, in accordance with the affordable housing program officially established by City on a City -wide basis ". Page 20 - Section 9.5 Fees, conditions and dedications. Delete this section and replace with the following: "Developer shall make only those dedications and pay only those fees expressly prescribed in this Agreement, the Existing Development Approvals, and subsequent Development Approvals, provided that such dedications and fees are imposed on a City -wide basis throughout the Development Agreement." - Subsection 1 - delete verbiage: "pursuant to existing land use Ordinances; provided, however, that developer agrees to pay such standard building permit application and processing fees which are in force and effect on a City -wide basis ". Page 21 - Subsection 2. Police power and Taxing power - delete the following verbiage from this section: "City shall not impose or enact any additional conditions, exactions, dedications, fees or regulations through the exercise of either the police power or the taxing power related to the development of the project except as provided in the existing development approvals or as provided in this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, the conditions, exactions, dedications, fees or regulations applicable to the project as provided herein and in the existing development approvals shall not be subject to Minutes of Special Planning Commission March 14, 1990 Page 3 AGREEMENT - BRIGHTON HOMES modification or renegotiation by City as a result of an amendment to the development plan, the parcel map, the conditions of approval, this Agreement, or as a result of the filing of any new subdivision map or parcel map, or any resubdivision of the property (including a merger or lot line adjustment or the creation of new lots within a designated remainder parcel)." Page 22 - Add "Subsection Plan Amendments and will be subject to map reviews or spec development impact a City -wide basis." 4. Future Tentative Maps, Specific Development Impact Fees - Developer conditions as a result of tentative ific plan amendments and to any fees that may be adopted by City on Page 24 - Line 2 - delete the word "expedite" and insert the words "diligently process ". - Line 6 - delete the word " expeditious" and insert the word "diligent ". - Line 10 - delete the words: "accelerated, expeditious" add the words "a diligent ". Page 25 and 26 - Section 11.4 Other governmental permits - Line 5 - Delete verbiage: "City shall cooperate with the developer in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals and shall, from time to time at the request of developer, attempt with due diligence and in good faith to enter into binding agreements with any such entity necessary to assure the availability of such permits and approvals or services, provided such agreements are reasonable and not materially detrimental to City." New verbiage for Section 11.4: "City shall cooperate with and use its best efforts to assist developer in coordinating the implementation of the project with such other governmental agencies in obtaining permits, approvals and services from those agencies as may be necessary to implement the project." Page 26 - Section 11.5 - 4th line from bottom - "add the word "off- site" in between the words "that and infra- structure". Discussion at the table ensued on reimbursement agree- ments contained within this section, with all reimbursement agreements made with or financed by the Community Facilities District, emphasizing that all monies paid shall go to said District retire that debt. Page 38 - Section 27 Operating Memoranda - Line 3 - This refers back to page 14 and 15, minor amendments coming back before the Commission for minute action. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would still like this to come back before the Commission as a Consent Item. Add to agreement: Section 29. Hold Harmless Clause; Workers Compensation; Public Liability and Property Damage. Section 29 Insurance. Developer agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for Minutes of Special Planning Commission March 14, 1990 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT = BRIGHTON HOMES personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise out of the direct or indirect operation of the developer or those of their contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees or other persons acting on their behalf which relate to the project Developer agrees to and shall defend the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of developer's activities in connection with the project. This Hold Harmless Agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications or both for the project and regardless of whether or not the insurance policies referred to below are applicable. Before beginning work on the project, developer shall obtain the insurance required under this paragraph and receive the approval of City Attorney as to form, content, amount and carrier. Developer shall maintain the insurance during the term of this Development Agreement. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and to the developer and each contractor and subcontractor performing work on the property. 29.1. Compensation Insurance. Developer shall maintain Workers Compensation Insurance for all persons employed at the site of project. Developer shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Workers Compensation Insurance for their respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for damage resulting from the failure to take out and maintain such insurance. 29.2 Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. Developer shall maintain public liability insurance in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for injuries (including death) to any one person and in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) on account of any one occurrence; and property damage insurance in an amount not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for damage to the property of each person on account of any one occurrence. Developer shall furnish City before beginning work on the project with a Certificate of Insurance constituting satisfactory evidence of the insurance required and providing that each carrier. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if comment. Receiving no response, the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. there was anyone else wishing to Vice Chairman Saathoff closed Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was any further discussion at the table. There being no further discussion, Vice Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council approval of the Development Agreement for Brighton Homes as amended, and adoption of Resolution No. 89 -17, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION 89 -17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ALBERHILL RANCH ASSOCIATES Minutes of Special Planning Commission March 14, 1990 Page 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BRIGHTON HOMES CONTINUED second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved: 4 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was any further business. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he would like to remind the Commission of the following meetings: Joint Study Session - March 15, at 4:00 p.m., at the Chamber of Commerce Conference Room. Special Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, at 4:00 p.m., at City Hall, Conference Room A. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5 -0 Approved, t TB-.'i2l Saathoff, Vice Chairman _ Respectfully bmitted, inda G indstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING ON THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:12 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley and Brown Also present was Community Development Director Gunderman. Being as Chairman Brown was absent, Vice Chairman Saathoff conducted the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chairman Saathoff stated that this is a continuance of the public hearing on the Ramsgate Specific Plan, First Amendment; Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum; Development Agreement, and Tentative Tract Maps 25472, 25473, 25474, 25475, 25476, 25477, 25478 and 25479, continued from the March 7, 1990, meeting. Ron Smothers, Consulting Planner for the City, gave a presentation on the Specific Plan and the eight Tentative Tract Maps, highlight- ing the changes made to the Conditions of Approval for said proposals, dated March 14, 1990. Mr. Dick Watenpaugh, Community Services Director, commented on the park issues contained within the Development Agreement. Commissioner Brown arrived at 4:46 p.m. Commissioner Brown stated that he could not participate due to a possible conflict of interest. Discussion at the table ensued on the park improvements; to what extent the park is to be improved, and when it would come on line; financing mechanisms: up front payment of fees, reimbursement agreement, or other public financing mechanisms; revenue generated and maintenance of park. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to make a statement in favor or opposition. Mr. Chris Taylor, representing Homestead Land Development Corporation, gave an overview on the proposals, highlighting the changes made in the circulation, and commented on conditions 4, 5, 25, 26, 28, 31, of the Specific Plan, and conditions 8, 15, 24, 28, 36, 38, 39, 45 of the Tentative Tract Maps, revised conditions dated March 14, 1990. Requested that condition 13, and 39 on the Specific Plan be amended, as follows: Condition #13: Slopes on individual lots that are in excess of three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigation shall be installed by the developer where slopes exceed five -feet (5'). Condition #39: A multi - purpose landscaped trail shall be designed and constructed in Wasson Canyon and maintained by the homeowners' association or other entity. Mr. Taylor stated he would like clarification, where we are providing.facilities to service off -site properties that the City is committed to a reimbursement agreement for those costs. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to make a statement in favor or opposition. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting March 19, 1990 Page 2 RAMSGATE CONTINUED Mr. Larry Buxton of Courton and Associates, representing Partin Development owner of Tract Map 25487 to the south of these proposals, commented on the road alignment and timing for said alignment contained within Tract 25479, condition number 40 of the revised conditions, dated March 14, 1990. Considerable discussion ensued on the aforementioned Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Maps; changes in the Tentative Tract Maps due to circulation changes, and whether or not the Commission is comfortable in approving the maps at this time. At this time, 5:34 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 5:46 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. Vice Chairman Saathoff stated for clarification, he would like to make sure that the language contained within the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Maps pertaining to the road alignment between the Partin Tract and the Ramsgate Tract will meet somewhere in Tract 25478 or 25479, that assurance is given that these roads will meet, reference condition 26. Discussion at the table ensued on the road alignment. Mr. Taylor then commented on Exhibit 2 pertaining to sidewalk widths being six feet and there being some slope, and the open space parkway on Steele Valley Road having some slope. Discussion at the table ensued on the width of the sidewalks, referenced in Exhibit 2. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to make a statement in favor or opposition. Mr. Adele Estumar, Dana Point, California, owner of 18 acres contiguous and bordering Ramsgate, commented on "A" Street and access provided to surrounding property. Mr. Taylor stated that Mr. Estumar's comment is covered under condition number 36 of the Tentative Tract Maps. Mr. Smother presented an additional condition for discussion, general requirement on all of the Tract Maps: - The developer shall financially participate in preparation of a Specific Plan for the properties between this project and Highway 74. Mr. Smother stated that essentially this is needed to determine circulation and drainage needs in that area. The amount would have to be determined. There,are connection and interface issues that, I think, would require them to participate financially. Considerable discussion ensued on the proposed condition, with the recommendation that it be amended to read: If the City requires a Specific Plan in that area, then the developer shall be required to participate in the development of that Specific Plan; this issue needing further discussion, and whether or not it should be included as a condition at this time. Mr. Bill Frye, of L D. .,,Johnson Companies, commented on the proposed condition and participation involvement. Discussion at the table ensued on noise abatement measures along Highway 74; the Development Agreement and the requested changes not being incorporated into said agreement, and continuing the Minutes of Special March 19, 1990 Page 3 RAMSGATE Planning Commission Meeting Development Agreement to April 4, 1990; amending the aforementioned Conditions of Approval for the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Maps, as follows: Specific Plan: Condition #03: "All final tracts noted on Exhibit 1 shall include lot sizes in substantial compliance with said Exhibit subject to approval of the Community Development Director. It is recognized that lot sizes will be reduced by the increased street right -of -way and open space parkway easements required by these conditions, and shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit 1". Condition #04: "Minimum lot width at the front setback line shall be 50 feet for single - family detached home lots. Flag lots shall have a minimum street frontage of 20 feet. If lots less than 50 feet in width are proposed, as presently delineated by Tract 25477, they shall be considered a special development such as patio homes, cluster homes or zero lot line homes subject to architectural design review approval of the Planning Commission." Condition #05: "Double fronting lots on primary or secondary streets shall have a minimum lot depth of 120 feet or a combination of the increased parkway width and lot depth in order to create sufficient separation from these more heavily traveled streets." Condition #10: "An open space plan shall delineate areas to be within home owner association easements and other maintenance responsibilities, and shall be approved by the Community Development Director." Condition #26: "Street classification and dimensions shall be as shown on Exhibits 2 and 3, with minor deviations allowed subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. All secondary and residential collector streets shall be planned and constructed with median islands and be located within an open space parkway, subject to the provisions in condition number 10, above." Condition #27: "An 80 -foot right -of -way secondary street shall be .dedicated to connect Ramsgate Drive, with an alignment of Wasson Canyon Road in Tract 25487, as approved by the Community Development Director." Condition #31: "All open space and slopes except for public parks and schools and Flood Control District facilities, outside the public right -of -way will be owned and maintained by either a master owners' association or private owners. All open space areas owned by the owners' association will be offered for irrevocable dedication to the City. Maintenance responsibilities shall be further defined per the provisions of condition number 10, above." Condition #39: "A multi - purpose landscaped trail shall be designed and constructed in Wasson Canyon. Tentative Tract Maps: Condition #08: "Fence locations and walls indicated on a grading Minutes of Special March 19, 1990 Page 4 RAMSGATE Planning Commission Meeting or landscape plan and consistent with the Specific Plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the release of the Certificate of Occupancy. Condition #15: "Construct all required public works improvements per approved plans (Municipal Code, Title 12); plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to final map approval." Condition #24: "All utilities except electrical over 12 kv, shall be placed under ground, as approved by serving utility." Condition #28: "All local streets as determined by the Community Development Director shall have 54 feet right -of- way and 40 feet curb -to -curb. Restricted local double loaded streets (cul -de -sacs and looped streets 1,000 feet or less) shall have 50 feet of right -of -way and 36 feet curb -to -curb with a 3 foot easement on each side of the street." Condition #34: "The developer shall be generally eligible for reimbursement agreements for the cost of off -site improvements required of this project. Condition #36: "An evaluation shall be made to determine the need for a stub street located along "A" Street to provide for access to the property surrounded by this tract, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition #38: "B" Street shall be evaluated and approved by the Community Development Director as to its need to intersect with Highway 74 at a point where the easterly tract boundary intersects with Highway 74 prior to approval of Final Map for this tract. Condition #40: "L" Street shall be evaluated and approved by the Community Development Director to determine if it is appropriate for extension into the property east of this tract boundary prior to the approval of a Final Map for this tract." Condition #41: "A secondary street with an 80 foot right -of -way shall be located to connect Ramsgate Drive and the Tentative Tract 25487 along the southern boundary of this tract prior to the approval of a Final Map for this tract to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director." Condition #45: "All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code." Motion by Commissioner .Gilenson to recommend to City Council approval of the FirstAsendment to the Ramsgate Specific Plan; recommend certification, of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum; approval of Tentative Tract Maps 25472, 25473, 25474, 25475, 25476, 5477, 25478, 25479 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and the aforementioned amendments, adoption of Resolution 90 -1 and Minutes of Special March 19, 1990 Page 5 RAMSGATE Planning Commission Meeting Resolution 90 -2, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 90 -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADDENDUM, FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE RAMSGATE SPECIFIC PLAN - FIRST AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 90 -2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RAMSGATE SPECIFIC PLAN - FIRST AMENDMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 (Commissioner Brown abstaining and Commissioner Brinley absent) Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue the Development Agreement to the meeting of April 4, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -0 (Commissioner Brown abstaining and Commissioner Brinley absent) Vice Chairman Saathoff stated that this public meeting stands recessed until April 4, 1990. There being no further business, Commission adjourned at 6:37 p.m. Respectfully siabmitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary the Lake Elsinore Planning Approved, Gc� ve, Bill Saathoff, Vice Chairman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley and Gilenson k9*1*111] Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Assistant Planners Fairbanks and DeGange. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Minutes of March 7, 1990 and March 14, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey with discussion. Commissioner Wilsey commented on Page 7 of the March 7th Minutes pertaining to Variance 90 -2 and whether or not condition number 29 was deleted as recommended. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that condition number 29 was deleted. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 3 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 25157 - Four Corners A Limited Partnership (Bainbridge Investments) - Continued from February 21, 1990 - Chairman Brown stated that there has been a request to continue this item to April 4, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Tentative Parcel Map 25157 to April 4, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 2. Conditional Use Permit 90 -2 and Commercial Project 90 -3 - George Smyrniotis - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive - through window, and Design Review of a 2,157 square foot fast food restaurant (S.S. Burger Basket), on a .50 acre site, located on the east side of Lakeshore Drive approximately 162 feet north of Riverside Drive. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Lloyd Roybal, representing the applicant, commented on the site plan, north elevation, and the landscape buffers against the building. We would like to remove those landscape buffers and put the landscape planters that are in the middle of side - walk closer to the building thereby giving us clear passage. Mr. Roybal then commented on condition number 59, pertaining to the median on Lakeshore Drive. We would like to request a left turn lane into the center median so that we can approach the project from the southeasterly direction. Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -2 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -3 CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. George Smyrniotis commented on condition number 59, pertaining to the median on Lakeshore Drive, and ingress to his property. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if to speak in opposition. Receiving no response asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. response, Chairman Brown closed the public p.m. speak in favor. anyone wished Chairman Brown Receiving no hearing at 7:12 Commissioner Wilsey commented on the 30 foot drive aisle between this project and the project adjoining; would like further discussion on condition number 59. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the relocation of the menu speaker and the stacking of vehicles with this relocation; circulation with the 30 foot driveways; exit on Lakeshore Drive has to be a right turn only, whether or not there is a median; mandatory left turn lane, if project is approved. Commissioner Wilsey stated that one of his concerns is that vehicles will attempt to make a left turn on Lakeshore Drive if we don't have a median. There is also a conflict with the left turn with this project, the one next door and the proposed shopping center with a left turn on Riverside Drive; this is not a workable situation. Chairman Brown commented on whether or not a design has been established for this landscape median on Lakeshore Drive, and the formula used to determine financial participation; relocation of planters; providing shade areas outside over the pick up area and on the building. Discussion at the table ensued on the landscape median and amending condition number 59, as follows: Applicant shall contribute a fair share towards the construction of the landscape median with a not to exceed dollar amount; whether or not the median will be designed to assist the applicant; deleting condition number 59 and referring to City Council for consideration. Motion by Commissioner Permit 90 -2 based on th Conditions of Approval recommend to City, Council based on the Findings Approval listed in the amendments: Saathoff to approve Conditional Use B Findings and subject to the 3 listed in the Staff Report, and to approval of Commercial Project 90 -3 and subject to the 62 Conditions of Staff Report with the following Condition No. 59: 'Applicant shall contribute $6380 towards the future construction of a landscape odian on Lakeshore Drive. DELETE FROM CONDITIONS, AND REFER TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION WITH A FORMULA PROVIDED THAT ALSO CONDITIONS THE CONTRIBUTION, WHATEVER THE FUNDS MAY BE, TO ASSURE THE APPLICANT THAT THERE WILL BE A LEFT TURN LANE COMING FROM THE NORTH. Condition No. 63: :'The egress onto Lakeshore Drive shall be posted right turn only." Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -2 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -3 Commissioner Wilsey asked about the change in the landscaping on the north side, as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Saathoff stated that as part of the motion, Landscaping as depicted on the Landscaping Plan would be allowed next to the building, on the north elevation near the drive aisle. second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to re- affirm Negative Declaration 88 -8, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25274 - Pardee Construction Company - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a proposal to create 109 lots on 10.6 acres, in conformance with the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Cottonwood Hills and Lost Roads. Approximately 2.5 miles east of I -15 and Railroad Canyon Road. The Environ- mental Impact Report previously certified for Cottonwood Hills addresses environmental issues. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Ted Cullen, representing Pardee, requested that the word Vesting be added to the heading of the Conditions of Approval. Commented on condition number 10, being inconsistent with Vesting Tentative Maps under the California State Subdivision Maps Act, and typically the fee structure is held frozen at the time of approval of the vesting tentative tract. This was discussed with Mr. Ron Kirchner of the Engineering Department and he was in agreement, this is inconsistent with the Map Act. Mr. Cullen then commented on condition number 13.i., pertain- ing to the percolation ponds for Railroad Canyon Wastewater Reclamation Plan, stating that they would prefer that this not be a condition of this map. Mr. Cullen stated that these ponds are not under this land; it is in a different section of Tract 23848. We have been in on -going discussion with the Water District and hope that the District will not relocate the ponds but remove them. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if to speak in opposition. Receiving no response asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. response, Chairman Brown closed the public p.m. speak in favor. anyone wished Chairman Brown Receiving no hearing at 7:40 Commissioner Wilsey referred condition 10 and condition 13.i. to Community Development Director Gunderman. Community Development Director number 10 is not a part of the the fee structure, it would be this map is approved. Gunderman stated that condition underlying map approval. As to the fees applicable at the time Community Development Director Gunderman stated that condition condition 13.i., as he understands it, is really an issue more in tune to the other site as indicated and not this particular site. The condition should remain but reference given to Tract Map 23848. Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 4 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25274 CONTINUED Chairman Brown commented on condition number 15, deleting the words " or grading "; condition number 17, changing the word "grading" to "building "; suggested that condition number 18, be amended to read: Interim and permanent erosion control measures are required and plans shall be approved prior to grading permit issuance. The applicant shall bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year for erosion control landscaping prior to the issuance of a rough grade permit. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25274 based on the Findings and subject to the 27 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 10: "Pay all applicable fees in force at time of issuance of building permits for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25274. Condition No. 13i: "Provide an alternate site for the percolation ponds for Railroad Canyon Wastewater Reclamation Plan as per prior correspondence. Site is to be pre- approved by EVMWD." DELETE. Condition No. 15: "Applicant shall submit and receive approval of landscape and irrigation plans for model homes (if such are desired), back -up wall areas, street trees and slope planting in accord with the City Landscape Guidelines, prior to issuance of building permits." Condition No. 17: "House plotting, architectural drawings, floor plans, landscaping and fences /walls shall require Minor Design Review approval prior to issuance of building permits. All standards of development and procedural steps in effect at the Minor Design Review submittal shall apply for this project." Condition No. 18: "Interim and permanent erosion control measures are required and plans shall be approved prior to grading permit issuance. The applicant shall bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year for erosion control landscaping prior to the issuance of a rough grade permit." second by Chairman Brown. Approved 3 -0 At this time, 7:48 p.m. the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 7:58 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Brown %re- opened the public hearing on Vesting Tentative Tract Map;;25274 at 7:58 p.m., to address condition number 11, pertaining to payment of school mitigation fee, and suggested that the words "payment of fee" be deleted. Mr. Cullen commented on condition number 11, stating that he believes the condition can remain as written and not be detrimental. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 5 4. Cottonwood Development Agreement - Pardee Construction Company - Community Development Director Gunderman requested that this item be continued to the meeting of April 4, 1990, due to on -going negotiations. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue the Cottonwood Development Agreement to the meeting of April 4, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE AND 6 CONCURRENTLY. TO CONSIDER BUSINESS ITEMS 5 Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented the following proposals: Single- Family Residence - 780 Lake Street - Tony Schiavone - A request to construct a 1,678 square foot dwelling, on a 50 x 130 foot lot, located west of the intersection of Acacia Street and Avenue 1. Single- Family Residence - 790 Lake Street - Tony Schiavone - A request to construct a 1,785 square foot dwelling, on a 50 x 130 foot lot, located west of the intersection of Acacia Street and Avenue 1. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Tony Schiavone stated that the two houses proposed will improve the neighborhood. A brief discussion was held on the front elevation of 790 Acacia Street, pertaining to the windows. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residences at 780 and 790 Acacia Street based on the Findings and subject to the 34 and 35 Conditions of Approval, respectively, listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment to condition number 23 on 790 Acacia Street: Condition No. 23: "Applicant will incorporate decorative window shutters to enhance the windows on the front and left elevations. The second story window on the front elevation shall be of a compatible dimension with the other windows, to meet the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved: 3 -0 7. Single- Family Residence - 32945 Serena Way - Kevin D. Jeffries - Community Development Director Gunderman stated that there is a request to continue this item to the meeting of April 4, 1990, to allow time for staff to consult with the City Attorney regarding the effect the lake perimeter moratorium has upon the site. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Jeffries if he concurred with this request. Mr. Jeffries responded in the negative. Chairman Brown asked staff to present the Staff Report, and since the applicant is not in agreement with the continuance, explain the legal issues. Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 6 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE 32945 SERENA WAY Community Development Director Gunderman stated that primarily the legal issues are: this project is within the moratorium area around the lake, and the moratorium is quite specific in its provision that no project can be approved, constructed, or permits issued of any type as long as the moratorium is in effect, which is until May 14, 1990. What make this project some what questionable is: 1) it is a portion of an already approved Tract Map in that area; 2) there have been some units built on that tract prior to the amendment of the moratorium, which included this property. Chairman Brown commented on vesting rights, and since it was not done as a vested map this proposal is subject to the moratorium. Asked Mr. Jeffries if he wanted to proceed with the project and have it denied instead of continuing it for two weeks to allow staff to consult with the City Attorney. Mr. Jeffries stated that he would like to have the Commission act upon this proposal as we do meet all of the requirements for Design Review, except the City Attorney has to to decide whether or not it is eligible to be built, and he may come back tomorrow and say we do have the right to build. This means I am put on hold again, and have to wait and come back before the Commission with the exact same conditions in two weeks. Chairman Brown informed Mr. Jeffries that condition number 1, states that Design Review approval will lapse in one year, and it could take a year to get a legal opinion on the moratorium. Mr. Jeffries stated that he accepts this fact. Chairman Brown asked staff to present the report. Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request to construct a 3,973.8 square foot: two -story dwelling on a 6,000 square foot lot, located approximately 300 feet north of Grand Avenue, on the west side of Serena Way. Chairman Brown suggested the addition of condition number 22.a, which would;;read: No further processing of any kind shall take place, on this application until a written opinion is presented by;the City Attorney as to the validity of this design review on this project in reference to the recent moratorium. Also, :would like to see a legal opinion on how this would be affected in future, this entire subdivision, should that moratorium take a long term effect as far as vesting rights. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 32945 Serena Way based on the Findings and subject to the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 22a: vNo further processing of any kind shall take place on this application until a written opinion is presented by the City Attorney as to the validity of this design review on this project in reference to the recent moratorium." second by Chairman Brown. Approved 3 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 7 8. Single - Family Residence - 18130 Strickland Avenue - Curt & Peggy Andrews (Sun Rise Construction) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal for a 2,208 square foot single - story, dwelling, on a 7,490 square foot lot located near the northwest corner of the intersection of Feldman Avenue and Strickland Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Discussion at the table was held on foundations for manu- factured homes, and driveway dimension of 18 feet in width being added to condition number 9. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 18130 Strickland Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the 23 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 9: "Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine feet six inches by twenty feet (916 "x 201) of interior clear space for two (2) cars for a total interior clear space of nineteen by twenty feet (191x201). The driveway must have a minimum dimension of 18 feet in width." second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 9. Single - Family Residence - 217 Townsend - D & N Building - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 2,404 square foot two -story dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot, located on the west side of Townsend approximately 60 feet south of Sumner. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Lloyd Roybal, representing the applicant, stated that the garage does meet the interior clear space of 19'x201 , condition number 10; stated that they will revise the site plans to show placement of the street trees, condition number 13. Ms. Darlene O'Clardy, representing D & N Building Services, commented on the lake view from the left side of the house in the rear yard area, and asked if it was possible to put a wrought iron fence between the houses where the view would not be obstructed by a six -foot high wood fence, condition number 15. Discussion at the table was held on the elevation of the lot; condition number 10, pertaining to width of driveway and meeting code requirements; condition number 15, if it can be shown that there is a difference in two -foot elevations then Building and Planning Department may entertain looking at a 4 x 2 masonry wall with a two -foot cap. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 217 Townsend based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like to see in the motion that condition number 10 be conditioned to meet the 18 foot width driveway requirement, and the following verbiage added to condition number 15, subject to the approval of the Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 8 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE 217 TOWNSEND CONTINUED Community Development Director that consideration be given to a 4 x 2 foot fence, if it meets the code requirements. Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to include the amend- ments to condition number 10 and condition 15, as follows: Condition No. 10: "Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine feet six inches by twenty feet (916 "x 201) of interior clear space for two (2) cars for a total interior clear space of nineteen by twenty feet (191x201). The driveway must have a minimum dimension of 18 feet in width." Condition No. 15: "A six -foot (61) high wood fence or masonry wall, which may be a combination of 4 x 2, shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls), sub- ject to the approval of the Community Development Director.'' second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 10. Single - Family Residence - 1509 Heald Avenue - D & N Building Services - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 1,940 square foot two -story dwelling on a 8,250 square foot lot, the site is approximately 50 feet east of the intersection of Chaney Street and Heald Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Lloyd Roybal, representing the applicant, commented briefly on the architecture, and stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. A brief discussion was held on condition number 10, pertaining to the width of the driveway and meeting code requirements. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 1509 Heald Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendment: Condition No. 10: "Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine feet six inches by twenty feet (916 11x 201) of interior clear space for two (2) cars for a total interior clear space of nineteen by twenty feet (191x201). The driveway must have a minimum dimension of 18 feet in width." second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 11. Single - Family Residence - 16777 Holborow Avenue - Roger Ritzdorf - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal to construct a 1,459; 75 square foot two -story dwelling on a 5,124 square foot lot, located 70 feet south of the intersection of Hague Street and Holborow Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 9 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE 16777 HOLBOROW Mr. Lloyd Roybal, representing the applicant, stated that staff recommended windows on the north side, and the plans have been revised to illustrate this enhancement; also a used brick facade has been added to the front. Mr. Roybal stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. A brief discussion was held on condition number 30, pertaining to drainage easements from down hill property owners. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single- Family Residence at 16777 Holborow Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the 31 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 12. Single - Family Residence - 911 Pottery Street - Calvin & Gwen Callister - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal to construct a 1,250 square foot one -story dwelling on a 7,500 square foot lot, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Pottery and Lewis Streets. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Lloyd Roybal, representing the applicant, stated that they were in agreement with staff recommendation. A brief discussion was held on the distance from the sewer trunk line. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 911 Pottery Street based on the Findings and subject to the 36 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER BUSINESS ITEMS 13 AND 14 CONCURRENTLY. Assistant Planner DeGange presented the following proposals: Single- Family Residence - 743 Lake Street - Steve Szemenyei - A request to construct a 1,471 square foot two -story dwelling on a 3,305 square foot lot, located 258 feet east of the intersection of High and Lake Streets. Single - Family Residence - 747 Lake Street - Steve Szemenyei - A request.to construct a 1,471 square foot two -story dwelling on a 3,305 square foot lot, located 298 feet west of the intersection of Avenue 1 and Lake Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Wayne Penny, representing the applicant, stated that he did not receive a copy of the conditions for these projects. Mr. Penny was given a copy of the conditions to review, and informed that if he had any concerns they could be addressed after discussion at the table. Discussion at the table was held on front elevations and the need for architectural enhancements -- dormer windows, visual change in architecture between the two dwellings; continuing the projects indefinitely allowing the architect to revise the plans and resubmit at his convenience. Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1990 Page 10 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE 743 AND 747 LAKE STREET CONTINUED Mr. Penny stated that he did not see a problem with the conditions. Motion by Chairman Brown to continue Single - Family Residences at 743 and 747 Lake Street indefinitely, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report Chairman Brown We have requested that the auto repair businesses in town not have vehicles out overnight. Goodyear is back to leaving inoperable vehicles out for long periods of time. Requested that Code Enforcement go out after 5:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m. and look into this situation. Commissioner Brinlev Absent. Commissioner Gilenson Absent. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 Respe fully s witted, Linda Gri dstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Associate Planner Restivo. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Associate Planners Restivo and Naaseh, Assistant Planners Fair- banks and DeGange. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of March 19, 1990, as submitted, and Minutes of March 21, 1990, with the following correction: Page 10: Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to adjourn, second by Commissioner Saathoff. second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved: 3 -0 (Commissioner Brown abstaining on Minutes of March 19, 1990, and Commissioner Gilenson abstaining on Minutes of March 21, 1990) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 25157 - Four Corners A Limited Partnership (Bainbridge Investments) - Continued from March 21, 1990 - Associate Planner Restivo stated the proposal is to subdivide 5.4 net acres into five (5) parcels, located at the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Lakeshore Drive. City Council referred this item back to Planning Commission for re- consideration, majority of the issues being traffic concerns. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Discussion at the table was held on access onto Lakeshore Drive being restricted, and the proposed thirty -foot (301) drive aisle on Riverside Drive; staff's concern with the traffic study submitted, continuing proposal until concerns are adequately addressed, and an obstruction for right- turn -in and right- turn -out being considered in the future. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Tentative Parcel Map 25157 until a Commercial Design Review is approved by Planning Commission, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 2. Ramsgate Development Agreement - Homestead Land Development Corporation (Rialto Development Corporation, which does business as L.D. Johnson Companies) - Continued from March 19, 1990, Special Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Hardy Strozier, Special Projects Consultant for the City, gave a brief overview of the proposal highlighting the major deal points contained within the Development Agreement. Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 2 RAMSGATE DEVELOPMENT Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. The following persons spoke: Mr. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development Corporation, stated that they have been co- applicants on this proposal for the last 6 -9 months, with L.D. Johnson Companies who is the actual property owner. As a result of the recent Planning approvals that have come down we have lost our venture partner, the Buie Corporation, and this calls a question to how much longer we are going to be involved with the project. Mr. Bill Frye, L.D. Johnson Companies, stated that they have been working diligently with staff and the committee to negotiate this agreement to a conclusion that will allow the flexibility of development to occur in a timely manner. Mr. Strozier stated that as a final comment, there is one important provision, as the City matures over the next 5 -10 years, there are no restrictions on the City's ability to enact future development impact fees. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if to speak in opposition. Receiving no response asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. response, Chairman Brown closed the public p.m. speak in favor. anyone wished Chairman Brown Receiving no hearing at 7:24 Commissioner Wilsey stated that we have worked diligently with the developer trying to arrive at this point, and satisfied with the Development Agreement. Commissioner Gilenson commented as follows: Page 3 - second to last paragraph - 6th line up: Correct typographical error "rn" to "in" Page 4 - Section 4.1.1 Development Agreement Fees: Through- out the agreement it talks about 3,137 dwelling units at $2,000 per unit it comes to 6274 not 5.7 Mr. Strozier stated in negotiations with the developer and staff, including the City Manager, we agreed to spread those units over the Specific Plan amount that the developer originally applied for. Staff was the one that requested additional units in the multi - family category in order to provide certain subventions for our future multi- family affordable housing requirements. Since it was the City's request for the additional units, not the developer, the developer requested that the fee go on their original Specific Plan request, and staff agreed with this. Page 6 - Section 4.1.6 Affordable Housing: How did we come up with these figures? Section 5.1 Scheduling- 4th line up from bottom of paragraph: Correct typographical error "s" to "is" bottom line change "End" to "and" Page 8 - Section 7.2 Effect of Agreement: 3 line from bottom of paragraph - Correct typographical error "foe" to "for" Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 3 RAMSGATE CONTINUED Page 10 - Section 8.4 Police Power: "Except as otherwise provided in the Development Agreement or in this Agreement, the conditions, exactions, dedications, fees or regulations applicable to the Project as provided in the Development Approval and in this Agreement, will not be subject to modification or renegotiation by the City as a result of any amend- ment of the Development Approval or this Agreement, any parcel map or subdivision map or any condition of subdivision map or parcel map or any resub- division of the property (including a merger or lot line adjustment for the creation of new lots within a designated remainder parcel)." Need clarification, if they decide to change every- thing, subdivision map, redivision of property, we are locked into what we have right now, correct? Mr. Strozier stated that he he did not believe this to be the intent of the Agreement. If they wanted to change their entitlement there would be an opportunity to review this. Commissioner Gilenson stated that this is not the intent - -it is the written word, would like to see it deleted from this section. Mr. Strozier stated that the applicant knows that he will be back in within 4 -5 years, and he does not want to open this up again and renegotiate these fees, but he should speak to this. Page 11 - Section 9.1 Third Party Actions: Add the following verbiage after the first sentence: "Developer agrees to assume the lead role in defense of any such action or preceding so as to minimize litigation expenses incurred by City." Mr. Strozier asked Commissioner Gilenson for clarification on lead role. Commissioner Gilenson responded that the applicant shall pay attorney fees. Mr. Stozier suggested verbiage: applicant shall be responsible for paying all attorney fees and other costs associated with any litigation. Page 12 - Section 9.4 Other Governmental Permits "Delete the following verbiage: 11 and will, from time to time at the request of the Developer, attempt with due diligence and good faith, to enter into binding agreements with any such governmental agency necessary to assure the availability of such permits and approvals or services, provided such agreements are reasonable and not materially detrimental to the City." Page 13 - Section 9.8 Stephens Kangaroo Rat - 3 line down: Correct typographical error "Cite" to "City" Page 14 - Section 10 Permitted Delays - 4th line down: Delete words "state of the economy; market factors" Mr. Frye commented on Page 10 - Section 8.4 Police Power and Taxing Power, stating they concur with Mr. Strozier. We will be coming back for some sort of amendment or clarification of zoning, map amendment or other items as listed. We are trying Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 4 RAMSGATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED to instill in the City that because of that we to renegotiate this Development Agreement. We a burden on the City; we just want everyone to is the deal for this project. You have every any request for amendment. I would think that such amendment or change that you would be th would be in the best interest of the City. are not looking are not putting agree that this right to deny if you agree to inking that it Chairman Brown stated that he believes that the concern is that this contract relates to a specific approval, and should you decide that you want to change that approval then the contract is open to renegotiation. Discussion at the table ensued on Section 8.4 Police Power and Taxing Power; allowing latitude for the City or developer to renegotiate the contract /agreement in the future. Commissioner Saathoff commented on why tomorrow's dollars were not given consideration, and whether or not the Development Agreement runs with the land. Mr. Strozier responded that staff looked at putting a CPI escalating factor on the basis amount, and chose not to because of the context of negotiations. Mr. Frye commented on the changes to Sections 9.4, Govern- mental Permits proposed by Commissioner Gilenson. Chairman Brown suggested that Section 9.4 be deferred to the City Attorney for written opinion /resolution. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would prefer to have it deleted. Chairman Brown commented the density bonus, number 11 in the Summary. Asked if we are requiring the developer to build this density bonus; is he required to provide 287 additional units, or does this give him the flexibility to put up to 287 additional units? What is the City's return for the density bonus? Mr. Strozier responded that this agreement would not require the developer to put up 287 additional multi - family units. It would require him, to build the noted number of low and very low income units. The City's return is that the developer is in effect subsidizing the affordable housing. Chairman Brown commented on the 20 percent affordable housing, and asked if this will be in the multi - family regardless of 287 units. Mr. Strozier responded in the affirmative. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council approval of the Development Agreement with the following amendment: Page 12 - Section 9.4 Other Governmental Permits "Delete the following verbiage: " and will, from time to time at the request of the Developer, attempt with due diligen6e..4and good faith, to enter into binding agreements, with any such governmental agency necessary„to assure the availability of such permits and approvals or services, provided such agreements are reasonable and not materially detrimental to the City." Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 5 RAMSGATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED second by Commissioner Gilenson with discussion. Inquired whether or not Commissioner Wilsey wanted to include the other amendments. Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to include the following amendments: Page 10 - Section 8.4 Police Power: Delete the following: "Except as otherwise provided in the Development Agreement or in this Agreement, the conditions, exactions, dedications, fees or regulations applicable to the Project as provided in the Development Approval and in this Agreement, will not be subject to modification or renegotiation by the City as a result of any amendment of the Development Approval or this Agreement, any parcel map or subdivision map or any condition of subdivision map or parcel map or any resubdivision of the property (including a merger or lot line adjustment for the creation of new lots within a designated remainder parcel)." Page 11 - Section 9.1 Third Party Actions: Add the following verbiage after the first sentence: "Developer agrees to assume the lead role in defense of any such action or preceding so as to minimize litigation expenses incurred by City." Page 14 - Section 10 Permitted Delays - 4th line down: words "state of the economy, market factors" Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to adopt Resolution entitled as follows: RESOLUTION 90 -3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH RIALTO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WHICH DOES BUSINESS AS L.D. JOHNSON second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 At this time, 8:07 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:20 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. Delete 90 -3. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING #4 AND THE BUSINESS ITEMS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING #3. CHAIRMAN BROWN ASKED TO BE EXCUSED DUE TO POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON PUBLIC HEARING #4, AND TURNED THE GAVEL OVER TO VICE CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF. 4. Zone Change 89 -16 and Tentative Tract Map 25487 - Partin Development - Associate Planner Restivo presented a proposal to re -zone 48.3 acres of land from R -R (Rural Residential) to R -1 (Low Density Residential), and to subdivide the site into 134 lots. The project is located north of the current terminus of Wasson Canyon Road, one -half mile east of I -15 and one -.half mile south of Highway 74. Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 6 ZONE CHANGE 89 -16 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25487 CONTINUED Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he would like to amend condition number 77, as follows: Condition No. 77: "Wasson Canyon Road shall be designed and constructed with the cooperation and to the same standards as the Ramsgate Development for connection to Ramsgate Drive. Applicant shall also cooperate with the developers to the south for the design, construction of North Lake Elsinore Hills Drive and Wasson Canyon Road connection to Camino Del Norte." Vice Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Larry Buxton, Courton & Associates, representing the applicant gave a brief overview on the proposal, highlighting the reports prepared and grading occurring on the tract. Mr. Buxton stated there are some conditions that he would like to have clarified. Vice Chairman Saathoff informed Mr. Buxton that he would be called back to the podium at the close of the public hearing to address the conditions in question. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development, stated that they are involved with the Ramsgate project, and we have been coordinating our efforts with Partin Development. It is my intent to make sure that there is clarification relative to the road that interjects itself to Ramsgate Drive; as this does encroach into the property that we have identified as a community park. I just want to make sure that this encroachment does not interfere with the Ramsgate project in any future refinement and installation of that community park. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to ;;speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving, no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. Vice Chairman Saathoff called Mr. Buxton back to the podium. Mr. Buxton stated: that in reference to the road that is proposed to conne6`, -to Ramsgate Drive we appeared at the Ramsgate hearing ,,.,and supported the concept of working with Ramsgate to provide,a connecting road that is acceptable to the Community Development Director, this is addressed in condition number 7,7.., We would like to have our condition read: Wasson Canon Road shall be designed and constructed along the northern border of Tract 25487. Mr. Buxton then co'mme'nted on the following conditions: Condition 12i ertaining to a Class II bicycle lane being provided on Wasson Canyon Road and this being a safety hazard'. Condition 36, „pertaining to the decorative block or masonry wall, ;requested combination masonry /wrought iron for view areas; Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 7 ZONE CHANGE 89 -16 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25487 CONTINUED Condition number 69, pertaining to flood protection, this was discussed with Engineering Department staff, and it is our understanding that as long as we release water where it is now, at the same velocity, that it would meet this requirement. Condition number 72, pertaining to digitized tapes being provided, and the City not having a standard for digitizing at this time. Discussion ensued on the aforementioned condition. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the location of Wasson Canyon in conjunction with this proposal; the amount of export material, and utilizing natural contours. Vice Chairman Saathoff commented on the natural and finished grade elevations. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 72, recommending this condition be amended by adding verbiage: "if standards are adopted prior to Certificate of Occupancy "; condition number 74, "F" and "G" Streets to remain open not cul -de -sac. Discussion ensued on condition number 74, pertaining to "F" and "G" Streets with regard to the cul -de -sacs; export material /grading and condition number 50 addressing this issue. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -56 and approval of Zone Change 89 -16 and Tentative Tract Map 25487 based on the Findings and subject to the 80 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 36: "A decorative block, masonry or combination of masonry /wrought iron wall shall be constructed around the perimeter of the subdivision. Precise design, materials and location to be determined through Minor Design Review process. Condition No. 72: "All tracts and engineering shall be digitized by developer per City standards, tapes to be provided prior to issuance of Certificate if Occupancy, if standards are adopted prior to Certificate of Occupancy." Condition No. 77: "Wasson Canyon Road shall be designed and constructed with the cooperation and to the same standards as the Ramsgate Development for connection to Ramsgate Drive. Applicant shall also cooperate with the developers to the south for the design, construction of North Lake Elsinore Hills Drive and Wasson Canyon Road connection to Camino Del Norte." second by Vice Chairman Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 (Chairman Brown abstaining) Chairman Brown returned to the table at 9:00 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 8 BUSINESS ITEMS 5. Single - Family Residences: Machado - Philip Williams - a request to construct four lots are located on the approximately 600 feet Bout; 32166, 32168, 32170 Associate Planner Naaseh single - family dwellings. east side of Machado I of Lincoln Street. and 32174 presented The four Street, Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Phil Williams, applicant, stated that he agrees with staff recommendation. Discussion at the table was held on how address will be dis- played from the street, condition number 21; ingress /egress and access for emergency vehicles; if provisions were made for a common planter area separating the driveways, and driveway separation for the flag lots. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to adopt Negative Declaration 90 -8 and approval of Single - Family Residences at 32166, 32168, 32170 and 32174 Machado based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4 -0 6. Room Addition 30413 Hill Avenue - Howard White - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to construct a two -story addition of 661 square feet, a 451 square foot garage, and a 556 square foot deck /balcony and elevated walkway to a single -story dwelling of 1,218 square feet. The site is approximately 90 feet west of the intersection of Driscoll Street and Hill Avenue. Assistant Planner DeGange requested that the following be added as a condition of approval: Reduce the proposed walkway to a staircase within ten feet of the proposed deck. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Howard White, applicant, commented on the walkway in staff's opinion being aesthetically unappealing and making it aesthetically appealing by lowering the height by 1 or 2 feet; condition number 15, pertaining to the six -foot fence; the lot line adjustment has already been submitted. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like to see a condition added for the reduction or deletion of the walkway /deck. Commissioner Brown commented on the setbacks prior to the lot line adjustment. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he found the walkway to be unique and tied in the whole project; commented on the roofing materials for the carport and the different color material in the back illustrated on the rendering. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Room Addition at 30413 Hill Avenue ,based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 9 7. Monument Sign and Tower Element Sign for Lakeview Inn - M & S General Contractors (Milton Polsky) - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a request for approval of a monument sign six -foot high, eight -foot wide and double sided with a sign area of approximately 17 square feet; a tower element sign which will be placed on three difference sides, one facing the freeway (east) with a total of 29 square feet, and the other two on the south sign area and the north face of the tower visible to traffic from both directions on the freeway, each 19.5 square feet. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Milton Polsky gave a brief history on his situation and his request for said signs; the original Sign Program and the intent of the City that there not be a tower sign at this location. Mr. Steve Harriman, Elsinore Valley Sign Service, stated that the monument sign was drawn to match the architectural design of the building. The freestanding sign is at the very end of the property, and by identifying the tower people will be able to identify the building. A motel business is dependent upon late night customers. Discussion was held on the original Sign Program that proposed freeway signs almost adjacent to the motel; why a tower sign is needed when we have the freeway pole sign; the shared freeway sign with Pizza Hut and the car wash having the same visibility, and the Sign Program being inclusive. Motion by Commissioner Brown to deny without prejudice the applicant's request and forward to City Council, or approve staff recommendation. I believe that it would be in the applicant's best interest to deny without prejudice. Discussion at the table ensued on the motion, whether it was to recommend denial on everything or approval. Commissioner Brown stated that his motion was to deny without prejudice, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Discussion ensued on the motion to deny without prejudice and allow the applicant to appeal his concerns to City Council. Commissioner Brown rescinded his motion and Commission Gilenson rescinded his second. Motion Commissioner Brown to approve the monument sign based on the Findings and subject to the 11 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, and to deny without prejudice the Tower Element Sign, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 8. Center Identification Sign - M & S General Contractors (Milton Polsky) - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a request for approval of center identification sign for a retail shopping center on Casino Drive. The height of the sign is seventeen feet with eighty -one square feet of sign area. Staff is concerned about the sign height and recommends a monument sign with thirty -two feet of sign area (4 feet high and eight feet wide) with an overall height of six feet. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 10 CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN _ M & S GENERAL CONTRACTORS Mr. Milton Polsky commented on staff's request to reduce the sign, stating that not many tenants can go on that sign, and the number of signs existing in the area. Mr. Steve Harriman, Elsinore Valley Sign Service, stated that this sign was drawn on the same basis of the center identification signs at Winston Tire, Central Plaza and Railroad Canyon Plaza. Although the signs at Central Plaza and Railroad Canyon Plaza are smaller, the Winston Tire center sign is larger than this one. Commissioners Gilenson and Wilsey stated that they were in agreement with staff recommendation. Commissioner Brown commented on being more stringent with signs. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve the Center Identification sign at 31796 Casino Drive based on the Findings and subject to the 10 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 At this time, 9:48 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9:58 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 9. Center Identification Sign - Belleza Corporation (Doug Hamilton) - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a request for a freestanding center identification pole sign to be located on the southwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Clement Street. The height of the sign is sixteen feet with seventy -two square feet of sign area. Staff requested that the sign be reduced to thirteen feet in height with forty -eight square feet of sign area. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Steve Harriman, Elsinore Valley Sign Service, stated that by lowering the sign three feet it will only be four feet from ground level, and concerned with vandalism. A brief discussion was held on the height and sign area reduction; capability of signage on the front of buildings for tenants. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve the Center Identification Sign for Lake Street Commercial Center based on the Findings and subject to the 10 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 10. Residential (Stoneridge presented a singe- family located on the corner o Projeo Homed,,, reques home <re 14.49 E Robb R Assistant Planner to the Conditions Condition No. 18: Condition No. 30: 90 -4 - Charles and Kathryn Pease c.) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks for Minor Design Review of a 75 unit ential project and four model homes, es, approximately 200 feet northwest of and Mountain Street (Tract 24856). Fairbanks requested the following amendments of Approval: Delete All exterior on -site lighting within the model complex shall be shielded and Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page it RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -4 Mr. John Robertson, representing Stoneridge Homes, stated that he concurs with staff recommendation with the revised comments. There are a couple of clarifications that I would like to bring to staff and Planning Commission's attention. First of all, in the Staff Report under Model Home Design Review item number 2, states that all advertising for model homes requires City permits. I would like the word "advertising" clarified, as this might be taken as signage but it could include newspaper advertising. Item number 3, is a request for the temporary tract fencing on the model complex to be removed from the curb face to back behind the sidewalk; thus requiring the model complex to be redesigned for a temporary access through the landscape areas. Mr. Robertson then requested clarification on condition number 8, pertaining to utility releases and requested that this not apply to the model homes; condition number 28, pertaining to wall mounted utility equipment being consolidated in a central location and screened; condition number 35, pertaining to a single species of street trees; conditions 36, 38 and 40, pertaining to fencing; condition number 52, pertaining to architectural embellishments. Assistant Planner Fairbanks commented on the issues raised as follows: Staff Report - Model Home Design Review, item number 2 the word "advertising" should be changed to "signage "; Condition number 28, does not apply and can be deleted; Condition number 35, pertaining to street trees, some variation can be allowed; Condition 36, 38, and 40 pertaining to fencing, these are standard conditions and required by code. Masonry walls with wrought iron has been allowed in locations where cul -de -sacs are associated; Condition number 52, pertaining to architectural em- bellishments being provided on elevations which can be viewed from a public right -of -way. We are requesting directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. Condition No. 32.d: Retention area and back -up area land- scape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of land- scape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year. Condition No. 32.h: Delete 112:1 slope areas" Condition No. 46: Delete Condition No. 53.a: Add "Lots 40 -43 shall have the standard twenty foot (201) setback. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. John Robertson, representing Stoneridge Homes, stated that he concurs with staff recommendation with the revised comments. There are a couple of clarifications that I would like to bring to staff and Planning Commission's attention. First of all, in the Staff Report under Model Home Design Review item number 2, states that all advertising for model homes requires City permits. I would like the word "advertising" clarified, as this might be taken as signage but it could include newspaper advertising. Item number 3, is a request for the temporary tract fencing on the model complex to be removed from the curb face to back behind the sidewalk; thus requiring the model complex to be redesigned for a temporary access through the landscape areas. Mr. Robertson then requested clarification on condition number 8, pertaining to utility releases and requested that this not apply to the model homes; condition number 28, pertaining to wall mounted utility equipment being consolidated in a central location and screened; condition number 35, pertaining to a single species of street trees; conditions 36, 38 and 40, pertaining to fencing; condition number 52, pertaining to architectural embellishments. Assistant Planner Fairbanks commented on the issues raised as follows: Staff Report - Model Home Design Review, item number 2 the word "advertising" should be changed to "signage "; Condition number 28, does not apply and can be deleted; Condition number 35, pertaining to street trees, some variation can be allowed; Condition 36, 38, and 40 pertaining to fencing, these are standard conditions and required by code. Masonry walls with wrought iron has been allowed in locations where cul -de -sacs are associated; Condition number 52, pertaining to architectural em- bellishments being provided on elevations which can be viewed from a public right -of -way. We are requesting Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 12 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -4 a set of plans for each model which shows a mixture of siding, stucco or windows that are intended. Considerable discussion ensued on perimeter fencing - -block wall being placed at the toe of slope or the top of slope, and on -site fencing location and type; grading and drainage of the site; maintenance of slopes. Motion by Vice Chairman Saathoff to re- affirm Negative Declaration 89 -29 and approve Residential Project 90 -4 based on the Findings and subject to the 55 Conditions of Approval with the following amendments: Staff Report - Model Home Design Review, item number 2 change the word "advertising" to "signage ". Condition No. 08: Utility releases and Certificates of Occupancy shall be granted for logical blocks or groups of units for which construction activity is complete and all Conditions of Approval met. Construction activities shall be completed for all units in each block prior to any releases. Residences shall not be occupied or temporary electrical connections used for residential pur- poses prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This condition shall not apply to the model homes. Condition No. 28: All outdoor wall mounted utility equip- ment shall be consolidated in a central location and architecturally screened or substantially landscaped. DELETE. second by Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Gilenson asked for discussion, inquired about the modifications to the conditions as stated in the memorandum of April 4, 1990. Vice Chairman Saathoff amended his motion to include the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No.18: On -site surface drainage shall not cross sidewalks. DELETE. Condition No. 30: All exterior on -site lighting within the model complex shall be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. Condition No. 32.d: Retention area and back -up area land- scape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of land- scape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year. Condition No. 32.h: Landscape and irrigation plans for the retention area, and the public parkway Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 13 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -4 on Mountain Street and Rolando Street shall be submitted and approved by the City Landscape Architect prior to issuance of grading permits. These land- scape and irrigation improvements shall be installed prior to the commencement and issuance of permits for Phase Two of this development. Condition No. 46: Decorative paving shall be included at the drive entryway a minimum of ten -feet (101) back from property line and shall be shown on building permit plans. DELETE. Condition No. 53.a: No more than two (2) adjacent front yard setbacks may be the same with the third setback having a minimum variation of three -feet (31). Every consideration shall be given to maintaining the largest possible rear yard, with a minimum front yard setback of twenty feet. Lots 40 -43 shall have the standard twenty foot (201) setback. second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Cottonwood Development Agreement - Pardee Construction Company (Continued from March 21, 1990) - Community Development Director Gunderman presented an agreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and Pardee Grossman /Cottonwood Canyon regarding the development of property consisting of 1,968.7 acres. Said development shall include a multi phased combined residential and commercial Specific Plan consisting of 4,275 dwelling units and 23.2 acres of commercial development. The Environmental Impact Report previously certified by the City for the Cottonwood Specific Plan and related matters is proposed to be recertified as adequate and complete with respect to the development. The property is located east of Interstate 15 between Railroad Canyon Road and Highway 74. Vice Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 10:50 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Ted Cullen, representing Pardee Construction Company, gave a brief overview on the proposal, and stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 10:52 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he has a number of changes and requested this item be continued. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the length of the agreement, 15 years with a 5 year extension, would like language added on the type of negotiations involved for the 5 year extension; monies expended for Railroad Canyon Road improvements and Minutes of Planning Commission April 4, 1990 Page 14 AGREEMENT Railroad Canyon Road will not a part of Mello Roos or other public financing mechanisms involved for the project. Commissioner Brown commented on the total budget for Railroad Canyon Road improvements and the reimbursable amount through reimbursement agreements; public financing of Railroad Canyon Road, and item number 3 of the April 4th Memorandum, pertain- ing to time line for parks. Vice Chairman Saathoff commented on the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan and the off -site improvements that would benefit the City; the thousand dollar per unit reimbursement for Railroad Canyon Road improvements, and continuing the pro- posal for further discussion. Vice Chairman Saathoff adjourned the public hearing this item to a Special Meeting on April 5, 1990, at 4:30 p.m., at City Hall, Conference Room A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS None PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown Commented on the condition of the K -Mart site with regard to the dead landscaping and the accumulation debris. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Vice Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Res ctfully ubmit-ted, inda Gr'ndstaff Planning Commission Secretary Appzpved, Cis Bill Sa thoff Vice Chairman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:50 P.M. 1990 SPECIAL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Saathoff and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley and Wilsey Also present was Community Development Director Gunderman. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Brown stated that this is a continuance of the public hearing on the Cottonwood Development Agreement which was continued from the April 4, 1990, meeting. Community Development Director Gunderman gave an overview of the proposal. The following persons were present representing Pardee Construction Company: Charles Birke, Sandler & Rosen, counsel for Pardee Masood Sohaili3O'Melveny & Myers Mike McGee, Vice President of Pardee Ted Cullen, Pardee Mr. Mike McGee gave a brief history on the proposal, highlighting issues on Railroad Canyon Road and public financing. The Development Agreement was discussed at length with the follow- ing clarification, amendments and recommendations being made: Page 01: Section 2.2 Development Agreement Fee. Add to first sentence: Developer agrees to pay a development agreement fee of $2,000.00 times the number of residential building permits subject to the credit setforth in this paragraph. Page 09: Section 6.1 Effective Date and Term. Change fifteen calendar years to twenty calendar years. Delete the following sentence from this section: "In addition, either party may extend the term of this Agreement for an additional five (5) years by giving written notice of such extension to the other party at least ninety (90) days before expiration of the Agreement would otherwise occur." Delete the following subsections and re- letter. (b) "Developer acquiring legal title to the property" (d) "Approval by City of the Vesting Tentative Map for Phase 1 in a form acceptable to Developer and ". Page 10: Section 6.2 Scheduling. - change thirty (30) year to fifteen (15) year. Delete the following verbiage from this section: "Such decisions with respect to the rate of Development of the project will depend upon a number of circumstances not within the control of Developer,including market factors, demand, the state of the economy, and other matters. Therefore, Page 16: 3rd line after the word Developer - add the following language: with approval of the Community Development Director. Minutes of Special Planning Commission April 5, 1990 Page 2 COTTONWOOD 4th line, add the following sentence: Said approval is for the purpose of insuring compliance with the Specific Plan, and to insure amendments to the Specific Plan do not adversely effect compatibility with off -site improvements." Page 17: top of paragraph - discussion was held on land acquisition through a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District. Page 19: 13th line from top - change the word "expeditious" to "diligent ". Page 22: Section 9.4 Comparative Evaluation. - clarification was given on this section. Page 25: Section 10.1 Third Party actions. After first sentence add language: "Developer agrees to assume the lead role in the defense of any such action or preceding so as to minimize litigation expenses incurred by City." Page 26: bottom line - change the word "expeditious" to "diligent ". Page 27 -28: Section 10.4 Governmental permits. 9th line - delete the following: "and shall, from time to time at the request of Developer, attempt with due diligence and in good faith to enter into binding agreements with any such entity necessary to assure the availability of such permits and approvals or services, provided such agreements are reasonable and not materially detrimental to City." Replace with the following sentence: "Where the City's participation is necessary or required by law." Page 29: Subsections [i] and [ii] - clarification was given on these subsections. Page 30: Add Section 10.8 Stephens Kangaroo Rat. "The City will use its best efforts to maximize the amount of acreage which is released for grading and allocated to the City, pursuant to the Riverside County Short Term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat, and will take such steps as may be necessary or appropriate from time to time to secure such maximum allocation." Page 41: 13th line down - change "Section 25" to "Section 24 ". Page 43: Section 27 Insurance. - considerable discussion was held on this section; the developer being self insured, and this section remaining as written. Exhibit "E", Page 7: Subsection "e" - change the words "Phase I" to "Specific Plan ". Community Development Director Gunderman recommended the following section be added: Affordable HOUSincr. "The Developer will provide its fair share of affordable housing,n the multi - family zones of the project. Such housing will not exceed twenty percent (20 %) nor be less than fifteen percent (15 %) in the low and very low rent ranges, as determined by the County median average as of the date the building permits are issued for such affordable housing by the City. The Developer agrees that if densities for the project Minutes of Special Planning Commission April 5, 1990 Page 3 COTTONWOOD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED are reduced, this reduction will not eliminate the requirement to provide the aforementioned affordable housing. The City will assist the Developer in providing its fair share of affordable housing, by providing economic incentives to the developer including, without limitation, access to so- called "set- aside" funds." Discussion ensued on affordable housing -- leaving the section out and discuss with the City Attorney and determine the legality as it relates to the Development Agreement; $1,000 -2,000 credit and forward to City Council with a $2,000 Development Fee; deny without prejudice the Development Agreement and forward to City Council. Motion by Chairman Brown to deny without prejudice the Development Agreement for Cottonwood with the recommendation to City Council that all verbiage is as we want it and with full cooperation with the developer; but we do believe, and we believe that Council's direction was, from the meeting that we had with them, that they wanted the fee to be $2,000.00, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Discussion ensued on the motion on the table, and when this proposal would go before City Council. Chairman Brown rescinded his motion and Commissioner Saathoff rescinded his second. Motion by Chairman Brown to recommend to City Council approval of the Development Agreement with a $2,000.00 DAG fee. Mr. McGee stated that this is an issue that keeps coming back to us and it is a difficult issue. In discussions that we have here and with staff there continues to be a little confusion. I just want to be sure that it doesn't exist here before you make a motion. As to our commitment to Railroad Canyon Road, and why in our view there should be some off -set to that fee. Discussion ensued on Railroad Canyon Road improvements, and the density bonus and lot sizes given for said improvements. Chairman Brown rescinded his motion. Motion by Chairman Brown to deny without prejudice the Development Agreement due to the provision of the reimbursement of $1,000.00, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 Jeff Chai Res ctfu11 submitted, ind Gr ndstaff Plannin g Commissio Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 18TH THE MEETING WAS CALLED T PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: DAY OF APRIL 1990 ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. led by Commissioner Wilsey. Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Associate Planner Naaseh, Assistant Planner Fairbanks and DeGange, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve minutes of April 4, 1990, and April 5, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Brinley abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS The following persons commented on Commercial Project 90 -5, as follows: Mark Campbell, 15024 Valencia Way, Lake Elsinore, commented on access off Orange Grove Way; location of the proposed market; traffic safety and property values. Requested that the Commission consider removing the access road from Orange Grove way, and consider relocating the market to the south side of the project. Gary Jefferson, 29067 Palm View, Lake Elsinore, commented on the access off Orange Grove Way and traffic hazards. Requested that the Commission re- evaluate the entrance and access. Mark Dennis, 29065 Palm View, Lake Terrace, California, informed the Commission that he submitted a letter to staff outlining his concerns, and commented on the potential for increased traffic on Palm View, and the potential for Palm View to become a shortcut for new residents of the Stoneridge Homes on Rolando. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that if the Commission determines to continue the item, staff has recommended a two week continuance. We have tentatively scheduled a meeting for next Wednesday, April 25, at 4:00 p.m., with the applicant, and would like to have representatives of the area meet with us at that time to discuss these issues. PUBLIC HEARING NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Accessory Structure - 17401 Baker Street - Salvador Ruvalcaba - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal to construct a 2,400 square foot main structure and a 450 square foot paint booth. Both structures have walls constructed of 20 gauge galvanized metal panels, and roofs of corrugated aluminum. The site is approximately 2,970 feet east of the intersection of Pierce and Baker Streets. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1990 Page 2 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 17401 BAKER STREET CONTINUED Ms. Mary Bell Duncan, representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Ruvalcaba collects old cars and wants to use this for storage not as a commercial building. Ms. Duncan then gave a brief history on the acquisition of the property and discussion with staff. Commissioner Wilsey stated his concern is with the paint booth. Commissioner Brinley stated her concern is with the paint booth and the zoning, and commented on the possible miscommunication between staff and the applicant. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the paint booth; compatibility with the neighborhood; metal roof for the accessory structure, and the handicap parking illustrated on the plans. Chairman Brown commented on accessory structures as referenced in the Municipal Code. Perhaps we need to look at the ordinance as it stands to allow for accessory structures on parcels greater than one -half acre in size. Where the accessory buildings could be of a different type architecture or material than the adjacent structure as long as they do not interfere with any adjoining uses, and are at least a minimum distance from any adjoining property. Chairman Brown then commented on withdrawing the application and resubmitting with the outside architecture of the building to appear like the existing structure; eliminate the paint booth and all utilities other than electrical; and denying without prejudice the accessory structure. Motion by Chairman Brown to deny without prejudice the accessory structure at 17401 Baker Street, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved: 5 -0 2. Single - Family Residence - 29410 Pinnell Street - Joe Vineyard - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 2,327 square foot, two -story dwelling, on a 9,300 square foot lot located 100 feet southwest of the intersection of Gunnerson and Pinnell Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 29410 Pinnell Street based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved: 5 -0 3. Residential Project 89 -22 - Pardee Construction Company - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to May 2, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Residential Project 89 -22 to the meeting of May 2, 1990, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1990 Page 3 4. Commercial Project 90 -5 - Santa Rosa Development - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to May 2, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Commercial Project 90 -5 to May 2, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Associate Planner Naaseh stated that the applicant has requested a four week continuance. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to continue Commercial Project 90 -5 to the meeting of May 16, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsev Commented on the larger lot sizes with the metal fabrications. Agrees with Chairman Brown we will be seeing more of these in the future. Commissioner Brinlev Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Commented on where Collier has been widened, at the curve just this side of the three -way stop sign, at Central. The problem is when you come around the curve at night there is no lighting, and you are driving on a paved road and then the paved road disappears. Suggested that reflectors be installed. Would appreciate it if Engineering would look into this or pass it along to the appropriate agency /department. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Resp tfully bmitted, L nda Gri dstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 1990 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, Saathoff, and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Wilsey Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Assistant Planner Fairbanks and DeGange, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of April 18, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Commissioner Wilsey arrived at 7:01 p.m. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 89 -22 - Pardee Construction (Continued from April 18, 1990) - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be withdrawn from the Agenda, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to withdraw from the Agenda Residential Project 89 -22, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 5 -0 2. Single - Family Residences - 743 and 747 Lake Street - Steve Semenyei (Continued from March 21, 1990) - Assistant Planner DeGange presented for review two, two- story, dwellings consisting of 1,471 square feet with 420.5 square foot garages on 3,305 square foot lots, located 300 feet east of the intersection of High and Lake Streets and 300 feet west of the intersection of Avenue 1 and Lake Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Wayne Penny, representing the applicant, stated that they were in agreement with staff recommendation. Discussion was held on the need for embellishments on the east and north elevations; condition number 13 with regard to street trees being 24 inch -box trees rather than 15 gallon. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1990 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES - 743 AND 747 LAKE STREET Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residences at 743 and 747 Lake Street based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 4.a: "Windows shall be provided on the front 50% of east elevations for both units, and shutters shall be provided on the north elevation for 743 Lake Street." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 5 -0 3. Single - Family Residence - 311 Lewis Street - Leonard V. Pantojoa - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 2,396 square foot single -story dwelling, on a 9,000 square foot lot located 240 feet south of the southwest corner of Pottery and Lewis Streets. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on condition number 15, clarification on verbiage "as measured from site ". Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 311 Lewis Street based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 15: "A six -foot (61) high wood fence, wrought iron fence or masonry wall as measured on the site from finished grade at property line, shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls), subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 5 -0 4. Single - Family Residence - 788 Mill Street - George Hummell (Juckes Construction) - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal to construct a 1,600 square foot, two - story, dwelling with a 720 square foot garage, on a 6,831.5 square foot lot, located approximately 55 feet east of the inter- section of Avenue 1 and Mill Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. George Hummell commented on drainage, condition number 32. Discussion was held on condition number 32, pertaining to the drainage issue -- letter of drainage acceptance, drainage easements and existing drainage easements; obtaining the City Attorney's opinion, case law and basis for said condition; condition number 13, pertaining to street trees being 24" inch box. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1990 Page 3 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 788 MILL STREET CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 788 Mill Street based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Condition of Approval. Commissioner Wilsey recommended that staff be directed to come up with additional verbiage on the drainage issue, condition number 32, obtain case /statutory law and the City Attorney's opinion on said condition, and bring back to the Commission. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 5. Single - Family Residence - 16891 Ulmer Street - Gary Rantz - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal to construct a 1,343 square foot, single- story, dwelling with a 524 square foot garage, on a 8,100 square foot lot located approximately 150 feet from the intersection of Hague and Ulmer Streets. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Gary Rantz stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. A brief discussion was held on drainage, whether or not the applicant had to accept drainage from upstream properties. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 16891 Ulmer Street based on the Findings and subject to the 31 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 5 -0 6. Single - Family Residences - 501 and 503 Adobe Street - Arnold Mundy - Assistant Planner DeGange presented for review two, single- story, dwellings consisting of 1,426 square feet with a 560 square foot garage; 1,326 square foot with a 530 square foot garage, on two adjacent 7,150 square foot lots, located on the corner of Flint and Adobe Streets, and approximately 50 feet from the intersection of Flint and Adobe Streets, respectively. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on the need for enhancements on both structures, specifically 501; freeway view of these dwelling; elevation with freeway and noise, and continuing the proposals allowing the applicant to redesign plans providing additional architectural enhancements. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Single - Family Residences at 501 and 503 Adobe Street to the meeting of May 16, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Chairman Brown stated that if the Commission does not have a problem with 503 Adobe Street that it could go forward, separate the projects and have separate motions. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to approve Single - Family Residence at 503 Adobe based on the Findings and subject to the 36 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey with discussion. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1990 Page 4 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES- 501 AND 503 ADOBE STREET CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey recommended that a condition be added to provide enhancements to the left elevation, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to include Commis- sioner Wilsey's recommendation. Condition No. 37: "Architectural enhancements (windows) shall be provided on the left elevation." There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved: 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Single - Family Residence at 501 Adobe Street to the meeting of May 16, 1990, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 5 -0 At this time, 7:50 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:01 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 7. Industrial Project 90 -3 - Esbensen & Associates (CHS Partnership) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented for Design Review a 14,425 square foot industrial building, to be constructed on a 1.01 acre parcel located approximately 300 feet south of the southwest corner of Minthorn and Birch. Assistant Planner Fairbanks requested the following modifi- cations to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 22: "Brick pavers or texture pavement treatments shall be laid in bank designs and shall be located at the driveway approaches and crosswalks." DELETE. Condition No. 25: "All exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. Plans for the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be included with building plans and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee prior to the issuance of building permits." Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Philip Esbensen, architect for the project and represent- ing the owner, commented on condition number 32, pertaining to the six -foot masonry wall along the north property line. Requested that they be allowed to leave this as open space, and when the property to the north developes the masonry wall can be constructed at that time, if required. Mr. Esbensen then commented on condition number 45, pertaining to the 3% contribution towards the traffic signal at Central and Collier. Chairman Brown asked Engineering staff to address condition number 45. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1990 Page 5 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -3 Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell commented on the 3% traffic signal contribution and how this percentage was derived. Commissioner Brinley commented on the development of the property to the north - -type of use is unknown at this time, and stated that the masonry wall and /or open space landscaping could be resolved in the future between the developers. Commissioner Wilsey commented on landscaping and requested that condition number 23.1. be added, which will read: Applicant shall use area climitized landscape materials and water conservation landscape techniques as approved by the City's Landscape Architect. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the deletion of condition number 22; condition number 23.b., requested that the 15 gallon trees be changed to 24 inch box. Chairman Brown suggested the following verbiage for condition number 23.b.: 11street trees shall be, selected from the City's Street Tree List, as per the approved landscape plan ". Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 23, pertaining to the final landscape plan being reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Consultant and the Community Development Director, this is not the final landscape plan; type of landscaping to be provided in lieu of the masonry wall; do not require the masonry wall at this time, but have the funds in escrow. Mr. Esbensen suggested that the two property owners share the cost of the masonry wall, if it becomes prudent. Chairman Brown inquired about retaining, what we believe is, this owner's responsibility to at least share the cost of the wall, but not construct the wall; funding instrument approved by the City Attorney for the masonry wall - -bond, letter of credit or escrow the funds for a period of time, condition number 32. Community Development Director Gunderman suggested the following verbiage for condition number 32: In lieu of the construction of said wall applicant shall provide to the City a guarantee of funds sufficient to construct said wall in a manner approved by the City Attorney. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -11 and approval of Industrial Project 90 -3 based on the Findings and subject to the 63 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 22: "Brick pavers or texture pavement treatments shall be laid in bank designs and shall be located at the driveway approaches and crosswalks." DELETE. Condition No. 23.b: "Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City Street Tree List, a maximum of 30 feet apart and at least twenty -four inch (2411) box in size, as approved by the Community De- velopment Director." Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1990 Page 6 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -3 CONTINUED Condition No. 25: "All exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. Plans for the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be included with building plans and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee prior to the issuance of building permits." Condition No. 32: "A six -foot (6') high masonry wall shall be constructed along the north side property line and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls), subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Said wall shall be constructed of the split -face masonry to match the masonry of building. In lieu of the construction of said wall applicant shall provide to the City a guarantee of funds sufficient to construct said wall in a manner approved by the City Attorney." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 5 -0 Residential Project 90 -3 - Wesco Homes - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented for Design Review 120 single - family homes, including a 6 model complex with one sales office. The project contains 60 acres located at the northeast corner of Ontario Way and Grand Avenue (Tracts 24138 and 24139, excluding Lots 7 through 17 of Tract 24138 and Lots 32 through 46 of Tract 24139). Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. John Elmajian, representing Wesco Homes, stated that they were in agreement with staff recommendation, and would answer any questions that may arise. Commissioner Brinley commented on the number of models available; installation of front yard landscaping and sprinklers; use of Xeriscaping. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 23, pertaining to roof mounted equipment and this being changed to the standard condition; water conservation- -would like more emphasis provided on Xeriscaping in the landscape program. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition 23, requested that this be amended to the standard condition; condition number 25.a, would like to have a percentage of street trees twenty -four inch (2411) box; would like to add condition number 25.i, which would read: a minimum of twenty -five percent (25 %) of front yard trees shall be twenty -four inch (2411) box; would like to add as condition number 41 the standard rear and side yard fencing. Chairman Brown stated on residential projects we do not require 24 inch box trees due to cost factors, and we try to keep the street scene with the same size and species of tree. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1990 Page 7 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -3 CONTI. Commissioner Saathoff commented on Xeriscaping. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see a strong recommendation from the City on all landscaping plans, through our Landscape Architect, that all above ground systems be eliminated - -go to subsurface drip irrigation or something to that nature. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to re- affirm Negative Declaration 89 -7 and approve Residential Project 90 -3 based on the Findings and subject to the 40 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition number 23: "All ground support air conditioning units 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." Condition No. 25.i: "A minimum of twenty -five percent (25 %) of front yard trees shall be twenty -four inch (2411) box." Condition No. 41: "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 Community Development Director or his designee." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 5 -0 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman reminded the Commission of the work session to be held on May 3, 1990, at 5:30 p.m., at City Hall -- Conference Room A. Topics of discussion are: Code Amendments and the Pacific Outlet Center. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Commented on the study session to discuss zone code amendments. Commissioner Wilsey Commented on water conservation and landscaping efforts, and will bring this up at the work session. Commented on Earth Day and the awareness throughout the world on Earth Resources. The City needs to take the lead, get with Rodriguez Disposal, start coordinating and educating efforts of our community and start such a program. Community Development Director Gunderman informed Commissioner Wilsey that this is now a requirement of law, and we will have such a program. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1990 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brinley Commented on the need for additional Edison substations with the amount of development occurring. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved: 5 -0 Approve , Jeff Bro , \ Chairman 7inctfully bmitted, Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF MAY 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey, and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Associate Planner Naaseh, Assistant Planner Fairbanks and DeGange, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of May 2, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS speak, Chairman Brown closed the 1. Annexation No. 47 - Meeker Development (Formerly California Communities) - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request to annex unincorporated county land into the City for future residential development. Approximately 129.41 acres of land generally located northwesterly of Lincoln Street, east of Grand Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Jeff Kenyon, Sr. Project Manager, California Communities /Meeker Development, stated that this is a straight forward proposal and would like to reserve the right to address any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Annexation No. 47 based on the Findings in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 4 -0 Commissioner Wilsey abstaining. 2. Zone Change 90 -3 and Conditional Use Permit 90 -1 - Atlantic Richfield (AM /PM Mini -Mart) - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to June 20, 1990. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 2 ZONE CHANGE 90 -3 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -1 CONTINUED 10. Commercial Project 90 -4 - Atlantic Richfield (AM /PM Mini - Mart) Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Zone Change 90 -3 and Conditional Use Permit 90 -1 to the meeting of June 20, 1990, second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. Commissioner Saathoff stated that we have had several cases were we had a public hearing that has been advertised and then at the last moment the applicant or staff has requested denial. I'm wondering if we shouldn't open the public hearing because it was advertised and there maybe people here to speak on the matter. Commissioner Brinley rescinded her motion. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for the question. Motion by Chairman Brown to continue Zone Change 90 -3 and Conditional Use Permit 90 -1 to the meeting of June 20, 1990, second by Commissioner Brinley. Motion by Chairman Brown to continue Commercial Project 90 -4 to the meeting of June 20, 1990, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 5 -0 3. Conditional Use Permit 90 -3 - Elsinore Investments - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit of the Shopper's Square Center for a shared parking facility to reduce the total number of required parking spaces. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. The following persons spoke: Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield /Keith Companies, gave a brief over view of the project. Asked that Condition Nos. 3 and 4 be deferred to the time when the pad between Manny's and Sizzler is developed. Mr. Bob Stachelski, representing Barton /Aschman Associates, gave a brief over view of the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking procedures and the study his company did for Palmer Development on the existing parking demand. Mr. Stachelski also asked that Condition Nos. 3 and 4 be incorporated into Condition No. 1 being that at this time there's no justification for the extra parking. Mr. Howard Palmer, 518 Dwyer Drive, gave a brief overview of the project site and the different restaurant types. Asked that Condition Nos. 3 and 4 be incorporated into Condition No. 1. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -3 CO Commissioner Wilsey commented on the number of parking spaces available; Condition No. 1 pertaining to any future development and any parking problems; sees no problem in building out the extra parking spaces at this time; commented on Condition Nos. 3 and 4 and would like Condition No. 7 added with the standard verbiage with regards to temporary irrigation and landscaping on vacant pads. Commissioner Brinley commented on the parking problems; parking behind the proposed Don Jose Restaurant; add additional lighting behind the proposed Don Jose; condition the vacant pad at this time for additional parking spaces; the need for more handicap parking; need to plan for the future parking needs; on- street parking being a problem and that Condition 3 and 4 not be removed. Commissioner Gilenson stated the lighting is inadequate behind the proposed Don Jose; recommended Condition No. 8 be for additional lighting behind the proposed Don Jose. Agrees that the vacant pad be used as parking at this time and opposed to future parking by the play yard. Commissioner Saathoff stated that parking is adequate at this time with the types of activities that are presently there. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the additional lighting; employee parking; the parking behind the proposed Don Jose is not conducive to user parking; add the three parking spaces at this time; the need for temporary irrigation and erosion control for the vacant pad. Chairman Brown commented on the gross parking analysis dealing with numbers; traffic flow; employee parking; shortage of parking because of its practical use not because of its total count; 61 short of projected needs; traffic study go back and be addressed not only as counts but as flows; occupancy rate; lack of use. Considerable discussion at the table ensued on parking needs of the center. Chairman Brown stated that he sees a real potential problem; that I see it already. I believe that the center will be 61 short and not 19 over. Commissioner Brinley stated she would like to see a redesign of the parking lot or the elimination of the vacant pad. Commissioner Saathoff stated that Condition No. 1 addresses Commissioner Brinleys concern. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to amend Condition No. 1 to add an additional parking study to include a use study for ingress and egress and actual use of parking spaces, possible changing the entire layout of the parking lot, elimination and addition of additional driveways, and discontinuance of the through driving in the entire center. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Conditional Use Permit 90 -3 for further study, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Vote: 2 -3 Motion failed to pass. (Commissioner Brinley and Gilenson voting yes). Chairman Brown asked if there was any further discussion. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -3 CO'. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to re- affirm Negative Declaration 85 -2 and approve Conditional Use Permit 90 -3 based on the following Findings and subject to the 5 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. l.a. Applicant shall provide seven (7) additional parking spaces: four (4) to be located in the rear of the Shoppers Square Center behind Unit 8; and three (3) to be located southwest of children's play area #2 near the Sizzler Restaurant subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. b. Additional landscape in the form of three (3) twenty -four (24) inch box trees, twenty -five (25) five (5) gallon shrubs, and flowering groundcover shall be planted within Area A as shown on Figure E subject to the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director and the City Landscape Architect. Condition No. 5 - The vacant pad located between Sizzler and Manny's shall have a temporary irrigation system and hydroseeded vegetation installed to meet the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Chairman Brown asked if there was anything to add to Condition Number 1. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to add a use study to Condition Number 1. Condition No. 1 - This Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall apply to all existing structures as well as the approved Manny's Restaurant. The vacant pad between Sizzler and the Manny's Restaurant shall require a separate CUP for shared parking. Plans shall not be submitted, nor design review of this vacant pad occur until 120 days after the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for both the proposed Manny's and Don Jose Restaurants. Future CUP for the development of the vacant pad between Sizzler and Manny's shall be subject to the submittal of a projected parking distribution and use study in addition to other submittal requirements. Commissioner Wilsey amended his second. Approved: 3 -2 (Commissioners Brinley and Gilenson voting no). At this time, 7:57 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:09 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. Zone Change 90 -4 and Annexation No. 53 - Wesco Homes, Inc. - Assistant Planner Naaseh presented a request to consider a Zone Change from Riverside County R -R (Rural Residential) to City R -1 (Single - Family Residential District), and Annexation Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 5 ZONE CHANGE 90 -4 AND ANNEXATION NO. 53 of a 29.44 acre parcel to the City of Lake Elsinore, located on the east side of Stoneman and the south side of the City Limits. The applicant will be proposing a 117 unit single - family development. This request also includes an application to de -annex from the Ortega Trails Parks and Recreation District. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. John Elmajian, representing Wesco Homes, stated that they were in agreement with staff recommendation, and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Motion by Commission Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -12, approval of Zone Change 90 -3, Annexation No. 53 and De- annexation from the Ortega Trails Parks and Recreation based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved: 5 -0 5. Specific Plan 90 -1, Zone Change 90 -5, Commercial Project 90 -6 and Environmental Impact Report 90 -1 - Lake Elsinore Pacific West Outlet Center - McArthur /Glen Group - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a proposal to develop a commercial shopping center on a 43.36 acre site. This site is located immediately southwest of Interstate 15, approximately 500 feet east of the Nichols Road interchange. The plan will devote approximately 34 acres to the Outlet Center, 6 acres to Community Commercial, and 3 acres to Open Space. The zoning is proposed to change from Commercial Manufacturing to Specific Plan. An accompanying Environmental Impact Report addresses the impacts of this development. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Kenny Smith, representing McArthur /Glen Group, stated they are in agreement with all the Conditions staff recommended with wording clarifications on Conditions No. 9 and 10 in the Specific Plan and Conditions No. 2, 24, 41 and 47 in the Commercial Project. He also stated its very important that we have a major presence in identification along the highway. This site is unique in that it is 22 feet below the grade of the freeway. We require a rather significant sign tower which will be 45 feet above freeway grade. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Mike Hillstrom, 29033 E1 Toro Road, Lake Elsinore, stated they are in favor of this project and that they live right behind the project. The Planning Divisions report fails to mention they live at the southeast corner of the project. Their concerns are with grading; the cut slope; fencing (they Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 6 SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -1; ZONE CHANGE 90 -5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -6; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90 -1 CONTINUED are at the east end of the parking lot); security and lighting glare (Condition No. 20). The other concern is with a driveway, 30 feet wide, out of the east end of the parking lot onto E1 Toro Road. The EIR does not address this road or its impacts. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Brinley stated Faithful Performance Bond for 18.g. Would like the applicant Hillstrom at this time. she would like to see the 120% maintenance under Condition to address the concerns of Mr. Mr. Dan Bott, Michael Brandman Associates, Planning and Environmentalist Consultants, responded that E1 Toro Road is an emergency, secondary access road to the center, they anticipate no commuter traffic, and that some type of collapsible gate could be erected in case the Fire Department needed to access that road. It is not intended to be a primary access point into the center. Mr. Matt Webb, Albert A. Webb Associates, Civil Engineers, responded that the slope would be governed by the Uniform Building Code which will require a 2:1 slope. The slope will be landscaped for erosion control. Chairman Brown asked about fencing. Considerable discussion at the table ensued concerning fencing - developer will erect a fence at the top of the slope; lighting - as stated in Condition No. 20; and access to E1 Toro Road - will be for emergency purposes only. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the view from the freeway concerning the trash receptacles. Mr. Smith responded saying they will have a full time manager and maintenance person on duty at all times to police these areas to insure compliance. Commissioner Wilsey commented on compaction and recycling; sufficient trash receptacles; the amount of trash that was to be generated; how land fills will be impacted; and investigation of conservation methods. Commissioner Wilsey stated he would like Condition No. 18. h. added pertaining to undeveloped pads being landscaped; Condition No. 24 pertaining to public right -of -way; add a sentence to Condition No. 13 pertaining to screening being approved by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the Specific Plan Exhibit 5.1 - Conceptual Cut and Fill Plan stating there will be considerable cut in Phase I, where is the dirt going, what is it going to look like and how are you going to mound it? Discussion at the table ensued on stock piling. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 7 SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -1; ZONE CHANGE 90 -5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -6; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90 -1 CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson stated he has a concern with the. -75 foot sign and needs to be convinced why, when our code says 45 feet. Considerable discussion at the table ensued on the height of the sign tower, the distance from the Nichols off -ramp, location of the tower,relationship between the heights of the buildings, the architectural enhancements of the parapet walls, the relationship between the buildings and the sign and the sudden difference in height. Mr. Don Chapman, Architect, responded to the Commissioners questions on the sign tower. Chairman Brown asked for clarification on Condition No. 47; commented on Condition No. 19 that all undeveloped lots will be seeded, grown to maturity and have temporary irrigation. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the watering of the pads. We have a water shortage and the City should take a lead role in conservation methods. Discussion at the table ensued on conservation methods; dust control; weed control; mitigation monitoring program. Commissioner Saathoff asked the Commission if they had a problem with making a motion with the various changes but not approving the sign but instead requesting additional architectural enhancement on the tower elements and the freeway sign. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report 90 -1, approval of Specific Plan 90 -1, Zone Change 90 -5 and Commercial Project 90 -6 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments and adopt Resolution Numbers 90 -10 and 90 -11, entitled as follows: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -1 Condition No. 9 - Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase II the Collier Road Realignment E.I.R. shall be completed and certified by the City. Condition No. 10 - All freestanding signs and signs on the exterior walls of the building shall require the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee to assure compliance with the sign specifications in the Specific Plan. Condition No. 12 - A wall of decorative block masonry shall be erected on the easterly boundary by the developer, in accordance with City requirements, and subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. Condition No. 13 - The freeway oriented sign shall be subject to additional Design Review with respect to its enhancement and possible reduction of the height. Enhancement of the towers and the adjoining building parapets shall also be evaluated. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 8 SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -1; ZONE CHANGE 90 -5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -6; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90 -1 CONTINUED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -6 Condition No. 2 - Site improvements shall be constructed for each Phase as indicated on the approved plot plan and elevations. Revisions to approved site plans or building elevations shall be subject to Design Review. All plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check shall conform with the submitted plans as modified by Conditions of Approval, or the Planning Commission through subsequent action. Minor changes, to such things as the foot print of Phase II, may be approved by the Community Development Director. Condition No. 13 - All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units or other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Screening shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Condition No. 18 g. All landscape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year. h. All graded and /or disturbed areas in Phase II and III shall be landscaped to prevent erosion. These areas shall be irrigated until the plant materials are established. i. Any soil stock piling shall have a maximum height of ten (10) feet, and shall be contoured so it can be landscaped as per Condition No. 18.h. Condition No. 24 - On -site surface drainage shall not cross sidewalks in public right -of -way. Condition No. 41 - Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer. Developer shall mitigate any flooding and /or erosion downstream caused by development of site and diversion of drainage. Riverside County Flood Control will review and approve the Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for Arroyo Del Torro drain. Condition No. 47 - Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase II, a hydrological analysis of the planned grading and its effect on the 100 -year floodplain boundaries designated by FEMA shall be completed and approved by the City of Lake Elsinore. FEMA shall review the analysis and advise the City of any Floodplain boundary changes. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 9 SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -1; ZONE CHANGE 90 -5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -6; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90 -1 CONTINUED Condition No. 53 - Subject to additional design review in reference to enhancement and perhaps reducing the height of the sign and enhancement on the towers and the adjoining parapets. DELETE. RESOLUTION 90 -10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE LAKE ELSINORE OUTLET CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO. RESOLUTION 90 -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE OUTLET CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN. second by Commissioner Wilsey Commissioner Gilenson commented that Condition No. 53 was conditioned under the Commercial Project and it should be under the Specific Plan. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to change Condition No. 53 in the Commercial Project Conditions to Condition No.13 in the Specific Plan Conditions. Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to include the changes. Chairman Brown asked for the question. Approved: 5 -0 At this time, 9:37 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9:40 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS 6. Single- Family Residence - 501 Adobe Street - Arnold Mundy (Continued from May 2, 1990) - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue indefinitely Single - Family Residence at 501 Adobe Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Saathoff asked if we continue this project would he have to resubmit plans and fees and if there was a time limit. Assistant Planner DeGange responded no, just the elevation plans and that he was not aware of any time limit other than the one year Minor Design Review time limit. Community Development Director Gunderman suggested that the Commission continue the specific project for a period of time. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 10 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 501 ADOBE STREET CONTINUED Chairman Brown requested a motion for a 120 days. Commissioner Brinley rescinded her motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Single- Family Residence at 501 Adobe Street for 120 days from todays date. Community Development Director Gunderman asked what if he was ready to come back to you prior to that time? Commissioner Brinley rescinded her motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Single - Family Residence at 501 Adobe Street for 120 days but is allowed to bring it back to Commission prior to that time. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 5 -0 7. Single - Family Residences - 29590 Nichols Road - Glen and Betty Burchfield - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal to construct a 2,300 square foot, two - story, dwelling with a 480 square foot garage, on a 9,000 square foot lot, located approximately 178 feet north of the intersection of Dwan and Nichols Streets. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Glen Burchfield, the applicant, stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation and would answer any questions. Discussion was held on the architectural enhancement of the right elevation, the garage, to add a window. Commissioner Brinley asked the window be added as Condition No. 4.a. Commissioner Gilenson stated he would like the verbiage "reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director." Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residences at 29590 Nichols Road based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 4.a. - Architectural enhancements (windows) shall be provided on the right elevation (garage) subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 5 -0 8. Industrial Project 89 -11 - Jess Rodriguez (Continued from March 7, 1990) - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to July 5, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Industrial Project 89 -11 to July 5, 1990, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 11 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -5 9. Commercial Project 90 -5 - Santa Rosa Development (Continued from April 18, 1990) - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to June 20, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Commercial Project 90 -5 to June 20, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Chairman Brown yielded the floor to Mr. Russell Burns. Mr. Russell Burns, 15032 Vista View, stated he is concerned with the trees on the project in question; the owner is not maintaining the property; the trees are dying. Asking the Commission to appeal to the property owner. Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved: 5 -0 11. Sign Program for Industrial Project 89 -7 - Steve's Sign (Central Business Park) - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a proposal for a sign program which allows for one monument sign to identify the whole center, five modular directional signs and thirty -seven on building tenant identification signs for an approved Industrial /Business Park (I 89 -7) located on the south side of Collier Avenue at the terminus of Central Avenue. Associate Planner Naaseh requested the following modification to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 4 - There shall be only one on building tenant identification sign per tenant and shall be placed on the building consistent with Exhibit I. Condition No. 9 - The Monument sign shall include the address of the business in numerals and /or letters at least six inches (611) high. Addresses shall not be obscured by landscaping or other obstructions. DELETE. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. Mr. Steve Harriman, Steve's Signs, representing Brookstone Development, stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation. Commissioner Saathoff asked for clarification on Condition No. 9; commented on the height of the lettering; recommended the height of the lettering be the same size; add it as Condition No. 9. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve the Sign Program for Central Business Park (I 89 -7) based on the Findings and subject to the 9 Conditions of Approval with the following amendments: Condition No. 4 - There shall be only one on building tenant identification sign per tenant and shall be placed on the building consistent with Exhibit I. Condition No. 9 - The Monument sign shall include the address of the business in numerals and /or letters at least six inches (611) high. Addresses shall not be obscured by landscaping or other obstructions. DELETE. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1990 Page 12 SIGN PROGRAM FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -7 Condition No. 9 - Lettering on directional signs to be identical. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Chairman Brown asked Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell when are they going to get some resolution to the problem in front of the center. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that they have a work order down in Public Services, they are aware of the problem. Should be resolved in the next couple of weeks. Chairman Brown asked for the question. Approved: 5 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman stated the County of Riverside Planning Staff is making a presentation to the City on the County Growth Element on Monday, May 22, 1990, at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall -- Conference Room A for a study session. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Commented on the 18 wheelers parking on Lakeshore between Machado and all the way up thru Terra Cotta Jr High. Their parking on the street is obstructing the view turning out of driveways. Commissioner Wilsey Commented on landscaping of the vacant pads. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Commented on the inoperable vehicles in the auto repair areas for great lengths of time. Did we approve the hot pink large sign on Mission Trail? There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 5 -0 Respectfully submitted, Colleen Moorhouse Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:04 P.M. JUNE 1990 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Assistant Planner Fairbanks. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Saathoff, Wilsey, and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Associate Planner Restivo, Assistant Planner Fairbanks and DeGange, and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve minutes of May 16, 1990, with the following corrections: Page 1: Commissioner Wilsey not abstaining from voting on the minutes. Page 3: (Commissioner Brinley and Gilenson voting yes). Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved: 4 -0 WALK -ON -ITEM - McArthur /Glen Group - Community Development Director Gunderman requested that the McArthur /Glen Group Revised Sign Tower be added to the agenda as Business Item No. 10. Motion by Chairman Brown to place the Revised Sign Tower on the agenda as Business Item No. 10, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance - City of Lake Elsinore - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested this item be continued to June 20, 1990. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Surface and Mining and Reclamation Ordinance to the meeting of June 20, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 2. Conditional Use Permit 90 -4 - Morris and Morris - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal for a Conditional Use Permit 90 -4 to allow a Church facility to operate in an existing structure zoned M -1, Light Industrial. Proposed project site is at 550 Third Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. The following persons spoke in favor: Mr. Jim Hilbrant, 29308 Gunder Street, Pastor of Lake Elsinore Christian Fellowship stated they have been in the community for four years. Need to make provisions for churches to move into different facilities. Their goal is to find a piece of land to build a church on. Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1990 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -4 CONTINUED Mr. Dave Cunningham, President of the Corporation of the Lake Elsinore Fellowship, Sr. Pastor in Rancho Cucamonga, discussed the staff report with references to the zoning, general plan, and the findings. Mr. Otto Strauss, 18 Resano, Irvine, spoke in favor. Mr. Gary Bryant, 32865, Bryant, Wildomar, commented on the less than adequate buildings in Lake Elsinore for churches. Mr. Wayne Ott, 1021 Lake Meadow Court, Lake Elsinore, spoke in favor. Mr. Jim Hines, 15900 Grand Avenue, Lake Elsinore, Pastor Grace Bible Church, commented on the tremendous growth and the need for churches to grow. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Wisley stated he has a problem with churches being in the M -1 District. A church is not compatible with whoever may move -in in the future. Commissioner Gilenson stated he has the same concerns as Commissioner Wilsey pertaining to a church in the M -1 District, not compatible with what is allowed to be in that District. Commissioner Saathoff stated he has the same feeling as the other Commissioners. There are other Districts that allow churches, do not want to set a precident. Chairman Brown stated that the issue is not what you're doing, but what the users of that park have a right to do. Discussion at the table ensued concerning the M -1 Zoning District. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council denial of Conditional Use Permit 90 -4, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Vote: 4 -0 At this time, 7:55 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:09 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 3. Specific Plan 87 -1: Amendment No. 1 - Brian Weiss - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request to amend the Lakeshore Specific Plan to allow Neighborhood Commercial uses in addition to Commercial Office uses currently allowed by the plan. The Lakeshore Specific Plan area encompasses properties located east of Center Street to Pepper Drive, and southerly of Lake and Dawes Streets. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Brian Weiss, the applicant, gave a brief overview of the project since its inception. Mr. Weiss asked that a Savings and Loan be allowed being it was adopted as part of the original Specific Plan. He was in agreement with staff recommendation. Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1990 Page 3 SPECIFIC PLAN 87 -1: AMENDMENT NO. 1 CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The following persons spoke in opposition, with the following concerns: looking at brick walls, spray paint on the brick walls, children being hit by cars traveling to fast, perverts, additional crime, security lights shining in windows, the increase in traffic, project would have a tremendous impact on our lives, drug deals, and no place for the kids to play. Mr. Kevin Martin, 820 Parkway Mr. John Atkinson, 1026 Parkway Mr. Dan Borderline, 800 Parkway Mr. Tony Schiavone, 780 Lake Street Ms. Judy Borderline, 800 Parkway Ms. Kire Atkinson, 1026 Parkway Ms. Cynthia Steele, 760 Lake Street Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey stated he had concerns with the project, it was vague, the project needs further study for compatibility with the neighborhood with a very low percentage of commercial and be very definite about what type of product would go into that commercial application. Commissioner Gilenson stated the original project was denied for commercial, approved as office. Now we are going back to the original application. If we are going to sit down and review it, I would like Council input. If they are changing their minds, give us direction as to what they have in mind. Are they going back to a portion commercial, all commercial or what should we do with this property? We didn't want it then, I don't think we want it now. Commissioner Saathoff stated he had no problem with further study, there is adequate commercial (pet stores, music shops etc.) uses available to the neighbors in that community within a very short distance. The original intent of the project, with low elevations, architectural enhancement, would not deter but would increase the property values in the neighborhood. Office use is the proper use for that property. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to deny without prejudice Specific Plan 87 -1: Amendment No. 1, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Vote: 4 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Single - Family Residence - 501 Adobe Street - Arnold Mundy (Continued from May 16, 1990) - Assistant Planner DeGange presented for review architectural modifications to the left, right, and rear elevations at 501 Adobe. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Al Mundy, the applicant, stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation. Minutes of Planning Commission Page 4 June 6, 1990 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE _ 501 ADOBE STREET CONTINUED There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve a Minor Design Review at 501 Adobe Street based on the Findings and subject to the 36 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 5. Single - Family Residence - 310 Scrivener Street - Lars Larsson - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 1,915 square foot two story dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot located approximately 240 feet north of the northeast corner of Scrivener and Sumner. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Lars Larsson, the applicant stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve a Minor Design Review at 310 Scrivener Street based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved: 4 -0 6. Single - Family Residence - 308 Lowell Street - James and Davetta Denk - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal to construct a 1,690 square foot, two story dwelling on a 7,475 square foot lot located approximately 160 feet south of the intersection of Sumner Avenue and Lowell Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. James and Davette Denk, the applicants, stated they were in agreement with staff recommendation There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve a Minor Design Review at 308 Lowell Sreet based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved: 4 -0 7. Accessory Structure at 17401 Baker Street - Salvador Ruvalcaba (Continued from May 16, 1990) - Assistant Planner DeGange presented revised plans on the accessory structure eliminating the paint booth; eliminating all utlities; alternative roofing material and similar exterior colors. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Salvador Ruvalcaba, the applicant, stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation. Discussion at the table ensued on deleting Conditions Nos.10, 11, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and deleting a line in Condition No. 18, being they did not pertain to the accessory structure. Minutes of Planning Commission Page 5 June 6, 1990 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 17401 BAKER STREET Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve a Minor Design Review of an accessory structure at 17401 Baker Street based on staff recommendation and subject to the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 10: 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. DELETE. Condition No. 11: Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City Street Tree List, a maximum of 30 feet (30') apart and at least 15- gallon in size as to meet the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. DELETE. Condition No. 13: Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid. DELETE. Condition No. 14: Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. DELETE. Condition No. 18: All driveways and parking areas be paved with a surface acceptable to the Building Division. Condition No. 24: Submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Department, from the applicable water district, stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project. Submit this letter prior to applying for building permit. DELETE. Condition No. 25: Construct all off -site public works improvements per approved street plans (Municipal Code, Title 12). Plans must be approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code 16.34). DELETE. Condition No. 26: Street improvements plans and specifica- tions shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Road Department Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code 12.04 and 16.34). DELETE. Condition No. 27: Pay all fees and meet requirements of encroachment permit issued by the Engineering Department for construction of off -site public works improvements (Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.08 and Resolution No. 83 -78). DELETE. Minutes of Planning Commission Page 6 June 6, 1990 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 17401 BAKER STREET CONTINUED Condition No. 28: All compaction reports, grade certifica- tion (with tie -notes delineated on 8 1/2" x 11" mylar) shall be submitted to Engineering Department before final inspection of off -site improvements will be scheduled and approved. DELETE. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved: 4 -0 8. Single - Family Residence 359 Avenue 4 - Joann Johnston - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal to construct a 1,320 square foot one story dwelling on a 7,250 square foot lot located approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of Mill Street and Avenue 4. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Phil Williams, representing the applicant, commented on all the architectural enhancements to the project especially extending the garage, adding a window to bedroom 2, fencing, and Condition No. 28 - pertaining to the alley and sidewalk. Discussion at the table ensued concerning the major architectual differences between staff and the applicant. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue a Minor Design Review at 359 Avenue 4, second by Commissioner Wilsey, with discussion. Commissioner Gilenson asked if that was date specific. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to continue a Minor Design Review at 359 Avenue 4 for no longer than 60 days, Commissioner Wilsey amended his second. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved: 4 -0 9. Single - Family Residence - 16441 Arnold Avenue - Mickey Walker - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 1,120 square foot single story manufactured dwelling on a 5,029 square foot lot located sixty (60) feet west of the southwest corner of Stoddard Street and Arnold Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Mickey Walker, the applicant, commented on Conditions Nos. 8, 9.a., 13, 15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30. Mr. Walker asked that Mr., -_Brad Pomeroy comment on the random tab shingles listed in Condition No. 8. Mr. Brad Pomeroy commented on the random tab shingles. Discussion at the table ensued on Condition No. 8 - random tab shingles; Condition No. 9 - soils report; Condition No. 13 - street trees; Condition No. 15 - fencing; Condition No. 17 - park -in -lieu fees; Condition No. 18 - public right -of -way; Condition No. 25 - off -site improvements; Condition No. 26 - water rights; Condition No. 27 - slope easement; Condition No. 28 - public right -of -way; and Condition No. 30 - 'iWill- Serve" letter. Minutes of Planning Commission Page 7 June 6, 1990 SINGLE - FAMILY 15441 ARNOLD Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve a Minor Design Review at 16441 Arnold Street 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 Class "A" fire rating. Condition No. 9.a. - Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a report which includes a sewage disposal plan referenced to the grading plan and approved by the Riverside County Health Department. Second by Commissioner Wisley Approved: 4 -0 Chairman Brown left the table at 9:40 p.m. Chairman Brown returned to the table at 9:42 p.m. 10. Walk -on Item - Minor Design Review of the Tower Sign - McArthur/ Glen Group - Community Development Director Gunderman presented the revised sign program for the McArthur /Glen facility. Mr. Kenny Smith, representative for McArthur /Glen, gave a brief overview of the sign tower since its inception. Mr. John Ballew, Special Project Planner, talked about his involvement in the sign tower program. Commissioner Gilenson wanted to know if anyone could get into the tower. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve a Minor Design Review of the Tower Sign based on staff recommendation, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Reminded the Commission the July 4 meeting will be held on July 5th. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Absent. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission Page 8 June 6, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Chairman Brown Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved: 4 -0 Respectfully submitted, Vh %lz-w *n(� Colleen Moorhouse, Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 20TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. JUNE 1990 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Director Gunderman. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Wilsey Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Associate Planner Naaseh, Assistant Planner Fairbanks and DeGange, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve minutes of June 6, 1990, with the following corrections: Page 10: Add the Walk -on Item No. 10 for McArthur /Glen Group to the Minute Action showing the motion. Page 6: Change Chairman Wilsey to Commissioner Wilsey. Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved: 3 -0 Commissioner Brinley abstaining. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. AT THIS TIME CHAIRMAN BROWN INFORMED THE PUBLIC THAT SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT WAS WITHDRAWING THERE PROJECT FROM THE AGENDA AND ANSWERED A FEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROJECT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 90 -3 and Conditional Use Permit 90 -1 - Atlantic Richfield (AM /PM Mini -Mart) - Continued from May 16, 1990 - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested this item be continued to August 1, 1990. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m., and asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Zone Change 90 -3 and Conditional Use Permit 90 -1 to the meeting of August 1, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 2. Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance - City of Lake Elsinore - Continued from June 6, 1990 - Community Develop- ment Director Gunderman presented a request to approve the Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance in order to implement the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. Adoption of this ordinance is required before the City can approve reclamation plans for surface mining operations. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20,. 1990 Page 2 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ORDINANCE CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 3. General Plan Amendment 90 -4 - Leroy Grunder - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested this item be continued to August 1, 1990. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m., and asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue General Plan Amendment 90 -4 to the meeting of August 1, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 4. West Lake Elsinore Development Agreement - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested this item be continued to July 5, 1990. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue the West Lake Elsinore Development Agreement to the meeting of July 5, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 5. Commercial Project 90 -5 - Santa Rosa Development - Continued from May 16, 1990 - Chairman Brown stated the applicant has withdrawn the application for 180 days, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to continue Commercial Project 90 -5 not to exceed 180 days, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 4 -0 6. Commercial Project 90 -4 - Atlantic Richfield (AM /PM Mini -Mart) - Continued from May 16, 1990 - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested this item be continued to August 1, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Chairman Brown to continue Commercial Project 90 -4 to August 1, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 IT WAS THE CONCENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO HEAR BUSINESS ITEMS 7 AND 8 TOGETHER. 7. Single - Family Residence - 309 Lindsay - John Crehan S. Single - Family Residence - 212 Kellogg - John Crehan - Assistant Planner DeGange presented 309 Lindsay and 212 Kellogg for Minor Design Review. Both projects are manufactured homes, 1,344 square feet in size with 440 square foot garages. The project at 309 Lindsay is a single story dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot located approximately 215 feet north of the intersection of Sumner Avenue and Lindsay Street and the project at 212 Kellogg is a single story dwelling on a 7,040 square foot lot located approximately 240 feet south of the intersection of Sumner Avenue and Kellogg Street— Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1990 Page 3 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 309 LINDSAY AND 212 KELLOGG CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. John Creehan, the applicant, stated he was in agreement with staff recommendation. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the substandard driveway widths, referenced Condition No. 6. Chairman Brown inquired about the types of roofing materials on manufactured homes. Mr. Crehan stated there are options on the types of roofing materials from the factory on manufactured homes. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve a Minor Design Review at 309 Lindsay based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve a Minor Design Review at 212 Kellogg based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 9. Single - Family Residence - 15015 Larson Road - Philip Williams (Forrest Jensen) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented for Minor Design Review a 3,944 square foot, single - family dwelling on a 1.14 acre parcel located approximately 900 feet west of the southwest corner of Machado Avenue and Larson Road. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Phil Williams, the applicant, commented on Conditions Nos. 25, 26, 27, 31, and 32 pertaining to Larson Road being cul -de -saced which runs into Leach Canyon Road. We are doing research into making sure that Leach Canyon Road is in the County and is a dedicated road. Discussion ensued on Condition Nos. 25 and 26 pertaining to Larson Road being cul -de -saced and if it is a dedicated road. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve a Minor Design Review at 15015 Larson Road based on the Findings and subject to the 38 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 25: Dedicate sufficient street right -of -way for a standard cul -de -sac at the end of Larson Road. Right -of -way dedication must be approved prior to issuance of grading permit. If Leach Canyon Road is a dedicated street in Riverside County, cul- de -sac need not be constructed. Condition No. 26: Process street vacation for that portion of Larson Road that will not be used for public access. No vacation required if Leach Canyon Road is a dedicated right -of- way. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1990 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -2 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3 CONTINUED 10. Commercial Project 89 -2 and Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 - Chevron U.S.A. - Extension of Time - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a request for a six month extension of time on these projects. Chairman Brown asked if there was any representing the applicant. There being no discussion, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Commercial Project 89 -2 and Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 for a six month extension of time, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 4 -0 COMMUNITY DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman stated there will be a joint work session with City Council on July 11 from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., either at City Hall or the Chamber of Commerce on the General Plan. There is a meeting with the Lake Land Use Committe on Friday, June 29. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on July 5, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to Report. Commissioner Wisley Absent Commissioner Brinley Nothing to Report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to Report. Chairman Brown Requested abatement proceedings to begin on the triplexes at Roberts and Riverside Drive. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 4 -0 Respectfully submitted, Colleen Moorhouse of Grown, Planning Commission irman Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE 5TH DAY OF PLANNING THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:08 P.M. JULY 1990 COMMISSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Assistant Planner DeGange, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve minutes of June 20, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 4 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. West Lake Elsinore Development Agreement (Continued from June 20, 1990) - Community Development Director Gunderman requested that this item be continued to July 18, 1990. A brief discussion was held on the legality of opening public hearings. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue the West Lake Elsinore Development Agreement to the meeting of July 18, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstaining) 2. Conditional Use Permit 90 -5 - Lake Elsinore Christian Fellow- ship - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal for Conditional Use Permit 90 -5 to allow a Church facility to operate in an existing structure zoned M -1 (Light Industrial). Proposed project site is at 571 -D Crane Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Pastor Jim Hilbrant stated that the building they are trying to get into will be completed in two weeks. We feel that a church should be able to operate in this facility for several reasons: 1) The building is by itself and not connected to any other building; 2) The building has a sprinkler system in it; 3) Letter to the City Council /Planning Commission from the developer (Charles Morris) stating they would not allow, during the time of the Conditional Use Permit, if so granted, any company to get in there with any hazardous materials that would be hazardous to a church or public assembly. Pastor Hilbrant informed the Commission of another location they checked into and identified the following problems with said location: parking, the building being too small and the restroom facility being located in the back of the building. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1990 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -5 Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Thomas Comwell, 18193 Brightman, Lake Elsinore, spoke in favor of the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Mr. Dave Cunningham, President of the Corporation that is the parent Corporation of the Lake Elsinore Christian Fellow- ship Corporation, inquired about the following: - Article in the paper regarding this hearing, listed the property in discussion as C -M, is this correct? If not, was a retraction printed? Community Development Director Gunderman responded that it was incorrect, the property is zoned M -1. There was no need to print a retraction, because it is a Conditional Use Permit for a location not a zone. When the application was taken in the second time, there was some confusion - -this particular industrial park has split zoning, part C -M and part M -1. There was some confusion as to which part this building fell into. This building is in fact M -1. - Is this Conditional Use Permit 90 -4 or 90 -5. Community Development Director Gunderman responded Condition- al Use Permit 90 -5. Mr. Cunningham stated that churches do not have established areas they must apply for a Conditional Use Permit no matter what city they consider; the church is a business and gave definition. He then commented on the following sections of the Zoning Code: - Section 17.56.010, "uses that are relatively free of nuisance or hazardous characteristics." The church has no nuisance or hazardous characteristics. - Section 17.56.010, "to protect these areas from intrusion by residential, commercial and other inharmonious uses." - Section 17.56.020 , "permitted uses" many of the businesses listed are commercial, but Section 17.56.010 says they are protecting these areas from intrusion of "commercial" uses. - With the regard to a C -M location, is everyone aware of the requirements set forth in Section 17.54. I have extracted a portion of the second sentence from 17.54.010 hereafter quoted: 11 ... in order to accommodate the intensity of use and increased truck traffic." - Paragraph U of Section 17.54.030 allows a church to be in a C -M location. However, we might want to take a closer look to see if the author(s) of the M -1 and C -M requirements actually got the church permit in the wrong zone. Going back to the above quote from Section 17.54.010, would it make sense to allow a business that requires public assembly in a location that has intense truck traffic? Or, for that matter several of the businesses permitted under Section 17.54.020 could operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. That possibly could create a safety hazard. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1990 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -5 CO - Paragraph U subsection 1 and 2 of Section 17.54.030 is unconstitutional. None of the other businesses in the C -M requirements have these restrictions. I would suggest that paragraph U be re- written and sub paragraph U.1 and U.2 be deleted. Also paragraph U.4 is unconstitutional. This requirement is not placed on any other business. Mr. Cunningham commented on the location of the C -M /M -1 Districts, and asked if the Commissioners were aware of and reviewed these locations - -many have cited a desire to help us, but unfortunately as I have looked at the entire lake that you have afforded us, from your Building Department, and this leaves some definite areas in question. Mr. Cunningham then commented on issues and comments brought up at the previous meeting. Mr. Cunningham stated that he would like to reserve a couple of comments for later on, not necessarily this meeting, but in the event we will be going to City Council. Documenting some of the other things that I have discovered in the Civil Rights Act and also the First Amendment Rights that strongly suggest that, in fact reviewing your own documents, we have more than complied with the requirements set forth in the CUP application. Plus, we have also reviewed your M -1 and C -M requirements. It appears to me that there are a number of inconsistencies in both the M -1 and C -M documents and it doesn't appear to me, in any of these areas, that we would be any more inharmonious to the use of the facility as would the cabinet shop be to the catering service. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey stated that it is just as difficult to deal with this tonight as it was on June 6th. The issues are basically the same, and they have been previously stated. My concerns are the same and I don't think anything in that respect has changed. I would still like to find a location in the community that we can better deal with, but at this time I could not approve this. My feeling is that we recommend denial and go through the appeal process and let Council decide this ultimately. Commissioner Brinley stated that her concerns are the same as staff, and agrees with staff findings. At this point, we are limited in our M -1 (Manufacturing) Zones and it is set up for limited manufacturing and businesses, eventually job opportunities for our local residents. If we allow the church we would be setting a precedent. At this time, I would like to see some places set aside especially for churches. Can not agree with churches in the M -1 Zoning, and at this time would have to vote against it. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he concurs with what has been said. It has been brought before us before and I do not see where anything has changed. I would recommend denial. Commissioner Saathoff stated that on the basis of everything that has been presented would recommend denial. However, the applicant has brought forth several issues -- certain Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1990 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -5 CONTINUED issues where there is not clarity and certain issues on civil rights that he is concerned with. I would recommend denial without prejudice, and suggest that the applicant submit his statements in writing to the Commission. The Commission would present the various facts that might be required, or we feel necessary, to send forward to the City Attorney for his comments. It would also give us an opportunity - -as the sections and paragraphs quoted from Title 17 this evening were not in total, to read the entire paragraph to see what its intent is. Suggested continuation for 30 days to allow the City Attorney ample time for review. Motion by Chairman Brown to continue Conditional Use Permit 90 -5 to the meeting of August 1, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson with discussion. Commissioner Gilenson asked Mr. Cunningham if he could submit a copy of his comments in writing. Mr. Cunningham submitted a copy of his comments to the Commission, and stated that they are prepared to go to City Council Tuesday, July 10th, unless there is some reason - -do you set that determination? Community Development Director Gunderman stated this matter cannot go to City Council until there is an action taken by the Planning Commission. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Industrial Project 89 -11 - Jess Rodriguez (Continued from May 16, 1990) - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested this item be removed from the agenda. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to remove Industrial Project 89 -11 from the agenda, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 4. Residential Project 90 -8 - Pardee Construction - Assistant Planner DeGange presented an application for Minor Design Review of 176 single - family homes including an 8 unit model home complex, 50.25 gross acres, 34.11 acres, a portion of Tract 23848 in the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan, located southeasterly of the intersection of Cottonwood Hills Road and Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Mike McGee, Project Manager for Pardee Construction, commented on the color palette and stated that the Specific Plan document, as approved, addresses this matter. Mr. McGee commented on the Conditions of Approval as follows: Condition #20: Conflicts with the Staff Report, page 2 under the heading of Landscaping. The Specific Plan is the provision which overrides this, and we discussed this with staff and it was felt that condition 20 was not necessary in light of the Specific Plan. Assistant Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1990 Page 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -8 Condition # 9: We internally generate a micro - phasing plan by planning units. We can make a copy available. Condition #16: Relates to County Fire Department standards that usually apply to commercial and multi - family units. Condition #19.a.: The word "planting" should be changed to "Planted". Condition #19.b. and #19.c. are inconsistent. It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss the conditions in question at the point of inquiry by the applicant. Discussion ensued on condition 19 b. and c. pertaining to line of sight and planting species, and the following language "excluding street trees" added to 19.c. Discussion was held on condition 9 with Mr. McGee stating that this is not a problem, and amending condition 16, as follows: "The design and construction of the project shall meet all County Fire Department standards." Mr. McGee referred back to condition #9, asked if this plan could be submitted to the Community Development Director or staff and get approval, or is it necessary to come back before Commission. Chairman Brown stated that condition #9 would not have to come back before Commission, it is basically a sequence list. Discussion ensued on condition number #9 and its intent. Mr. McGee requested that condition #9 be deleted. Condition #22: Within the Specific Plan there is actually a section of signage guidelines that was put into place to address all elements of signage. We would like to amend this condition by adding verbiage: "consistent with Signage Program as approved in the Specific Plan ". Condition #25: We discussed this with the Engineering and Planning Department and not sure of the intent. We would like this deleted or modified to: "NO concentrated flows from on -site surface drainage shall be allowed to cross sidewalks. Discussion ensued on the Subdivision Map Act requiring each lot to drain to the right -of -way or have drainage easements; intent of condition, delete the condition or amend to read: "No concentrated on -site surface drainage shall cross sidewalks." Condition #31: Plans are being modified to reflect the interior garage clear space of 19x20. Condition #33: Fencing proposed for Crestview and Remington model complexes. We are already changing the plan so that they are six feet. Condition #30: Requested clarification on shrub foundation plantings. Discussion ensued on condition number 30 pertaining to shrub plantings; if this is in addition to the normal requirement for front yard landscaping; amount of planting to be provided and landscaping plans to be submitted to the Commission for Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1990 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -8 CONTI review. The need to be very specific if this is to be a requirement. Mr. McGee stated that they could have their landscape consultant draw up conceptual landscape plans and come back if it is going to be an important item, and you are going to want to come up with a policy. We could present those to you to look at and then adopt that type of condition. Then we would know that it would be equitably applied to those that follow. Discussion ensued on amending condition 30, as follows: "Final landscape plans shall reflect additional shrub plantings on all units, to be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval." Chairman Brown recommended that condition 30 be amended, as follows: "Final landscape plans shall reflect a minimum of two 24" shrubs and one 36" shrub." Condition #32: Final plans for the model complexes reflecting parking areas which are outside the public right -of -way. The model complex for Crestview is located at the top of a T- intersection off Cottonwood Hills Road and has the potential, because it is the major entryway into that planning unit, to create a traffic hazard if there is no off -site parking area provided. The Remington models are in a cul -de -sac that is significantly larger than the four units that are being built there and provides adequate parking within the cul -de -sac. Would like a response back on whether we could do the parking lot on the one and use the cul -de -sac for the parking lot on the other. Discussion ensued on anticipated traffic and parking for the model complexes. Condition #31.a: There may be some difficulty in meeting the roof tile requirement of 33 -34% and breaking up the color schemes. The Specific Plan does allow for architectural theme integration by color style, and we need some flexibili- ty. Discussion ensued on color themes, deleting the last sentence and the chart from this condition and adding "subject to Community Development Director approval." Chairman Brown commented on the applicability of condition number 19.e. and f., recommended they be deleted. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like to see a variation in the colors proposed. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the innovative architectural treatments and landscaping for this proposal that was to be provided, and not incorporated. Suggest that the applicant take the plans back for further enhancements. Commissioner Brinley asked if these designs were used else where, and then commented on the need for architectural enhancements. Mr. McGee responded that Remington is new. Crestview is a new product, we just starting selling it in a master planned community in Las Vegas. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1990 Page 7 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -8 Commissioner Gilenson commented on the elevations and the need for architectural enhancements. Chairman Brown stated his concerns are with street views and color schemes. Asked if plant -ons are being proposed for any of the elevations. He then commented on the purpose of eliminating all of the two - toning, window trim and fascia. Mr. McGee stated that they have not shown any plant -ons, and addressed the window trim and fascia two - toning. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to re- affirm Environmental Impact Report 88 -1 and approve Residential Project 90 -8 based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendments: Condition No. 9: "Utility releases and Certificates of Occupancy shall be granted for logical blocks and groups of units for which construction activity is complete and all Conditions of Approval met. Construction activities shall be completed for all units in each block prior to any releases. DELETED. Condition No. 16: "The design and construction of the project shall meet all County Fire Department standards." Condition No. 19.a: "All planted areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with 100% watering coverage." Condition No. 19.c: "Planting within fifteen -feet (151) of ingress /egress points shall be no higher than thirty -six inches (36 "), excluding street trees. Condition No. 19.e: "Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscape plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan." DELETE. Condition No. 19.f: "All landscape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year. DELETE. Condition No. 20: "All exposed slopes in excess of three -feet (31) in height shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, approved by the Planning Division." DELETE. Condition No. 22: "All signage shall be by City Permit, consistent with the Sign Program in the Specific Plan." Condition No. 25: "On -site surface drainage shall cross sidewalks." DELETE. Condition No. 30: "Final landscape plans shall reflect additional shrub plantings on all units, Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1990 Page 8 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -8 CONTINUED a minimum of two 2 shrub, subject to review." Condition No. 31.a.: "Prior to issuance the applicant shall which reflects the color and roof tile proposed unit." Second by Commissioner Brinley. 0 shrubs and one 36" Planning Commission of building permits, submit a site plan stucco color, trim selection of each Chairman Brown stated that he would approve the project as submitted, but would hope that the applicant would consider doing one elevation of each plan with some additional trim. Mr. McGee stated that they would consider this. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Wilsey voting no) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Commission of the following: - Joint Study Session on Wednesday, July 11, 1990., at 3:00 p.m. in the Planning Department Conference ROOM, at City Hall, subject is the General Plan. - The City Council at their last meeting approved the budget for the City of Lake Elsinore. That budget includes a number of positions for the Planning Division, which we will be recruiting, specifically: senior project manager, two senior planners, a planning technician and a secretary. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Would like to commend the City Manager, Mr. Watenpaugh and staff on an excellent 4th of July program. Would like to commend Arta Valenzuela and the Chamber of Commerce on an excellent fireworks show. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1990 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Chairman Brown Asked if there were any responses on the triplex. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that staff has been in contact with the owners and they have been put on notice that certain things have to be done, including securing the building. I believe, the 15 day notice by law is up next week or the week after. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Respectfully s bmitted, tea, Linda Grin staff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 18TH DAY OF JULY 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Associate Planner Restivo, Assistant Planners DeGange and Fairbanks, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of July 5, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. West Lake Elsinore Development Agreement (Continued from July 5, 1990) - Commissioner Wilsey asked to be excused due to possible conflict of interest. Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request to approve a Development Agreement for the West Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District. The area consists of approximately 1,075 acres and will include approximately 1,600 single- family dwellings. The property is bounded generally by Lakeshore Drive and Mountain Avenue on the north, Machado Street on the east, Alvarado Street and its extension on the south, and the Santa Ana Mountains on the east. The tract maps reflecting the development of this area have been approved with the exception of La Laguna Estates which has submitted a map for preliminary approval. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Jeff Robinson, Attorney representing the 7 developers, stated that he would answer any project specific questions, and commented briefly on staff's request for inclusion of insurance provision. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following: - Insurance provision, recommended verbiage be taken from the Brighton Agreement, Sections 29.0, 29.1 and 29.2 substituting these sections in this Agreement as Section 8.11. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 2 WEST LAKE ELSINORE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUED - Development Agreement which references a Funding /Acqui- sition Agreement, throughout. We received a copy of the Funding /Acquisition Agreement, but have no input to it. There are a lot of openings in the agreement, where I feel we can not approve this Agreement prior to the Funding /Acquisition Agreement being approved by City Council. I Understand the Mark - Roos /Mello Roos theory. My concern with the Acquisition Agreement is what will be financed -- infrastructure outside the project site, infrastructure that would normally be required of a developer. Would this be part of the reimbursement or is it just extra ordinary infrastructure that normally he would not have to deal with? This is not addressed in the Development Agreement, and I feel should be addressed in the Funding /Acquisition Agreement. Commissioner Brinley commented on La Laguna's request for an adjustment in their DAG fees; approving the Development Agreement without City Council approval of the Funding Acquisition Agreement. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the Commission reviews the Funding /Acquisition Agreement. Community Development Director Gunderman responded in the negative. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the escalation of La Laguna Estate fees; CDF overruns -- concern that overruns might happen as a result of the City using Mark -Roos instead of Mello -Roos. Feels that the overruns should be borne by the City, from the DAG Fees. Mr. Mandrell, Keith Companies, stated that the formation of the district has a project report, approved by City Council in March. I believe this states clearly what improvements were intended to be covered under the Community Facilities District or the Mello -Roos that was being formed. It was also the understanding, when this process started with the Development Agreements, as I understood it, that we really needed to resolve these issues with the Development Agreement in order to finish the Funding /Acquisition Agreement. Chairman Brown commented on the Mark -Roos financing program. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt Resolution 90 -13, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION 90 -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE WEST LAKE ELSINORE DEVELOPERS (CENTEX REAL ESTATE, LA LAGUNA ESTATES, MARINITA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PREMIER HOMES, MEEKER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, TOMICH /JONES, TORN RANCH, AND GOLDEN STATE DEVELOPMENT) and recommend to City Council approval of the West Lake Elsinore Development Agreement as submitted by staff with the addition of the insurance agreement that is found in the Brighton Homes Agreement, second by Chairman Brown. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey Abstaining) Commissioner Wilsey returned to the table at 7:34 p.m. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 3 2. Zone Change 89 -13 and Annexation #51 - John Crehan - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request to annex 160 gross acres into the City of Lake Elsinore and to pre -zone the site R -1 HPD (Single - Family Residential District - Hillside Planned Development Overlay District). The site is located at the southeast corner of Section 27, Township 5 South Range 4 West and is contiguous to the City Limit boundary. Generally, the site is north of Tuscany Hills Specific Plan Area and Greenwald Avenue, northwest of the gated Canyon Lake Community and southerly of Dorchester Lane. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Michael Klipa, civil engineer for the project, stated -that he concurs with staff's report, and will answer any questions. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. , Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Brinley commented on the site being located in a Study Area for the Steven's Kangaroo Rat, and inquired about the Steven's Kangaroo Rat fee. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council approval of Annexation #51 and Zone Change 89 -13 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 3. Tentative Financial Parcel Map 25638 - Consulting Planner Smothers presented a 251 acres into four parcels ranging in 191.6 acres, for financial purposes located on all four quadrants of Interstate 15 and Nichols Road. Long Beach Equities - request to subdivide size from 3.4 acres to only. The site is the interchange of Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. John Friedman, of Long Beach Equities, stated that there are 5 existing lots not 9 as indicated in the Staff Report. He then requested that condition number 5 be amended, as follows: With respect to Parcel 4 dedicate 130 foot street right -of -way for the easterly 1,150 feet of Nichols Road. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Mr. Ken Peacock, Mission Development, 34184 Coast Highway, Suite 318, Dana Point, stated that they own property adjoining this map. Mr. Peacock stated that a letter was sent to Ray O'Donnel and Ron Smothers requesting an easement for ingress /egress for our property (AP #390 - 270 -005), as a condition to the parcel map filing. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 4 TENTATIVE FINANCIAL PARCEL MAP 25638 CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson suggested adding verbiage "so as not to landlock said property" to condition number 8. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the applicant's request to amend condition number 5. That extra verbiage would tie Nichols Road to the existing length as illustrated on the - map, is this correct? Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that there is 60 foot of right -of -way already dedicated on this map, whether this condition is included or not. Chairman Brown commented on the dedication of sufficient right -of -way across Nichols Road, and how this fits into the Circulation Element; whether or not the conditions of approval should be recorded on the map for design and development of Parcel 1 and 2, reference condition number 8. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Financial Parcel Map 25638 based on the Findings and subject to the 8 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 5: "With respect to Parcel 4 dedicate 130 foot street right -of -way for the easterly 1,150 feet of Nichols Road. Condition No. 8: "The design for development of Parcels 1 and 2 shall take into account the access needs of the property northerly of them (Assessor's Parcel Number 390 -270 -005), so as not to landlock said property." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -10, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 4. Tentative Tract Map 25831 - The Clurman Company, Inc. - Consulting Planner Smothers presented a request to subdivide 50 acres into 195 lots. Two of these lots will be combined with lots in the adjacent Tentative Tract Map 25478, so the total number of buildable lots is 193. One lettered lot will be created for a private park site. The average lot size is 8,590 square feet and the minimum lot size is 5,500 square feet. This project has been conceived with the idea of being an extension of the Ramsgate Specific Plan. The site is located such that it is surrounded on three sides by the Ramsgate Specific Plan, on the northerly side of Ramsgate. The western boundary of this tract is along the southerly extension of Trellis Lane, south of Highway 74. Mr. Smothers requested that condition number 16 be deleted, as it is a duplicate condition, covered in condition number 21. Mr. Smothers stated that today we received a letter from L.D. Johnson Companies owner of the Ramsgate project, essentially stating that they were in agreement with this proposal and asked that it be entered into the record. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 5 TRACT MAP 25831 July 18, 1990 Mr. David Gunderman City of Lake Elsinore RE: Tentative Tract Map 25831 Dear Dave: .LD Johnson Companies is in agreement with the development by the Clurman Company of Tentative Tract Map 25831. This map has been designed in conjunction with our Ramsgate project. Should you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, LD Johnson Companies William H. Frey Vice President Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Don Clurman, The Clurman Company, gave a brief history on ,the proposal. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey commented on adding this property to the Ramsgate Specific Plan, and the lot size count being approximately 26% below our R -1 minimum standards. Mr. Clurman asked that Mr. Weber of Hunsaker & Associates address the issue on lot sizes. Mr. Weber stated that there are 50 lots between the 5,500 -6,000 square foot range. 5,500 is the minimum lot size on this tract. The lot average for the entire tract is 8,590 square feet. Commissioner Wilsey recommended that all lot sizes be brought up to the R -1 standards. Commissioner Brinley stated she is in agreement with Commissioner Wilsey on the lot sizes being brought up to R -1 standards, and then commented on the Southern California Edison easements and landscaping, condition number 33. Commissioner Gilenson stated he agrees with Commissioners Brinley and Wilsey on the lot sizes. Asked for clarification on condition number 22, pertaining to 12 kv equipment, and condition number 32, pertaining to reimbursement for off -site improvements. Commissioner Gilenson was informed that Southern California Edison will not allow 12 kv to be placed underground, condition number 22. Surrounding developments would provide reimbursement for off -site improvements, condition number 32. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 6 TRACT MAP 25831 CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff commented on lot sizes not being compatible with adjoining tentative tract maps. Chairman Brown commented on maintenance easements of green spaces with the Homeowners Association (HOA); topography constraints and access to slopes; purpose of easement between Lots 178 and 179; Slope area between Lot 114 and 115 be widen for access from one end to the other, if maintained by HOA, and the same issue on Lot 69 and 70, Lots 180 and 181, and; if the HOA is going to be responsible for maintenance of the Southern California Edison easement running through the tract. Chairman Brown then commented on density - -does not mind the high density provided we have the trade -offs. But sees most of the trade -offs as open space area because of topography constraints that has nothing to do with amenities for the community. Mr. Weber commented on the density for the approved Ramsgate Specific Plan, 3.5 and 5.1 dwelling units per acre, and the Clurman tract coming in at a density of 3.9 dwelling units per acre. We feel that the City is getting a better integrated Specific Plan in the Community for all of Ramsgate. It is a transitional use /development between a higher density to the northwest and the property to the south. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to deny without prejudice Tentative Tract Map 25831. I think the applicant is aware of the concerns on the small lot sizes; maintenance of the green space areas; the need for clarity in the language in reference to what area the homeowner and the Homeowners Association is going to maintain, second by Chairman Brown for discussion purposes. Discussion ensued on whether this would go forward to City Council if denied without prejudice, and continuing the proposal to the meeting of August 1, 1990. Commissioner Saathoff stated the reason he made the motion in that manner rather than a continuation was to make the applicant aware, of the fact, that the way it was presented, at this time, feels that it would be denied and wanted that noted. Chairman Brown withdrew his second, and Commissioner Saathoff withdrew his motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Tentative Tract Map 25831 to the meeting of August 1, 1990, second by Chairman Brown. Approved 5 -0 At this time, 8:37 p.m.. the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:51 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 5. Tentative Tract Map; 26142 - South Lake Estates Joint Venture - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested this item be continued to August 1, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Tentative Tract Map 26142 to the meeting of August 1, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved: 5 -0 Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 7 BUSINESS ITEMS 6. Single - Family Residence - 783 Lake Street - Amaro Construction - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request to construct a 1,347 square foot, two -story dwelling. The lot is located 95 feet west of the northwest corner of Avenue 1 and Lake Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the use of a swamp cooler and screening for said cooler. Commissioner Wilsey commented on visibility from Lakeshore Drive. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the roof line and suggestions proposed to the applicant by staff. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to deny without prejudice Single - Family Residence at 783 Lake Street, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Commissioner Saathoff stated that the applicant has met all requirements and has provided some enhancements requested by staff. If you deny without prejudice, the applicant deserves some very specific reasons why - -other than the fact it is not appealing, and I do not feel we can deny on that basis. Discussion ensued on the premise of Design Review, and compatibility of structure with the surrounding neighborhood. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Saathoff voting no) 7. Accessory Structure - Chairman Brown stated th it be withdrawn from the Motion by Commissioner the Accessory Structure Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 29322 Swan Avenue - Jose Mares - a applicant has requested this item agenda. Brinley to withdraw from the agenda at 29322 Swan Avenue, second by 8. Street Abandonment 90 -2 - John D. Frank - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for abandonment of Flint Street right -of -way between Lewis Street and Lowell Street. An approximate 660 foot segment of the 60 foot wide Flint Street right -of -way from Lewis Street to Lowell Street, 1.38 acres. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson commented on future impacts on traffic circulation; if Flint Street would ever be developed on the other side of the abandonment; future abandonment being to the east and not to the west - -not going through all they way to Poe, as opposed to closing it off at Silver. Chairman Brown commented on the reasoning behind the street abandonment; future concerns on continued abandonments as far as right -of -ways necessary for utilities to serve adjacent properties. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 8 STREET ABANDONMENT 90 -2 CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Street Abandonment 90 -2 based on the Findings and subject to the 1 Condition of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 9. Residential Project 89 -8 - Extension of Time - Bruce Ayres - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for a one year extension of time. The only changes to the approved project are: Vacation of a portion of Avenue 11; elimination of two triangular lots, which the applicant does not own; a lot line adjustment will move Line "A" to Line "B ", and; a merger of Lot "B" and Lot "C ". Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the need to re- affirm Negative Declaration 89 -19. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that because there have been some minor changes to the design, from what was originally approved, we need a re- affirmation on the Negative Declaration. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to re- affirm Negative Declaration 89 -19 and approve a one year extension of time for Residential Project 89 -8, extending the Minor Design Review to July 25, 1991, based on the Findings and subject to the 81 Conditions of Approval listed in the Memorandum dated July 18, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 10. Residential Project 89 -22 - Pardee Construction Company - Assistant Planner DeGange presented an application for Minor Design Review of 106 duplex type homes and one recreational building. The project is located in the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan Area, at the northeast intersection of Lost Road and Cottonwood Hills Road, approximately 2.5 miles east of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road. Assistant Planner DeGange requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval; Condition No. 35: Delete first paragraph and replace with condition number 57. Condition No. 55: Residential Project 89 -22 shall be subject to all Conditions of Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25274. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Mike McGee, Project Manager for Pardee Construction, gave a brief overview on the proposal, and requested conditions #8, #21, #35d, #35f.,and #36 be deleted in their entirety. Mr. McGee requested clarification on condition number 18, then commented on the Conditions of Approval as follows: Condition No. 51: Requirement for automatic garage door and roll -up doors on the units. It has been our intent all along to provide automatic garage doors on all units. Planning Commission Minutes July 18, 1990 Page 9 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -22 CONTINUED Condition No. 19: Amend to read: All signage shall be by separate City Permit, consistent with the Sign Program in the Specific Plan. Condition No. 25: Amend to read: The design and construction of the project shall meet all County Fire Department standards. Discussion ensued on condition number 25, with Mr. McGee suggesting the following language: "if the special letter is necessary" added at the end of the condition. Chairman Brown recommendation that condition number 25 be amended to address the structures that would be required as opposed to the units themselves. Condition number 35a: Change the word "planting" to "planted ". Condition No. 35c: Add the words "except street trees ". Condition 39: Assumes that this means something other than cinder block, it can mean slumpstone, is this correct? Condition 40: Amend to read: Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine - feet - six - inches by twenty -feet (916" x 201) of interior clear space for each car for a total interior clear space of 19x20 feet for two cars. Condition 49: Raises an issue about the color scheme. The condition, as worded, would be somewhat limiting in color schemes and have us move away from accent colors and only to stucco and trim colors. It would also have us paint window frames which comes to us in baked white enamel and we would prefer not to have to re -paint window frames. This also creates a maintenance problem which would have to be included in the Homeowners Association program. Also, we have brought with us a new color board which adds additional color schemes, a second roof color, brighter accent colors, and hopefully addresses the color issue in greater detail. Requested the following language be added "subject to the ,approval of the Community Development Director" Condition 53: If this is desired by the Commission I am happy to comply. However, I would like to point out that "typically we do not put windows into garage areas, because in the past they have created a problem in maintaining an attractive streetscape. Condition 56: The landscaping for the site itself and for the individual units has been designed by the landscape architect to comply with the Landscape Guidelines of the City, as approved, and in accordance with the Specific Plan. All of the requirements stated here are in excess of the City's current Landscape Guidelines. Condition 56a: We are already providing the number of street trees required by the Landscape Guidelines. The Landscape Guidelines allow for uniform placement of street trees or a clustering of street trees. Condition 56b: Foundation shrubs planted every 3 feet on center. It is getting regimented 3 feet on center and does not allow us much design flexibility with our landscape architect. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 10 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -22 CONTINUED Condition 56c: Slope Trees, the City Guidelines currently state that 75 percent of the slope trees can be 5 gallon and the balance 15 gallon. Condition 56d: Slope shrubs, the current guidelines call for 70 percent at 1 gallon, 30 percent at 5 gallon, and density shall be 25 per 1,000 square feet. Condition 56e: Slope ground cover, 6 inches is excessive in terms of the overall requirement. It is hard to plant cuttings that close together. We typically see 12 -18 inches on center, and the City Guidelines provide that those areas can be hydroseeded. The Commission discussed deleting conditions #8, #21, #35.d, #35f., #36, and #37. A lengthy discussion ensued on conditions #25, #35, #35a., #35b, #35c., #37, #40, #49, #51, #53, #56a., #56.b, #56c., #56.e and 57. Commissioner Brinley commented on setbacks from the sidewalk to the garage. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 50, recommended that the recreation facility be completed at half build -out, or prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the 53rd unit. Mr. McGee stated that they planned to have this completed at the opening of the model complex. Commissioner Gilenson suggested that condition number 50 be completed at opening of model homes. Mr. McGee suggested that condition number 50 be completed at release of first Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Brown commented on parking, asked if it is permitted everywhere, and its enforcement. Mr. McGee responded that this is permitted only in the guest spaces, and is enforced by the Homeowners Association. Chairman Brown asked if a place was being provided on site for people to wash their cars. Mr. McGee responded in the negative. Chairman Brown suggested this be given consideration. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 89 -22 based on the Findings and subject to the 57 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: Delete Condition No. 18: Delete Condition No. 19: All signage shall be by separate City Permit, consistent with the Sign Program in the Specific Plan. Condition No. 21: Delete Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 11 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -22 Condition No. 25: The design and construction of the project shall meet all County Fire Department standards for fire protection and shall include emergency vehicle turning radius, and fire resistance requirements for all buildings including sprinklers where required, and any additional requirements requested by the Fire Marshal. A fire detector check assembly shall be required for any interior fire lanes and hydrants. A letter shall be submitted verifying compliance prior to issuance of building permits, for structures where required. Condition No. 35: Delete original with: Prior to permits, landscap and approved by Architect, fee to application. paragraph and replace issuance of building __ plans shall be reviewed the City's Landscape be determined at time of Condition No. 35a: Change the word "planting" to "planted" Condition No. 35b: Delete Condition No. 35c: Add "except street trees ". Condition No. 35d: Delete Condition No. 35f. Delete Condition No. 36: Delete Condition No. 37: Delete Condition No. 40: Add "clear space for each car for a total interior clear space of 19x20 feet for two cars ". Condition No. 49: Delete Condition No. 50: The recreation facility shall be completed at release of first Certificate of Occupancy. Condition No. 51: All units shall be provided automatic garage doors. Condition No. 53: Delete Condition No. 55: Residential Project 89 -22 shall be subject to all Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tract Map 25274 (attached). Condition No. 56: Because of the nature and density of the project the applicant shall exceed the standards set forth in the Landscaping Guidelines. Condition No. 56a: Additional street trees shall be added to the plan. Condition No. 56b: Additional foundation and accent shrubs shall be added to the plan. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 12 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -22 CONTINUED Condition No. 56e: Slope ground cover shall be planted per the recommendation of the City's Landscape Architect. Condition No. 57: Incorporated into condition 35. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Wilsey asked for further discussion on condition number 49, retaining the condition and adding verbiage "color mix shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to include Commissioner Wilsey's comment on condition number 49, amending said condition to read: Condition No. 49: Add "Color approval of Director." mix shall be subject to the the Community Development Commissioner Wilsey asked for further discussion on condition number 53. Commissioner Saathoff stated that his motion included the deletion of this condition. Commissioner Gilenson inquired about condition number 51, and whether or not the second sentence was to be retained. Commissioner Saathoff responded that the second sentence was to remain. Commissioner Brinley amended her second to include the amendment to the motion. Approved 5 -0 At this time, 10:15 p.m.. the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 10:25 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 11. Residential Project 90 -10 - George Alongi - Assistant Planner DeGange presented for Design Review a single -story duplex of 2,993 square feet in size and two 3,577 square foot two -story triplexes. Each structure is placed on a 9,000 square foot lot. The project location is at the southeast corner of the intersection of Pottery and Langstaff Streets. Assistant Planner DeGange requested that condition number 44 be added, which would read: Condition No. 44: All landscape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of instal- lation of landscape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one year. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. George Alongi commented on Page 2 of the Staff Report, pertaining to the comments made by the City's Landscape Architect, roofing, material, and then commented on the following Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 10: This should be changed to 916" x 1916" inside measurement. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 13 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -10 Condition No. 13: If the City wanted me to put the trees 30 -foot apart, they would have 3 trees there, is that what the City wants? Condition No. 14: I would like to see the Planning Commission talk to the City Council and to the Building Department. Drainage across the sidewalk. What they want us to do on these projects is to drain under the sidewalk. Condition No. 17: Park in -lieu fee, where did this come from? Condition No. 23: Landscaping plan coming back before the Commission. I agree with this for larger projects, but when you get down to small projects it is really an overkill. Condition No. 25: I would like the Commission to tell me how we can stop people from outdoor storage. Are we talking before or after? It is something that you can't enforce. Condition No. 26: Trash enclosures are required for eight units and up. I do not have to put trash enclosures in, however, I am going to, but I do not want to be stuck to the City standards on building them. Condition No. 28: I want to go on the record - -I extremely resist signing any documents giving away my water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District does not require any water rights in any other area, and they do not require it in Lake Elsinore, neither does the Elsinore Water District. The City of Lake Elsinore said they collect them and turn them over to different water .companies, but they have not yet turned one over. Condition No. 42: There is no Resolution to that. There is an Ordinance 16 -32 -020, which only addresses itself to the type of sign that City Council approve. Minutes of April 23, 1985, page 2 item 9, addresses itself to approval of the type of sign and discussion of a fee for the sign. I believe that the signs will benefit the total community, not just a selected few, and if they are going to benefit the total community then I think the total community should pay for the signs. It should come out of the General Fund or the Redevelopment Fund. Condition No. 43: Questioned the posting of Performance Bond. We are doing street improvement plans, pulling encroachment permits, and submitting liability insurance. Requested this condition be removed. Discussion was held on the above referenced conditions. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 12, suggested adding the following verbiage to the end "if applicable, screening shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director." Commissioner Brinley commented on proposed condition number 44 and this being included as condition number 23.a.; condition number 38, pertaining to location of power poles. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the landscaping plan, and comments from the City's Landscape Consultant. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 14 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -10 Chairman Brown commented on condition number 43, posting Performance Bonds. If the City has not been requiring Performance /Completion Bonds, for people who work in the public right -of -way, then we should be. Chairman Brown commented on the triplex -- second floor unit landing being inadequate; continuation of plant -on mansard roof treatment; extension of eaves; first floor having no protection from the elements; width of window on first floor, and turning the staircase leading to the second floor. Chairman Brown asked for further discussion at the table. Commissioner Brinley stated that the overhang over the door would be an added amenity -- providing protection from the elements. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the difference in elevation - -is there a step down onto the roof -top? Suggested incorporating some of the landing area on to the deck area. Mr. Alongi responded that there is a three -inch step down from the living area on to the deck. This could be extended, but the reason why we don't is for security. Chairman Brown commented on the previous design approval; understands concern about L- shaping out the staircase - -in lieu of that would much rather see the overhang over the bottom unit; impracticability of increasing the landing, and continuing the roof treatment across the three garages. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 90 -10 based on the Findings and subject to the 43 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: Add "Roof treatment to be continued over the three garage doors. Condition No. 10: Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of 916" x 19'6" of interior clear space. Condition No. 12: Add to end of last sentence "if applicable, screening shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 23a: All landscape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one year. Condition No. 26a: Treatment over the front exterior door, to the downstair units, for protection from the elements shall be provided and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 15 12. Commercial Project 90 -8 - Greg Pitcher - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for Minor Design Review of the exterior refurbishment of the Mission Trail Plaza (Stater Brothers Center). This project is a 6.43 acre parcel located 1,200 feet east of the northeast corner of Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Greg Pitcher, representing the applicant, questioned condition number 20, pertaining to screening of roof mounted equipment; condition number 11, pertaining to brick pavers at driveway approaches. Mr. Iry Chase, property owner, stated that he objects to doing the brick pavers. First of all, it is a rehab not a new center. He then gave a brief overview on the center, highlighting the rehabilitation, and economical situation. Considerable discussion ensued on the above referenced conditions, and the center being brought up to the standards of the surrounding shopping centers. Chairman Brown suggested phasing the improvements, with City Council concurrence, and commented on the parking lot landscaping; whether or not the equipment can be screened effectively from Casino Drive, practically. Commissioner Gilenson suggested that Del Taco be included in the rehabilitation. Commissioner Brinley commented on the brick pavers being provided at the end of the phasing. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the front elevation of the buildings and the roof materials; landscaping of the parking lot; screening of equipment from Casino Drive -- rather than require screening would rather see this money applied elsewhere. Commissioner Wilsey commented on providing planter landscape treatments in front of the buildings, referred to rendering posted. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Commercial Project 90 -8 based on the Findings and subject to the 26 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 11: Delete Condition No. 13: Delete fee and replace with verbiage: "fee to be determined at time of application." Condition No. 20: Add "The roof mounted equipment shall be decorated to match the roof or painted, so that it will blend in with the roof. On Del Taco, screening of the roof material in the rear shall be provided to match existing roof. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about condition number 22, construction activity being limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, and suggested this condition be deleted. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 16 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -8 CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff recommended that condition number 22, be modified to: Monday through Saturday or as modified by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Brinley inquired about security lighting for the parking lot, and requested that this be added as condition number 27. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to include the amendment to condition number 22, and the addition of condition number 27, which will read as follows: Condition No. 22: Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday, or as modified by the Community Development Director, and the applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance in order to protect adjacent occupants from unreasonable noise and glare associated with construction. Condition No. 27: Security lighting for the parking lot shall be provided from dust to dawn. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -2 (Commissioners Brinley and Gilenson voting no) 13. Sign Program - Greg Pitcher - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for Minor Design Review of a Sign Program and Center Identification Sign for the Mission Trail Shopping Center. The commercial center is, a 6.43 acre site, located 1,200 feet east of the northeast corner of Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Greg Pitcher, representing the applicant, commented on the height of the sign. Mr. Iry Chase, property owner, commented on the need for street signage to identify the tenants. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the location of the center identification sign and the distance from the sidewalk. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the sign being too busy and the need for a better architectural statement. Chairman Brown commented on the number of tenants listed on the sign, 3 majors at the top and 6 additional on the bottom; eliminating 1 major user; height of sign and height limitations - -asked if the height of the sign is higher than the center because of topography and the center is 20 feet, can you put up a 20 foot sign? Assistant Planner Fairbanks responded that by Code you would, but in this case it would not matter because the sign grade is at the same grade as the rest of the center, within a foot. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that you probably could, in your scenario. You could put a sign in the air 20 foot above the grade of the road. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 17 SIGN PROGRAM FOR MISSION TRAIL CENTER Discussion at the table ensued elevation of the center, and continuing the Sign Program for architectural re- design, if allowed an additional 1 -2 foot. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue the Sign Program for the Mission Trail Shopping center to the meeting of August 1, 1990, for re- design, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5 -0 INFORMATIONAL 1. Lake Land Use Plan - Community Development Director Gunderman stated that City Council will look at the Lake Land Use Plan Tuesday, July 24, 1990. This will come back before the Planning Commission in a few months, as a Specific Plan. DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman presented the Planning Commission with a schedule of the proposed General Plan Town Hall Meeting dates and Planning Commission Hearing dates, requesting input on these dates within the next week or so. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Commented on the situation at Highway 74 northbound, no stop sign. Requested that and step taken to correct this situation. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Chairman Brown and the freeway off -ramp Cal Trans be notified Commented on the traffic being diverted from Riverside Drive to to Gunnerson and Lake Street and no control. Do we have anything to do with the approval of the diversion of traffic on that State Highway? Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that Cal Trans diverted the traffic without the approval from the City. This was a combined project between Cal Trans and Lake Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Would like to have City Council look at the storing of shopping carts outside, on the sidewalk, in front of the supermarkets. Would like to see something done about this. Planning Commission July 18, 1990 Page 18 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 12:22 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Appr d, Jeff own, Chairman Respectfully ubmitted, 2ndandstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Associate Planners Restivo and Naaseh, Assistant Planners Fairbanks and DeGange, Consulting Planner Smothers, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve minutes of July 18, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 90 -3 and Conditional Use Permit 90 -1 - Atlantic Richfield (AM /PM Mini Mart) - Continued from June 20, 1990 - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to September 5, 1990. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m., and asked for a motion to continue. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Zone Change 90 -3 and Conditional Use Permit 90 -1 to the meeting of September 5, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 2. General Plan Amendment 90 -4 - Leroy Grunder (Continued from June 20, 1990) - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested that this item be continued indefinitely. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., and asked for a motion to continue. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue General Plan Amendment 90 -4 indefinitely, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 3. Conditional Use Permit 90 -5 - Lake Elsinore Christian Fellowship (Continued from July 5, 1990) - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request to allow a church facility to operate in an existing structure zoned M -1 (Light Manufacturing). Proposed project site is at 571 -D Crane Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 90 -5. Pastor Hilbrant, 29308 Gunder Street, asked that the Commission be open to letting them use the facility. I believe that we have fulfilled every requirement: safety, parking, hours of operation, letter from the developer as far as not letting anyone next to us if the Conditional Use Permit Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -5 CONTINUED is granted. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Dave Cunningham, President of the Corporation that is the parent corporation of the Lake Elsinore Fellowship Corporation, commented on the Zoning Code and a church being allowed if a Conditional Use Permit is issued. Mr. Cunningham then inquired about the following: - How many Commissioners are aware of how far away this M -1 property is from a C -M location? - How often are the drawings (maps) updated? - How many of you have reviewed the zoning drawings and read Title 17? Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7 :09 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he stands by his previous comments- -not compatible with the area. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he stands by his previous comments. He then stated that he has read Title 17 and reviews it frequently, and can not comment on the other paperwork, as I do not know what it is. Commissioner Saathoff stated that there would be a concern if this was considered with regard to the letter from the developer - -in that he indicates there would be no other uses allowed in the vicinity. I do not know how this could be controlled. He then stated that he has with him Title 17 and has reviewed it. Commissioner Saathoff then commented on Mr. Cunningham's comment that the church has no nuisance or hazardous characteristics. We appreciate that, but we are saying that there are characteristics of other uses allowed in the M -1 that would be a nuisance to a public gathering, such as a church. Also, you indicated in your comments reference to Commercial- Manufacturing not M -1 and you make reference to whether it would make sense to allow a business which requires a public assembly in a location that has intense truck traffic. Businesses permitted under Section 17.54 could operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and this holds true in a manufacturing zone. This is why we have a Conditional Use Permit, because there are certain circumstances where we might not allow it in a commercial- manufacturing zone. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he stands with the other Commissioners, and by his previous statements- -does not feel this is compatible in the M -1 District. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Cunningham which documents he was referring to. Mr. Cunningham responded Title 17. There were some question as to whether some of my excerpts were actually from those documents. I also reviewed the General Plan as well as your Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -5 CONTINUED zoning drawings, of which this particular project, as I stated a moment ago, is how many are aware that there is a C -M Zone that is right on the other side of the wall from this M -1, and Commissioner Saathoff answered that in part. There could be, even though you have left yourself the opportunity for approval, that possibly if we came back with a C -M location we would be faced with the same consideration. There are also other comments through out the documents which the City Attorney replied to, or stated that all of this could be null and void if in fact the Community Development Director has determined that with a Conditional Use Permit a church could meet in M -1. It is also the comment to which the City Attorney included all of these considerations given that the Conditional Use Permit could be granted if in fact it is compatible, as the statement continues to be made. The compatibility, however, doesn't seem to be based on the condition at hand, but what future conditions there might be. Chairman Brown commented on the letter from the owner of the property indicating he would be willing to remove all the inventory of M -1 within the project so that the church could utilize the facility. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to deny Conditional Use Permit 90 -5 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 4. Tentative Tract Map 26142 - South Lake Estates Joint Venture (Continued from July 18, 1990) - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a request for approval of a 113 lot single- family subdivision on a 29.5 acre parcel, located on the east side of Stoneman and the south side of the existing City Limits. Associate Planner Naaseh request the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 14: Delete Condition No. 41 "Final Map shall incorporate Lots 110 and 113 as one lot or applicant may grant said Lot 113 to adjacent property owner at applicant's discretion prior to final map approval." Condition No. 73: "Developer shall contribute $7,000 towards the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Corydon Road and Grand Avenue. This development will increase traffic at the intersection at least six percent (6 %) and should contribute six percent (6 %) ($7,000) towards construction." Condition No. 87: "Stoneman shall be improved to a twenty - four foot roadbed (half- width) from centerline and a sloped AC parkway five - foot (51) from property line subject to the approval of the City Engineer and permitting continued use as a storm drain channel." Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m., asking if there was anyone present wishing to speak in favor. Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26142 CONTINUED Mr. John Elmajian, Wesco Homes, representing South Lake Estates Joint Venture, stated that they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey asked if it is anticipated for Stoneman to be continued through the floodplain area. Community Development Director Gunderman responded in the negative. Commissioner Wilsey then commented on the Class II bicycle requirement on Stoneman and whether or not this is sufficient, suggested that Dick Watenpaugh, Community Services, review this for a multi -use trail rather than just a bicycle path. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 57, pertaining to water rights; condition number 80, if standards for digitizing have been developed, and if City Council is going to have an ordinance or policy to mandate. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 42, requesting clarification on avigation easements; condition number 32, pertaining to decorative block or masonry wall around the perimeter of the subdivision - -might have a problem with requiring this, but this comes back to Design Review. Commissioner Saathoff then commented on a general purpose trail on Stoneman within the site itself rather than a Class II bicycle lane. What is between, in the developments, this development and Grand Avenue on Stoneman - -has there been anything other than Class II required? Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he believes it has been Class II. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would have a concern about the location of this particular tract map closer to the floodplain area and starting a general purpose trail and not having it between Grand Avenue and this map. Commissioner Wilsey stated that we have a half- street width that is being improved now, so we have nothing that has happened on the other side, and if we call it to Mr. Watenpaugh°s attention he can start to review that as those projects come in. Chairman Brown commented on the 40 -foot drainage easement running down the boundary and if there is any armoring, planting or erosion control proposed within that 40 -feet; placing perimeter fencing on the property line as opposed to the top of the slope; boundary wall section on the southeast side and if this is indicative of what would be the ten -foot easement. Discussion ensued on condition number 31 and 32, pertaining to landscaping, fencing and maintenance, and this coming back for Minor Design Review. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -12 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 26142 based on the Findings and subject to Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 26142 CONTINUED the 90 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 14: Delete Condition No. 41: "Final Map shall incorporate Lots 110 and 113 as one lot or applicant may grant said Lot 113 to adjacent property owners at applicant's discretion prior to final map approval." Condition No. 73: "Developer shall contribute $7,000 towards the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Corydon Road and Grand Avenue. This development will increase traffic at the intersection at least six percent (6 %) and should contribute six percent (6 %) ($7,000) towards construction." Condition No. 87: "Stoneman shall be improved to a twenty -four foot roadbed (half - width) from centerline and a sloped AC parkway five -foot (51) from property line subject to the approval of the City Engineer and permitting continued use as a storm drain channel." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 5. Tentative Tract Map 25831(Continued from July 18, 1990); Zone Change 90 -11 and Ramsgate Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 - The Clurman Company, Inc. - Consulting Planner Smothers presented a request to subdivide 50 acres into 195 lots, an amendment to the Ramsgate Specific Plan (adjusting the boundaries to include this tract), a Zone Change from Rural Residential to Specific Plan. The site is located such that it is surrounded on three sides by the Ramsgate Specific Plan, on the northerly side of Ramsgate. The western boundary of this tract is along the southerly extension of Trellis Lane, south of Highway 74. Consulting Planner Smothers gave an overview on the changes made at the Commission's request, and the Environmental Impact Report with regard to the letter from Cal Trans stating concern on freeway impacts and the cumulative impact. He also stated that this map is being presented by the applicant as a Vesting Tentative Map. Staff is of the opinion that this does not present a problem here, because the project is subjective to Specific Plan regulations and requirements for infra- structure. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25831: ZONE CHANGE 90 -11 AND AMENDMENT NO 2 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey commented on maintenance of slopes, and Homeowner Association maintenance area, and fencing of parcels. Commissioner Gilenson commented on lot sizes and the Staff Report and Exhibit indicating 51 lots still under 6,000 square feet; condition number 32, pertaining to reimbursement agree- ments and who they are from; condition number 46, pertaining to public works construction agreement. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -6 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 25831 (53 Conditions), Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 (3 Conditions) , and Zone Change 90 -11 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson with discussion. Commissioner Gilenson asked if the motion included the additional verbiage to condition number 32. Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to include the amendment to condition number 32, as follows: Condition No. 32: "The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement agreements from surrounding developments for the cost of off -site improvements required of this project." Commissioner Gilenson amended his second to include the amendment to the motion. Approved 4 -0 6. Tentative Parcel Map 25717 and Industrial Project 89 -12 - Brookstone Development, Inc. Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request to allow for the subdivision of a 15.29 acre site into eleven (11) lots and for construction (on the subject property) of eleven (11) concrete tilt -up buildings totaling approximately 60,985 square feet, located on the northeast corner of Silver and Flint Streets. Community Development Director Gunderman requested that condition number 5 of Industrial Project 89 -12 be deleted and condition number 6 for Tentative Parcel Map 25717 be deleted, and gave the reasoning behind the deletion of these conditions. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Vince Daly, representing Brookstone Development, commented on staff's concerns listed on Page 3 of the Staff Report, items 1 -6, and requested that the Commission approve this project as amended by staff. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 7 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25717 & INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -12 CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 21, for Industrial Project 89 -12, and suggested the following verbiage be added: "fee to be determined at the time of application." Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -57 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 25717 and Industrial Project 89 -12 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval (35 for Tentative Parcel Map 25717 and 27 for Industrial Project 89 -12) listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Tentative Parcel Map 25717: Condition No. 6: Delete Industrial Project 89 -12: Condition No. 5: Delete Condition No. 21: "A Final Landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and include landscape and irrigation specifications to be approved by the City's Landscape Architect, fee to be determined at time of application. The revised plans should be prepared and signed by a licensed Landscape Architect and include the following:" Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 At this time, 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:12 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 7. Annexation 55 and Zone Change 90 -7 - Coastal Valley Development LP - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request to annex 10.68 acres of unincorporated County of Riverside land into the City of Lake Elsinore and to pre -zone the property C -2 (General Commercial). The subject property is located between Dexter Avenue on the northeast and I -15 freeway on the southwest and the existing City boundaries on the northwest and southeast. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -22 and approval of Annexation 55 and Zone Change 90 -7 based on the Findings and 1 Condition of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 8. Zone Change 90 -10 - George Alongi - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request for a Zone Change on three parcels from R- 2, Residential, to R -3, Residential, to establish consistency Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 8 ZONE CHANGE 90 -10 CONTINUED with the current General Plan. These parcels are located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Pottery and Langstaff Streets. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Ms. Ann Armstrong, 304 West Pottery Street, stated that they would like to see the property remain R -2. Ms. Armstrong then commented on the surrounding uses and the problems they have incurred. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition or on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey commented on conformity with the General Plan, and Ms. Armstrong's comments and requested staff indicate what alternatives she has with regard to R- 2/R -3. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the Zoning and General Plan designation -- agrees with R -3 in this area. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -24 and approval of Zone Change 90 -10 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 9. Parking Determination 90 -1 and Industrial Project 90 -6 - Deleo Clay Tile - Joe Deleo - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request to reduce the parking requirements specified in Section 17.66.030.C, and for the construction of a 12,240 square foot addition to an existing industrial building, on the southeast corner of Chaney and Collier. Associate Planner Restivo requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 4a: All existing and proposed elevations must be of the same color, with the addition that white trim may be used to enhance the side elevations, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. Condition No. 4b: Loading zones shall be striped on -site in accordance with Section 17.66.050 of the Municipal Code and /or a truck storage area shall be delineated on the site plan providing the area specified by the aforementioned Section, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. Condition No. 38: Delete Condition No. 40: Delete Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 9 PARKING DETERMINATION 90 -1 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -6 CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 19.b., recommending that 15 gallon be changed to 24 inch box; condition number 2 of Industrial Project 87 -1 and 87 -3, and the conditions for Industrial Project 87 -1 and 87 -3 being incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this proposal, added as condition number 41. Commissioner Wilsey commented on seeing the improvements to the property as outlined in Industrial Project 87 -1 and 87 -3; parking space count - -83 not being a viable number for this type of operation, however, 28 spaces is not enough, and prohibiting on- street parking on Chaney and Minthorn Streets. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 21 with regard to all conditions being fulfilled and the indication that a completion bond for all site improvements will be required, but not included in the conditions, and this being added to condition number 23; parking space requirements and the need for flexibility - -there should be some relief, but reluctant to go from 83 to 28 spaces; designating an area for 55 parking spaces as referenced on Industrial Project 87 -3, if required. Chairman Brown commented on the parking space count; if the use were to change whether or not parking can still be met; an easement being placed on the property for parking purposes, if the use should change; number of employees per shift, and enforcement. Discussion ensued on designating an area for parking, and whether or not this parking area should be kept clear of all storage; the number of parking spaces to be designated; its location, and enforcement tools available to the City. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Parking Determination 90 -1 based on the Findings and recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -1 and approval of Industrial Project 90 -6 based on the Findings and subject to the 40 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 4a: "All existing and proposed elevations must be of the same color, with the addition that white trim may be used to enhance the side elevations, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 4b: "Loading zones shall be striped on- site in accordance with Section 17.66.050 of the Municipal Code and /or a truck storage area shall be delineated on the site plan providing the area specified by the aforementioned Section, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 19b: Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City Street Tree List, a maximum of 30 -feet apart and at least 24 inch box in size, as approved by the Community Development Director." Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 10 PARKING DETERMINATION 90 -1 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -6 CONTINUED Condition No. 38: Delete Condition No. 40: Delete Condition No. 41: "Conditions of Approval for Industrial Project 87 -1 and 87 -3 incorporated herein by reference where applicable." Condition No. 42: "Dedicate or set aside sufficient land for an additional 55 parking spaces, location to be determined by the Community Development Director. Said property can be used for storage until a determination by the Community Development Director is made that parking spaces shall be provided. Second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the maker of the motion would include bonding for improvements. Chairman Brown inquired about the dedication of parking area and how this is to be recorded - -what agreements? Community Development Director Gunderman suggested that the parking area be identified on the site /construction plans. Commissioner Gilenson amended his motion to include the following amendments: Condition No. 23: Add "A completion bond shall be posted for all site improvements." Condition No. 42: "The site plan, that is a part of the building permit plans, shall designate the dedicated future parking area. Said property can be used for storage until a determination by the Community Development Director is made that parking spaces shall be provided." Commissioner Saathoff amended his second to include the amendment to the motion. Approved 4 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 10. Single - Family Residence - 359 Avenue 4 - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design Review of a single - family manufactured dwelling of 1,006 square feet in size with a 440 square foot garage placed on a 7,250 square foot lot. The site is approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of Mill and Avenue 4. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 10, recommending that the interior clear space be changed to 9'6" X 19'6 ") for consistency. Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 11 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 359 AVENUE 4 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey commented on the fireplace illustrated on the elevations, and recommended that a condition be added addressing same. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 359 Avenue 4 based on the Findings and subject to the 31 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 10: "Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine- feet -six- inches by nineteen - feet - six - inches (9'x19'6) of interior clear space for two cars for a total interior clear space of nineteen by nineteen - feet- six - inches (19'x19'6")." Condition NO. 32: "Left elevation shall delineate fireplace and chimney as per rendering." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 11. Commercial Project 90 -4 - Atlantic Richfield (AM /PM Mini -Mart) - Chairman Brown stated that staff has requested this item be continued to September 5, 1990, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Commercial Project 90 -4 to September 5, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 12. Sign Program - Greg Pitcher (Continued from July 18, 1990) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for Minor Design Review of a Sign Program and Center Identification Sign for the Mission Trail Shopping Center. The commercial center is a 6.43 acre site located 1,200 feet east of the northeast corner of Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road. Assistant Planner Fairbanks requested the following conditions be added: 1. All minor tenant sign plexiglass panels shall be enclosed in a sign case with a minimum of six - inches of siding surrounding the perimeter of the signs. 2. All major and sub -major tenant signs shall consist of plexiglass individual lettering mounted flush with the surrounding wood siding. 3. Major and sub -major tenant copy on the Center Identification Sign shall not exceed eighteen inches high, minor tenant copy shall not exceed twelve inches high. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Greg Pitcher, representing the applicant, commented on condition number 1 of the additional conditions, requesting the Commission give consideration to 3 inches of border around the minor tenant sign. Other than that we are in complete agreement with staff. Discussion at the table was held on Mr. Pitcher's request. Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 12 SIGN PROGRAM CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff commented on Stater Brothers, Sprouse Ritz and Dalton Books having can type signs, channel letters. Recommended continuation of the same type signage on the minor tenant signs, just smaller size. Mr. Pitcher stated that the problem with that is tenant change over. Commissioner Gilenson asked if we weren't trying to get away from can signs in commercial centers. Commissioner Saathoff responded not so much on center identification signs. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve the Sign Program for the Mission Trail Center as specified in the July 18, 1990, Staff Report and the Center Identification Sign to be constructed as submitted in the drawings of August 1, 1990, based on the Findings and subject to the 7 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: "All minor tenant sign plexiglass panels shall be enclosed in a sign case with siding surrounding the perimeter of the signs, margin to be determined by the Community Development Director." Condition No. 9: "All major and sub -major tenant signs shall consist of plexiglass individual lettering mounted flush with the surrounding wood siding." Condition No. 10: "Major and sub -major tenant copy on the Center Identification Sign shall not exceed eighteen inches high, minor tenant copy shall not exceed twelve inches high." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 13. Extension of Time for Commercial Project 89 -3 - Ray Grage - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for a 90 day time extension to allow time to secure a construction loan. Staff is requesting that a 180 day time extension be granted. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to grant a 180 day time extension for Commercial Project 89 -3 based on the Findings listed in the Memorandum of August 1, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 14. Residential Project 90 -9 - Osborne Development Corporation - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a request for Minor Design Review of 100 single - family units including a four (4 unit model home complex. The project consists of portions of Tracts 24138, 24139 and all of Tract 24215. The project is located at the northeast side of the intersection of Ontario Way and Grand Avenue. Associate Planner Naaseh requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 32.c: Delete Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 13 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -9 CONTINUED Condition No. 39: Delete Condition No. 50: As per the Airport Land Use Commission letter dated July 24, 1990, prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall: 1) Convey an avigation easement to the Skylark Airport, and; 2) The design and construction of the structures will permit a maximum interior noise level of 45db." Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. John Sands, representing Osborne Development, gave a brief overview of the proposal, and then requested that the Airport Land Use Commission letter, condition number 50, be considered by the Community Development Director as to timing to have this accomplished. We would request that this not be tied to point of pertinence. Discussion ensued on condition number 50, pertaining to the Airport Land Use Commission letter regarding avigation easements; amending condition by changing the words "building permits" to "Certificate of Occupancy ", and this also applies to the model homes - -no release of utilities and this includes temporary hook -up of permanent power, and enforcement of said condition. Commissioner Gilenson commented on conditions 15, 19, 20, 21, and 22, stating that he does not believe these conditions are applicable to this project; condition number 32, requested that the "$130.00 per plan fee" be replaced with "fee to be determined at time of submittal "; condition number 35, change 20' to 1916 "; condition number 7, pertaining to Certificate of Occupancy not being released if there is a problem with any unit. Discussion ensued on condition number 7 and its intent. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to re- affirm Negative Declaration 89 -7 and approve Residential Project 90 -9 based on the Findings and subject to the 48 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 7: Delete Condition No. 15: Delete Condition No. 19: Delete Condition No. 20: Delete Condition No. 21: Delete Condition No. 22: Delete Condition No. 32: "The final landscaping /irrigation plan is to be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant for a fee to be determined at time of submittal, and the Community Development Director or his designee." Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 14 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 90 -9 CONTINUED Condition No. 32c: Delete Condition No. 36: "Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine- feet -six- inches: by nineteen - feet - six - inches (91'6" x 191611) of interior clear space for two cars for a total interior clear space of nineteen - feet by nineteen - feet - six - inches." Condition No. 40: Delete Condition No. 50: "As per the Airport Land Use Commission letter dated July 24, 1990, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall: 1) Convey an avigation easement to the Skylark Airport, and; 2) The design and construction of the structures will permit a maximum interior noise level of 45 db." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Chairman Brown asked for discussion on condition number 50, pertaining to the noise level of 45 db. Discussion ensued on said condition. Community Development Director Gunderman suggested amending condition number 50, as follows: "Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy the project shall comply with the requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission, as applicable. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would prefer to leave the motion as stated. Chairman Brown suggested the condition remain, and if you want to add a caveat to the condition that it can be amended with approval of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission that is okay. Commissioner Gilenson amended his motion to include the amendment to condition number 50, as follows: Condition No. 50: "As per the Airport Land Use Commission letter dated July 24, 1990, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, or as amended by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, the applicant shall: 1) Convey an avigation easement to the Skylark Airport, and; 2) The design and construction of the structures will permit a maximum interior noise level of 45 db." Commissioner Saathoff amended his second to include the amendment to the motion. Approved 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 15 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Commission of the following General Plan Town Hall Meetings: 1st Meeting: August 7, 1990, 6:30 p.m., at Elsinore Unified School District Board Room. 2nd Meeting: August 20, 1990, 6:30 p.m., at Terra Cotta Junior High School. 3rd Meeting: August 30, 1990, 7:00 p.m., at the Community Center. Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Commission that Commissioners Brown and Gilenson will be sworn in at the City Council Meeting on August 14, 1990, and at the meeting of August 15, 1990, elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman will be conducted. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Commented on the following: 1. Banner signs off Casino Drive, facing the freeway, within the Shopper's Square Center, how long will these banner signs be allowed to remain? Also, status of the dish antennas within this center. 2. Fruit vendor at the corner of Gunnerson and Lakeshore, this is County property, as I understand it. But coming all the way down from Gunnerson to Stater Brothers there are street signs, can we get these removed? Also, can we contact the County, as they are making a mini flea - market out there. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that staff will contact the County. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Commented on the re- appointment of Commissioners Gilenson and Brown. Chairman Brown Commented on the original approval of the Black Sea Cafe being conditioned to provide off -site parking through a lease, and believes with the new owners this is gone. There are some real issues not only with that business but with the parking. Assumes that the condition followed the building. Community Development Director Gunderman responded in the affirmative. Inquired about the status of the triplex on Robertson. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that this is now in abatement. Commissioner Brinley Absent Minutes of Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 16 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Appr d Jeff o n, Chairman Respectfully submitted, 'z - L/inda GriZd<staff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF AUGUST 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS LED BY Commissioner Gilenson. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Associate Planner Naaseh, Assistant Planners Fairbanks and DeGange and - senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. Community Development Director Gunderman opened nominations for Chairman. Commissioner Brown nominated Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Commissioner Brinley moved that nominations be closed, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Commissioner Saathoff was elected Chairman by unanimous vote. Chairman Saathoff opened nominations for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Brinley nominated Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Wilsey moved that nominations be closed, second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Gilenson was elected Vice Chairman by unanimous vote. Chairman Saathoff presented Commissioner Brown with a plaque in recognition of his serving as Planning Commission Chairman for the past two years. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve the minutes of August 1, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson with discussion. Commissioner Gilenson referred to page 10, item number 10, commenting on condition number 10, pertaining to the interior clear space for the garage being changed to nine - feet - six - inches by nineteen - feet - six - inches and this not reflected in the motion. Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to include the correction on page 10, item number 10, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Brinley abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 26326 & Industrial Project 90 -5 - Elsinore Business Park Investors (Steven M. Brown) - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a request to subdivide 20.4 acres into 25 lots and Design Review for approximately 170,000 square feet of single tenant and 40,000 square feet of multiple tenant industrial buildings, located on the southwest corner of Central and Collier Avenues. Associate Planner Naaseh requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 26326: Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26326 & INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -5 CONTINUED Condition No. 8: Class II bicycle lane to be provided along Central and Collier Avenues subject to right -of -way availability. Condition No. 21: The developer shall establish and record CC & R's prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the units. The CC & R's shall impose fees to maintain all landscaping, parking areas, private streets, private drainage facilities, and any other common amenities. CC & R's shall also provide reciprocal easements for parking, access, circulation, loading, landscaping maintenance and signage maintenance in favor of all lots, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and the City Attorney. The CC & R's shall . prohibit outside storage and shall furnish information on any environmental hazards or constraints to all future owners /lessees. Condition No. 24: Delete Condition No. 50: Ingress and egress to Collier Avenue will be limited to one (1) left turn in /out and one (1) right turn in /out, both subject to Cal -Trans and City Engineer approval. Condition No. 62: When an assessment district is formed for the infrastructure in this area fees required under Condition Nos. 49, 56, 61 will be refunded to the applicant provided these improvements are included in the district. - Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., asking if there was anyone present wishing to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Elsinore Business Park Investors, gave a brief overview of the proposal, and stated they were in agreement with all of the Conditions of Approval, except condition number 35.b on Industrial Project 90 -5, pertaining to the loading space for Building 5. There are two loading spaces adjacent to Building 5 and we feel that this will more than service that building. We would like the Commission to accept the layout, the way it is now, with the loading spaces the way they are. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Chairman Saathoff stated that he would prefer to see the Tentative Parcel Map handled and then the Industrial Project handled as a Design Review item. Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26326 & INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -5 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey asked staff for the reasoning behind the private street for the project. Associate Planner Naaseh responded that the applicant proposed a private street. It was previously proposed as a public street and it required a 20 -foot setback from public right -of- way, so the applicant decided to change it to a private street to reduce the setback. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he has a problem with that - -if that street were not a through street, it comes out on both sides and services the majority of that project. We are talking about an industrial project not residential or commercial, so we are talking about heavier truck traffic. I have a problem with going below the minimum requirements in a project like this, and a streetscape such as this. Commissioner Brinley stated that she is in agreement with Commissioner Wilsey and then commented on street improvements being left up to the developer to maintain. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that the street is built to normal street standards, whether public or private. If the situation rises where it is not being maintained or becomes a problem the City could take it over as a public street. However, I think in a situation of an industrial project, of this nature, that having the applicant responsible for maintenance of the street might be a little more desirable than the City. Because they would have the ability to control the use of the street, access to the street. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the private street and this being made a private drive because they do not have the 20- foot setback. Approve the project with the 15 -foot setback they have now, let the street go to whatever condition it goes to and the City takes it over and they got by with a 15 -foot setback. Commissioner Brown stated that his concern is that this could become a methodology. What is the leverage -- because that is what you need when you go to an enforcement issue. Especially, if they sell off the parcels to various owners. If they don't do it we have not collected revenue for that street in the plans as we do for other streets, correct? Community Development Director Gunderman responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff what would happen to the design and the rest of the project if we required full street setbacks - -would we loose parking spaces that are required? Associate Planner Naaseh responded that this would require redesign of the project and it would reduce the square footage of the buildings. Commissioner Brown stated theoretically the parking would be reduced along with the reduction of the square footage of the building. Commissioner Brown commented on the private street and suggested a hook in the center -- change the configuration of Buildings 19 and 20 with parking so it is in effect in the middle of the private street. Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26326 & INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -5 CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson suggested eliminating the private drive off of Central. Chairman Saathoff commented on the 15 -foot setback; denying the project because of the private street or have the applicant request a variance on the 15 -foot setback. Community Development Director Gunderman suggested approving the project with a condition to redesign the street so that it becomes a private street or meet the setback requirements. Discussion ensued on the private street with regard to having one major entryway to the project off Pasadena rather than off of Pasadena and Central; maintenance of the street; setting a precedence if the 15 -foot setback is allowed, and enforcement. Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 62 pertaining to the assessment district and if it is designed and takes into consideration conditions 49, 56 and 61, and if this is to take care of off - site /on -site infrastructures; condition number 61, is that being taken into consideration, or is it for sewage district only to take care of facilities within the district; signage for the proposal, and maintenance of signage. Mr. Steve Brown stated the boundary of the proposed assessment district would go from Riverside Drive to Chaney, Temescal Water Channel to the freeway. Items 49, 56 and 61 would be included and the drainage fee listed in condition number 61 would be the master drainage fee for the whole area. Our project has no drainage problems in itself. The only signage that would be on the project would be a monument sign proposed at Central and the private drive and then there would be individual channel letter type signs on the buildings. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the amendment to condition number 8, pertaining to the Class II bicycle lane, and stated this should be a part of the Master Trail System. Discussion ensued on condition number 8, pertaining to the bicycle lane, and amending the condition by adding the following verbiage: "Class II bicycle lanes along Collier and Central shall be subject to the approval of Cal- Trans." Commissioner Brown suggested that the right -of -way on the private street be taken down to 30 -feet and it be made a one - way street. This will provide required setbacks, extra parking and entry off of Central and exit off of Pasadena. Mr. Brown responded that this was a good solution. Chairman Saathoff asked Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell if the engineering staff had any comments /concerns on this. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that he does not foresee any problem. The only possible problem could be the curve, it may have to be knuckled. Discussion ensued on the proposed amendment to the private street with regard to traffic safety; no parking on the one - way street and posting of no parking signs; County Fire Department review /approval of the proposed one -way street. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -20 and approval of Minutes of August 15, Page 5 Planning Commission 1990 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26326 & INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -5 CONTINUED Tentative Parcel Map 26326 based on the Findings and subject to the 61 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Commissioner Gilenson asked if the motion included the amendments to the Conditions of Approval as stated in the memorandum, and if it included the change made on the private street and bicycle lane. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to include the following amendments: Condition No. 8: "Class II bicycle lane to be provided along Central and Collier Avenues subject to approval of Cal - Trans." Condition No. 21: "The developer shall establish and record CC & R's prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the units. The CC & R's shall impose fees to maintain all landscaping, parking areas, private streets, private drainage facilities, and any other, common amenities. CC & R's shall also provide reciprocal easements for parking, access, circulation, loading, landscaping maintenance, signage usage and maintenance in favor of all lots, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and the City Attorney. The CC & R's shall prohibit outside storage and shall furnish information on any environmental hazards or constraints to all future owners /lessees." Condition No. 24: Delete Condition No. 50: "Ingress and egress to Collier Avenue will be limited to one (1) left turn in /out and one (1) right turn in /out, both subject to Cal- Trans and City Engineer approval." Condition No. 62: "When an assessment district is formed for the infrastructure in this area fees required under Conditions Nos. 49, 56, 61 will be refunded to the applicant provided these improvements are included in the district." Condition No. 63: "The private one -way street shall have a 30 -foot width, a 20 -foot landscape setback, and an entry off of Central and exit off of Pasadena, subject to the approval of the County Fire Department and City Engineer. "No parking" signs shall be posted on the one -way street." Commissioner Wilsey amended his second to include the amendment to the motion. Approved 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26326 & INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -5 CONTINUED Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion on Industrial Project 90 -5, and the applicant's request in regards to the loading space requirements. Associate Planner Naaseh stated that the Code has no provision for location of loading spaces, it is up to the Commission. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he believes that the provision was provided for large single use buildings rather than multi- tenant buildings. Believes that the applicant has provided more than enough loading space area for those buildings. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 19, 20 and 21, stating these conditions contradict each other, suggested that the first sentence of condition number 21 be deleted; suggested that condition number 31 be deleted as it is covered in condition number 32; suggested that condition number 35.b. be deleted, and require sewer connection. Discussion ensued on condition number 35.b., loading space requirement. Community Development Director Gunderman recommended that this condition be amended to read: "Loading space shall be provided as shown on the approved plan." Commissioner Gilenson commented on the last sentence in condition number 46 being the same as condition number 49, and recommended that condition number 49 be deleted. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 35, language stating that loading zones shall meet City standards, suggested that language referring to City standards be deleted. Commissioner Gilenson recommended deleting the first sentence of this condition. Commissioner Brown commented on sewer connection and applicant providing a will -serve letter from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, reference condition number 68 and 69. Discussion ensued on sewer connection and a will -serve letter, amending condition number 68, as follows: "Project will provide a will -serve letter and connect to sewer." Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -20 and approval of Industrial Project 90 -5 based on the Findings and subject to the 69 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 21: "All outdoor ground or wall mounted utility equipment shall be consolidated in a central location and architecturally screened along with substantial landscaping, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 31: Delete Condition No. 35: "This project shall be designed so that every unit is provided with at least one (1) 12' x 20' loading space as required by the City's Municipal Code." Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 7 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 90 -5 CONTINUED Condition No. 35b: Condition No. 49: Condition No. 68: "Loading spaces shall be provided as shown on the approved plans." Delete "Project will provide a will -serve letter and connect to sewer." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 At this time, 8:13 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:21 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Single - Family Residences - 16780 Lash and 16789 Hunt - Greg and Mark Futala - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design Review of two single - family dwellings placed on adjacent lots. The proposed project at 16780 Lash is a 1,833 square foot structure with a 697 square foot garage placed on a 5,117 square foot lot approximately 375 feet east of the intersection of Morberg and Lash Street. The project at 16789 Hunt has 1,805 square feet of living space, a 460 square foot garage and is placed on a 5,144 square foot lot approximately 198 feet east of the intersection of Hague Avenue and Hunt Street. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 23 for Lash Street and condition number 22 for Hunt Street, with regard to foundation plantings, asked whether or not we could require something of a permanent nature -- plant -ons or windows. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 13, with regard to existing trees being retained; condition number 29, pertaining to will -serve letter for water and sewer arrange - ments. Commissioner Brown commented on whether or not the City has a tree preservation guideline established; infill- activity - -in the Country Club Heights area there is no sewer, can we require or work out an arrangement with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District that with the approval of these projects that the property will always be subject to and included within a benefit assessment district, if the district should ever take the lead in an attempt to form one. Discussion at the table ensued on Commissioner Brown's inquiry, and whether or not this would run with the land if the property should change ownership; obtaining the City Attorney's opinion on whether or not we can get a proxy to automatically include property in any future sewer assessment district. Chairman Saathoff asked how many trees are in front of the property, condition number 13. Assistant Planner DeGange responded that on Lash Street there are 2 mature Palm Trees, and on Hunt there are 3 or 4 large Eucalyptus Trees. Discussion at the table ensued on the condition of the existing trees; giving the applicant the opportunity to Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 8 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 16780 LASH & 16789 HUNT CONTINUED utilize the existing trees to meet Code requirement if he desires or remove and replace at a ratio of 3:1. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residences at 16780 Lash (32 Conditions) and 16789 Hunt (31 Conditions) based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 13: "Applicant shall utilize existing trees on the front of the site as street trees at a maximum distance of 30 -feet, if he so desires or remove and replace at a ratio of 3:1, subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Consultant." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved: 5 -0 3. Commercial Project 90 -12 - Jensen Krause Schoenleber (United Metric Development Corporation) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 5,100 square foot retail auto parts structure to be built on a vacant pad within the Town Center Retail Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Mission Trail and Campbell Street. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Warren Tyler, Jensen Krause Schoenleber, commented as follows: Condition No. 17: Requested the words "any additional requirements requested by the Fire Marshal" be deleted. Condition No. 21: Bicycle racks shall be provided adjacent to major commercial uses. We have not provided any bicycle racks at this building nor bicycle racks provided at the rest of the center, at the major tenants. Condition No. 27 and 27.a: Loading zones and loading spaces being separated from parking by a landscape planter. We do not disagree, however, we have a proposal, which is still subject to the approval of our client, for a different arrangement of the loading zone which would bring the loading zone around on the back side of the building. Condition No. 33: Building plans shall be submitted with an expanded portico design. In the design of this building, the center itself is very narrow. The bulk of the parking for this pad is to the south side, and we have oriented the building to the south for that reason. There is precedence in this center for covered portico, however, there is also precedence for porticos with just wood members and not covered with tile. We would like to ask that we not run the tile all the way through. Condition No. 34: Brick pillar on the west elevation shall be replaced with a rough sawn wood post. We will do this. Condition No. 35: Secondary access door on the west elevation shall be relocated 15 feet to the north or as approved by the Chief Building Official. I met with him today and we still have disagreement on the whys and wherefores of moving it, but we will come to a compromise. Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 9 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED Condition No. 39: Sewage grease interceptor, this is not a restaurant tenant nor a tenant that needs the grease trap. In talking with the water district today, they agreed that they should send a letter to have this condition removed. Condition No. 42 Install ultra flow toilets. We have specified low flow, and the water district stated they would review. Condition No. 43: Conditions, covenants and restrictions shall be drafted for this project. We do not have a problem with written notification going to the water district when we change an occupant, but this is a leased building. There are already CC & R's for the entire project. We would propose that this condition be changed to the owner could submit a letter stating that he would follow through with that notification rather than it being a CC & R. Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Brown commented on the auto repair occurring at the Chief Auto Parts Store at Four Corners and Mission Trail and the City's request that this cease and this not being enforced by the management of Chief Auto, because of this I am not for having any auto part stores in our shopping centers. What can we do about this other than denying the project? - Mr. Clifford Sweatte, United Metric Development Corporation, stated that we have CC & R's, the shopping center is clean and maintained, very few vacancies, and with our in -house management I do no think that we would allow something like that to exist. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the poor soils stability referenced in the Environmental Assessment and requested that a condition be added to connect to sewer; condition number 22.b, change 15 gallon to 24 -inch box. Commissioner Brinley stated she is concerned with soils stability, sewer connection; auto repair and trash accumulation occurring within shopping centers with this type of use, and coming up with some type of condition on enforcement if the area is not maintained. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that this is an integrated center, but a separate entity. We could condition the project for a six - months or one year review, after Certificate of Occupancy, and it could be brought back at that time. Discussion ensued on whether or not this project could be conditioned for a one year conditional use permit, subject to review; conditioning the design review for a one year review, and what will happen at the end of one year. Commissioner Brown stated that we do not have a methodology and until either the applicant, Chief Auto Parts or ones like them, can clean up their act, I think that we should keep auto part stores within auto centers. Incompatible use within a shopping center. Commissioner Wilsey commented on trash enclosures not being included in the conditions, adding this as a condition with language included to cover extra policing of the parking lot in that area. Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED Discussion ensued on Commissioner Wilsey's suggestion, and location of an existing trash enclosure being about 40 feet away from the main entrance to the building. Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion on conditions 17, 21, 22, 27, 33, 39, 42 and 43. Discussion was held on the aforementioned conditions with the following recommendation Condition No. 17: Delete the words: "and any additional requirements requested by the Fire Marshal". Condition No. 21: Condition to remain. Condition No. 22b: Change 15 gallon to 24 -inch box. Condition No. 27: New plan for the loading area be accepted and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition No. 27a: Delete Condition No. 33 and 34 were discussed at length, no decision reached. Chairman Saathoff stated that on Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District conditions 39, 42 and 43, in this area we would probably require sewer connection; believes that all we can do here is require a will -serve letter and that you meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and if they wish to change any of these conditions it is up to them. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he believes that there is not but one condition needed under Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and that is the property shall connect to sewer and meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and conditions :36 -45 could be deleted. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Commercial Project 90 -12 to the meeting of September 5, 1990, to give the applicant time to respond to the problem that we have had with this particular user in the past, and perhaps come back with a proposal that would give the City the ability to alleviate the problems that we have had in the past, second by Commissioner Brinley. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Wilsey stated that if we are going to do this then we should give staff some definite guidelines. Commissioner Brown stated that all of the guidelines that we have used in the past the applicant chose to ignore. Chairman Saathoff stated that the motion places the burden on the applicant not the City, and believes that is where Commissioner Brown wanted the burden placed. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for the question. Approved 5 -0 4. Sign Program for Heritage Plaza (Guardian Sign - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for Minor Design Review of a monument sign and several tenant signs for the Heritage Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 11 SIGN PROGRAM FOR HERITAGE PLAZA CONTINUED Plaza, located approximately 1,100 feet east of the northeast corner of Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Rory Love, Guardian Sign, representing the applicant. stated that they concur with staff recommendation. Mr. Love stated that the wall signage for the tenants will be externally illuminated not internally illuminated. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the individual tenant signs and their can sign appearance; no external lighting and this added as a condition. Commissioner Brinley commented on the colors proposed for the monument sign and the type of lettering for the individual tenant signs - -would prefer individual letters. Considerable discussion ensued on the signs with regard to internal /external illumination, and how the signs would be illuminated; proposed signs being non - illuminated aluminum panels. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the center identification sign and the dimension of the individual signs on said sign. Discussion ensued on the need for clarification on the illumination issue. Community Development Director Gunderman suggested amending Section G of the Sign Program, as follows: G.1. Flashing, moving or audible exterior signs shall not be permitted. G.2. Tenant signage shall not be internally or externally illuminated. Discussion ensued on the colors to be used for said signs, and amending condition number 1 by adding the words "Sign Criteria" to the end. Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve the Sign Program based on the Findings and subject to the 6 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 1: "All tenant signage shall be in conformance with the integrated Sign Program and Sign Criteria." Condition No. 5: "Said internally illuminated monument sign shall incorporate a Grey background with Burgundy letters or Burgundy background with White letters." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman reminded the Commission and audience of the second Town Hall Meeting for the General Plan on Monday, August 20, 1990, 6:30 p.m., at Terra Cotta Junior High School. Minutes of Planning Commission August 15, 1990 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown Commented on signs, and the strict sign guidelines in other communities. We may not be ready for this, but should start moving towards a strict sign ordinance. Chairman Saathoff asked if there Ordinance in the last two years. in the negative. has been a revision to the Sign Commissioner Gilenson responded Chairman Saathoff requested that the Commission be provided with copies of the Sign Ordinance, and request a Special Study Session at Commissioner Brown's request. Commissioner Brown stated that over the next couple of months he will be doing a lot of traveling, and if the City will agree to pay for the processing, will take photographs of signs. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson At the last meeting I requested staff to check into the banner signs on Casino Drive, what is the status? Community Development Director Gunderman responded that some were permitted under certain circumstances, but the other ones should be down. Chairman Saathoff suggested that Commissioner Gilenson fill out a complaint form rather than bringing it up at the meeting, as City staff is required to provide a written response. Complaint forms are available in the Planning Department or you may request these forms to be placed in your mailbox. Commissioner Wilsey At the last meeting we discussed the possibility of getting together with Cal -Trans to find out about the stop sign at Central and the freeway, can you push these guys at all? Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that Ron Kirchner is discussing this with Cal -Trans and when they plan on doing it. The reasoning for not putting a stop sign on the easterly section of Central is because of a heavy right -turn movement on the on -ramp going north. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Respectfully submitted, YLn'dan staff, Planning Commission Secretary Approved, Bill Saathoff, / Chairman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1990 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, Brown and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: Wilsey Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman and Assistant Planner Fairbanks. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Gilenson referred to Page 8, Single - Family Residences, no second or vote listed. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that we can check the tape, make the correction and bring the minutes back at the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Saathoff stated that he has received several requests to speak; on Commercial Project 90 -12, and asked if the persons wishing to speak on this proposal would like to speak now or wait until the item, comes up on the agenda. The gentlemen wishing to speak on this item stated that they would wait until it came up on the agenda. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. Community Development Director Gunderman introduced Alan Burns who is in law practice with John Harper, City Attorney. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 90 -3 and Conditional Use Permit 90 -1 - Atlantic Richfield (AM /PM Mini -Mart) - Continued from August 1, 1990 - Assistant Planner Fairbanks requested that these items be continued indefinitely. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Zone Change 90 -3 and Conditional Use Permit 90 -1 indefinitely, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 2. Reclamation Plan 90 -1 - Brighton Alberhill Associates - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request for approval of an Amendment to the Alberhill Reclamation Plan. The project is intended to stabilize this site prior to the development activity proposed to occur over the next several years. The project is located on the south side of Interstate 15 between Lake Street and Nichols Road. It is approximately 1,000 acres in area, the central portion of 2,667 acres recently annexed to the City. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Vince Regalado, representing Brighton Alberhill Associates, stated that they concur with staff recommendation and the Conditions of Approval with the exception of condition number 20, agrees with the intent of the condition. However, this operation is quite large and there will be no water supply out there for a while. Our intent, in the first phase Minutes of Planning Commission September 5, 1990 Page 2 RECLAMATION PLAN 90 -1 CONTINUED of the Reclamation Plan, is for erosion control and restoring the desilting basin. Believes it would be more appropriate if the condition were to read: "All graded slopes visible from any surrounding public roadway shall be hydroseeded prior to the rainy season. The applicant shall repeat hydroseeding as often as necessary until native grasses have been re- established." Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition or on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. A brief discussion was held on condition number 20, and the applicant's request for amendment. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the Amendment to the Alberhill Reclamation Plan 90 -1 and the requested Reclamation Permit based on the Findings and subject to the 21 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 20: "All graded slopes visible from any surrounding public roadway shall be hydroseeded prior to the rainy season. The applicant shall repeat hydroseeding as often as necessary until native grasses have been re- established.,, Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Commercial Project 90 -4 - Atlantic Richfield (AM /PM Mini -Mart) Continued from August 1, 1990 - Assistant Planner Fairbanks requested that this item be continued indefinitely. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Commercial Project 90 -4 indefinitely, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 4. Commercial Project 90 -12 - Jensen Krause Schoenleber, Inc. (United Metric Development Corp) - Continued from August 15, 1990 - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 5,100 square foot retail auto parts structure to be built on a vacant pad within the Town Center Retail Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Mission Trail and Campbell Street. Chairman Saathoff asked for those wishing to speak on Commercial Project 90 -12. Mr. Allan Davis, President of United Metric Development, asked for clarification on condition number 33, whether this is to be a covered walkway or if the tile roof is to be extended. With regard to the amended site plan, we have worked out a truck loading area which we believe is much improved over the original proposal -- shifted the loading doors to the rear of the building. Minutes of Planning September 5, 1990 Page 3 Commission COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED Mr. Roger Grable, Rutan & Tucker, retained by the applicant as a result of some concerns that arose at the last meeting- - issues relating to the regulation of use through this process. Commented on the letter sent to the Commission and Mr. Burns, and based upon discussion with him I believe that we agree on the laws that relate to this in terms of the use issue. We are prepared to address the design issues and we will accept any reasonable conditions. We have proposed a number of items which staff has gone through, among those CC & R's which would be enforceable by the City. Also, suggested in my letter, the City has the ability to more effectively regulate this activity through its criminal provisions of the Code. We believe given the quality of maintenance of this center, to begin with, and in reviewing problems you have had with other areas we think that the conditions presented by staff combined with the ability of the City to engage in this enforcement activity will satisfy your concerns. Mr. Randy Wilson, Real Estate Representative for Chief Auto Parts, stated that they have been in discussion with BHI Dover and agreed to help in maintaining and abide by the CC & R's presented. Mr. Ed Woodland, Innerstar Management -- exclusive leasing management company for BHI Dover, commented on the maintenance and upkeep of centers that they manage. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion on condition number 33. It was the consensus of the Commission that condition number 33 be modified for continuance of the tile roof. Commissioner Gilenson commented on a mechanism to ensure maintenance of the area by either a cash bond or letter of credit, defer to City Council. Mr. Burns stated that this would short circuit the lengthy process of getting an enforcement mechanism by way of our right of enforcement given in the CC & R's. We may have some other mechanisms that would be relatively quick and those might be provided in the nuisance abatement sections. A cash bond or letter of credit has been discussed with the applicant. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like to see something in the Conditions of Approval reflecting either a bond or letter of credit. We can always fall back on the nuisance section and criminal statutes. Mr. Burns stated that if the purpose is to have a quick mechanism would not recommend a regular bond -- either cash bond or letter of credit. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with Commissioner Gilenson. Commissioner Brown stated that the issue, as we all understand it, is the operation of Chief Auto Parts in the Town Center Shopping Center. The "and" in our Codes does not allow this, but I believe it does - - "and Design Review and Safety and Welfare ". I think that under the conditions of which Chief Auto Parts operates in our other two centers is not conducive to the health, safety and welfare of the community, nor the center. The issue is that we do not want cars serviced in the Minutes of Planning Commission September 5, 1990 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED parking lot, and that is what will happen. Mr. Grable stated these issues can be addressed, and they need to be separated into context. Commissioner Brown commented on the maintenance schedule, litter control, proposed three days a week, and recommended this be done on a daily basis. Mr. Grable responded that if it takes seven days we will do that. Commissioner Brown stated that the issue is, we do not allow auto servicing areas to leave cars out and work on them; now we want to put in an auto servicing area -- because that is what it will turn into, in front of the music store, furniture store and doctor's office. How do we stop it? Mr. Grable responded that the way you prevent people from doing it is more the City's willingness and ability to enforce existing laws. We would be willing to state that our managers will take down whatever information needed to prosecute those people. Commissioner Brown inquired about the concrete pad in front of the building. Mr. Wilson responded this is done to control the damage done to the parking lot. Discussion ensued on maintenance, preventing people from working on their vehicles; whether or not the use is compatible with the center. Mr. Davis commented on the compatibility of use - -we have a number of centers that have auto part stores in them. We find that it is an integral part of our tenant mix to provide total service in a community shopping center. We would like to see the ability to post signs on the anti - nuisance issue and to be able to call and have it enforced. Would like clarification on the cash bond - -what amount? Commissioner Brown stated that he does not believe a cash bond is practical on the enforcement side, it alleviates the situation down the line when someone doesn't complete something. We had discussed tying the enforcement issue to the issuance of the business license. Mr. Davis stated that this would be a burden as we are building this building on a long term payout lease for Chief Auto, and we find that this would be extremely burdensome on us to build a building, make an investment for a special purpose, only for you to remove our tenant from our property. We are willing to enforce the CC R's that were placed on the property. Discussion ensued on an enforcement mechanism. Mr. Burns commented on the letter submitted by Rutan & Tucker basically it is correct, it is not perse a use issue in that it may properly zoned as a permitted use and we may have the authority to require a Conditional Use Permit. However, under permitted uses it describes these businesses and this is one of the businesses specifically described. It states "provided the operation is conducted within a completely enclosed building ", there may be an argument there. If your concern is that the operation would not be conducted entirely within an enclosed building, you might be able to take the Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1990 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED position that it is not properly zoned, or if later it operates that way they are in violation of our zoning law and they are operating an illegal use in the wrong zone. If the employees were active witnesses and more actively involved in the prosecution then we would not need the police. If you were to do the cash bond you might want to include daily maintenance and immediate clean -up of oil spills, so that if it did not occur the City could hire a contractor or City forces and we could reimburse ourselves immediately. Discussion ensued on maintenance, preventing people from working on their vehicles, compatibility of use with the center. Mr. Davis stated they currently have security on this property, various hours. Suggested that this be approved and the City given some mechanism that would allow you to put us on notice if you felt we are not enforcing it to the standards contemplated, maybe security has a better image /voice than the manager. Discussion ensued on security and no commitment for long term security. Mr. Burns stated that if the Commission feels that the Zoning Ordinance does not properly have this property classified - -it should not be a permitted use or this type of use should be subject to a Conditional Use Permit, it would be my recom- mendation that you urge City Council to adopt an ordinance changing the zoning classification, possibly on an urgency basis. Mr. Grable requested that the Commission give consideration to a security guard, as I believe that resolves the problem. Chairman Saathoff asked for comments /concerns from the table in reference to any of the conditions, design, change in the parking lot and loading zone. Commissioner Brown referred to Exhibit "A" of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, recommended labeling as follows: the parking area on the west elevation as #1, parking on all of the top would include the "L" shape as #2, the triangular area as # "A" and the small island area as # "B ", all the stalls on the west elevation, all the stalls both facing and backing into the store on the "A" island, all the stalls facing and backing into the store on "B" island, and all of the stalls in the entire area of #2. Suggested the following verbiage be added to condition number 30" No Servicing of Vehicles Allowed in Parking Area Signs posted and prominently displayed at entrance of building; said signs to be posted every 4 stalls in parking area #1, #2, and all areas in parking island "A" and "B ", language on signs to be approved by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Brown requested that City Council give us a mechanism by which we can revoke a business license or take a business that is not living up to its Conditions of Approval and prevent them from operating within the City until they come into compliance. Whether it be through sustentation of a business license, bond, or cash deposit, whatever the City Council and City Attorney wish. But some method by which we can enforce it other than calling Code Enforcement. Minutes of Planning Commission September 5, 1990 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 2.b. of the additional Conditions of Approval, recommended that "three days per week" be deleted and replaced with "daily ", and this reflected in the CC & R's. Mr. Davis commented on the portico, stated extending the tile is acceptable to the applicant; with regard to the extended clean-up of the landscaped areas we would request 6 days a week, as we find it difficult to get people to work in hand labor pick -up on Sunday. Commissioner Brown asked what 6 days? Mr. Davis responded Monday through Saturday. Discussion ensued on the maintenance schedule with regard to time of day, length of time spent for clean -up and high traffic count days; hours of operation. Commissioner Brinley suggested a performance bond or letter of credit be required for maintenance and the amount to be worked out with the Community Development Director, and this added as a condition. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to deny without prejudice Commercial Project 90 -12, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 At this time, 8:09 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:18 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 5. Single - Family Residence - 16450 Gunnerson Street - Chris Redden Construction - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 2,058 square foot one - story structure to be placed on a 9,330 square foot lot. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 27, pertaining to dedication, and suggested after the word "three" the word "foot" be inserted for clarification. Commissioner Brinley commented on the driveway meeting the standards of the Code. Commissioner Brown inquired about the distance of sewer, does not believe it is within 200 feet. A few meetings back I requested approaching Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District about pre- approving all in -fill lots in the Country Club Heights Area for inclusion in a benefit assessment or community facilities district. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that this will be part of the Country Club Heights Specific Plan project, which is underway. Commissioner Brown asked if we could get a proxy as part of Minutes of Planning Commission September 5, 1990 Page 7 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 16450 GUNNERSON CONTINUED the approval process - -that we have a right to include that property regardless of future owner, and that would be recorded against the property. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 16450 Gunnerson Street based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 27: "Dedicate a three -foot (3') wide strip of additional street right -of- way along the northwesterly property line to the City prior to issuance of building permits (Resolution 87- 64)." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 6. Single - Family Residence - 17773 Sunnyslope Avenue - Ronald Klier - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for Minor Design Review of a 2,252 square foot log home to be constructed on an approximately 9,200 square foot lot, located 300 feet east of the intersection of Sunnyslope Avenue and Skyline Drive. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Klier presented brochures on log homes for the Commission to review. Commented on condition number 26, pertaining to the percolation test, and stated where the septic system is going to be placed there is no grading, so I do not think a new percolation test is necessary - -even though I have a fresh signature from the man who did the percolation test, and this has been turned in to the Riverside County Health Department. Discussion was held on condition number 26 pertaining to the percolation test and when it was taken, and septic system to be approved by the Riverside County Health Department. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 17773 Sunnyslope Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the 37 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 26: "Septic System to be approved by Riverside County Health Department." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Commissioner Brown stated that once again we have a project going into Country Club Heights, would request that the sewer assessment district be pursued with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 7. Residential Project 89 -17 Amendment No. 1 - Lewis Homes of California - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a request for Minor Design Review of a recreation facility containing a cabana, spa, swimming pool, deck area and landscaping within an approved residential project, Tract 19750. The proposal consists of one 5,400 square foot lot at the corner of Ash Street and Ivy Court. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Minutes of Planning Commission September 5, 1990 Page 8 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -17 AMENDMENT NO. 1 CONTINUED Mr. Al Bennett, Lewis Homes, stated they are in agreement with the Conditions of Approval, and the reason for the recreation facility is that we are having to implement a Homeowner Association for this project due to landscape maintenance of slope areas. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 17, suggested the words "roof mounted" be deleted; condition number 19, suggested the dollar amount be deleted and replaced with "fee to be determined at time of submittal "; condition number 19.b., requested that 1115 gallon" be deleted; inquired about the size of the cabana and whether or not this will handle 29 families and guests. Commissioner Brinley commented on requiring the standard landscape bond language as condition number 19.f. Discussion ensued on this requirements with the determination that this is not necessary. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Residential Project 89 -17 Amendment No. 1 based on the Findings and subject to the 25 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 17: "All 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. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened." Condition No. 19: "The final landscaping /irrigation plan is to be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Consultant, for a fee to be determined at time of submittal, and the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 19b: "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 box in size." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Planning Commission and audience of the following: 1. Planning Commission Workshop on the General Plan September 6, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., at the Lake Elsinore Unified School District Board Room. 2. Received word today from Fish & Game that when we sign the Memorandum of Understanding with them regarding the Stephen Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Program we can begin/ continue Railroad Canyon Road. We expect to have the Mayor sign that tomorrow. Hopefully by Friday, but by Monday of next week, Railroad Canyon Road will be Minutes of Planning Commission September 5, 1990 Page 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS CONTINUED continued. 3. Dan Fairbanks has resigned, effective September 7, 1990. Chairman Saathoff commented on the General Plan Workshop to be held on Thursday, September 6, there are some 40 requests for changes -- plus certain items that the Commission may want to bring up during this Workshop. I would like to tentatively request Tuesday, September 11, for an additional workshop. Discussion ensued on establishing an additional workshop. It was determined that the Special Public Hearing scheduled for September 12, could be utilized as another workshop and set the public hearing and take action at another time. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Banners on Casino Drive, they Development Director Gunderman working on this. are still there. Community responded that staff is still Would like to thank the Chamber of Commerce for 1130 Years of Rock - N -Roll, last weekend. Commissioner Brinlev Thanked Dan Fairbanks for a job well done. Commented on the fire lanes in front of the supermarkets being used for storage of shopping carts, asked for status. Community Development Director Gunderman stated staff received a response from the managers that they would take care of the situation, and staff will continue to work with the owners on this issue. Chairman Saathoff Requested that Community Development Director Gunderman ask the City Attorney for some avenue to enforce the Conditions of Approval placed on projects. The Memorandum sent to Commissioner Wilsey and myself, tentatively scheduling a meeting for September 12th at 9:00 a.m., to discuss the TMC and Murdock Development. If Commissioner Wilsey cannot make this meeting, you may select any of the other Commissioners. Commissioner Wilsey Absent. There being no further business the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Res ctfull Submitted, �aG �c? Linda Grindstaff, Planning Commission Secretary Bp.._r6ved, Z Bil i, W; , Chairman MINUTES OF THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1990 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, Brown, Wilsey, Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Consultant Smothers, Associate Planner Naaseh and Assistant Planner De Gange. PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time Chairman Saathoff stated that public comments would be limited to five (5) minutes and that five (5) speakers for or against the project could speak. PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN REVISION l.a. Santa Rosa Development - (Commercial Project 90 -5) - A request for an amendment to the General Plan from Commercial and LOW to Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., asking if there was anyone present wishing to speak in favor of the proposal. The following persons spoke in favor of Santa Rosa Development: Gary Moore, 6830 Van Buren, Riverside, Santa Rosa Development, detailed his request for an 18 acre, 180,000 square foot commercial center containing a supermarket, movie theater, health spa, restaurant and other specialty shops located on Grand Avenue between Orange Grove Way and Mountain Avenue. Mr. Moore also stated that the center would generate one million dollars in tax revenue for the City, property tax revenue from the increased value of the property and would create 400 new jobs. A demographics study done stated that by the year 1992 the population would be 23,760 and the population would more than adequately support a center of this size. He feels that his company has tried to mitigate all the concerns of the neighborhood and staff. Stephanie Smith, 29053 Forest View, Lake Elsinore, stated that the question is do we need more commercial centers in the City? Yes we do need more quality commercial centers. Residential and high density is unacceptable, its not the safest use. Commercial use would give use tax revenues and would be the safest use for the site. Harold Langston, Lake Elsinore, stated that it would be a benefit to the older people and that the younger people would also use the center. Greg Little, 16501 Kiwi Way, Lake Elsinore, stated he was in favor of the project. Wayne Kunzie, 16519 Kiwi Way, Lake Elsinore, stated the project was very well planned and that if properly leased and proper tenant guidelines are put into the leases, that the graffiti, untended trash and fears of property values going Minute of Planning Commission September 12, 1990 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED down are not a viable argument. The dollars generated should go for added police protection. I like this location and to proceed as quickly as possible. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The following persons spoke against Santa Rosa Development: Chris McColley, 29072 Palm View, Lake Elsinore, stated the issue of commercial development of the Tee Pee Ranch site is a precedent- setting issue. There is no other commercial project of this size contiguous to a low- density residential area and /or schools. The monetary, aesthetics and convenience arguments by the proponents of this center are substantially outweighed by the negative factors involved in this issue. Ms. McColley further stated that under the General Plan, which is a legislative action, a City is, by law, entitled to rezone property for substantive reasons no matter what zoning was attached to the property at the time of purchase. There is extensive case authority to legally support the City's rights in General Plan rezoning. Ms. McColley would also like to see consistency and conformity with the surrounding area, i.e., low- density, conforming residential, and let's not set a precedent with placing a large -scale commercial center in a residential corridor and in such close proximity to schools. John Sellars, 16510 Mountain Street, Lake Elsinore, stated he was in opposition to the project. He also stated the traffic considerations alone are enough to demonstrate the unfeasibility of commercial center at this location. The hill on Robb Road as you approach Mountain, creates a visibility problem. The project does not address all the traffic problems related to different types of traffic in and around this project. One of objectives of the General Plan is to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the community. This objective is certainly eradicated with the commercial land use at this location. Robert Solvelde, 29078 Palm View, Lake Elsinore, stated that the 1.5 million in tax revenue that this project is supposed to create would draw from other centers. The rates to lease in this project would be very high and have a high vacancy rate. Twenty -four hour security would be very expensive considering that two security guards would cost $12,000 per month. Brent Wilsey, 29054 Palm View, Lake Elsinore, stated that he spoke to other residents near commercial centers and found that there are transients going through the trash, cockroaches, pellet fires are being set, curfews are not adhered to and property values have gone down. Jeannie Martineau, 29042 Mango Court, Lake Elsinore, commented on commercial centers being next to schools, safety issues, a letter from Dr. Maw, 24 hour security and truancy. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission September 12, 1990 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson stated that we're not arguing the pros and cons of commercial, residential or multi - family. Staffs recommendation is for Specific Plan, which I agree with. If and when a project is proposed thats when the arguments come up for or against the project, not the zoning. Commissioner Brinley stated she was in agreement with Commissioner Gilenson and staff recommendation of Specific Plan. Commissioner Brown stated that this project has become a "you vs us" issue. Commissioner Brown also discussed in great length the letter from Dr. Maw of the Lake Elsinore Unified School District about commercial projects next to schools. Commissioner Brown also discussed the rights of the developer, and the rights of the people. Stating that many attempts have been made on the developers side and the homeowners side to mitigate the concerns of the surrounding property owners. The meeting that occurred at the district office, the people speaking for the homeowners where trying to extract as much mitigation, but not supporting the project. A negotiation without a compromise. No win for either party. Commissioner Saathoff stated that it had come to his attention that because of fire regulations this meeting must be reconveyed to a later date. This meeting will reconvene next Wednesday, September 19, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. The place to be decided later. The site location will be posted on the bulletin board 3 days in advance. There being no further business the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Approved 5 -0 Annroved, Bill S athoff Chairman Respectfully submitted, M&w_� MmL-! 2 Colleen Moorhouse Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brown. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Brown, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Consultant Planner Smothers and Consultant Sherry Phelps. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the Minutes of August 15, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Commissioner Gilenson commented on the Minutes of September 5, 1990, referring to Page 8, under Community Development Director's Comments, bottom of page, there is a sentence missing. Chairman Saathoff stated the missing sentence should read: "but by Monday of next week Railroad Canyon Road will be continued ". Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve the Minutes of September 5, 1990, as corrected, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstaining) Chairman Saathoff asked for a motion to place Resolution 90 -14 on the Agenda. Moved by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Brinley to place Resolution 90 -14 on the Agenda. Approved 5 -0 Moved by Commissioner Brown, second by Commissioner Gilenson and carried by unanimous vote to adopt Resolution 90 -14, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION 90 -14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 Upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Brown, Wilsey and Saathoff NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Saathoff stated that this is a continuance of the public hearing on the General Plan, continued from September 12, 1990. 1.A. Santa Rosa Development - Neighborhood Commercial /General Commercial. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition, asking for new testimony only. Minutes of Planning Commission September 19, 1990 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED The following persons spoke: Nancy Fusckino, 16523 Nectarine Way, stated that the residents have a concern on: safety for children, increase in crime, traffic problems, loss to property value, and access in and out of their neighborhood. Billy Nelson, 16517 Kiwi Way, commented on the need for activities for children and teenagers. Brian Eskay, Community Engineering Services, 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, representing Santa Rosa Develop- ment, stated for the record they agree with staff recommendation of Specific Plan on the 18 acres with commercial usage allowed on a portion. Chris McColley, 29072 Palm View, commented on Section 65302 of the Government Code regarding General Plan issues; topography; traffic hazards; Terra Cotta Junior High School property being purchased in September 1983 and the annexation and re- zoning of the one parcel taking place in 1984; 1982 General Plan and City Council Minutes of April 24, 1984 concur that this area should develop residentially; with the expansion of the commercial project to two parcels the State Department of Planning has stated that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act a full scope Environmental Impact Report, including traffic studies, must be provided based on the higher intensity land use, and it is also mandated that the Environmental Impact Report include alternate sites for proposed projects. We are asking that the City follow these guidelines and proceed with a full scope Environmental Impact Report and consider the required alternate sites for these projects. Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on the commercial designation; recom- mendation for the property at the beginning of the year; utilizing the General Plan process as a tool to perform a take of property. It was the consensus of the Commission that the property be designated Specific Plan. 1.B. Hillcrest Development - General Commercial and Medium High Density (18 dwelling units per acre) /Low Density (3 dwellings units per acre), 12 acres at Macy and Grand. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Bob McCullan,:one of the property owners, 1101 Quail Street, Newport Beach, agrees with staff recommendation of Specific Plan. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for those opposed or iol6hing to speak on the matter. Lou Prijatel 15710 Lakeridge Road, opposed to high density; feels, the area should be considered a recreational corridor. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for the Minutes of Planning September 19, 1990 Page 3 Commission GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED Commission's desire. It was the consensus of the Commission that the property be designated Specific Plan. Chairman Saathoff requested that #4 be brought forward, as most of the testimony will be on these items. It was the consensus of the Commission to bring #4 forward. 4. # 7 - Courton & Associates - North Elsinore Hills - Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre), 185 acres. Chairman Saathoff asked for those wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Brown abstained from discussion. Discussion was held on the site having a Specific Plan in place with a designation of 2.0 dwelling units per acre. It was the consensus of the Commission that #7 be designated Low Density, 3 dwellings units per acre. #13 - Levenson - Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/ Commercial Manufacturing (Business Park), 8.68 acres located adjacent to the southeast side of the Alberhill Specific Plan. Chairman Saathoff asked for those wishing to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on having a Mixed Use designation for a buffer between residential and commercial; whether or not this should be included in the Alberhill Specific Plan since it abuts; designating the site Specific Plan; percentage restrictions; need for further discussion and come back to this item later. #14 - Martinez - Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /General Commercial, 5.4 plus /minus acres. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion, Chairman Saathoff asked for the Commission's desire. It was the consensus of the Commission that the property be designated Low Medium Density. #19 and #19.A considered concurrently. #19 - Ames - Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Limited Industrial, 5 -10 acres, located between Pottery and Flint. #19.A - Poulter - Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Medium Density (12 dwelling units per acre), upper elevation from #19. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Minutes of Planning Commission September 19, 1990 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED Discussion was held on the Low Medium Density designation being applied to the properties until a specific project is submitted. It was the consensus of the Commission that the properties be designated Low Medium Density. #20 - Huang - Commercial Office /Neighborhood Commercial, 1 -5 acres on Machado and Lakeshore. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Wilsey asked if #36 should not be considered with this request. Discussion was held on #36 being located north of and adjacent to #19. It was the consensus of the Commis- sion to consider #20 and #36 concurrently. #36 - Tozai, Inc. - General Commercial and Commercial Office/ Specific Plan - Commercial Mixed Use, 46 plus /minus acres. Discussion was held on Machado /Lakeshore and up through that entire area being designated Specific Plan; existing uses in the area; why #20 was not considered with #36 for a Specific Plan designation. It was the consensus of the Commission to designate #20 and #36 as Specific Plan. At this time, 8:20 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:30 p.m., the Commission reconvened. Chairman Saathoff stated that he has received a request from Mr. Cowles to comment on #20 as he was out of the room when testimony was taken. Mr. John Cowles, representing the owner of the 1 acre piece that is a portion of the 5 acres being considered, commented on the discussion to incorporate the 5 acres into the Specific Plan, stated they envision this area, corner of Machado and Lakeshore, as Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Cowles stated their concern is that they will not be able to develop the property as envisioned. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to comment on this matter. Mr. Ed Wong, 14550 Magnolia, Westminster, representing the property owner of the 1 acre, stated with the incorporation of this property into the Specific Plan our concern is the role we will have in planning the Specific Plan, as we have minor acreage. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to comment on this matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for further discussion at the table. Discussion was held on the site meeting the Specific Plan Guidelines but not designated as such, reference page 45 of the Draft General Plan; designating the site Commercial with a Specific Plan Overlay; who has the responsibility for preparation of the Specific Plan. Mr. Wong stated that if the Commission does not approve the Neighborhood Commercial designation for the site, would Minutes of Planning Commission September 19, 1990 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED request that the Commission deny the request or let us withdraw the request. Discussion ensued on the Neighborhood Commercial and Specific Plan designation; designating the site as Neighborhood Commercial with a Specific Plan Overlay, and the amount of acreage to be designated as Neighborhood Commercial. It was the consensus of the Commission to designate 5 acres as Neighborhood Commercial with a Specific Plan Overlay, #20. #31 and #31 -A, Downtown Area, considered concurrently: #31 - Somerville - Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Medium Density (12 dwelling units per acre). #31.A - Di- Giovanni - Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /High Density (24 dwelling units per acre) . Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in favor, opposition or on this matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on Low Medium Density in the downtown area, stimulation of in -fill and bonuses given for lot consolidation; block off Main Street, Ellis, Flint and areas adjoining the freeway not being conducive for Low Density designation; designating 431 and #31A as High Density; designate Medium High Density with bonuses; acreage needed for High Density; Downtown Plan; continuing the matter as further discussion is necessary. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue these items. #32 - Maisel - Freeway Business /General Commercial, 5 plus /minus acres. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Mr. William Maisel, property owner, 13 acres, commented on the adjacent property being owned by Coastal Valley, which just came into the City under Annexation 55 and Zone Change 90 -7 designated the property General Commercial. We would like to be participators in this consolidation so that we can have the same zoning, and it would be more in a team effort in developing that area. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson abstained from discussion. Discussion was held on the creation of a new land designation .and in all likelihood this designation would allow most of the General Commercial uses; reason for Freeway Business instead of General Commercial. Commissioners Wilsey, Brown and Saathoff recommended Freeway Business, Commissioner Brinley recommended General Commercial. It was the consensus of Commission to designate #32 Freeway Business. Minutes of Planning Commission September 19, 1990 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED #33 and 33.A - considered concurrently. #33 - Brookstone Development - Business Park /General Commercial (Also wants commercial uses allowed in Business Park Category), 4 plus /minus acres. #33.A - Morris - Business Park /General Commercial (Also wants commercial uses allowed in Business Park Category), .92 acres. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Mr. Vince Daly, representing Brookstone Development, stated that #33 is a two part request. The first part is, clarifi- cation of the Business Park designation; second request is, for the 4 acres located at the northwest corner of Central and Highway 74 be changed from Business Park to General Commercial. Discussion was held on the Business Park designation, with specifics for said designation to be provided later; General Commercial designation for the 4 acre site, and future uses being compatible with the existing development. It was the consensus of the Commission that #33 and #33.A be designated Business Park. #35 - Hodge - Mountainous /Low Density (3 dwellings units per acre), 238 acres. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in favor, opposition or on the matter. Mr. John Hodge, 31421 Murrieta Road, Sun City, stated that he would like to amend his request to Very Low Density. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to comment on this matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on density of 2 dwelling units per acre for Very Low Density; Mountainous designation generally for warehousing land and topographical features /constraints; utilizing the more restrictive designation until a conceptual plan is submitted; continuing the mater as further discussion is necessary; following the topo lines for designations. It was the consensus of the Commission to designate #35 Mountainous /Very Low Density and topographic lines used for boundary designation. Chairman Saathoff stated that if there was no objection from the table, he would asked for those in the audience wishing to speak on any item on the Agenda. Mr. John Friedman, Long Beach Equities, 2038 Armacost, West Los Angeles, #15 - Specific Plan Area /Freeway Business - commented on 90 acres which was annexed with the Alberhill Ranch, but not included in the Alberhill Specific Plan. Mr. Friedman stated this 90 acres has good visibility from the freeway and requested it be designated as Freeway Business. Discussion was held on location of the site; designating the site Specific Plan with an Overlay of Freeway Business, location of #17 in relationship to this site and #17 standing Minutes of Planning Commission September 19, 1990 Page 7 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED alone; ingress /egress constraints; topography of area; utilize topo map to determine dividing line, with reference to #15 and #17, and then determine appropriate land use. Community Development Director Gunderman suggested that #17 be delayed and handled the same way as #35, utilize topo. It was the consensus of the Commission that #17 be continued, and #15 designated Specific Plan Area /Freeway Business and topographic lines used for boundary designation. Mr. Phil Williams, 14760 Amrose Street, commented on the following items: #37.A - Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acres)/ Commercial - requested Commercial. 1.25 acres at Robb Road and Lake Street, across from Terra Cotta Junior High, requested that this site be designated as Commercial. #37.B - Open Space /High Density - requested this be amended to Freeway Business. #37.0 - Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre)/ Commercial - requested Mixed Use. Discussion was held on #37.A and this property being within the County; current General Plan designation, review at time of annexation. It was the consensus of the Commission to review #37.A at time of annexation. Discussion was held on the 1.25 acres and designation of the site as Business, Office Park or Commercial Office and the need for further analysis. A brief discussion was held on #37.0 and staff's recommenda- tion for Mixed Use. Discussion was held on #37.B with regard to the applicant's request for Freeway Business; the possibility of Highway 74 and Railroad Canyon Road connecting and its relationship with Camino Del Norte and Franklin Street; whether or not Freeway Business would be appropriate at this location. Chairman Saathoff stated that this request will be taken under advisement. Mr. J.P. Arocha, 24631 Via Elvarado, Mission Viejo, referred to #6, my partner and I own ten acres within the proposed Specific Plan "F ", I am here in support of staff recommenda- tion for this Specific Plan to be 6 units per acre. A brief discussion was held on #6 pertaining to the maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre, and topography of area. At this time, 10:25 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 10:32 p.m., the Commission reconvened. Mr. Brooks Haufman, representing the property owner Markulis /Grimes, commented on #50 - Commercial Office /General Commercial, 1.3 acres at the corner of Riverside and Joy, and read letter sent to the Planning Department last week. Minutes of Planning Commission September 19, 1990 Page 8 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED A brief discussion was held on this proposal coming before the Commission today; vacancy rate in the existing General Commercial near this location; exact location of this site and the existing General Plan shows General Commercial. Mr. Dennis Spahr, 21351 Walnut Street, commented on #41 - Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Mixed Use - concurs with staff recommendation. It was the consensus of the Commission to designate #41 as Mixed Use. Ms. Mariana Mohylyn, 145 Prospect Park West, Brooklyn, New York, requested the City give consideration on her request to amend the General Plan for her property, 80 acres, to a density of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre for 40 acres, to be designated as Specific Plan at a future date, and the remaining 40 acres for a European Spa Resort, added as #53. A brief discussion was held on this site being within a Specific Plan Area, and said proposal being consistent with the General Plan designation. Ilene Miles, Murdock Development - commented on #24 - Resource Conservation and Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)/ Specific Plan Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - requested a designation of Medium Density or 6 units per acre with a Resource Conservation overlay. Chairman Saathoff stated that this was staff recommendation. Mr. George Zimmerman, 835 West Christopher Street, West Covina, commented on the following: #3 Tomlinson Enterprises - Specific Plan Area /Specific Plan Area with Tourism Commercial on the front 50 acres - requested more flexibility. #27 - Tomlinson - Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - requested more flexibility. It was the consensus of the Commission to go with staff recommendation on 03 and #27. Mr. Ken Norton, Planning Network, 9375 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, representing Paragon Building Products, who owns property right below #23, and this was not one of the requested revision's. The property owner's desire is to have this property designated Industrial and not the Low Density Designation it is proposed for. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Saathoff stated that due to the late hour (10:55 p.m.) he would request that the Public Hearing on the General Plan be continued to the next meeting, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to continue the General Plan hearing to the meeting of October 3, 1990, at 5:00 p.m., at the Lake Elsinore Unified School District Board Room, second by Commissioner Brfley. Approved: 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission September 19, 1990 Page 9 Z ved, Bill ` aathoff Chairman Respectfully s bmitted, � LL nda Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING HELD ON THE 3 RD DAY OF OCTOBER 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:04 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brown, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Consultant Planner Smothers, Special Project Planner Ballew, and City Attorney Harper. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Saathoff stated that this is a continuance of the Public Hearing on the General Plan, continued from September 19, 1990, and asked for those in the audience wishing to speak on any item on the agenda. Mr. John Hodge, 31421 Murrieta Road, Sun City, #35 designated Mountainous /Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre)- requested at the last meeting Very Low Density - There needs to be a category between Mountainous and Very Low Density. Create a new category that would be consistent with the Southwest Area Plan -- Hillside which would allow for five (5) acre minimums. Requested Very Low Density, or creation of a new category, or modify Mountainous into Mountainous 5. Discussion was held on staff recommendation for Very Low Density and the designation of .5 dwelling units per acre; topography and 25% slope used for the scale; intensity of development on the 35 acres. Ms. Eleanor Martin,P.O. Box 4027, Canyon Lake, commented on #12 and it retaining the Neighborhood Commercial designation. Discussion was held on this once being shown as Commercial Office and staff has corrected this to reflect a Neighborhood Commercial designation. Mr. John Friedman, Long Beach Equities, 2038 Armacost, West Los Angeles, #15 - requested Freeway Business and leave the zoning Specific Plan. Discussion was held on staff recommendation of Specific Plan with Freeway Business designated as the use; 25% slope used for scale; access and secondary access possible off the north side of this site. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission on any item on the Agenda. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked Special Project Planner Ballew to address the Downtown Area Plan. Special Project Planner Ballew expanded on the Downtown Area Plan covering the Downtown Historic District; High Density /Low Density; Outlet Channel; Circulation Element and the realignment of Pottery; discussion with the State relative to an expanded Park and Marina downtown; Visitor Serving Commercial is actually Tourist Commercial, at the end of Main Street by the freeway, and the Downtown Area Plan Map should be corrected to reflect this, the Marina Village Specific Plan also fits into this category. Mr. Ballew stated that he would recommend that this plan be adopted, pretty much intact, but on record, with the understanding that it may be modified sometime later. Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED A brief discussion was held on the Downtown Plan and, if adopted, changes could only be made through a General Plan Amendment, limited to four times a year; Downtown Plan having an Overlay Zone with its own Design Guidelines; whether or not the Limited Street bridge is part of the contract for the Outlet Channel, whether or not there were any other new bridges proposed - -their location and funding; alignment of new Pottery connecting to Collier and if consideration should be given to connecting at Pottery; area designated for Low Density and findings for same. Mr. Joe Hemeniz, owns property on Main Street, commented on the proposal to change the designation from Commercial to Residential, referring to the Downtown Area. Chairman Saathoff asked Special Project Planner Ballew to address this issue. Mr. Ballew stated that most of the Commercial in this area is actually Residential that has been, more or less, converted to commercial uses and a number of driveway and parking issues around that right -of- way - -we are going to have to widen that road, 100 -110 foot street. I felt by limiting the number of access points along that area, by putting Medium Density or project level residential in there would soften that traffic impact - -would create a better use being across from the Civic Center, and transition up the hill to Lower Density Residential. A brief discussion was held on the Zoning /General Plan designation transition over the years; intensity of traffic; whether or not the City would be interested in having small pods of commercial sites; existing zoning and the proposed General Plan designation. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission on any item on the Agenda. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Surveys /The Keith Companies, represent- ing Mariana Mohylyn, #53, inquired about the intent of the density specification, as it is listed on the Specific Plan Land Use. Ms. Mohylyn °s concern pertains to the resort area, and density for the total 80 acres. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that Ms. Mohylyn was informed, at the last meeting, that what she was proposing was consistent with what staff was recommending. Discussion ensued on the intent of the density being somewhat dictated by surrounding development and topography; density of 3 units per acre established as a workable density for the area; provision for commercial use needs to be in the Specific Plan and possibly a General Plan adjustment; density trade offs. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission on any item on the Agenda. Mr. Lawrence Buxton, Courton & Associates, 121 South Main Street," representing four property owners currently in the process of annexing their property into the City of Lake Elsinore, in the vicinity of Dexter and Second Street. These property owners include: Rob Partin, Partin Development; Mary Thomas, A & G. Engineering; William Schell and four other parcels that front on Second Street. We have been working with the City for the formation of a Community Facilities District in this area, for the purpose of constructing the extension of Dexter Avenue across these properties, in question, and connecting in the vicinity of Main Street to Camino Del Norte. Requested a Freeway Business designation at Second Street and Dexter. Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED It was the consensus of the Commission to add this as #54. Discussion was held on staff's recommendation for this area; letter from Mr. Schell, 3rd paragraph, and whether or not we can require this; Thomas property -- zoning consistent with use; exact location of the Thomas property on the proposed General Plan. Chairman Saathoff asked for anyone else wishing to address the Commission on any item on the Agenda. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff stated he would like to call a recess, which would allow the Commissioners time to review any maps or new items brought up, and stated that the public hearing would remain open in case someone comes in. At this time, 6:05 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 6:20 p.m., the Commission reconvened. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone in the audience that did not have an opportunity to address the Commission, and would like to do so at this time. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table, and suggested that the items be considered individually for Commission and Staff concurrence: 1. Specific Plan Area /Non Residential - E.V.M.W.D. - Incorporate this consideration into Specific Plan for this area. Commission concurred with staff. 2. Neighborhood Commercial /General Commercial - Santa Rosa Development - Designate Specific Plan and allow Commercial uses. Commission concurred with staff. 3. Specific Plan Area /Specific Plan Area with Tourist Commercial on front 50 acres - Tomlinson - Describe this Specific Plan as allowing Tourist Commercial as well as a wide range of Residential uses. Commission concurred with staff and add General Commercial uses. 4. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Partin /Courton - Recently approved by the City. Commission concurred with staff. 5. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Elsinore Meadows /Partin /Courton. Commission concurred with staff. 6. Specific Plan Area /Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Gold Hills /Courton - Describe this Specific Plan as allowing up to a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre. Commission concurred with staff. 7. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - North Elsinore Hills /Courton - Current development studies are at 2.0 dwelling units per acre. Commission concurred with staff -- maintain at 3 dwelling units Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED per acre. 8. 'Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Commercial or Multi- Family units - Villelli Enterprises. Commission concurred with staff. 9. Specific Plan Area /Limited Industrial - Hamilton /Manee - Specific Plan can include consideration for this land use. Commission concurred with staff. 10. Specific Plan Area /Limited Industrial - Montgomery /Manee - Specific Plan can include consideration for this land use. Commission concurred with staff. 11. Commercial Office /Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Davis - Incorporate into Country Club Heights Specific Plan. Discussion was held on designation for site: Commercial Office or Specific Plan. The area in question being within the Country Club Heights Specific Plan and currently zoned Commercial Office, since it is part of the hillside area it should be evaluated in the Specific Plan. Commission concurred with staff. 12. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Neighborhood Commercial - Martin. Consensus of Commission to designate Neighborhood Commercial. 13. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Commercial Manufacturing (Business Park) - Levenson. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #58. 14. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /General Commercial - Martinez. Commission concurred with staff. 15. Specific Plan Area /Freeway Business - Long Beach Equities - Consider this use with Specific Plan. Consensus of Commission designate Freeway Business and maintain Specific Plan Zoning. 16. Mountainous /Specific Plan Area and Neighborhood Commercial - The Baldwin Company - Evaluate limits of commercial site in Specific Plan. A brief discussion was held on designation of Specific Plan and the Neighborhood Commercial being included within the Specific Plan. Commission concurred with staff. 17. Specific Plan Area and Mountainous /Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) - Hodge - Consider this density with Specific Plan. Consensus of Commission maintain Specific Plan with 3 dwelling Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED units per acre. 18. Limited Industrial /General Commercial - McCoy Construction. Commission concurred with staff. 19. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Limited Industrial - Best done as an amendment when a Specific project can be shown. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 19A. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Medium Density (12 dwelling units per acre) - Poulter. Commission concurred with staff. 20. Commercial Office /Neighborhood Commercial - Huang. A brief discussion was held on requiring Specific Plan on 5 acres with a Neighborhood Commercial designation. Consensus of Commission to designate Specific Plan Area and allow Neighborhood Commercial uses. 21 Commercial Office /General Commercial - Seers. Commission concurred with staff. 22. General Commercial and Specific Plan Area /Freeway Business. Commission concurred with staff. 23. Mountainous /Specific Plan Area (Low Density) - Morger. Commission concurred with staff. 24. Resource Conservation and Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Specific Plan Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Murdock Development /Pacific Clay. Commission concurred with staff. 25. Public and Institutional/ Specific Plan Area - Cordial - Could view this favorably once the site is abandoned for public use. A brief discussion was held on the designation Public and Institutional or Specific Plan; designation for the area is Public and Institutional. Consensus of Commission - Concur with staff and add note referring to #55. 26. Specific Plan Area /General Commercial - Mission Development - Consider this use with the preparation of a Specific Plan. Commission concurred with staff. 27. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) - Tomlinson. Commission concurred with staff. 28, Mountainous /Tourist Commercial - Chen. A brief discussion was held on the exact location. Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED Commission concurred with staff. 29. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) /Limited Industrial - Chen. Commission concurred with staff. 30. Floodway /Specific Plan Area - Chen. Commission concurred with staff. 31. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Medium Density (12 dwelling units per acre) - Somerville - See current land use map; previous map was in error. West of Lookout is designated as Tourist Commercial. Discussion was held on what designation was being applied, and this being resolved by the Downtown Area Plan. Commissioner Gilenson recommended that #55 be added and, the items included in the Downtown Area, under the Planning Commission Recommendation Section a note be added to refer to #55, which is adopting the Downtown Land Use. Consultant Planner Smothers referred to #31A and this falling within the Medium Density area and their request for High Density would not be accommodated by this action. Commissioner Gilenson stated that his recommendation is that on #42, #19, #25, #43, #51, #47, #39, #31 and #31A a note be added referring to #55. Discussion ensued on this recommendation, and #42 being outside the Downtown Area. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 31A. Low Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /High Density (24 dwelling units per acre) - DiGiovanni. Consensus of Commission - Concur with staff and add note referring to #55. 32. Freeway Business /General Commercial - Maisel - Staff will recommend that many of the General Commercial uses be permitted in the Freeway Business category. Commission concurred with staff. 33. Business Park /General Commercial - Also wants commercial uses allowed in Business Park category - Brookstone Development. Consensus of Commission to remain as Business Park. 33A. Same as above ( #33) - Morris. Consensus of Commission to remain as Business Park. 34. Specific Plan /Limited Industrial - Le Clerc. Commission concurred with staff. 35. Mountainous /Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) - Hodge - With Very Low Density (0.5 dwelling units per acre) may be appropriate. Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 7 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED Consensus of Commission to designate Very Low Density and Zone area sensitive to topography. 36. General Commercial and Commercial Office /Specific Plan - Commercial Mixed Use - Tozai, Inc. - Intends to allow Residential uses as well as Commercial uses. Commission concurred with staff. 37A.. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Commercial - Williams - Review at time of annexation. Discussion was held on the Southwest Area Community Plan, adopted by the County -- request is that the General Plan reflect the land uses that are within the Southwest Area Community Plan, and this added as number 56. Consensus of Commission - add note refer to #56. 37B. Open Space /High Density (24 dwelling units per acre) /Freeway Business - Williams - Changed request to Freeway Business. A brief discussion was held on the location; whether or not Freeway Business is an appropriate designation - -there being an over abundance of Freeway Business in this area; access and traffic flows in this area; surrounding land uses; Mixed Use being an appropriate designation. Consensus of Commission designate Mixed Use. 37C. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Commercial - Williams - Extended Mixed Use category across Adelfa (See #41) . Commission concurred with staff. 38. General Commercial and Medium High Density (18 dwelling units per acre) /Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) - Patton, Malthy, Summers, Prijatel - Designate entire site Specific Plan Area and allow Commercial and Multiple Family Residential uses. Commission concurred with staff. 39. Low Medium Density /High Density (24 dwelling units per acre) - _Schmaling - See # 31. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 40. Circulation Element: Affect on Missing Link site. Wants City to delay decision until Specific Plan is completed - Consider re- alignment at the time a Specific Plan is submitted. Commission concurred with staff. 41. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Mixed Use - Spahr see #37C. Commission concurred with staff. 42. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Commercial Office - Shook - Site is adjacent to Limited Industrial Area. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 8 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED 43. Mixed Use /High Density (24 dwelling units per acre) - Spacer - Mixed Use category will permit High Density Residential. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 44. Very Low Density (0.5 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space /Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre) and Specific Plan - Chen - With verification change Very Low Density to Low Density - General Plan Map shows Open Space which is Federal Land. If they dispose of it, the City can re- designate to Specific Plan. Consultant Planner Smothers stated that there are some corrections in this category. We had Very Low Density and it has actually been developed at one acre lots - -it needs to be adjusted to the Low Density Category. Discussion ensued on the location and staff recommendation for Specific Plan; relationship of zoning with the actual sub- division pattern. Commission concurred with staff. 45. Low Density and Open Space /Specific Plan (3 dwelling units per acre) - Chen - More appropriate for a future General Plan Amendment when all land is privately owned. Commission concurred with staff. 46. Low, Medium, Mountainous and Resource Conservation /Specific Plan (3 dwelling units per acre) - Chen - Boundaries need to be verified with closer review. Commission concurred with staff. 47. High Density (24 dwelling units per acre) /Commercial Office - Fuess - Downtown Area. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 48. Mountainous /Specific Plan Area - Outdoor Safaries, Inc. - Specific Plan Area 3 dwelling units per acre). Commission concurred with staff. 49. Low Density (3 dwelling units per acre ) /General Commercial - Bramalea California, Inc. Commission concurred with staff. 50. Commercial Office /General Commercial - Markulis /Grimes. Discussion was held on the location, and the area designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map. Consensus of Commission to designate site General Commercial. 51. Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units per acre)/ General Commercial - Moucka. Consensus of Commission - add note referring to #55. 52. Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) /Low Density (1- 2 dwelling units psi acre) - Wilsey. Consensus of Commission designate Low Density. Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED 53. Specific Plan "G" /Low Medium Density (6 dwelling units per acre) and Tourist Commercial - Specific Plan can address non- residential uses. Commission concurred with staff. 54. Limited Industry and Low Density Residential /Freeway Business Courton. Commission concurred with staff. 55. Adopt Downtown Plan Land Uses. Commissioner Gilenson recommended the following corrections to the Downtown Area Plan Map: - Area, shaded yellow, currently designated Low Density be changed to Low Medium Density. - Change the Visitor Serving Commercial designation to Tourist Commercial, at each end of Main Street (Marina Area and Highway 15 Area), on the Downtown Area Map. Commission concurred with staff, change northwest area from Low Density to Low /Medium Density and add Tourist Commercial at each end of Main Street. 56. Southwest Area Community Plan - Areas within the Sphere of Influence shall reflect, in the General Plan, the same designation as the Southwest Community Plan. Commission concurred with staff. 57. Low Medium Density /Business Park - Consultant Planner Smothers referred to the proposed General Plan Map, Highway 74 and Central, we think that the Business Park classification applied further out on Highway 74 should come across and fill that area, down to the General Commercial designation. Discussion ensued on the development of the area, and transition of uses. Commission concurred with staff. 58. Low Density /Country Club Heights Specific Plan - To evaluate possible Business Park uses. Commission concurred with staff. At this time, Chairman Saathoff recognized Mr. Carl Valente. Mr. Valente, 600 Central Avenue, representing Sue Hamilton who owns property on Strickland, requested this property (A.P. # 377 - 360 -003 and 004) be designated M -1, Industrial. Consultant Planner Smothers responded that this area is within the Specific Plan for Country Club Heights. Staff would probably concur that this is the direction for that area, but it probably should be done as part of the Specific Plan. The Outflow Channel would remove this property from the Floodplain. Consultant Planner Smothers commented on #13, raising the issue of Business Park on the extension of Nichols Road, where it comes through the Alberhill area. The island that was annexed, when Alberhill was annexed, was designated Low Density. In looking at the area, acknowledging what was done with area #29, we feel there Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 10 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED is some logic in extending Business Park or that kind of use in that area. I would recommend that this area be incorporated into the Specific Plan for #13, and let the Specific Plan deal with everything out to Alberhill. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to address the Commission. Mr. Dick Knapp, commented on the request for a park for the Country Club Heights residents, part the park area would encompass the Least Bells Vireo area; presently the area is un- buildable -- floodplain area. Consultant Planner Smothers stated that since this is in the area of parks, and the General Plan really relies on the creation of a Master Parks Plan to locate parks, this has been passed on to the Community Services Director for review, as well. There is not an effort in the General Plan to specifically designate future park sites. Commissioner Wilsey asked if this property is within the Specific Plan for Country Club Heights. Consultant Planner Smothers responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brown stated that his concerns would be with a Specific Plan an entire re- alignment of Riverside Drive in that area; changing Gunnerson into a "T" intersection; location of a park site on two main thoroughfares. Commissioner Brown stated that the way the topography sits, envisions, possibly, High Density Residential or Commercial- - Commercial fronting directly on Riverside Drive, High Density Residential or Commercial behind it and possibly a park system, maybe where McBride crosses. At this time, Chairman Saathoff stated the Public Hearing on the General Plan will be continued to the close of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Chairman Saathoff reconvened the Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting at 7:12 p.m., and asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to address the Commission. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Considerable discussion ensued on the Noise Element; whether or not the City should adopt a standard of 60 -65 ldn, and the recommen- dation for the adoption of 60 ldn; construction parameters between 60 -65 ldn; traffic volumes and projected volumes and the determi- nation that walls may be required to meet the 60 ldn standard, along the I -15 corridor; if this would have an effect on the Airport - -if the lower standard would shut down the Airport. Consultant Planner Smothers referred to #33 - editing change - definition of the Business Park classification -- concern is how limiting the City would be with respect to commercial uses. Mr. Smothers referred to the last paragraph on page 11 out of the errata. This has the term that this land use category permits a limited amount of business -- Commercial and Personal Services that directly serve users and employees of business parks. This tends to set an impression that you are going to allow very little commercial. Staff's attitude is that through zoning you should create a list of permitted commercial uses. Discussion at the table ensued on the editing change, and personal services are allowed to directly serve those users. Minutes of Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 Page 11 GENERAL PLAN REVISION CONTINUED City Attorney Harper, commented on the editing change on #33 - and suggested the words "that directly" be deleted and replace with "specifically to serve ". Consultant Planner Smothers stated that he received a request this evening, for an amendment to the plan, Cambern Avenue, northeast side of the freeway, the property owner is requesting this be designated as Industrial. Community Development Director Gunderman requested that staff be allowed to research this request, and address this at City Council level. Commission concurred. Chairman Saathoff asked if there were any other comments from staff, or if there was anyone in the audience that did not have an opportunity to address the Commission, and would like to do so at this time. Ms. Mariana Mohylyn, commented on pedestrian access in the Downtown Area. Chairman Saathoff asked if there were any other comments from the audience. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Chairman Saathoff asked for further discussion at the table on the General Plan. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Moved by Commissioner Gilenson to recommend to City Council adoption of the General Plan, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Community Development Director Gunderman stated that a recommendation is also need for the Environmental Impact Report. Moved by Commissioner Gilenson to recommend to City Council adoption of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Approved, Bill Saathoff, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 3RD LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION DAY OF OCTOBER 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brown, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, and City Attorney Harper. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve minutes of September 12, 1990 and September 19, 1990, 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 Parcel Map 26052 - Withrow Ranch, Inc. /The Keith Companies - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a. request to divide existing Tentative Tract Map 24213, consisting of 56.93 acres, into three (3) parcels for financing purposes. This tract of land is located north- westerly of Machado Street, at the terminus of Prince Street. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Larry Truman, Butterfield Surveys /The Keith Companies, commented on condition number 4, annex to the City's Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District. This is already a condition on the tract, can they annex at that time? Community Development Director Gunderman responded in the affirmative. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson requested that the following be added as condition number 5: Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 24213 shall be incorporated into this condition of approval. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that this map is for financing purposes and you can not place those conditions on this map, because there are conditions relevant to that tract and not acceptable under the Map Act for financing maps. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -15 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26052 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission October 3, 1990 Page 2 2. Conditional Use Permit 90 -8 - Lake Elsinore Christian Fellowship - Chairman Saathoff stated the applicant has requested this item be withdrawn, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to accept withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 90 -8, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsev Nothing to report Commissioner Brown Commented on Elsinore West Marina /Roadrunner being combined now and quite a bit of acreage /residents back there. I think we have only one access - -is this sufficient for emergency vehicle access. Asked for status of the triplex on Riverside Drive and Robertson. A brief discussion ensued on this triplex being in the abatement process. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinlev Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned the Regular Meeting at 7:12 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 /-Apps owed, Bill Saathoff, /7 Chairman Res ctfully s mitted, inda Grin staff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 17TH LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION DAY OF OCTOBER 1990 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, and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: Brown and Wilsey Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, City Attorney Harper, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, Assistant Planner DeGange, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve minutes of the Adjourned Meeting and Regular Meeting of October 3, 1990, as submitted, second by Chairman Saathoff. Approved 2 -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. Annexation No. 54; General Plan Amendment 90 -7; Specific Plan 90 -2 and Draft Environmental Impact Report - TMC Communities - Community Development Director Gunderman stated staff is requesting that these items be continued to the meeting of November 21, 1990. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Annexation No. 54; General Plan Amendment 90 -7; Specific Plan 90 -2 and Draft Environmental Impact Report to the meeting of November 21, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -0 2. Conditional Use Permit 90 -7 and Commercial Project 90 -1 - Ervin Palmer - Community Development Director Gunderman stated the applicant has requested a sixty (60) day continuance, and staff recommends these items be continued to the meeting of December 19, 1990. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Conditional Use Permit 90 -7 and Commercial Project 90 -1 to the meeting of December 19, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -0 3. Tentative Tract Map 25242 - Luis, Anneta, Jack & Shirley Finkelstein c/o Manee Consulting - Associate Planner Naaseh presented a request to subdivide 16.97 acres into 39 single - family lots, ranging in size from 9,550 to 31,870 square feet with an average of 14,983 square feet. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Jack Finkelstein, 2651 Walker Lee Drive, Los Alamitos, California, stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Minutes of Planning Commission October 17, 1990 Page 2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25242 CONTINUED Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Brinley inquired about the process the applicant would have to go through if the map were to expire. Associate Planner Naaseh responded that the applicant could apply for an extension of time, prior to expiration of the map. Commissioner Gilenson commented on this proposal being tied to the Alberhill Ranch Development and, if the applicant want's to proceed, is the project conditioned to put in storm drainage? Associate Planner Naaseh referred to condition number 64. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 29, and this being different from the standard condition for Class "A" roofing material. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that there has been a change in the Uniform Fire Code. The fire retardant roofing material under the new Fire Code may be a Class "B ", staff can check this out. Chairman Saathoff commented on the width of Pierce Street, and asked if 60 feet is going to be adequate, with reference to future development. Associate Planner Naaseh responded that they have been conditioned to prepare a traffic study to determine whether or not 60 feet is sufficient. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that the condition states that a traffic study shall be provided by a traffic engineer to analyze the load that will be put on Pierce Street -- whether it should be a collector or secondary. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -43 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 25242 based on the Findings and subject to the 66 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with clarification to be provided on Condition #29, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Single - Family Residence - 783 Lake Street - Jesus & Anthony Amaro - Amaro Construction Company - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to construct a 1,184 square foot, two - story dwelling on a 3,305 square foot lot, located approximately ninety- five -feet (951) west of the northwest corner of Avenue 1 and Lake Street. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone in the audience representing the applicant. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on the front and right elevations and condition number 23, with regard to windows. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 783 Lake Street based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 23: "The two windows directly above the front Minutes of Planning Commission October 17, 1990 Page 3 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 783 LAKE STREET CONTINUED entryway on the front elevation shall be "French style" multi -paned to maintain consistency with the other proposed windows for that elevation. An additional window shall be provided on the second - story, right elevation, and shall be consistent with the other windows." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -0 5. Single- Family Residence - 213 Davis Street - Advent Builders c/o Eddie & Vicky Taketa - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to construct a 2,476 square foot, two -story dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot, located approximately 180 feet south of the intersection of Sumner Avenue and Davis Street. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone in the audience representing the applicant. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Single - Family Residence at 213 Davis Street based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3 -0 6. Commercial Project 90 -12 - United Metric Division (Chief Auto) - Referred back to Planning Commission from City Council Meeting of September 25, 1990 - Community Development Director Gunderman gave a brief history on the proposed project. Community Development Director Gunderman referred to the Memorandum of October 17, 1990, and requested that condition number 30 be amended by adding the following verbiage: Condition No. 30: "No servicing of Vehicles Allowed in Parking Area - Signs posted and prominently displayed at entrance of building, said signs to be posted every 4 stalls in Parking Area #1, #2, and all areas in Parking Island "A" and "B ", language on signs to be approved by the Community Development Director." Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone in the audience representing the applicant. Mr. Alan Davis, President of United Metric Corporation, commented on the location of the proposed building within the Town Center Retail Plaza, revision of elevation incorporating conditions as requested by the Commission and staff. He then stated they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Warren Tyler, Jensen Krause Schoenleber, Inc., architect for the proposal, commented on the modifications made to the elevations per discussion at the meeting of August 15 and September 5, 1990. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to; ;comment on this proposal. Receiving no response, Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Minutes of Planning Commission October 17, 1990 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90-12 CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley commented on landscaping. Chairman Saathoff commented on the location of trash receptacles, included in the CC & R's. Commissioner Gilenson directed his comments to City Attorney Harper, and referred to the following Sections of the Municipal Code: 17.82.100.F - states that we can approve only if conditions are met from Section 17.82.080. 17.82.080.B - states only if the project complies with 17.82.060. 17.82.060.F - states "project should demonstrate a respect for neighboring property's privacy, quiet, function, or views, and elements of the design including, but not limited to, openings, docks, and equipment placement should not be located in such a way as to create a nuisance for an adjoining property." Commissioner Gilenson stated he feels that it does not comply with this Section; the project would not demonstrate a respect for neighboring business functions. City Attorney Harper responded that the Commission should review this project on the basis of site /building design only, not the proposed use. Commissioner Gilenson commented on a cash bond mechanism which was discussed at the previous meeting, and if this is still feasible. City Attorney Harper responded that the CC & R's will contain a maintenance schedule and the City will be a party to the CC & R's. A brief discussion ensued on maintenance and adding a cash bond mechanism as a condition; reviewing proposal under Design Review criteria; General Commercial District, Section 17.48.020, and business being evaluated in terms of operational characteristics and specific site location. Moved by Chairman Saathoff to adopt Negative Declaration 90 -26 and approve Commercial Project 90 -12 based on the Findings listed in the Memorandum dated October 11, 1990, and subject to the Revised 36 Conditions of Approval listed in the August 15, 1990, Staff Report and the following amendments: Condition No. 30: "Parking stalls shall be double- striped with four -inch (411) lines two -feet (21) apart. No servicing of Vehicles Allowed in Parking Area - Signs posted and prominently displayed at entrance of building, said signs to be posted every 4 stalls in Parking Area #1, #2, and all areas in Parking Island "A" and "B ", language on signs to be approved by the Community Development Director." Condition No. 37: The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, and the Subordination Agreement as submitted and /or as modified by the Planning Commission /City Council Minutes of Planning Commission October 17, 1990 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED shall be recorded, in an appropriate manner, with the County Recorder's Office, prior to issuance of building permits for the Chief Auto retail store. CC & R's shall contain a maintenance schedule for the project site as follows: 1. Parking Lot Sweeping: includes emptying of sidewalk trash receptacles and air blowing of all walkways - seven (7) days per week; oil /fluid spills shall be mopped or shall have floor sweep or sand applied to the spill and swept clean; 2. Litter Control: includes hand picking of all landscaped areas and clean -up of all trash enclosure areas - daily; 3. Trash Service: Chief Auto Parts and Food Building - six (6) days per week; all retail - three (3) days per week, to be increased as needed; Steam Cleaning: includes all sidewalks and trash enclosures - monthly; and oil /grease stained concrete;. pavement adjacent to the Chief Auto structure shall be steam cleaned bi- monthly; and declarations of the following: a. Thep operator of said store, whether the owner of said portion of the property or a tenant, subtenant or other occupant of said store (the "op-erator ") shall use reasonable efforts to prevent its, customers from repairing and /or servicing motor vehicles (including without limitation adding oil purchased from said store to motor vehicles) from within the parking area of the Shopping Center. Said efforts shall include, if reasonably necessary, posting signs within the store and instructing store employees to requesting customers to discontinue such repairs and /or servicing if such activities are observed by the Operator's employees. In the event that such activities violate any ordinance of the City of Lake Elsinore, such reasonable efforts shall also include instructing employees to contact the police department of the City of Lake Elsinore in the event customers who are repairing and /or servicing motor vehicles within Minutes of Planning Commission October 17, 1990 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -12 CONTINUED the Shopping Center parking lot do not immediately discontinue such activities upon request. b. The operator shall instruct and cause its employees to periodically inspect the parking area adjacent to its store and to remove debris, rubbish and /or packaging resulting from its customers' repair and /or service activities to motor vehicles within the parking area of the Shopping Center, as reasonably necessary to maintain said parking area in a clean and neat condition. 5. Two additional trash receptacles shall be placed on the sidewalk adjacent to the Chief structure, in an area readily available for customer use. Design of said receptacles shall be subject to the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director or his designee. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 2 -1 (Commissioner Gilenson voting no) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he would like to set up a study session with the Commission to discuss the Zoning Ordinance. Requested that the Commissioners get with the Chairman and mutually agree upon a date and time. Chairman Saathoff asked if this would be a series of study sessions; joint study sessions with City Council; a committee of Councilmembers and Commissioners and then a study session. Mr. Gunderman responded that his idea was to have a study session with Commission to discuss priorities. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Asked staff to check and see if Design Review ever went through or if permits were pulled on the house across from the liquor store on Lakeshore and Matich. We did not know what was going in at that time -- thought that it might be a half -way house. I do not recall seeing it for Design Review, and I know that they have done extensive exterior and interior renovation on that property. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he will have a report prepared on this. Commissioner Brinley Commented on the problem at Central and the freeway off -ramp. Asked if stop signs are going to put up at Central and Dexter. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that the City has Minutes of Planning Commission October 17, 1990 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED approached Cal -Trans with regard to this, and Cal -Trans does not want to put a stop sign there because of the heavy right -turn movement on the on -ramp. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. Commissioner Brown Absent Commissioner Wilsey Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -0 owed, Bill Saathoff, Chairman Res tfully s bmitted, e Grin staff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 7TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. NOVEMBER 1990 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Brown and Wilsey ABSENT: Commissioners: Saathoff Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, City Attorney Harper, Assistant Planner DeGange, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. AS CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF WAS ABSENT, VICE CHAIRMAN GILENSON CONDUCTED THE MEETING. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of October 17, 1990, as submitted, second by Vice Chairman Gilenson. Approved 2 -0 (Commissioners Brown and Wilsey abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to address the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Gilenson closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 25586 - Ayres Properties - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to subdivide 1.25 acres into four (4) residential parcels, ranging in size from 6,495 square feet to 10,814 square feet, located at the northerly - termini of Avenues 9 and 10. Assistant Planner DeGange suggested that condition number 10 and condition number 26 be deleted, as they are redundant conditions -- covered in Residential Project 89 -8. Vice Chairman Gilenson opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Doug Ayres, applicant, stated they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairman Gilenson 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 hear- ing was closed at 7:10 p.m. A brief discussion was held on the remainder parcel with regard to a lot merger between Lots 122 and 123, and whether or not this should be added as a condition. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council re- affirmation of Negative Declaration 89 -19 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 25586 based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 10: Class II bicycle lane to be provided along Casino Drive. DELETE Condition No. 26: A six (6) foot decorative masonry wall shall be constructed along the Casino Drive frontage. Precise design, ma- Minutes of Planning Commission November 7, 1990 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25586 CONTINUED terials, color and location to be determined through the Minor Design Review process. DELETE Condition No. 34: A Lot Merger for Lots 122 and 123 shall completed. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 2. Tentative Tract Map 25830 - Homestead Land Development - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a' request to subdivide a 36 plus /minus acre site of vacant property into 139 single - family residential lots and 1 lot as a sewer lift station. The site is bounded by the Tuscany Hills develop- ment, Tentative Tract Map 25074 on the east and south, by Greenwald Avenue on the north, and by low density ranch style homes on the west. Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Commission of the letter received from Homestead Development, dated November 7, 1990, addressing grading of the site, Stephens' kangaroo rat with regard to a Section 7 Permit issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and applicant's requested modification to the Conditions of Approval. Community Development Director Gunderman stated for the most part, staff agrees with the modifications as requested by the applicant. He then commented on the grading of the site and the plan being modified to reduce the amount of grading by approximately 45% (560,000 cubic yards), reference condition number 44, and recommended that this condition remain. Community Development Director Gunderman informed the Commission of the letter received from John Giardinelli,_dated November 7, 1990, representing Linda Wynn and Robert" Dyer property owners of 20 acres adjacent to this tract. Their concerns are: 1. Property being landlocked, with the proposed map and the projects approved for Tuscany Hills, as my clients have utilized a 14 -foot dirt road from Greenwald onto their property for the last 30 years, and in our view, this becomes a prescriptive easement. 2. Grading and drainage -- relating to access rights for drainage, compaction, movement of dirt, entry onto property. Vice Chairman Gilenson opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Steve Heinsohn, Director of Land Acquisition, Homestead Land Development, stated that essentially they agree with staff recommendation and Mr. Gunderman's comments. Referred to his letter of November 7, 1990, addressing the conditions- - which essentially eliminates repetitive conditions and combines certain conditions. Mr. Heinsohon stated in conversations with staff, subsequent to the letter of November 7th, they have reached an agreement Minutes of Planning Commission November 7, 1990 Page 3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25830 CONTINUED on the following conditions: - Condition No. 64: Fee of $1,000 per sheet in addition to the number of sheets in a Final Map. We have agreed to in- clude the language "and street improvement plans for Final Map". - Condition No. 70: We have agreed to the condition as stated by staff, with the following verbiage added to the end "as approved by the City Engineer ". Mr. Heinsohon then commented on condition number 44, with re- gard to grading of the site. The grading quantity for the site is approximately 560,000 cubic yards, and I do not believe it is necessary to have that condition in there to revise the map. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those opposed. Mr. Bob Dyer, P.O. Box 5266, Canyon Lake, commented on the letter from Mr. Giardinelli addressing his interest. Vice Chairman Gilenson 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 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey expressed concern on the amount of grading and the loss of hillsides in this area. Suggested that the topography be utilized to a greater extend and save some of the of the hillsides. Another concern is, everything in this area is coming through at our minimums. Suggested that the applicant come back with something more aesthetically pleasing and balanced. Commissioner Brown commented on Condition 29, asked if there will be lots or slopes created outside of lot areas that will become separate lots, or will they all be within the boundary of the individual homeowner? Mr. Heinsohon responded that all interior space, other than street, is designed within specific homeowner lots - -there are no common areas. Commissioner Brown stated that if there are changes /amend- ments in the future Condition 29 would apply, right now it is a mute point. Commissioner Brown inquired about the requested deletion of Conditions 46 through 53. It has been common practice to include Municipal Code requirements in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Heinsohon responded that if this is the City's policy, they have no problem. Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 56 with regard to the proposed language "as determined by the Community Development Director ", asked why this language as opposed to Riverside County Fire Department? Mr. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development, responded that this is intended to include the City as a participant in any Minutes of Planning Commission November 7, 1990 Page 4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25830 CONTINUED discussions, in case there are City issues relative to fire protection. Also, this is consistent with the Tuscany Hills condition for fire protection. Commissioner Brown suggested striking Riverside County Fire and Community Development Director. Commissioner Brown stated that he does not see conditions 63 and condition 59 as being repetitive. Commissioner Brown suggested that this matter be continued to a future date due to the number of requested modifications to the conditions, which would allow adequate time for review of requested modifications. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Tentative Tract Map 25830 to the meeting of November 21, 1990, and request the City Attorney's opinion on prescriptive easements, second by Vice Chairman Gilenson with discussion. Commissioner Brinley commented on the proposal not having approval from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); not having a Section 7 Permit- -this is an option; being asked to approve a tentative investment map and looking at a 2 -3 year time line before the project comes in. Agrees with Commissioner Wilsey return for re -work and come back at a later date. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked City Attorney Harper to comment on Mr. Giardinelli's letter. City Attorney Harper stated that based upon the limited facts in the letter, a prescriptive easement is limited - -you cannot expand or change it. In the interest of recognizing that there is going to be a problem the City should address this at the tentative map stage. Discussion ensued on the time line for continuance, and continuing the proposal to a date specific with the public hearing left open. Commissioner Brown withdrew his motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to adjourn the public hearing on Tentative Tract Map, 25830 to the meeting of November 21, 1990, second by Vice Chairman Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 3. Mining & Reclamation Plan 90 -3 - Alberhill /WYROC, Inc. - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request for approval of a Mining and Reclamation Plan, required by State Law and City:, Ordinance 897. The project is located on the south side of Interstate 15, east of Lake Street, approxi- mately 19.3 acres in area. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that the applicant's attorney has requested the following amendments to the Staff Report: Page 2, top of page: add at end of sentence "therefore no additional review required ". Finding #3: add the words "Municipal Code," before the word Goals. Minutes of Planning Commission November 7, 1990 Page 5 MINING & RECLAMATION PLAN 90 -3 CONTINUED Condition No. 19: add the word "completed" before the word slopes. Vice Chairman Gilenson opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. John Friedman, Long Beach Equities, gave a brief history on the proposal, and stated they were in agreement with the amended report. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Bob Snodgrass, WYROC, stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Vice Chairman Gilenson 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 hear- ing was closed at 7:42 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the establishment of a crushing operation at this location -- crushed aggregate, dry concrete sands. Mr. Snodgrass responded in the affirmative, stating that it will be mainly Class II Road Base. Commissioner Brown number 19, and when completed. commented on the amendment to condition it will be decided that these slopes are Considerable discussion ensued on condition number 19, and the time line for completion; proposal being in phases; there being no cutting of slopes in areas not being actively mined in a 30 day period; grading plan not addressing on site disturbances and drainage. Vice Chairman Gilenson suggested the following verbiage "not engaged in active mining" be added to condition 19. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Mining and Reclama- tion Plan 90 -3 and the Mining and Reclamation Permit based upon the Findings and 20 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Staff Report, Page 2 top of page: add at the end of sentence "therefore no additional review required ". Finding #3: add the words "Municipal Code," before the word Goals. Condition No. 19: All graded completed slopes, not engaged in active mining, visible from any surrounding public roadway shall be hydroseeded prior to the rainy season. The applicant shall repeat hydroseeding as often as necessary until native grasses have been re- established. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission November 7, 1990 Page 6 4. Collier Avenue Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request to recommend certification of the Collier Avenue Improvement Project Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project involves an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to re- designate Collier Avenue from a modified collector to a major arterial between Riverside Drive and Nichols Road. In addition, the project includes a request to permit the roadway's subsequent re- alignment and construction; include the re- location and upgrading of existing water and sewer lines. Vice Chairman Gilenson opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m., asking for anyone 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 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Brown commented on the current traffic problems at these locations and the future problems with increased traffic, and stated he hopes this runs concurrently with the signalization of Riverside Drive /Collier Avenue and Central Avenue /Collier Avenue. Commissioner Brinley stated she concurs with Commissioner Brown, with regard to signalization. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if staff had any comments with regard to signalization. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that these signals are being worked on. We will start the design of the signal at Central and Collier in the near future. Discussion ensued on a time line for these signals. Ms. Kathleen Brady - Rebella, Michael Brandman Associates, En- vironmental Consultant, stated that she agrees with Mr. O'Donnell. The Environmental Impact Report addresses signali- zation of these streets. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council certification of the Collier Avenue Improvement Project En- vironmental Impact Report, and recommend that the actual road- way construction begin after the 30 -day review period on the updated Lake Elsinore General Plan Environmental Impact Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Resolution 90 -15, entitled as follows, adopted by unanimous vote. RESOLUTION 90 -15 A RESOLUTION O',THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAW ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90 -3 Upon the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley, Brown, Wilsey Gilenson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Saathoff ABSTENTION: COMMISSIONERS: None Minutes of November 7, Page 7 Planning Commission 1990 BUSINESS ITEMS 5., Single- Family Residence - 415 Granite Street - Robert L. Lechman - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to construct a 1,350 square foot, single- story, dwelling on a 7,150 square foot lot, located southwest of the intersection of Flint and Granite Streets. Assistant Planner DeGange requested that condition number 8 be amended to require random tab asphalt shingles. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Wilsey stated he agrees with staff on the need for additional trim. Commissioner Brown commented on the need for architectural enhancements on the east, north and south elevations. Commissioner Brinley concurred with Commissioner Brown. Vice Chairman Gilenson commented on condition number 8, with regard to the roofing material; condition number 10, with regard to including standard verbiage on interior dimensions. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 415 Granite Street based upon 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 materials with a Class "A" fire rating. Random tab, asphalt shingles, three dimensional roofing material or equivalent to be used, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director, Material type shall be specified on final building plans. Condition No. 10: Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine - feet - six - inches (9'6 ") by twenty -feet (201) of interior clear space for two (2) cars for a total interior clear space of nineteen - feet - six - inches (191611) by twenty -feet (20'). Condition No. 35: Architectural enhancements shall be added to the north, south and east elevations, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 6. Single- Family Residence - 17315 Shrier Drive - Meri and Matthew Kibbe - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to construct a 2,000 square foot, two - story, dwelling on two lots of 5,400 square feet, located 180 feet west of the inter- section of Richard Street and Shrier Drive. Assistant Planner DeGange requested that condition number 8 be amended to require random tab asphalt shingles. Minutes of Planning Commission November 7, 1990 Page 8 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 17315 SHRIER DRIVE CONTINUED Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. Mr. Matthew Kibbe stated that he was in agreement with the conditions. Commissioner Brown commented as follows: - The lots are located in Flood Zone "B" and below 1265 m.s.l., reference FEMA requirements. - These are substandard lots, will substandard setbacks be allowed, reference condition number 5. - There is sewer, possibly within 200 feet, but the only way to connect is to get a right -of -way easement across Riverside Drive through Cal- Trans. - Condition #27 with regard to an additional five -foot (5') dedication for street right -of -way, and meeting setbacks. - This property being at or near to flooding with the drainage from Riverside Drive, are we requiring this property to be elevated three -feet? Discussion ensued on elevation of the property, and whether or not the applicant can build legally without elevating the property; elevation established by FEMA being followed. Commissioner Brinley commented on sewer connection, and ap- proaching Cal Trans on said matter. Discussion ensued on sewer connection requirement, and whether or not condition number 9 should be amended, since the pro- perty is within 200 -feet of sewer, but connection is infeasi- ble. Vice Chairman Gilenson commented on conditions 23 and 29 being redundant, suggested that condition number 29 be deleted and replaced with new condition "Pad shall be elevated to 1265 m.s.l., if necessary, to meet FEMA requirements of the Muni- cipal Code with regard to building within floodways ". Commissioner Brown commented on the existing Palm Trees being within the right -of -way and prohibits installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk. Asked if condition number 13 requires the removal of said trees and replacement with street trees. Discussion ensued. on condition number 13 with regard to the existing Palm Trees, installation of curb, gutter and side- walk, and whether or not the applicant would be required to remove said trees, and deleting said condition. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 17315 Shrier Drive based on the Findings and subject to the 33Conditions 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. Random tab, asphalt shingles, three dimensional roofing material or equivalent to be used, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Minutes of Planning Commission November 7, 1990 Page 9 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE 17315 SHRIER DRIVE CONTINUED Director. Condition No. 13: Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City Street Tree List, a maximum of 30 -feet apart and at least 15 gallon in size as to meet the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. DELETE Condition No. 29: Process and meet all parcel merger requirements prior to issuance of building permit. DELETE Condition No. 29: Pad shall be elevated to 1265 m.s.l., if necessary, to meet FEMA requirements of the Municipal Code with regard to build- ing within floodways. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 7. Single - Family Residence - 310 Lewis Street - Richard A. Bonet - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a proposal to construct a 2,280 square foot, two- story, dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot, located at the east side of Lewis Street between Pottery Street and Sumner Street. Vice Chairman Gilenson asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. 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 Wilsey to approve Residence at 310 Lewis Street based on the subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Single - Family Findings and in the Staff Commented on the traffic problem at Central. Asked if there is anything we can do with Cal Trans in regards to the freeway off - ramp at Central Avenue. Request installation of a right turn only sign at the on- ramp - -so that we can stripe and install a stop sign. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that staff will approach Cal Trans and see if we can get a stop sign or improvement at that location. Commissioner Brown Commented on the grading occurring on the lake bottom and the amount of dust being created since they have stopped watering. Asked if someone could make a comment to the water district and request that they start watering again. Minutes of Planning Commission November 7, 1990 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Vice Chairman Gilenson Nothing to report. Chairman Saathoff Absent. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning commis- sion adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Approved, Chairman Respectfully s e6mitted, nda Grin taff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 21ST DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 1990 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Brown, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, City Attorney Burns, Assistant Planner DeGange, Contract Planner Sandra Massa - Lavitt, Special Projects Planner Hardy Strozier, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve Minutes of November 7, 1990, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 4 -0 (Chairman Saathoff abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to address the Planning Commission, Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS Section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Annexation No. 54; Specific Plan 90 -2 and Draft Environmental Impact Report - TMC Communities (Continued from October 17, 1990) - Special Project Planner Strozier presented a request to approve the North peak Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report and Annexation No. 54. The project is situated in the foothills of Steele Peak and Wasson Canyon, bounded by Steele Valley to the north, Wasson Canyon to the east, Highway 74 and the City Limits to the south and E1 Toro Road to the west. Mr. Strozier stated that the Commission should have received copies of the following documents: letter from Superintendent Larry Maw, Lake Elsinore Unified School District; responses received on the Environmental Impact Report, and letter from City Attorney Harper expressing a legal opinion on Mr. Maw's letter. Mr. Strozier introduced Mr. Doug Moreland, project manager for the North Peak Project. Mr. Doug Moreland, 565 Chaney Street, gave a brief background report on the proposal highlighting: terrain and open space, traffic and job /housing balance. Mr. Moreland stated they have reviewed the Conditions of Approval and concur with them. Also, informed the Commission that they have been meeting with the Lake Elsinore Unified School District to negotiate a School Mitigation Agreement, and their intent is to have an agreement prior to the City Council hearing in January. Mr. Moreland introduced Mr. Bob Jacobs of SWA Group, land planners for the project. Mr. Jocobs presented a slide show representing the type of community proposed for North Peak. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. The following persons spoke: Mr. Alex Bowie, Bowie, Arneson, Kadi & Dixon, Attorney for the Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 2 ANNEXATION NO. _54; SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -2 AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONTINUED School District, stated that he was not speaking in favor nor opposition. He then commented on the following: - letter from City Attorney Harper addressing the Specific Plan and denying the project based upon failure to provide adequate school facilities. - Draft Environmental Impact Report, Page IV -172, addressing available capacity for project generated students. - Letter of November 21, 1990, providing additional comments: 1) Adequacy of School Fees and Unmitigated Impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report; 2) Availability of State Funding; 3) Authority of Planning Commission and City Council to defer development of project absent available school facilities; 4) Responsibility of Planning Commis- sion, City Council and Lake Elsinore Unified School District to future purchasers of residences in the project. Mr. William L. Parker, 143 East 1st Street, Perris, represent- ing Perris School District, stated that two- thirds of this project resides within the Perris Elementary School District, and suggested that the developer also work with the Perris School District. Mr. Charles Lauton, P.O. Box 266, Lake Elsinore, commented on school impacts and the number of students within the project area - -sees no impact on the schools; regeneration of wildlife within the project area. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, he asked for those opposed. The following persons spoke: Janice Rock, homeowner in the development area, concerned with wildlife in the area, specifically the Steven's kangaroo rat, and the grading occurring on site without a permit, and no regard for wildlife. Ms. Mary -Rita Appleman- Thompson, homeowner in the development area, concerned with flood control, impact on schools, traffic and impact on services from the County. Mr. George Hatch, homeowner in the development area, commented on the dozers and demolition trucks working on the site, at his property line, without a permit; impacts on schools; disturbing the land and wildlife; flooding that occurs every year which washes out the road. Mr. Jim Koski, 18711 Tereticornis Avenue, also representing the Warm Springs Valley Association, concerned with the area easterly of I -15, north of Highway 79. On September 22, 1990, we sent a letter addressing our concerns to the Planning Director. He then commented on the traffic going out through Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 3 ANNEXATION NO. 54; SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -2 AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONTINUED Highway 74 and the possible construction of an alternate road, as referenced in the Environmental Impact Report; impact on schools; density of project; cut and fill of hillsides; water run -off from project area; potable water - -if Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District will be able to supply service to this area without effecting existing service, and employment opportunities. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Mr. Donald Schwenn, 28365 Highway 74, stated that he was in favor of the annexation, and commented on the services that will be available to residents. Mr. Dick Pauloo, P.O. Box 875, Perris, commented on the natural open space areas - -not sacrificing all natural open space for development; ingress /egress from Santa Rosa Mine Road to existing property owners; traffic on Highway 74; water rights being retained or some type of compensation given. Mr. Norman Gritton, 27245 Highway 74, Perris, not speaking in favor nor opposition, presented a letter to the Commission addressing: potential costs to property owners within the annexation but not within the development, and effect on properties if a Mello -Roos is utilized; changes regarding land use and /or zoning after annexation and if they would be more restrictive; special assessment districts; provisions for drainage and /or potential flooding. Mr. Mike Rock, homeowner within the development area, commented on the topography /terrain of the area with regard to water; planned open space being mainly hillsides and to expensive to develop; lot sizes -- should be at least 2.5 acre; Steven's kangaroo rat and wildlife. Ms. Kathy Oshefski, 27570 Highway 74, commented on the regional trail systems and these remaining, and existing traffic hazards on Highway 74. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m. At this time 8:12 p.m., Chairman Saathoff called for a recess, to allow staff and the applicant to meet, and advise the Commission on comments made. At this time, 8:27 p.m., the Commission reconvened. Community Development Director Gunderman stated there have been a number of issued presented tonight relative to the case, most of which have been discussed with the individuals and, for the most part, discussed in the Environmental Impact Report, Staff Report, Specific Plan or other documents before you. Requested the Commission provide comments or concerns that they would like to have addressed, and then have staff come back in two weeks with written responses. Commissioner Brown inquired about the State's recommended ratio for parks, and the public entity that will assume the nature park area. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that the Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 4 ANNEXATION NO. 54; SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -2 AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONTINUED State's requirement is 3 -5 acres per thousand residents, and our ratio is 5 acres per thousand residents, most likely that area will be a kangaroo rat area. The agreement with the State of California, and the federal government, provides for a period of time that the State has jurisdiction over those areas. This is something that needs to be addressed further. Commissioner Brown commented on the school issue with regard to: audited statement of construction costs, State mandates and funding, school facilities available and overcrowding of said facilities, acreage necessary for school /park facilities, and asked if the Commission could be provided copies of construction costs for schools. Mr. Bowie responded that with another meeting or two they should be able to come an agreement in regard to costs. There has been some credit given for year round education, and re- locatables cost just as much as brick and mortar, and the statute requires thirty percent be relocatable. Mr. Bowie stated information on construction costs could be provided. Chairman Saathoff suggested that Mr. Parker of the Perris School District be included in discussions. Commissioner Gilenson commented on phasing -- development anticipated to take place over a seven (7) year period and the boundary of Perris School District; lot sizes for the Single - Family Residential and Garden Residential -- opposed to lot sizes under 6,000 square feet. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he concurs with Commissioner Gilenson on lot sizes. Concerned with lots less than 6,000 square feet and the 6,000 square foot average used. Commissioner Brinley stated that she concurs with Commis- sioners Gilenson and Wilsey on lot sizes. Chairman Saathoff requested the following issues be addressed: - Condition number 15, with regard to dedication of open space to the City; - Ingress /egress to Santa Rosa Mine Road; - Water rights, appearing in deeds; - Drainage (Water run -off) - Page 2 of the Staff Report, Statistical Summary needs to be clarified. Mr. Moreland commented on the existing easements on the dirt road and their proposed looped road, with regard to ingress/ egress and referred to the posted map illustrating the location of Santa Rosa Mine Road. He further stated that they are required to provide access to these parcels- -seven (7) five (5) acre parcels. We are annexing into the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and will be providing potable water and sewer in that area, and the existing property owners will be able to connect, if they so desire. In terms of the well, we do not know if it is operational, and we would like to work with the existing property owners in terms of provid- ing them a new source of water. Mr. Fred Crowe, The Keith Companies, 565 Chaney Street, stated Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 5 ANNEXATION NO._ 54: SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -2 AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONTINUED the Drainage Report was prepared under the standard Flood Control Guidelines, and reviewed by the County Flood Control. The numbers will need to be perfected after the exact layout of the subdivision is prepared. Mr. Moreland commented on the lot size and density for the Single - Family Residential, Garden Residential and the Village Residential. Chairman Saathoff commented on condition number 16, asked if this applies only to the single - family designation. Mr. Moreland responded in the affirmative. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Annexation No. 54; Specific Plan 90 -2 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report to the meeting of December 5, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 2. Tentative Tract Map 25830 - Homestead Land Development (Continued from November 7, 1990) - Community Development Director Gunderman presented a request to subdivide 36.79 acres of land, lying south of Scenic Crest Drive, west of Greenwald Avenue, for the construction of 140 single - family lots with one lot as a sewer lift station. The site is bounded by the Tuscany Hills development, Tentative Tract Map 25074 on the east and south, by Greenwald Avenue on the north, and by low density ranch style homes on the west. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that due to the number of requested modifications to the Conditions of Approval, and concern on the amount of grading that would occur this item was continued from the November 7, 1990, meeting. Staff has reviewed the conditions and, in memorandum form, consolidated or deleted redundant conditions. The applicant has provided us with additional information on grading of the site and grading profiles. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Steve Heinsohn, Homestead Land Development, requested the following language be added to condition number 45: "or other alternative clearance acceptable to Fish and Wildlife Department and the Community Development Director ". Community Development Director Gunderman responded that staff would be in agreement with this amendment. Mr. Heinsohn then referred to the Memorandum of November 21, and stated that as far as grading quantities are concerned staff has given a number of 876,000 yards. The actual grading totals 410,000 yards, this refers to both cut and fill. Mr. Heinsohn then commented on the rear yard slopes being greater than 2:1, believes this is covered in the conditions that we will conform to the grading standards. We do not have a precise grading plan, but it is our intention to have no slopes greater than 2:1 in rear yards. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25830 CONTINUED John Giardinelli, Attorney for Dyer -Wynn, stated that he believes they are going to be able to work out all of the concerns. We have been working with the developer and believe the issues that still need to be address will be addressed by the time this goes to City Council, and at this time we are in favor of the proposal. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished 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 9:21 p.m. Commissioner Brown commented on the grading profiles with regard to topography, cut and fill. Discussion ensued on cut and fill of the site. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was any further discussion on cut and fill; revised Conditions of Approval, and if it was still the intent of the Commissioners to see the site. Commis- sioners Gilenson and Brinley stated they would like to see the site. Chairman Saathoff commented on standard grading permit language not being included in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Gilenson commented on number 7 of the Environ- mental Assessment, pertaining to increased water run -off; topography and what will happen with the off -site drainage with all the cut and fill, this is not addressed. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that this would be addressed in the precise grading plan. Commissioner Brinley inquired about the off -site grading. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the ridge line running from Tuscany Hills; deletion of condition number 44 since the applicant has revised the tentative map, requested elaboration on the changes; major concern is minimum lot standards and lot sizes -- requested elaboration on how this project will fit in with the housing tracts of Tuscany and Ramsgate. Mr. Heinsohn commented on hillside lots and the engineering constraints involved. Considerable discussion ensued on lot /pad size and building pad area, topography, and project coming through with minimum requirements. Commissioner Brown stated that he does not agree with the concern on lot sizes. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was further discussion from the table. There being no further discussion he asked for the Commission's pleasure. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to adjourn the hearing on Tentative Tract Map 25830 to a Special Meeting, allowing the Commissioners to go out and see the site, second by Commis- sioner Brinley. Chairman Saathoff suggested that Commissioners Gilenson and Brinley be appointed to a subcommittee and meet with staff and the applicant and view the site. Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25830 CONTINUED Community Development Director Gunderman suggested the public hearing be left open and the matter continued to December 5, 1990. There be a subcommittee, whom ever the Commission wants to appoint, to examine the site, meet with staff and the developer and when we come back on the 5th the subcommittee will report on what took place, who was there, what was discussed and the resolution. The project has been scheduled before City Council on the December 11, and action by Commission on the 5th will not affect that - -it will only affect the matter if we go beyond that date. Commissioner Gilenson rescinded his motion and Commissioner Brinley rescinded her second. Commissioner Gilenson moved that a subcommittee be formed to meet with the applicant, staff and view site and report back to the Commission on December 5th with resolution, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Brown voting no) Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue the public hearing on Tentative Tract Map 25830 to December 5, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Brown voting no) Chairman Saathoff appointed Commissioners Gilenson and Brinley to sit on the subcommittee, and suggested that they meet with Community Development Director Gunderman to establish a date and time to view the site. At this time, 9:45 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9 :55 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 3. Tentative Parcel Map 25106 Revised; Variance 90 -4; Commercial Project Revision #2 - Tomislav Gabric & Associates - Contract Planner Massa - Lavitt presented a request to amend the approved Tentative Parcel Map and Commercial Project 89 -6, increasing the size by the inclusion of a 1.1 acre site, which would be undevelopable on its own; increasing the building square footage by approximately 5,000 square feet, and a Variance for parking and landscaping setbacks for the remnant parcel which is part of parcel 1. The site is located at Lakeshore Drive south of 6th Street. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 9:59 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Mark Telford, representing Tomislav & Gabric, gave a brief history on the site and the proposed revisions, and stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, he asked for those opposed. Receiving no response, he asked for those wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 10:02 p.m. Chairman Saathoff commented on the revised design of the building and whether or not they have been approved by the City. Ms. Massa - Lavitt responded that they have been reviewed at staff level, and given approval. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the General Plan designa- Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 8 tion of Low Density Residential, asked if a General Plan Amendment should be submitted. Ms. Massa - Lavitt responded that a General Plan Amendment was approved for the site in April, 1990, designating the site Commercial. Commissioner Brown expressed concern on the driveway next to Building F, that part of Lakeshore Drive having an entry - -if this is for right -turn in /right -turn out then make it that way by design; condition number 24, with regard to driveway off Dawes. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded the driveway could be right -turn in and right -turn out only. Does not believe this effects the circulation on Lakeshore, there will probably be a median there. Commissioner Gilenson suggested amending condition number 24, to include design of driveway to indicate right turn only. Considerable discussion ensued on the driveway next to Build- ing F; eliminating the driveway as there is nothing to prevent left turns; installation of signage for right -turn only, and posting of signage does not work; angle driveway for right - turn only; condition number 24 with regard to driveway off Dawes and closure of this driveway. Commissioner Brinley inquired about lighting and landscaping for the parking lot. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council re- affirmation of Negative Declaration 89 -17 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 25106 Revised, Variance 90 -4, Commercial Project 89 -6 Revision #2 based on the Findings and subject to the 57 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 24.a: Design of driveway, next to Building F, shall be designed to indicate right turn only. Condition No. 58: All exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 4. Zone Change 90 -11 Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised and Commercial Project 90 -11 Revised - Thomas Brothers Development Corp. - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to rezone a 0.69 acre site from R -1 (Single - Family Residential) to C -2 (General Commercial); a Conditional Use Permit to allow drive - through capabilities in conjunction with Minor Design Review of a 2,880 square foot fast food restaurant (Kentucky Fried Chicken) , located approximately 250 feet southeast of the intersection of Summerhill Drive and Railroad Canyon Road. Assistant Planner DeGange commented on the concerns staff has with the project, and the conditions designed to enhance /miti- gate said concerns. Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 9 ZONE CHANGE 90 -8 REVISED; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -6 REVISED AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -11 REVISED CONTINUED Assistant Planner DeGange requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 22: All roof mounted equipment shall be at least six - inches (611) lower than the parapet wall and screened on all sides from Interstate 15. Evidence of compliance shall be included in building plans, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition No. 78: Applicant shall provide a hydraulic report for San Jacinto River which shall recommend slope protection along the southeast bank of the river. Developer shall install recommended improvements for erosion protection, if necessary for this site as determined by the City Engineer. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 10:27 p.m., asking for those in favor. Mr. Tom Erickson, representing Thomas Brothers Development, stated they are in agreement with most of the conditions. He then commented on the following Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 27.h: Requested the Performance Bond require- ment with reference to landscaping be waived. Condition No. 43: With regard to the concrete tile extension to the top of the parapet. We would request modification- - such that we would reduce the height parapet section and in- crease the height of the concrete section. Therefore, it would be more consistent with the surrounding fast food restaurants. Chairman Saathoff stated that he did not believe staff was requesting lowering of the parapet wall, just the material match the roof, tile on the parapet wall. Mr. Erickson stated that he did not have a problem with this. Condition No. 78: For the record, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 17616 is not adjacent to the San Jacinto River channel it is one parcel removed. Therefore, it is our belief that the Hydraulic Report should be brought to light in the development process of Parcel 2 and should not affect Parcel 1. Commissioner Wilsey inquired about the number of parcels between this parcel and the river bed. Assistant Planner DeGange responded that a good portion of the parcel will be taken up by improvements on the channel. Mr. Erickson stated that of the 2.8 acres left in Parcel 2 only 40,000 square feet or approximately one acre is usable, the rest is in the river channel, per initial calculations. Discussion ensued on the distance from the property line of Parcel 1 to the San Jacinto River bed, and this distance being approximately 150 feet to the top of the slope of the river channel. Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 10 ZONE CHANGE 90 -8 REVISED; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -6 REVISED AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -11 REVISED CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 22: Add "and approved by the Community Development Director ". Condition No. 27.m: Change 20% to 50 %. Condition No. 42, 43 and 46: Add "subject to the approval of the Community Development Director ". Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 27.h., informing Mr. Erickson of the reasoning behind this condition and that it is a requirement for all developers; requested that the Senior Civil Engineer address condition 78. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated their concern was if that site is not developable then that land will lay vacant and there may never be any improvements to the slope. Considerable discussion ensued on condition number 78 with regard to easements; providing Hydraulic Report only for this site - -no improvements required; staff's requested amendment to said condition, and deleting said condition. Commissioner Gilenson requested the following verbiage be added to condition number 79, "or appropriate easements obtained ". Commissioner Wilsey requested the cupola be redesigned and resubmitted, or eliminated. Chairman Saathoff commented on the color and size of the cupola and it being out of proportion - -would like to see it incorporated into the structure. Commissioner Brown commented on the structure being a standard corporate store; drive -thru overhang; redesign of the windows and roof pitch -- mansard effect is all made out of metal trim, according to the plans, eliminate this and raise the roof to match that height. He then stated he would like to see a complete redesign of the structure and the roof and deletion of the cupola; would like to see the rendering reflect what the roof equipment will look like, if not a flat roof on top of the parapet. Commissioner Brown stated that we are not approving any sign - age for this plot plan, correct? Assistant Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative. A brief discussion was held on continuing the proposals to a specific date, or denying without prejudice and letting the applicant appeal to City Council. Mr. Erickson stated that he would like to resolve the issue at this level, redesign and come back at the next meeting. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Zone Change 90 -8 Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised and Commercial Project 90 -11 Revised for redesign of the structure, to the meeting of December 5, 1990, second by Commissioner Brinley. Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 11 ZONE CHANGE 90 -8 REVISED: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -6 REVISED AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -11 REVISED CONTINUED Considerable discussion ensued on the redesign of the structure and the cupola; the cupola being integrated into the building, and time line for continuance. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for the question. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 5. Commercial Project 90 -7 - Kevin Jeffries - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design Review of a commercial building with approximately 3,505 square feet of multiple tenant office space. The project is on a 14,250 square foot lot sited at the northwest corner of the inter- section of Grand Avenue and Serena Way. Assistant Planner DeGange commented on the concerns staff has with the project. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent- ing the applicant. Mr. Kevin Jeffries commented on the following conditions: Condition No. 38 and 39: There is an existing masonry block wall that has wrought iron on the top. Requested these conditions be modified to allowed the wrought iron to remain, and presented a photograph of the existing wall. Discussion ensued on the block wall, height of said wall and this block wall not engineered for an additional 2 foot of block; placement of 2 foot of wrought iron on said wall would still meet code requirement; amending conditions allowing wrought iron. Condition No. 42: Staff's request to reduce the 12 foot park- ing space to 9 feet and a landscape planter island centrally located with the line of parking. Requested this space be distribute to the back two spaces or throughout the parking lot. We feel this island would create problems with ingress /egress, and we are at 40 percent landscape coverage. Discussion ensued on the parking lot; adding another handi- cap parking space; distributing the space throughout the park- ing lot; deleting condition number 42 and amending condition number 36, adding: "space provided in parking lot to be distributed evenly". Condition No. 48: Part of the last sentence is missing. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that the words "do the work" should be added to the end of condition number 48. Condition No. 52: Requested clarification. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that this is a special condition for anyone building in the lake perimeter, adopted after the 1980 Flood. Discussion ensued on condition 52 with regard to elevation, septic /sewer, foundation levels requirements, and elevation of the property, approximately 1285. Minutes of Planning November 21, 1990 Page 12 Commission COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -7 CONTINUED Condition No. 54: Contribution for the design and con- struction of half a median on Grand Avenue. As I understand it, there is not an agreement with Cal -Trans yet. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnel responded the General Plan is going to call out that all of our major streets be landscape median, and we have to work out agreements with Cal -Trans for maintenance. Commissioner Brinley stated this is why we are collecting the fees now. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brown commented on this money being escrowed and placed in an account where if that does not exist in five (5) years the money will be refunded plus interest. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that this is AB1600, and a program has to be established. Discussion ensued on time line for establishing and implement- ing a program. Chairman Saathoff informed Mr. Jeffries that the Commission could not relieve him of this condition, but he could request relief from City Council. Mr. Jeffries asked if restrooms have to be counted for the parking lot allotment, square footage. Discussion ensued on whether or not restroom square footage could be omitted from parking lot requirements; whether or not code calculations require all gross floor area be included in the parking lot ratio. Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 47 pertaining to "will- serve" letter. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the following: Condition 21 and 22: These are conflicting- -one requires roof mounted and the other ground mounted. Assistant Planner DeGange responded this covers one method or the other. com- missioner Gilenson recommended the following be added to #22: "if used shall be screened ". Condition No. 26.f.: Recommended this be amended to have 50% twenty- four -inch (2411) box. Condition No. 28: Believes this is the same as 26.b., requested that #28 be deleted. Condition No. 50: Believes this is the same as 19, requested that #50 be deleted. Condition No. 53: Believes this is the same as 14, requested #53 be deleted. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 90 -17 and approval of Commercial Project 90 -7 with the following amendments: Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 13 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -7 CONTINUED Condition No. 22: All mechanical and electrical equipment of the building shall be ground mounted and shall be screened if used. All out- door ground or wall mounted utility equipment shall be consolidated in a central location and architecturally screened along with substantial land- scaping, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition No. 26f: Landscape planters shall be planted with an appropriate parking lot shade tree to provide for 50% parking lot shading in fifteen (15) years, 50% shall be twenty - four -inch (2411) box trees. Condition No. 28: Applicant shall plant street trees selected from the City Street List, thirty -feet (301) apart and at least twenty- four -inch (2411) box. A single species shall be used for each street and shall incorporate solar subdivision design principals. The planter island within the driveway area may not encroach into public right -of -way. Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director or his designee for approval. DELETE Condition No. 36: The two (2) twelve -foot (121) parking spaces created with the reduction of floor space shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking lot, and parking stalls shall be double- striped with four - inch (411) lines two -feet (21) apart. Condition No. 38: A six -foot (61) high decorative wall, consisting of four -feet (41) masonry and two -feet (21) wrought iron, shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls), subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition No. 39: The rear perimeter wall shall be six -feet (61) in height, and provide a visual transition (step -down) in order to assure proper visibility. The wall shall be constructed of decorative block, and two - foot wrought iron on top of wall may be utilized. Condition No. 42: A landscape planter island shall be installed in a central location with the line of parking spaces abutting the proposed building. DELETE Condition No. 48: If the existing street improvements are to be modified, existing street plans on file shall be modified accordingly and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit. An encroachment permit will be required to do the work. Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 14 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -7 CONTINUED Condition No. 50: Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire Department. DELETE Condition No. 53: Applicant shall obtain any necessary Cal - Trans permits and meet all Cal -Trans requirements. DELETE Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Gunderman introduced Lise Strandgaard who has accepted the Planning Manager position, and will be on board December 3, 1990. Also, informed the Commission that Robert Delgadillo has accepted a position as Senior Planner and will start on December 3, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Inquired about the following: 1. Is there anything that we can do about the dip at Sulphur and Main Street, across from City Hall. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that Phase II of the Main Street Improvements will correct this. 2. Progress of K -Mart landscaping and the dirt mound next to it. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that the land- scaping has been re- planted at the K -Mart site, and nothing has happened with the dirt mound. In fact, the extension of the Map, for Camelot Properties, goes back to City Council on November 27, with a less than favorable recommendation. 3. Progress on the Outlet Center. Community Development Director stated he believes they have begun grading. 4. The new owners of Club 21 have erected a new sign, can sign. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that they have not come in for a permit, nor do they have a business license. Commissioner Gilenson requested that Code Enforcement be sent out to the site. 5. Status of banner signs on Casino Drive. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that staff will have to check on this and report back. 6. Scheduling of a Study Session for Zoning Update. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that this has not been set up yet, because staff is preparing an outline and a list of priorities, which should be ready next week. Minutes of Planning Commission November 21, 1990 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey At the next Study Session, I would like to request discussion on Tuscany and projected areas, on the other side of Greenwald, and areas within our Sphere of Influence; give basic ideas of what kind of projects and things we would like to look at in these areas. I have received a number of comments from people having problem with their air conditioning condensers, with regard to side and rear yard setbacks. Inquired about conditioning this issue. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that this can be discussed at the Zoning Ordinance Work Session. Commissioner Brown Stated that in the past, the Commission requested that all site plans /renderings illustrate landscaping at time of planting or six - month maturity maximum, and requested that this be implemented again. Chairman Saathoff Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 A ved, C111 Saathoff, Chairman Respectfully Submitted, Linda Gri dstaff, Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1990 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brown. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brinley, Brown, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, City Attorney Harper, Planning Manager Strandgaard, Senior Planner Delgadillo, Associate Planners Restivo and Naaseh - Shahry, Assistant Planner DeGange, Contract Planner Sandra Massa - Lavitt, Special Projects Planner Hardy Strozier, Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell and Consultant Engineer Spagnolo. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of November 21, 1990, 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 Annexation No. 54; Specific Plan 90 -2 and Draft Environmental Impact Report - TMC Communities - Chairman Saathoff stated these items were continued from November 21, 1990, public testimony taken and the public hearing closed at said meeting. He then ask Special Project Planner Strozier to respond to the concerns /issues raised at the previous meeting. Special Project Planner Strozier addressed the following concerns /issues: Impact on Steven's kangaroo rat, endangered species; Traffic impact on Highway 74; Access to Santa Rosa Mine Road; Drainage impacts, i.e.: underground water, quicksand, downstream flooding, and existing water well rights; Annexation impacts on existing homeowners and tax increases; Small Single - Family Lots and Open Space Impact on School -- adequacy of fees, and a recommendation to City Council for the formation of a Joint Commission /Council Task Force to look at school facilities planning within the City. Mr. Strozier then requested the following conditions be amended to read: Condition No. 16: Single - family designated planning areas which have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet shall have an average lot size of 6,500 square feet, and the number of 5,000 square foot lots shall not exceed twenty percent (20 %) of the total units (400 units) averaged over all single - family parcels within each village. Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 2 ANNEXATION NO. 54 SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -2 AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONTINUED Condition No. 24: Prior to approval of the first tentative map within the jurisdiction of each school district, applicant shall have entered into a school impact mitigation agreement with the appropriate school district or, City shall have considered the adequacy of school facilities or available means of financing school facilities to meet the needs and demand of new development proposed in such tentative map to be approved by the City. Chairman Saathoff asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the 5,000 square foot lot size and the average lot size being brought up to 6,500 square feet with new condition #16, and inquired about the design guideline to be implemented for the smaller lot. He then commented on the regional trail system and requested this be added as a condition to the Specific Plan, if necessary. He then suggested that the individual concerned citizens be forwarded a copy of the responses. Commissioner Brinley commented on new condition number 16 with regard to lot sizes; water rights -- affect on existing property owners across Highway 74 adjacent to Ramsgate; letter received from Perris School District. Commissioner Gilenson commented on new condition number 16 with regard to lot sizes and Municipal Code /Specific Plan requirements and trade -offs for these smaller lots. Commissioner Brown commented on new condition number 24, developer having an agreement with the school district prior to first tentative map approval or submittal, and lot sizes- - wants to see a balanced community. Chairman Saathoff commented on lot sizes -- address in the Specific Plan, if necessary or Planning Commission can address at Tentative Map stage. He then inquired about the language for the multi - purpose trail condition. Mr. Strozier suggested the following be added as condition number 26: Condition No. 26: The requirement of the City's multi- purpose trail plan shall be incorporated as part of any tentative tract map submittal. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Annexation No. 54, Specific Plan 90 -2 and the Draft Environmental Impact Report based on the Findings and subject to the 25 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 16: Single - family designated planning areas which have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet shall have an average lot size of 6,500 square feet, and the number of 5,000 square foot lots shall not Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 3 ANNEXATION NO. 54: SPECIFIC PLAN 90 -2 AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONTINUED exceed twenty percent (20 %) of the total units (400 units) averaged over all single - family parcels within each village. Condition No. 24: Prior to approval of the first tentative map within the jurisdiction of each school district, applicant shall have entered into a school impact mitigation agreement with the appropriate school district or, City shall have considered the adequacy of school facilities or available means of financing school facilities to meet the needs and demand of new development proposed in such tentative map to be approved by the City. Condition No. 26: The requirement of the City's multi- purpose trail plan shall be incorporated as part of any tentative tract map submittal. and adoption of Resolutions 90 -18, 90 -16 and 90 -17, entitled as follows: NO. 90 -18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING APPROVAL OF THE NORTH PEAK SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO NO. 90 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO THE ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE NORTH PEAK SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 90 -17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND- ING COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTAIN TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND DESIGNATED "ANNEXATION NO. 54- -NORTH PEAK" Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 At this time, 8 :02 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:13 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 4 2. Tentative Tract Map 25830 - Homestead Land Development (Continued from November 21, 1990) - A request to subdivide 36.79 acres into 140 single - family lots with one (1) lot as a sewer lift station, located south of Scenic Crest Drive, west of Greenwald Avenue. Contract Planner Sandra Massa - Lavitt commented on the field study of the site by the sub - committee, consisting of Commissioners Brinley and Gilenson, representatives of Homestead Land Development, and staff; fills greater than thirty -feet; slopes that exceed thirty -feet and exceeding four - hundred -feet (4001) in length -- reference Profile #2. Contract Planner Sandra Massa - Lavitt commented on separate issues raised by Commissioner Wilsey: a) Meandering sidewalks along Greenwald; b) Creation of entry statements on "A" and "D" Streets; Contract Planner Sandra Massa - Lavitt referred to the memo- randum of December 5, 1990, requesting the addition of the following Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 74: The sidewalk and parkway portion of the public right -of -way along Greenwald shall incorporate meandering sidewalks and enhanced treatments. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Condition No. 75: The entry points at "A" Street and "D" Street shall incorporate landscape entry treatments utilizing enhanced landscaping materials. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Condition No. 76: The final landscape plan shall reflect slopes not to exceed thirty -feet (301) in height nor shall any slope exceed four - hundred -feet (4001) in length pursuant to Section 15.72.040, General Criteria. Chairman Saathoff stated that the public hearing was continued from November 21, 1990, and asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition. Mr. Steve Heinsohn, Homestead Land Development, stated they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval, and commented on the impracticability of meandering sidewalk occurring on "A" Street, agrees with staff that it should occur only on Greenwald Avenue. He then stated they will comply with Section 15.72.040, condition number 76. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor or opposition. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:21 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey commented on grading, lot /pad sizes being compatible with the surrounding projects; open space; meander- ing sidewalks; enhanced landscape down Greenwald and entry street statements at "A" and "D" Streets; enhanced landscape of hillsides south of "A" Street; landscape maintenance and traffic flows along "A" Street. Commissioner Brinley commented on Profile #2, whether this would affect Profile #1; meandering sidewalks along Greenwald Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25830 CONTINUED and would like to see meandering sidewalks on "A" Street, asked staff to expand on the maintenance problem. Commissioner Gilenson commented on Profiles #1 and #2 with regard to the natural terrain being cut and filled and the engineering constraints mandating such, hand -out illustrating the difference between lot and pad sizes - -would like to see more of these submitted with our packets. Chairman Saathoff commented on adjoining property not being landlocked, grading and drainage and these issues being addressed in the conditions. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -14 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 25830 based on the Findings and subject to the 73 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 11: Prior to final map approval of Tract 25830 the improvements specified herein and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be installed, or the bonds and agreement for said improvements, shall be submitted to the City, and all other stated conditions shall be complied with. DELETE Condition No. 25: Trailers or mobile homes utilized during the construction phase of this project shall be subject to approval of the Community Development Director. DELETE Condition No. 26: Bond for drip or sprinkler irrigation system for common areas, as required by the Director of Community Development. Condition No. 29: If a homeowners association is to be established it shall, manage and impose fees to maintain all slopes or common areas, open space, private drainage facilities, firebreaks, habitat areas, private recreational facilities and grounds, private streets and any other common amenities. This association shall be established subject to current State laws and be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and Community Development Director who shall review all CC & R's and rules for their adequacy and completeness. The City Attorney shall review CC & R's, homeowners association documents and all documents to convey title to the homeowners association. Condition No. 34: Any alterations to the topography, ground surface, or any other site preparation activity will require the appropriate City permits. A Geologic Soils Report with associated recommendations will be required for grading permit approval, and all grading must meet the City's Grading Ordinance, subject to the approval of the Chief Building Official and Planning Division. Analysis of impacts of fills Minutes of Planning Commission - December 5, 1990 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25830 CONTINUED and cuts greater than sixty -feet (601) shall be provided. Interim and permanent erosion control measures are required. The applicant shall bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year for erosion control landscaping at the time the site is rough graded. Condition No. 37: Submit a comprehensive Soils and Geology Report and grading plan. Analysis of impacts of fills and cuts greater than sixty (60) feet shall be provided. Submit details of grading plan phasing and erosion control measures. DELETE Condition No. 39: All sidewalks shall be separated from curb with parkway which shall be subject to the approval of Community Development Director. DELETE Condition No. 40: Prior to commencement of any grading or construction on -site permits shall be obtained from State Fish and Game, if required. Condition No. 44: The applicant shall revise the Tentative Tract Map to incorporate reduced quantities of grading. The revised map shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. DELETE Condition No. 45: The applicant shall apply for and be granted an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) boundaries. A 10 (a) Permit, which allows for an incidental taking of the Stevens' kangaroo rat, shall be issued to the applicant prior to the submittal of a Final Tract Map for this development. Condition No. 54: Applicant shall obtain all necessary off - site easements for off -site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to Final Map approval. DELETE Condition No. 56: Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire Department. DELETE Condition No. 64: All tracts and engineering shall be digitized by developer per City Standards, tapes to be provided prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. If at the time of Certificate of Occupancy no system has been established by the City, this condition shall be waived, and the Developer will pay a fee of $1, 000 per sheet for future digitizing, exclud- ing the title sheet. Condition No. 72: Annexation to the City's Landscaping and Lighting District is required prior to approval of a Final Tract Map. DELETE Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25830 CONTINUED Condition No. 74: The sidewalk and parkway portion of the public right -of -way along Greenwald shall incorporate meandering sidewalks and enhanced treatments. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Condition No. 75: The entry points at "A" Street and "D" Street shall incorporate landscape entry treatments utilizing enhanced landscaping materials. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Condition No. 76: The final landscape plan shall reflect slopes not to exceed thirty -feet (301) in height nor shall any slope exceed four - hundred -feet (4001) in length pursuant to Section 15.72.040, General Criteria. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 3. Zone Change 90 -8 Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised; Commercial Project 90 -11 Revised - Thomas Brothers (Continued from November 21, 1990). A request to re -zone a 0.69 acre parcel from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to C -2 (General Commercial) , a Conditional Use Permit to allow drive -thru capabilities in conjunction with Minor Design Review of a 2,880 square foot Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, located approximately 250 feet southeast of the intersection of Summerhill and Railroad Canyon Road. Assistant Planner DeGange stated these proposals were continued pending architectural modifications, and informed the Commission of the revisions made to said structure. Chairman Saathoff stated that the public hearing was continued from November 21, 1990, and asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition. Mr. Tom Erickson, Thomas Brothers, stated they agree with the conditions as written. Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor or opposition. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:34 p.m. Commissioner Brown stated this is an improvement, but does not want to see the cupola - -wants to see the architecture more in line with what is in the area. Commissioners Brinley and Gilenson stated they concur with Commissioner Brown. Motion by Wilsey to deny without prejudice Zone Change 90 -8 Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised and Commercial Project 90 -11 Revised, second by Commissioner Brinley. City Attorney Harper asked if it is the Commission's intent to have the applicant bring back a revised product; if so, suggested continuance with the public hearing open. Chairman Saathoff asked whether the Commission should vote on the Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit and continue the Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 8 ZONE CHANGE 90 -8 REVISED; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -6 REVISED AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -11 REVISED CONTINUED Commercial Project, as the Design Review is what is being denied. Discussion ensued on the Commission acting on the Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit separately, denying the Minor Design Review of the commercial project and directing the applicant to come back. Commissioner Brown stated you cannot condition a Zone Change and since it all pertains to this one projects does this make it site specific - -so that if we change the zone the parcel is zoned for any uses under that zone. City Attorney Harper responded in the affirmative. Moved by Commissioner Brown to continue the entire project. Discussion ensued on the action to be taken: allowing the applicant to bring back a revised product within 30 days, or denying the project. City Attorney Harper suggested that the public hearing be re- opened and the matter continued to a date specific. Community Development Director Gunderman suggested the matter be continued for 30 days. Chairman Saathoff stated that there is a motion and second on the table, and asked for the Commission desire. Commissioner Wilsey rescinded his motion, and Commissioner Brinley rescinded her second. Moved by Commissioner Wilsey to re -open the public hearing on Zone Change 90 -8 Revised; Conditional Use Permit 90 -6 Revised; Commercial Project 90 -11 Revised at 8:40 p.m., and continue the matter to January 2, 1991, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 4. Tentative Parcel Map 26597 and Industrial Project 90 -8 - Daniel Development - Community Development Director Gunderman requested these items be continued to December 19, 1990. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Tentative Parcel Map 26597 and Industrial Project 90 -8 to December 19, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 5. Annexation No. 58; Zone Change 90 -14 and Tentative Tract Map 26065 - Community Development Director Gunderman requested these items be continued to the meeting of December 19, 1990, as there are some concerns /conditions that need to be further addressed. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Annexation No. 58; Zone Change 90 -14 and Tentative Tract Map 26065 to December 19, 1990, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 6. Single - Family Residence - 1509 Heald Avenue Revised - D & N Building Services - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request for Minor Design Review approval of proposed alterations to a two -story single - family dwelling, which was originally approved on March 21, 1990. The applicant proposes Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 9 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 1509 HEALD AVENUE REVISED CONTINUED to reverse the floor plan of the structure from left to right r and move the structure back on the lot ten -feet (10'). The site is located approximately 5o feet east of the intersection of Matich Street and Heald Avenue. He then informed the Commission of the concerns raised by the adjacent property owner, 1507 Heald Avenue, and staff's attempts to resolve said concerns. Chairman Saathoff inquired about the setbacks -- original request 20 -foot and the applicant has agreed to 30 -foot, and the loss of trees. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent- ing the applicant. Mr. Norman McManus, D & N Building Services, commented on re- location of the structure -- proposed a 20 -foot setback, which meets Code, and staff requested an additional 5 -foot. We have submitted a plan which reflects this re- location, and would accept 30 -foot. Chairman Saathoff asked if Mr. & Mrs. Wright or a representa- tive was present. Mrs. Wright stated that she was in opposition to the re- location of the structure as it would block the lakeview, create a boxed in effect, and objects to the four -foot fence in the front yard. Commissioners Gilenson and Brinley commented on lakeviews, and there being no way legislative bodies can guarantee preserva- tion. Chairman Saathoff commented on the reason for the flip -flop; location of the property and loss of lakeview in the near future, and the 30 -foot setback placing the garage at the same setback as the adjacent property. Commissioner Brown commented on lakeview preservation and infill development. Commissioner Wilsey commented on there being no guarantees on lakeview preservation; conditioning this project to have the garage at the same setback as the adjacent property, and standard Code requirements taking care of the side yard setbacks. Chairman Saathoff stated that the applicant indicated that the 30 -foot setback would place the garage at the same setback as 1507 Heald, is this correct ?. Assistant Planner DeGange responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 12 of the Conditions of Approval dated March 21, 1990, with regard to exterior air conditioning units, and requested the following verbiage added "in a manner to prevent obstruction of side or rear yard entry ". Discussion ensued on condition number 12, with regard to said request; side /rear yard setback with regard to air condition- ing units and mechanical equipment, amending condition number 12, by adding "no mechanical equipment shall be placed within the five -foot setback." Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 10 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 1509 HEALD AVENUE REVISED CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 1509 Heald Revised subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval date stamped March 21, 1990, 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, no mechanical equipment shall be placed within the five -foot setback, and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 7. Single - Family Residence - 29321 Swan Avenue - Henry Miller - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to construct a 1,300 square foot, two -story dwelling on a 5,718 square foot lot, located at the north side of Swan Avenue, east of Arnold Street. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent- ing the applicant. Mr. Henry Miller stated that he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval, and gave a brief overview of the proposal, highlighting the design of the structure and street grade. Mr. Dan Lee, builder, commented on the fencing requirement and requested that this be waived, condition number 15. Discussion ensued on fencing requirements; whether the topography would prohibit fencing, and fencing required for side and rear yard only. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the need for window treat- ments on the first and second floor; amending condition number 12, by adding "no mechanical equipment shall be placed within the five -foot setback." Commissioner Brown commented on the vertical height and the need for dimension to the right elevation, referring to the rendering posted. He then suggested the use of an opposing color at the base level of the decking which would be continued all the way around the structure, or a stucco pop - out or enhancements, and this added as condition number 23.a. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 29321 Swan Avenue, based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 12: All exterior air conditioning units, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be ground mounted, no mechanical equipment shall be placed within the five -foot setback, and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 11 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE — 29321 SWAN AVENUE CONTINUED Condition No. 23.a: A linear affect shall be created on the right elevation by utilizing a stucco pop -out, enhancements, or an opposing color at the base level of the decking which will be continued all the way around the structure, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 At this time, 9:30 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9:36 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 8. Street Abandonment 90 -4 - Arnold Mundy - Associate Planner Restivo presented a request for abandonment of alley public right -of -way approximately one - hundred - sixty -feet (1601) in length. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council approval of Street Abandonment 90 -4 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 9. Uniform Sign Program for Commercial Project 90 -3 - S.S. Burger Basket - Assistant Planner Restivo presented for approval the Uniform Sign Program for S.S. Burger Basket, located on the north side of Lakeshore Drive, 162 feet west of Riverside Drive. Assistant Planner Restivo stated the applicant has requested the addition of the name "E1 Pollo Greco" to the monument sign and the east elevation. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition #4, with regard to address of the center, and suggested replacing the word "center" with the word "site "; dimensions of the monument sign and the adjacent Del Taco sign - -said monument sign to have uniform dimensions with that of the adjacent Del Taco sign, and this added as a condition. Mr. Gary Stillwell, We Are Sign Makers, commented on the dimension of the Del Taco sign, and stated that this sign will be no higher than the Del Taco sign. Discussion ensued on the monument sign with regard to dimensions, size of letters, elevation and mounding. Commissioner Brown commented on the name of the establishment, suggested the name "E1 Pollo Greco" be deleted from the east elevation and the monument sign, and deletion of the words drive -thru and arrows from the monument sign. Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve the Sign Program for Commercial Project 90 -3 based on the Findings and subject to the 10 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Removal of all "E1 Pollo Greco" from the building elevation; removal of "E1 Pollo Greco", drive -thru and arrows from the monument sign; the monument sign to be no Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 12 SIGN PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -3 CONTINUED higher than six -feet above the sidewalk and the mounding is to be equal to Del Taco, the height and width elevation is to be consistent. Condition No. 4: The address of the site shall be shown on the Center Identification sign in numbers six - inches (611) high. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Wilsey asked for further discussion on signage with regard to the name of establishment on the sign - -has no problem with the name "E1 Pollo Greco" as this is part of the name. However, would'like to see the revisions come back. Discussion ensued on signage with regard to the name of the establishment, and the motion on the table. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for the question. Approved 4 -1 (Commissioner Wilsey voting no) 10. Commercial Project 90 -9 - Camelot Property Counselors, Inc. (Silverado Inns of America, Inc.) - Associate Planner Naaseh- Shahry presented a request for Design Review of a 120 room Days Inn Motel, located on a 3.32 acre site on the south side of Casino Drive and west of Malaga Road. Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry requested the following amend- ments: Add Condition No. 36.a: Applicant shall design a pathway/ access to connect the property to the adjacent properties. This design shall be incorporated into the Landscape Plans and shall be subject to the Community Develop- ment Director's approval. Required perimeter walls may be modified according to this design. Condition No. 45: Change the word "twelve- foot" to eight - foot. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present represent- ing the applicant. Mr. Robert Brooks, President of Silverado Inns, stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone else present wishing to comment on this matter. Receiving no response, he asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson recommended that the Landscape Plans come back to the Planning Commission, condition number 25 and condition number 36.a.; change 15 gallon to 24 -inch box, condition number 25.b.; change material /labor bonding from one year to two years, condition number 25.h. Commissioner Brinley commented on location of the air conditioning units, condition number 39. Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 25.i., asked if the construction of this building would be phased, and Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 13 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -9 CONTINUED suggested the following modification "All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to any occupancy ". Discussion at the table ensued on the amendment to condition number 25.i., with the suggested verbiage "All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the building is requested ". At this time, Chairman Saathoff recognized Mr. John Parks, representing Lake Elsinore Inn, property owner to the south of the proposal. Mr. Parks commented on providing access to the adjacent property, and elevation of the proposed project. Discussion ensued on access to the adjacent property, whether there is an existing easement, and elevation of the proposed project. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -19 and approval of Commercial Project 90 -9 based on the Findings and subject to the 54 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 25: The final landscaping /irrigation plan is to be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect and the Planning Commission. 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. 25b: Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City's Street Tree List, a maximum of thirty -feet (301) apart and at least twenty- four -inch (2411) box in size. Condition No. 25h: All landscape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of instal- lation of landscape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for two (2) years. Condition No. 25i: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the building is requested. Condition No. 36a: Applicant shall design a pathway /access to connect the property to the adjacent properties. This design shall be incorporated into the Landscape Plans and shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. Required perimeter walls may be modified according to this design. Condition No. 45: Dedicate sufficient right -of -way on Casino Drive to provide for a sixty -four (641) roadway and eight -foot (81) park- way. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 14 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 90 -9 CONTINUED Commissioner Brown asked for discussion on condition number 40, with regard to the 45 -foot maximum height or applying for a Conditional Use Permit. Associate Planner Naaseh - Shahry responded that there was an error made on the exhibit and since this is the approved exhibit, showing the height at 50 -feet, staff added this condition as a safeguard. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for the question. Approved 5 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman introduced Robert Delgadillo, Senior Planner, who started to work on Monday, December 3, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Inquired about the following: - Handout on Primary /Secondary Trails, is this a new proposal? Community Development Director Gunderman responded that Commissioner Wilsey requested this information be provided to the Commission, and these are the approved standards. - Status of banner signs on Casino. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that most of these banners are permitted. Those that are not permitted have been cited or are going through the Code Enforcement abatement process. - Status of Old Club 21 sign, now called the Prime Steak House, brought up two weeks ago. Also, they are open for business. Community Development Director Gunderman responded they do not have a business license, and will have staff go out to the site. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Brown Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Chairman Saathoff Asked Community Development Director Gunderman if a Planning Commissioner should attend the workshop on Transportation Demand Management to be held on December 11, 1990. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that two staff Minutes of Planning Commission December 5, 1990 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED members will be in attendance. They are looking for input into the development of transportation congestion management plan. There are a variety of different bodies looking at this, we are represented, and I believe it appropriate to continue this at staff level and report back to the Commission. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 ved, Bill aathoff, Chairman Respectfully s omitted, L nda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 19TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. DECEMBER 1990 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Gilenson, Brown, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Manager Strandgaard, Senior Planner Delgadillo, Assistant Planner DeGange, Contract Planner Smothers, Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell and Consultant Engineer Spagnolo. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of December 5, 1990, 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 90 -7 and Commercial Project 90 -1 - Ervin Palmer (Continued from October 17, 1990) - Community Development Director Gunderman requested that these items be continued for a period of time not to exceed 180 days or June 19, 1991. Commissioner Brown commented on the secondary access and requested that staff check into this. Community Development Director Gunderman responded that staff will check into this access. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Conditional Use Permit 90 -7 and Commercial Project 90 -1 for a period of time not to exceed 180 days or June 19, 1991, second by Commis- sioner Gilenson. Approved: 4 -0 2. Tentative Parcel Map 26597 and Industrial Project 90 -8 - Daniel Development (Continued from December 5, 1990) Community Development Director Gunderman stated that the applicant has requested these item be continued to the meeting of February 6, 1991, in order to review the conditions. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Tentative Parcel Map 26597 and Industrial Project 90 -8 to the meeting of February 6, 1991, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 3. Annexation No. 58; Zone Change 90 -14 and Tentative Tract Map 26065 - Tozai, Inc. (Continued from December 5, 1990) - Contract Planner Smothers presented a proposal to annex a 10.5 acre site, pre -zone the property R -1 (Single - Family Resi- dential) , and subdivide said property into 43 lots, located on the north side of Running Deer Road at Rolando Avenue. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking for anyone 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 Minutes of Planning Commission December 19, 1990 Page 2 ANNEXATION NO. 58; ZONE CHANGE 90 -14 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26065 no response, the public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 19, with regard to the deletion of verbiage, and suggested only the words "and /or association" be deleted. Discussion ensued on condition number 19 with regard to energy costs, street lighting and installation; whether this is a standard condition, and amending condition number 19 by deleting only the words "and /or the association ". Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 2, whether this conforms with Section 17.23.070, with regard to lot frontages. Commissioner Brown commented on Minor Design Review; condition number 28, with regard to block walls adjacent to right -of- ways; condition number 8.a., with regard to bonding. Mr. Jesse James, President of Tozai, Inc., stated they are planning three phases, one map. Mr. James then stated he was in agreement with the conditions. Discussion ensued on condition number 8.a. and 8.b. with regard to bonding, and deleting condition number 8.a. and amending condition number 8.b. by deleting the word "other" and adding "and grading" at the end. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 90 -32, approval of Annexation No. 58, Zone Change 90 -14 and Tentative Tract Map 26065 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report of December 5, 1990 and the 60 Conditions of Approval listed with the Memorandum of December 19, 1990, with the following amendments: Condition No. 8.a: Bonding shall be done by phases and not by final map(s) on grading. DELETE Condition No. 8b: Bonding shall be done by final map(s) for all improvements and grading. Condition No. 19: The developer shall submit plans to Southern California Edison for a layout of the street lighting system. The cost of street lighting, installation as well as energy charges shall be the responsibility of the developer. Said plans shall be approved by the City and shall be installed in accordance with the City Standards. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 4. Conditional Use Permit 90 -9 - St. Frances of Rome Catholic Church - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to allow a state licensed day care /preschool operation within an existing building, 3,969 square feet in size, within the St. Frances of Rome Catholic Church complex located at the north- east intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Lowell Street. Minutes of Planning Commission December 19, 1990 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -9 CONTINUED Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m., asking for anyone 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 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 2, changing the time limit to one (1) year with expiration in one (1) year; condition number 7, with regard to parking and access and the stipulation that there be no driveway gate. Discussion ensued on condition number 7, with regard to the parking lot, prohibiting access and dust control measures. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 5, recom- mended the hours of operation be changed to 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., giving a wide lateral of operation, instead of having them come back to the Community Development Director. Community Development Director Gunderman suggested that the language relative to the Director's approval remain, but put a limit that those are the maximum hours. Commissioner Gilenson stated he was in agreement with Community Development Director Gunderman's suggestion. He then commented on the vagueness of condition number 7, and the need to be more specific on fencing and dust control measures. Chairman Saathoff commented on the hours of operation with regard to licensing; condition number 6 and 7, concerned with the material and the type of material to be utilized. Considerable discussion ensued on condition number 6 and 7 with regard to material for fencing, State and County fencing requirements, access - -no driveway gate, dust control measures, and dust control measures added in the Special Events Require- ments; developing criteria for dust control; fencing six -foot and under not requiring a permit, and requiring the masonry wall, condition number 6, to be constructed to meet Municipal Code requirements. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 2, and requested that the time limit be changed to three (3) years, if the applicant is required to expend the funds for a masonry wall. Discussion ensued on condition number 2, with regard to the time limit being change to 3 years with annual review. There being no further discussion, Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Conditional Use Permit 90 -9 based on the Findings and subject to the 7 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 2: If Conditional Use Permit 90 -9 operation commences within one (1) year, it will expire 3 years from date of approval and shall be subject to annual review. Condition No. 5: Hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Maximum hours of operation shall be 6:30 Minutes of Planning Commission December 19, 1990 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90 -9 CONTINUED a.m. to 8:00 p.m., any change to the approved hours of operation will require approval from the Community Development Director. Condition No. 6: A six -foot (61) high masonry wall shall be constructed around the perimeter of the building of operation (Lakeshore Drive) to meet Municipal Code require- ments. Condition No. 7: Fencing shall be erected around the existing dirt lot in such a way to prevent parking, eliminate and prohibit driveway gates in that area. At such time as the lot is utilized, the applicant shall conduct dust control measures. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 5. Tentative Tract Map 25098 - Grunder /Nieto - Community Develop- ment Director Gunderman stated the applicant is requesting this item be continued to the meeting of January 16, 1991. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Tentative Tract Map 25098 to the meeting of January 16, 1991, second by Commis- sioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 6. Tentative Parcel Map 26144 - Mercury Metal Die and Letter Co., Inc. (Hugh Mosbacher) - Assistant Planner DeGange presented a request to subdivide 1.17 acres into two (2) parcels, 40,946 and 30,928 square feet in size, located at the southeast corner of Third Street and Collier Avenue. Chairman Saathoff opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m., asking for anyone wishing to speak in favor. Mr. Hugh Mosbacher, gave a brief history on the proposal, then commented on conditions 24 and 30, and requested clarification on the Class II Bicycle Lane, condition 8. He then stated that most of the Conditions of Approval have been met. 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 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Brown commented on the future building site and the block wall - -bond for the masonry wall if the adjacent building is not constructed within one year, and allowing an extension of one year for the bonding, condition number 24. Considerable discussion ensued on condition number 24, with regard to the block wall, ingress /egress and reciprocal drive easements; parking and landscaping and this being harmonious with the adjacent property. Commissioner Brown then suggested that condition number 6.a. be deleted, and condition number 6.b. amended by deleting the word "other" and adding "and grading "; adding the standard bonding language to condition number 27. Minutes of Planning Commission December 19, 1990 Page 5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26144 CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey commented on ingress /egress access for truck traffic and changing the 26 foot ingress to 30 foot; location of loading zones; condition number 44, with regard to the formula used to determine fees, and engineering staff to provide the formula and highlight for City Council. Chairman Saathoff commented on drive aisle widths, and clarification given that all drive aisle widths are 26 feet, as called for in condition number 32. Discussion ensued on drive aisle widths and reciprocal easements. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26144 based on the Findings and subject to the 47 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 6.a: Bonding shall be done by phases and not by final map(s) on grading. DELETE Condition No. 6.b: Bonding shall be done by final map(s) for all improvements and grading. Condition No. 24: A decorative block or masonry wall shall be constructed around the perimeter of the subdivision. Precise design, materials and location to be determined through Minor Design Review process. The masonry wall shall be bonded 120% for material and labor for one year. If plans for the adjacent property have not been submitted within the one year period an additional one year extension on said bonding may be granted by the Community Development Director. Condition No. 27: Conceptual and Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans for all project slope areas and fire breaks shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits for any phase of development. Improvements shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. All landscape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Per- formance Bond, and released at completion of landscape requirements approval /ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one year. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS Commercial Project 90 -5 - Santa Rosa - Community Development Director Gunderman stated that the applicant has requested this project be withdrawn. Withdrawal accepted. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman introduced Consultant Minutes of Planning Commission December 19, 1990 Page 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Engineer Spagnolo, from BSI, who will be attending the Planning Commission meetings, along with Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that after the first of the year he would like begin the Title 17 Work Sessions. At the meeting of January 2, 1991, we will have some dates and times for the Commission to consider. Community Development Director Gunderman wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Commissioner Wilsey Commented on water conservation and requested that staff get with our landscape consultant and review the Landscape Guidelines with emphasis on Xeriscaping. Commissioner Brown Commented on the schedule for the signal at Collier and Central. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that staff has been in communication with Cal Trans. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that this signal will be on line in approximately one year. Chairman Saathoff Wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Commissioner Brinley Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4 -0 pro ed, Bill aathoff Chairman Respectfully bmitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary