Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-1989 NAHMINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Saathoff and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley and Wilsey Also present were Community Development Director Miller, City Planner Thornhill, Senior Planner Bolland, Associate Planner Last and Assistant Planner Merrett. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve minutes of December 20, 1988, as submitted, second by Chairman Brown. Approved 2 -0 Commissioner Saathoff abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 88 -10 - City of Lake Elsinore (Continued from December 20, 1988) - Community Development Director Miller presented a request to amend the Zoning Code amending standards relating to fences, walls, and landscaping in residential districts; allow for keeping of farm animals; provide special standards for hillside development; make various technical corrections; change minimum lot sizes and permitted densities and setbacks in the R -3 District; change lighting, landscaping and landscape setback and outside storage requirements in non - residential districts, which would apply city -wide. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:04., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88 -10. 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. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the fencing requirements (Section 17.14.130[D]), pertaining to requirements for side streets where they abut corners, and stated that his concern is with the height of fencing on side street for vision, requiring a minimum of six -foot (61). Community Development Director Miller stated this is addressed under Section 17.14.130.D.1,2 and 3 of the new Staff Report. If it is a corner then you would be dealing with a front yard setback, in which it could not be in excess of thirty -six- inches in height in the first twenty -feet. Commissioner Saathoff commented on Section 17.14.130.D.2, pertaining to existing fencing in infill developments, asked if we have the right to assure that the existing fencing shall be maintained in good repair, and if verbiage could be added. Community Development Director Miller responded in the affima- tive, stating the intent was that the fence should meet existing standards and be in good repair. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1989 Page 2 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88 -10 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88 -44 and approval of Zone Code Amendment 88 -10 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and the following amendment: Section 17.14.130.D.2: "On infill developments of less than four (4) units a solid wooden fence, a minimum of six -feet (61) in height, shall be provided along side and rear lot lines to provide privacy and screening, unless adjacent to a street right -of -way where a block wall is required as specified in number 3 below. When there is an existing block wall or wood fence which meets City Codes, no new fence shall be required." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 Chairman Brown asked for and received the consensus of the table to consider BUSINESS ITEMS 2 and 3 prior to proceeding with the PUBLIC HEARINGS. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Single - Family Residence - 29450 Pierce Street - H. T. Coburn - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a request to construct a 2,820 square foot structure on the south side of Pierce Street approximately 369 feet west of Ulmer Street. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if he had any concerns. Mr. H. T. Coburn stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 26, pertaining to on -site drainage and drainage to be accepted by adjacent property owners or conveyed to a drainage easement; adding verbiage to condition number 26: "provided the applicant can obtain easements at no cost, if not come back to the Commission "; leaving condition as stated and if there is a problem then the applicant can come back to the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve Single - Family Resi- dence at 29450 Pierce Street subject to the 30 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 3. Residential Project 88 -5 - Century American - Assistant Planner Merrett requested that this item be continued indefinitely. The project site is located within the possible range of the Stephens' kangaroo rat, which has been identified as an endangered species, and will require additional time to address and inventory the biota of the site. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Residential Project 88 -5 indefinitely, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3 -0 Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1989 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Zone Change 89 -1 - Everett Manfredi /Don Summers - Associate Planner Last presented a request to change the zoning from R -3 (High Density Residential) to C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial), which would bring the current zoning designation into conformance with the General Plan, on a .19 acre site located south of Lash Street approximately 150 feet west of Riverside Drive. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7;19 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 89 -1. 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 7:10 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 No. 89 -2 and approval of Zone Change 89 -1 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3 -0 3. Tentative Tract Map 22912 - Premier Homes - Associate Planner Last presented a request to subdivide five (5) parcels into 187 residential lots for development with single - family homes. 51.93 gross acres located along the west side of Terra Cotta at the terminus of Lincoln Street, south of the future align- ment of Washington Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22912. Mr. Frank Webb, representing Premier Homes, gave a background report on the proposal, highlighting concerns previously expressed on drainage and traffic circulation issues, and stated that he has brought with him their civil engineer and hydrologist, who could answer any questions that arise. Mr. Webb commented on condition number 35, pertaining to the design of the Zieglinde Drive cul -de -sac, and condition number 31, pertaining to the removal of Shirley Drive. In all of my dealings with the residents on Zieglinde Drive, it has been their expressed intent that while Zieglinde be cul- de- saced, what they wanted to see was a design that reflected driveway access to Shirley Drive from the end of that cul -de -sac, so that all of the homeowners would be allowed access to their homes and, additionally, the homeowners on Zieglinde would be provided access to their alley easements. The condition, as written, does not seem to allow that. I would ask the Commission to amend that condition to reflect a design that is more in keeping with what the residents of Zieglinde have requested. Mr. Webb commented on the Title 17 sta lots created adjacent to larger developed seventy -five percent of -.the lot sizes of and referred to the exhibit posted which intend to address the issue of larger buffer from adjacent homes. zdard, which requires lots to be at least those existing lots, illustrates how we lots and providing a Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22912. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1989 Page 4 TRACT MAP 22912 = PREMIER HOMES The following persons spoke in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22912: Nicki Deutsch, 15019 Zieglinde Drive; Mike Priske, 15015 LeGaye Street; Pam Eriser, 15042 Zieglinde Drive; Troy Roberts, 15049 LeGaye Street Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22912. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The following persons spoke in opposition stating concern on the increased traffic circulation /safety on Terra Cotta. Paul Diamond, 156 South Terra Cotta; Sue Scholtz, 157 South Terra Cotta; Edward Andrews, 144 South Terra Cotta; Chris Baldwin, 228 South Terra Cotta; Joann Siler, 118 North Terra Cotta; Jean Seever, 180 South Terra Cotta; Michael Dahl, 264 Terra Cotta; Steve Welsch, 145 South Terra Cotta; Alice Stroder, 288 South Terra Cotta; Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. The following persons commented on the barricade that was erected and the traffic circulation complaints on Terra Cotta and the block wall to be provided on the eastern right -of -way of Terra Cotta; access to school (Machado School) for children; providing a park facility within the tract. Howard Stephens, 15041 Zieglinde; John Johnson, 15058 Zieglinde; Don Haskins, 31996 St. Pierre Lane Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Community Development Director Miller stated that has received written communication from Mr. Albert C. Koetsier, 31721 St. Pierre Lane, and read said letter for the record. Chairman Brown called Mr. Webb back to the podium and asked that he explain the traffic study. Mr. Webb commented on the traffic issue on Terra Cotta, and stated that their traffic engineer is with him and he can explain the traffic study in detail. Mr. Lee Royalty, representing Kunzman Associates, traffic engineer for the project, gave an over -view on the mitigation measures proposed to mitigate traffic circulation for the project. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Royalty what suggestions he has for slowing down the traffic on Terra Cotta. Mr. Royalty responded that the most effective way of con- trolling speed in the design stage is to adopt a roadway alignment. The only thing that could probably be done for a roadway that has a straight alignment like that would be to Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1989 Page 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 = PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED install a traffic annulation, as opposed to a speed bump, and install these every five - hundred feet or so. Discussion at the table was held on the speed limit in residential areas, and the possibility of having radar there to catch speeders. Associate Planner Last commented on condition number 31, stating that staff, both Planning and Engineering Departments, met with Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Eriser, to discuss this item. The Assessor's Parcel Books did not show an existing easement to the rear lots of Zieglinde on both sides, and apparently there is concern on getting access back there. Staff does not have a concern with cul- de- sacing Zieglinde at Shirley and leaving Shirley as a half dedicated street and providing access across to Shirley, to the homes that front Shirley, and also allow rear access to the easements. Community Development Director Miller stated that in reference to this item, condition number 31 was developed in consul- tation with the County Road Department. It was their impression, and our impression, that the area residents were favorable towards eliminating Shirley. We would recommend, based on the testimony tonight, that condition number 31 be modified by adding verbiage "developer shall provide necessary measures, or other such measures as are acceptable, to separate Terra Cotta from Shirley, subject to the approval of the Riverside County Road Department and the City ". Discussion at the table was held on the block wall to be Provided on the eastern right -of -way of Terra Cotta, condition number 12; access point and crash gate being provided at the end of LeGaye and St. Pierre. Commissioner Kelley asked if a traffic study needed to be done to have the traffic annulations installed. Community Development Director Miller stated that the traffic annulations that Mr. Royalty has described would require substantial alterations to the street. These devices are not approved by the State, and would entail the potential of certain liabilities. Generally, traffic annulations are not recommended and it is recommended that other measures be utilized. Rather than using speed annulations we would recommend taking another look at providing some sort of indirect access, if that is the Planning Commission's desire. Commissioner Kelley stated that this would be his desire or go back to the stop sign. Would like to see some type of miti- gation measure installed at Terra Cotta. Discussion at the table ensued on warrants for stop signs and the traffic study for that area prepared by the Engineering Department; mitigation measures to reduce speed on Terra Cotta, speeding is another issue and should to be addressed, but this project should not be conditioned to resolve the speeding issue as this is a City problem. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the two (2) six -foot (61) walls running approximately 1,000 feet along parcels 1,4, 8 and 9, condition number 12, asking if this was primarily for a noise /view buffer, or both. Associate Planner Last responded this is for both. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 12, per- taining to the two decorative block walls and their providing Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1989 Page 6 TRACT MAP 22912 - PREMIER HOMES additional buffering between the two different residential densities abutting each other; ground dedication by the applicant for the general trail and the City maintaining this trail. Chairman Brown commented on "E" Street and asked if Lincoln would be taken all the way up through. Community Development Director Miller stated that Lincoln Street on the General Plan is dedicated as an arterial street that would eventually connect to Grand Avenue. Discussion at the table ensued on the alignment of Lincoln Street and the recorded easements for that street; providing a secondary access without having the Grand Avenue extension. Commissioner Kelley asked if the barricade were moved to "C" Street and end Terra Cotta there (referring to Figure 2 Site plan included in packet) so that the traffic were diverted up, would this assist? Community Development Director Miller responded that this was one of the alternatives reviewed. Discussion at the table ensued on installation of the traffic signal at Lakeshore and Machado, which is to be installed within the next year by the County; blocking at "C" Street; continuing the project so that staff can look at more indirect traffic routing. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see this project continued to the next meeting, and the possibility of having Terra Cotta end at Washington and abandon Terra Cotta between "C" Street and Terra Cotta and bring secondary access out to Lincoln. Mr. Webb stated that as they are having a problem with timing on the purchasing of the property they are willing to work with the City and County in whatever way they can to mitigate the problem; submit to a condition of approval to mitigate the problem, subject to the approval of the Engineering and Community Development Director, and requested that the Commission act upon the proposal this evening. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87 -33 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 22912 based on the Findings and subject to the 44 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, and add that staff work with the applicant to mitigate traffic concerns on Terra Cotta, and the following amendments: Condition No. 31: "Developer shall provide measures to separate Shirley Drive and Terra Cotta, subject to the approval of the Riverside County Road Department and the City, or other alternative measures that may be acceptable." Commissioner Saathoff asked Commissioner Kelley if he would like to add that there be crash gates available at LaGaye Street and St. Pierre for emergency vehicle access. Community Development Director Miller stated that the crash gates should be added to condition number 12. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1989 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 = PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED Commissioner Kelley agreed with the amendment to condition number 12. Condition No. 12: "Applicant shall provide a six -foot (6') decorative block wall with pilasters along the east property line that abuts Terra Cotta (lots 77, 95, 182 thru 187 and 28), and south boundary line (Lots 67 -76). An additional six -foot (6') decorative block wall shall be provided on the eastern right -of -way of Terra Cotta and the property line for County residential parcels 1, 4, 8, and 9, as shown on the tentative map, alternative 6 revised, September 30, 1988. All other fencing shall be reviewed at time of Minor Design Review. Crash gates to be provided at LaGaye Street and St. Pierre Lane for emergency vehicle access. Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 AT THIS TIME, 8:58 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 9:15 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. Community Development Director Miller requested that PUBLIC HEARING 4 and 5 be heard concurrently and separate motion made. It was the consensus of the Commission to consider PUBLIC HEARING 4 and 5 concurrently. Senior Planner Bolland presented a description on General Plan Amendment 88 -1 and Specific Plan 88 -1, as follows: General Plan Amendment 88 -1 - Pardee Construction - a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to designate the project area as Specific Plan Area, with an overall residential density of 2.2 dwellings units per acre, located along Railroad Canyon Road, Cottonwood and Holland Roads, one -half mile south of Canyon Lake. Specific Plan 88 -1 = approve a Specific Plan units conditioned upo Elsinore. 1,968.7 acres Cottonwood and Holland Lake. Pardee Construction for development of Z annexation to the located along Railroa, Roads, one -half mile - a request to 4,275 dwelling City of Lake 3 Canyon Road, south of Canyon Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 9:32 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88 -1 and Specific Plan 88 -1. Mr. Mike McGee, Project Manager for Pardee Construction, stated that there were a number of people involved in the preparation of the proposal and introduced Mr. Ted Cullens, Vice President of Engineering, Eric Borsting, Vice President of Architecture and Planning, from Project Design Consultants our civil engineering and land planning consultants Keith Keetter, Vice President, Tom Tomlinson, engineer and project manager, Ms. Cherie Gossett, project planner and author of the Specific Plan document, from Recon our environmental Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1989 Page 8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE consultant and author of our Environmental Impact Report, John Larson, Vice President, from Natelson, Levander and Whitney our financial analysis consultant and author of our fiscal analysis contained in the annexation report, Dale Levander, and the Christensen family who are the current owners of the property. Mr. McGee gave a brief history on the Pardee Construction Company. Mr. McGee stated that they have reviewed the project impacts and mitigations presented within the Staff Report, and with the exception of a few changes, which we can address with staff, we are in general concurrence. Ms. Cherie Gossett, project manager, gave an overview on the entire project which included actual development surrounding their project; residential and commercial areas; open space areas; site features; park location; school site and fire station site; road improvements to Railroad Canyon Road, Cottonwood Hills Road, Lost Road and Cottonwood Canyon Road; design guidelines geared toward environmental mitigation, which includes habitat preservation, archaeology, water conservation, etc.; zoning element which includes permitted land uses for each zone and development standards; financial mechanisms, and the phasing program. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88 -1 and Specific Plan 88 -1. Mr. Tom Olson, 2829 South State, Hemet, spoke in favor of the proposals. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88 -1 and Specific Plan 88 -1. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The following persons spoke in opposition stating concern on traffic circulation; buffer /separation from proposed develop- ment, road improvements (Railroad Canyon Road and Lost Road); impact on open space; density of project; maintenance of buffer areas, drainage impact and impact on schools; east -west primary trail designated by the County not being addressed, and the suggestion of a road being added down the section line. Michael S. Geer, 32150 Navajo Springs Road; Barbara Crail, 30903 Murrieta Road, Sun City Don Langton, 32300 Crooked Arrow; Pam Bishop, 31415 Hawthorne Street, Menifee Valley; Dorothy Brown, 32305 Crooked Arrow; Cathleen Evans, 25190 Craig, Menifee Valley; Lynn Vollmer, P.O. Box 5286, Canyon Lake; Grant Olewiter, representing Canyon Lake P.O.A. Lou Morgan Willbanks, 28870 Leon Road, Winchester Shelia Costa, 25710 Holland Road; Steve Uraine, 32255 Navajo Springs Road David Berhens, 32202 Lost Road Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 10:42 p.m. Commissioner Kelley asked about the development agreement, is Planning Commission January 3, 1989 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN CONSTRUCTION Minutes 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE this an ongoing process being negotiated; when will this enter into the scheme of things? Community Development Director Miller stated that we antici- pate that the Development Agreement would spell out the - implementation on many of the things talked about. In terms of timing, we would envision that the Development Agreement would probably occur prior to or concurrently with the first phase tentative tract map. Commissioner Kelley stated that the implementation of the facilities and services are extremely important, this seems to be a cloudy issue, and I would like to see this firmed up, if possible. Commissioner Kelley commented on the density (15% being in the 4,000 -5,000 square foot lots), there was mention of this abutting a school, recreational area. Are those going to be established parks - -that would be the one thing in my mind that would mitigate that (tennis courts, baseball field, pool). Community Development Director Miller referred to the Land Plan posted, the areas designated SF3 that would be the small lot areas and as you see they are west of Lost Road, so that area would be adjacent to a neighborhood park and elementary school. Further on east, in the project, you see SF3 across the street, Street "E", from an elementary school and further east in planning area 25 the SF3 adjacent to an elementary school and park, to the east of Cottonwood Hills Road. In Appendix I, it is envisioned that the park facilities would be dedicated to the City with improvements already in place. Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to see the density bonus criteria closely adhered to. Chairman Brown stated that he would be looking closely at the phasing of Railroad Canyon Road, the school facilities and the turn -key park time tables. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see the school facilities either through a Mello -Roos District or something, and the way state fund matches they would have to be at least three years in arrears to qualify for adequate housing for the students. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue General Plan Amendment 88 -1 and Specific Plan 88 -1 to January 17, 1989, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Annexation Number 44 - Pardee Construction - Senior Planner Bolland presented a request to annex 1,968.7 acres located along Railroad Canyon Road, Cottonwood and Holland Roads, one -half mile south of Canyon Lake. This annexation also include an expansion to the City's Sphere of Influence and would be contingent upon the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Annexation No. 44 to the meeting of January 17, 1989, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3 -0 Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1989 Page 10 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENT Community Development Director Miller stated that the study session (field trip) scheduled for January 7, 1989, at 10:00 a.m., has been rescheduled to January 7, 1989, at 12:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kelley Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Absent Commissioner Wilsey Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3 -0 Jeff Chai Respectfu -y submitted, / ` / da Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland, Assistant Planners Merrett and Restivo. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of January 3, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley Approved 3 -0 Commissioners Brinley and Wilsey abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. Chairman Brown asked for and received the consensus from the table to consider BUSINESS ITEMS 2, 3 and 4 and to consider PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 3 prior to PUBLIC HEARINGS NUMBER 1 AND 2. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Single - Family Residence - 1051 Mill Street - Joachim Beltramo - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a single - family residence on a 6,894 square foot lot located on the north side of Mill Street, west of Pell Street. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if there were any concerns. Mr. Joachim Beltramo questioned condition number 22, pertain- ing to additional architectural treatments; condition number 23, pertaining to roofing material, and condition number 15, pertaining to fencing requirements. Discussion at the table was held on the above mentioned condi- tions. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve Single - Family Resi- dence at 1051 Mill Street, subject to the 35 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amend- ment: Condition No. 15: "A six -foot (6') high wood fence or masonry wall shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines, chain link fencing with slats may be allowed on the rear property line only, 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 3. Single - Family Residence - 32975 Kevin Place - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a single - family residence on a 6,278 square foot lot located, in Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 32975 KEVIN PLACE = KEVIN JEFFRIES CONTINUED the Maxson Specific Plan Area, on the corner of Maxson Avenue and Kevin Place. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if there were any concerns. Mr. Kevin Jeffries stated that he concurs with staff recom- mendation and would answer any questions that arise. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Resi- dence at 32975 Kevin Place, subject to the 25 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5 -0 4. Single- Family Residence - 32965 Serena Way - Kevin Jeffries - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a single - family residence on a 6,000 square foot lot, located in the Maxson Specific Plan Area. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Jeffries if there were any concerns. Mr. Jeffries responded in the negative. A brief discussion at the table was held on grading, and the use of wrought iron topping to maintain views. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Resi- dence at 32965 Serena Way, subject to the 25 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Tentative Parcel Map 24099 - Cleveland Investment Company - Chairman Brown stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the meeting of February 2, 1989. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Tentative Parcel Map 24099 to the meeting of February 2, 1989, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Chairman Brown asked for and received the consensus from the table to consider PUBLIC HEARINGS NUMBER 1 AND 2 concurrently with separate motions. Senior Planner Bolland gave a description on General Plan Amendment 88 -1 and Specific Plan 88 -1, as follows: General Plan Amendment 88 -1 - Pardee Construction (Continued from January 3. 1989) - a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to designate the project area as Specific Plan Area, with an overall residential density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre. Specific Plan 88 -1 - Pardee Construction (Continued from January 3_,_ 1989 - a request to approve a Specific Plan for development of 4,275 dwelling units conditioned upon annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore. 1,968.7 acres located along Railroad Canyon Road, Cottonwood and Holland Roads, one -half mile south of Canyon Lake. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED Senior Planner Bolland requested the following corrections to Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 88 -1: Condition No. 11: Second sentence delete the extra word "to", and after the word channels add the following: "which shall be". Condition No. 16: Second sentence after 501 st delete the period. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88 -1 and Specific Plan 88 -1. Mr. Michael McGee, Project Manager for Pardee Construction, stated that they have reviewed the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval proposed on the project, and there are three items concerning specifics on the conditions that I would like to reserve comment on for a question /answer period at the end of the public hearing. Mr. McGee stated that he had brought along with him various consultants, both external and internal to Pardee, who can address specific questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked that Mr. McGee come back to the podium later and give an explanation on the timing of parks, actual parks going on line with phasing of the project, and timing of improvements for Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposals. Mr. Tom Olson, 2829 South State, Hemet, spoke in favor of the proposals. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposals. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Michael S. Geer, 32150 Navajo Springs Road, stated that he was not opposed in general to the Cottonwood Hills project, and commented as follows: 1) Concerned with the safety and the environmental impact of the added vehicles which will be traveling on the unpaved three - quarter mile section of Lost Road, at its boundary with the Cottonwood project to the paved portion of Lemon Street. 2) At the last meeting I discussed the unsafe condition of the road and the increased traffic by students to the high school. 3) Concerned with the amount of dust which will be placed in the atmosphere due to the added traffic. Mr. Geer stated that maybe the Commission could not insist that the developer take care of that road (Lost Road), but you can insist that the County take care of that road in some manner. I feel that you, as administrators, have some responsibility to take action to force Riverside County, as a minimum, to oil the road or pave it to its junction with Lemon Street, and requested that the City not approved the Specific Plan until positive action is implemented to insure Lost Road being paved by the developer, the County or by City funds. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE Mr. Michael McCarty, Business Manager for the Lake Elsinore Elementary School District, stated that they are neither for nor against the project, however, there are some concerns that we have. This project has the potential of yielding approxi- mately 2,400 students to both the Elementary and High School Districts. We are currently four (4) schools behind in keeping up with the population growth that we currently have, and at our current pace we will continue to fall behind. The concern that we have is that schools should be there for students as developments produce those students. We would like to have an opportunity to create a situation where those schools would be ready and available to the students as their parents purchase these homes. Mr. McCarty requested that condition number 23 of the Specific Plan be amended, as follows: Condition No. 23: "Developer shall negotiate to give assistance to the schools in providing adequate school facilities to serve the project in a timely manner, which may include dedication of land, improve- ments or alternative funding projects in lieu of fees. An agreement must be made with the School District prior to final approval." Ms. Lynn Vollmer, P.O. Box 5286, Canyon Lake, stated that she feels that the density of this project is too high, and more could have been done to lower the density. Ms. Barbara Crail, 30903 Murrieta Road, Sun City, reiterated her concerns from the January 3, 1989, meeting in regards to traffic. Concerned with the dust from the prevailing winds, coming across the Ortegas. Also, would like to draw your attention to the fact that this canyon acts as a megaphone for noise, it all goes east, and asked if there was a plan to reduce the noise level. Mr. Steve Uraine, 32255 Navajo Springs Road, commented as follows: 1) Location of the commercial area for the project is spot zoning. 2) Concerned with the dust coming down Lost Road and the improvements for Lost Road. 3) Concerned with the water well, since we are down hill it is not a major concern; we might be impacted a little bit, a little bit over a ten year period could be a lot, and asked if you can guarantee that we will not have some major problems there. Would the City be willing to pay for any additional expenses that we would have to go through because of this development? 4) Asked if a buffer zone was going to be provided on the easterly side of the project. 5) The density was set at a certain figure and then projected to be raised, thinks that the density should be kept as proposed in the beginning. Cathleen Evans, 25190 Craig, Menifee Valley, commented on the General Plan, Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE as follows: 1) Contrary to the opinion stated in the EIR, most of the growth in Riverside County is due to people moving from other areas who retain their jobs in those areas. A survey released last year and published in the Press Enterprise stated that the ration of jobs available in Riverside County to the people in Riverside County will continue to decline for the next twenty years. That is, the number of commuters will increase. The employment centers of Lake Elsinore, Menifee Valley and Rancho California will not provide a significant number of jobs for the residents of Cottonwood Hills. Therefore, there will be a contribution to poor air quality because of long distance automobile travel. 2) The traffic patterns as projected may be derived from studies and formulas, but not from human nature. As Railroad Canyon Road becomes more congested due to build out of the many planned projects east and west of Murrieta Road, drivers will seek alternatives. To reach Lake Elsinore or I -15, they will travel south on Lost Road or Cottonwood Canyon Road. Cottonwood Canyon Road exists on Bundy Canyon. Bundy Canyon is not designed for high volumes of traffic. 3) Holland Road will receive more traffic than the plan indicates. A commercial center is planned at Murrieta Road and Newport Road. Also, the Sun City commercial area is only five minutes from the project. Sun City also has a library and a U.S. Post Office. Menifee School and the Chester Morrison School are east and /or south of the project. There is also a regional mall planned south of the project along I -215. All of these attractions will be accessed via Holland Road. This will create a significant environmental impact for residents east of the proposed project who currently live on or adjacent to Holland Road. There are no provisions in the plan to mitigate the noise and hazards generated by the additional traffic along Holland Road. If the project could connect to Newport Road in the Audie Murphy Project, traffic could be reduced along Holland Road and Murrieta Road. 4) There are several commercial centers located near the project, but not in the boundaries of Lake Elsinore. They include the Canyon Lake Center, Sun City, and the planned Newport / Murrieta commercial center. The traffic at the Lake Elsinore commercial center located at Railroad Canyon Road and I -15 is already congested. The projected sales tax revenue may not be realized if the congestion and the availability of alternate sources for shopping are utilized by project residents. It is also possible that commuting residents will purchase items outside of the local area. 5) The open space of this project has been discussed as one of the primary benefits to the community. However, the management plans for the space are not described in sufficient detail in the Specific Plan or the Environmental Impact Report. Open space is very delicately balanced between wildlife and plants. A significant portion of such space will be damaged or destroyed by this project. It is necessary that the detailed plans for open space management be implemented before the first shovel of dirt is turned. This is the Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED only way to insure that damage is minimized by construction crews, residents and non - residents with access to the site. It should include an educational program that emphasizes that the open space use must be balanaced and that the natural features and inhabitants must not be harmed. In other words, don't smoke in the hills, don't kill or injure the snakes and coyotes, don't shoot the birds with B -B guns, and don't ride motorized vehicles through the hills. If it's permitted, the open space won't remain beautiful or habitable. 6) The plan shows a hiking /riding trail along Cottonwood Creek. This trail appears to cross Railroad Canyon Road. Horses and crosswalks do not mix. A provision must be made for the crossing of horses, but it is not listed in the plan. This should be coordinated with the County Trails Committee, but funding must be provided to cross the six -lane highway. There are trails in the Audie Murphy Project, but there is no trail that connects within Cottonwood Hills to the Audie Murphy Project. An additional trail would serve the needs of the equestrian communities which surround the project. Ms. Donna Pomeroy, 25333 Corson Avenue, Menifee Valley, Valley, commented as follows: 1) Concern with the water pressure, drainage and sewage treatment for the area. Is the City working with Eastern Municipal Water District to provide service to the area? 2) Concerned with the impact this project will have police, fire and animal control services. Ms. Pomeroy stated that somewhere along the line she is going to end up being within the County suffering with this plan and also paying for the services for the City, and would like more clarification on this issue. Mr. Henry Hernandez, 21315 Haden Lane, Menifee Valley, stated that he was also representing some working parents that could not be present tonight, and they oppose the project because of the lack of schools within the Lake Elsinore School District; the density of the proposed project is too high; the possible traffic problems upon the roads, and the proposal increasing pollution in the Menifee Valley. 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 8:02 p.m. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was pleased that the mitigation measures have reached this point. In response to the people who spoke in opposition with regard to Lost Road. Lost Road is a County road and would recommend that you petition your neighbors to have that road paved by the County. I do not believe that it is our responsibility to require the developer to improve Lost Road. Commissioner Kelley stated that as far as the schools, the impact fees that are imposed on the developers are through the state. It has been upheld in a court of law recently that we actually cannot ask for more than that. I would like to see turn -key schools and would like to urge the developer to negotiate with the School District. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 7 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE Commissioner Kelley stated that he does not see spot zoning, referring to the statement made on the commercial area being spot zoning. Commissioner Kelley stated that the noise levels are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report, and believes that every- thing else is mitigated. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the small lot concept stating that it looks like staff and the developer did an excellent job of putting together a plan that will work. Asked staff if this will put a cap, a specific number, on the small lots or can this be amended in the future. Senior Planner Bolland responded that the number of units are specified in the tabulation, which has been amended and included as part of the packet. There are provisions for minor adjustments to those numbers as the planning units are built out. The total mix and the total number of units can not change, but there can be a transfer of units, at a very minor level. Senior Planner Bolland stated the total number of small lot product that is presently being proposed as part of Appendix "A" revision would be 642, this is down from 663 in the report that you have, if that is approved, so 642 is the top cap for the entire project. There are provisions on page 3 -21, under Residential Implementation Unit Transfer, that a transfer of units between different planning units can occur. The Community Development Director can approve the transfer of 1 through 20 units from one planning unit to another, from 21 through 50 units it would require Planning Commission action, and 51 units and above would require City Council action. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 16, pertain- ing to Railroad Canyon Road improvements being completed prior to the issuance of the 501st occupancy permit, and asked what kind of time frames are we looking at? Community Development Director Miller stated that the intent of that is to provide that Railroad Canyon Road is going to be constructed to serve this project. This condition does not allow issuance of any permits until construction on Railroad Canyon Road has commenced, and we estimate that this will take place within a nine month period. Commissioner Wilsey stated that in regards to condition number 23, pertaining to the school issue, believes that this should be discussed by the Commission as a whole. Commissioner Brinley stated that she to is concerned with the wording on condition number 23, specifically "in a timely manner" and asked staff to clarify their intent. Community Development Director Miller responded that obviously there is going to be some increment in which there is not going to be sufficient students to support a school. But in a timely manner would mean when there are sufficient students for a school we would hope to see one. Commissioner Brinley stated that she believes the concerns have been addressed in the mitigation measures, and pleased with staff's report. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he was in favor of the Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED Specific Plan as presented. Feels that Pardee has shown a willingness to work with the community and city to help overcome many of the complications and problems that will occur with a development of this magnitude. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he feels it is extremely important to have the commercial node in the center of the project. Commissioner Saathoff stated that his real concern is with the impact on the school system, and feels that condition number 23 should be discussed in more detail. Chairman Brown called Mr. McGee back to the podium and asked him to give an overall view, for everyone, on the timing of Railroad Canyon Road, number of trips generated before doing complete /partial improvements; how many units you will have built and how many people you will generate before you have the first operational turn -key park, and; condition number 23, discussion that has taken place with the school district on this condition or the amendment of this condition, financing of schools. Mr. McGee stated that back in the Fall of 1988, we instituted a task force in conjunction with the City Engineering Staff and outside engineers to examine the best alignments for Railroad Canyon Road, the best methods of construction that had the least impact upon environmental sensitive areas along the river. We are still in the design stages on the road and it requires specific approvals from the Fish and Wildlife Services for certain mitigation measures - -we expect those to be forthcoming shortly. We are working with the City to put together a Benefit Assessment District to provide for financing of the road and hope to have that completed within a short time. Our time line has called for construction of the road to begin sometime this summer, approximately a nine month time line to completion. By that time we would hope to open the road concurrently with our first model complex. Mr. McGee stated that we are being conditioned to provide turn -key parks. The specifics of the turn -key parks are to be developed in conjunction with the City's Community Service Director in the conceptual parks development plan as referred to in the condition. We anticipate that the first neighbor- hood park (it being a three step process: dedication, site infrastructure and rough grading, in conjunction with the surrounding phase) would probably come on line within the next two to three years. Our concern has been that those improve- ments to the park sites be made in conjunction with the portion of the phases in which they are located, so as to maximize the extent of the grading operation and minimize the cost. Chairman Brown asked with that same time frame, 2 to 3 years, how many houses will be occupied? Mr.. McGee stated they expect somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 -500 homes. Discussion at the table ensued on what formula the Recreation and Park District utilizes, the formula utilized by the City, and the number of parks that would be needed within a three year period. Chairman Brown asked Mr. McGee for an update on negotiations Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE between Pardee and the School District. Mr. McGee stated that this past week they had their consultants meeting with all of the School Districts involved. We are located within three school districts and this has put us in a very complex and difficult situation, trying to maintain some sort of equity amongst the districts. We have over the past few months reviewed with various staff administrations, within those school districts, the site location, boundary adjustments, improvement requirements for the schools, and discussed some preliminary financing methods available to provide the schools. Mr. McGee stated that they recognize the need for schools to be provided in a timely manner, but thinks it is important to recognize when that time is. In our case, we will be generating students sufficient to fill a school probably two to three years into the development, for the first school site. We think that it is necessary to have each of the school districts in the position of having a master plan for their facilities that enables us to know what facilities are coming on district wide and what time and how they can handle students prior to their being housed in any school on our site. We think that it is necessary to provide time to implement development of a financing plan. Mr. McCarty stated that Mr. McGee's staff has met with us on two occasions. Our last meeting was a major concern for the School District as it was indicated to us that Pardee's position is leaning more toward development fees. With the potential of these development fees going away it becomes a concern again - -how the schools are going to get built. It is going to be a local concern to get schools built and we are interested in pursuing creative financing methods, such as a Mello Roos or a 50/50 plan. Commissioner Kelley asked how the Mello Roos Assessment District could be conditioned, and whether or not Pardee has responded to that proposal. Mr. McCarty stated that he does not believe the discussions, thus far, have really addressed a Mello Roos District. It is our understanding, through the discussions that we have had so far, that Pardee is not necessarily in favor of a Mello Roos type project. Mr. McCarty stated that as far as conditioning, just leaving the avenue available that developer fees are not given, that we will look at more creative financing methods. Commissioner Kelley asked what would a special tax district cost the developer, and would this be his choice? Mr. McCarty stated that he could not say what the impact and fee would be. We have found that this becomes one of the best choices because it does guarantee that the money is there and available to build a school so that they meet the students as they come into the area, and it works the best for the school district. Commissioner Saathoff asked Mr. McCarty about his suggested condition in regards to land improvements. Mr. McCarty responded that a comma was missing in between land and improvements. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 10 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff asked Community Development Director Miller if it was staff's intention for a school, condition number 23. Community Development Director Miller responded that could conceivably be encompassed by the condition as we worded it. Commissioner Saathoff asked Mr. McCarty if discussion was held with Pardee about an in lieu fee type of thing. Mr. McCarty stated that they have not really gotten into that, basically we have just began discussion. Mr. McGee stated that Mr. McCarty are committed to Hills site. The allows for all o we are unable to timely manner. that, basically, he agrees with everything has said. I would like to reiterate that we having a school and schools at the Cottonwood way the condition is presently worded it E the things that Mr. McCarty has suggested if come to some other negotiated position in a Discussion at the table ensued on impact on schools, and the suggested amendment to condition number 23 by Mr. McCarty. Commissioner Saathoff suggested condition number 23 be modified to make a very firm statement, such as: The developer shall negotiate to assist the schools in providing adequate school facilities to serve the project in a timely manner, which may include dedication of land and improvements in lieu of fees. In the event of failure to reach agreements prior to approval of Phase II tentative tract maps the City shall review the potential requirements of alternative measures by the developer to assist in the provision of facilities in a timely manner. Chairman Brown asked how many daily trips are estimated on Lost Road, referring to the traffic study. Mr. McGee stated that their traffic study indicates, a nominal amount which is 500 or less, which is essentially the current level of traffic that is using Lost Road. Chairman Brown commented on the trip and requiring the applicant to do a submission of Phase II. If that study study was incorrect, the traffic gene different, you may be required at improve that street. generation on Lost Road traffic study at the shows that your traffic rated was considerably that point in time to Mr. McGee stated he would propose, at that point in time, that they enter into some sort of assessment district to provide for improvements of the road that would include the owners of the road and the owners of the property along the road. Chairman Brown commented on alternatives discussed for Lost Road such as closing the road off completely, does not believe this is realistic. Thinks that it would be fair to impose a condition on Phase II submission, that we re -study the traffic pattern and see if it coincides with the original traffic study, the environmental impact report and address that issue at Phase II. Chairman Brown suggested that a condition be added to Specific Plan 88 -1, which will read as follows: The traffic study on Lost Road be re- assessed at the submission of Phase II to see Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 11 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 - PARDEE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED if the data coincides with the original data submitted in the traffic study, if not appropriate mitigation will have to be addressed. Mr. McGee requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 88 -1: Condition No. 8 - A Stephens' kangaroo rat impact mitigation program shall be incorporated as a condition of each tentative tract map approval and shall be complied with prior to final map approval or grading permit, whichever occurs first. Implementation to compensate for habitat loss shall occur prior to grading permits for occupied habitat on -site. Condition No. 15 - Developer shall provide for the paving of Holland Road for two travel lanes from the project boundary east to existing pavement, in the event that said improvement has not previously been provided by Audie Murphy Ranch. This improvement shall meet the approval of the County Road Department to partially mitigate project related traffic impacts as they occur. Condition No. 19 - A Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Program shall be reviewed in consultation with Riverside County Fire Department subject to approval by the Community Development Director prior to recordation of the first final map. Senior Planner Bolland suggested that condition number 19, reflect approval of the final tentative map. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 88 -1 and Certification of Environmental Impact Report 88 -1, based upon the findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt Resolution No. 89 -1, entitled as follows, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 RESOLUTION NO. 89 -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -1 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN IMPOSING A DESIGNATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. At that time, 8:58 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 9:08 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Brown, at 9:08 p.m., continued the public hearing on Specific Plan 88 -1, which had previously been considered con- currently with General Plan Amendment 88 -1, and asked if anyone wished to provide new information. Ms. Cathelene Evans, resumed commenting on Specific Plan 88 -1 as follows: 7) There should be a buffer zone of larger size lots - 2 acre minimum - along the interface between the project and adjacent rural or rural /residential areas. These areas Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 12 SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 _ PARDEE CONSTRUCTION include planning units 9, 10, 14, 30, 31, and 33 where sensitive interface between land uses exists. One -half lots in sections 33, 32, and 31 are too small. An alternative to large size lots could be extensive open space buffer zones along the interface. 8) Planning units 6, 9, 31, 32, and 33 include significant rock outcrops that are to be preserved, where possible. All significant outcrops should be preserved; this can be guaranteed in the design phase of each planning area. 9) Additional mitigation measures listed in the plan include mitigation of possible traffic noise from Cottonwood Hills Road to acceptable levels. There is no description of how noise levels will be mitigated for residents adjacent to the project. Estimated noise levels will create a significant impact upon the environment if no procedures for mitigation are put in place. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter, providing new information. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Chairman Brown asked for comments from the table. There being no comments from the table, Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Specific Plan 88 -1 and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report, based on the findings and subject to the 26 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: "A Stephens' kangaroo rat impact mitigation program shall be incorporated as a condition of each tentative tract map approval and shall be complied with prior to final map approval or grading permit, whichever occurs first. Implementation to compensate for habitat loss shall occur prior to grading permits for occupied habitat on- site." Condition No. 11: "Tentative Tract Maps shall indicate and provide for the base flood (100 -year flood) within the existing channel and related facilities of the San Jacinto River and Cottonwood Creek. All other flood areas shall be provided with facilities to convey waters to these channels which shall be required to be implemented concurrent with construction of related phase subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer." Condition No. 15: "Developer shall provide for the paving of Holland Road for two travel lanes from the project boundary east to existing pavement, in the event that said improvement has not previously been provided by Audie Murphy Ranch. This improvement shall meet the approval of the County Road Department to partially mitigate project related traffic impacts as they occur." Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 13 SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -1 = PARDEE CONSTRUCTION Condition No. 16: "A program shall be implemented for the construction of Railroad Canyon Road from I -15 to the north project boundary. The program shall be subject to approval of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The program shall provide for the funding and start of construction of Phase I of Railroad Canyon Road prior to issuance of the first building permit; and further that the road construction shall be completed in any case no later than prior to 501 st occupancy permit issuance within the project. Phase I of Railroad Canyon Road shall consist of a minimum of 110 feet of right -of -way, with full width grading and 4 lanes of pavement, of which at least 2 lanes must be reopened to traffic prior to occupying the 501st unit. The City will make its best efforts to create a benefit district or similar program for Railroad Canyon Road which provides for an equitable sharing of costs between all properties within the City accessing the road. This limitation shall not apply to planning areas 28 and 33 which take principal access from Holland Road." Condition No. 19: "A Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Program shall be reviewed in consultation with Riverside County Fire Department subject to approval by the Community Development Director prior to approval of the first final map." Condition No. 23: "Developer shall negotiate to assist the schools in providing adequate school facilities to serve the project in a timely manner, which may include dedication of land and improvements in lieu of fees. In the event of failure to reach agreements prior to approval of Phase II tentative tract maps the City shall review the potential requirements of alternative measures by the developer to assist in the provision of facilities in a timely manner." Condition No. 27: "The project traffic study on Lost Road shall be re- assessed at the submission of Phase II, to see if the data coincides with the original data submitted in the traffic study, if not appropriate mitigation will have to be addressed." Second by Commissioner Kelley with discussion, requesting that staff comment on condition number 15 prior to it being amended. Senior Planner Bolland stated that the reference to the Audie Murphy Ranch is acceptable and appropriate in regards to the pavement of Holland Road. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 14 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Annexation No. 44 - Pardee Construction - Senior Planner Bolland presented a request to annex 1,968.7 acres into the City of Lake Elsinore. The site is located along Railroad Canyon Road, Cottonwood Canyon and Holland Roads, one -half mile south of Canyon Lake. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of a resolution to expand the City Sphere of Influence to include the sixty acres of the Cottonwood Hills project identified in the Annexation Report and to consent to initiation of proceedings regarding Annexation No. 44, and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report 88 -1, based upon the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 2, 3 AND 4 HEARD PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. INFORMATIONAL 1. Joint City Council /Planning Commission Study Session - February 2, 1989 - 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Community Develop- ment Director Miller informed the Commission that there is a conflict and the mayor has requested that this be rescheduled to February 1, 1989 - 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Chairman Brown stated that February 1, 1989, is fine but would appreciate Council's consideration /cooperation in amending the time to 5:30 p.m. Would also appreciate consideration be given on moving the time to 5:30 p.m., for future study sessions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey: Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission January 17, 1989 Page 15 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5 -0 Approved, %I i' Jeff BroVh -/ Chairman Respectfully,submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary L MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Wilsey Also present were Community Development Director Miller, City Planner Thornhill, Associate Planner Magee and Assistant Planners Merrett and Restivo. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve minutes of January 17, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. Chairman Brown asked for and received the consensus from the table to consider BUSINESS ITEM 6 prior to BUSINESS ITEMS 1 through 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 24099 - Cleveland Investment Company - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to redivide four (4) existing lots into two (2) lots each equaling 0.8 acres. 1.60 acres on the southeast corner of Central Avenue (Highway 74) and Dexter Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24099. Mr. Neil Cleveland, Cleveland Investment Company, stated that he concurs with staff, and would answer any questions that arise. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24099. 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 Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel 24099 based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4 -0 2. Conditional Use Permit 89 -1 - Calvary Chapel of Lake Elsinore - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to allow a church and Sunday school facility to temporarily locate in a General Commercial Zoning District. 4,260 square feet within the Lakefront Center at 31701 and 31619 Riverside Drive. Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1989 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -1 = CALVARY CHAPEL OF LAKE ELSINORE Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -1. Pastor John Duncan, 33073 Churchill Street - P.O. Box 1169, stated that he feels there is adequate parking and that the conditions would be good for a church on a temporary basis. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -1. Mr. Steve Brown, 35721 Beach Road, Capistrano Beach, represent- ing Judith Nelson the property owner, stated that they are in agreement with staff findings. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -1. 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 Kelley commented on condition number 5, pertaining to the lighting, asked if that includes the west end of the building and the parking lot. Associate Planner Magee responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Kelley commented on the hours of operation for the aerobics business, and stated that he does not believe there will be much of a conflict with the Bible Study. Discussion at the table ensued on the aerobics business and its hours of operation. Commissioner Brinley asked Pastor Duncan when they picked this location if they were aware that there is already a church here, believes the Lutheran Church meets here. Since we already have a church established where there is sufficient parking, you would not have problems being in an active center, as the Lakefront Center is active. Wondering why you chose this particular center, over where we already have a church. Pastor Duncan responded that primarily the front buildings are under a different zone, all of the second buildings back are M -1 and that is not available to us and there was nothing available in the front. Commissioner Brinley asked if this could not have been under a Conditional Use Permit. Associate Planner Magee stated that everything within the Lake- front Center is C -M, and under a Conditional Use Permit the church could have been approved by the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would like to point out, to the Commission, that there are a number of restrictions on churches in the C -M Zone, Council approved that subject to six restrictions. Calvary Chapel is interested in locating for a period of approximately three years while they are in the process of constructing a building. The restrictions under the C -M Zone would limit it to two years. Commissioner Brinley stated that her theory was if we have already set a precedence by having one then we have another one Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1989 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE ;!;PERMIT 89 -1 _ CALVARY CHAPEL OF LAKE ELSINORE to go with it there is no problem. What I was saying, this area was already set aside as far as having this type of use. Community Development Director Miller stated that another re- striction that Council passed was that there not be another church permitted within 1,000 feet of an existing church within the C -M Zone, which would pretty much preclude everything in this center. Commissioner Brinley commented on the Bible Study on Wednesday night, knows the figure which was included in the packet, asked for the number of persons in attendance and growth projection. Pastor Duncan stated that they have projected some growth into that figure. At the present time, we have been getting 15 to 20 people on Wednesday night. I would guess that 40 would be a realistic number. Commissioner Brinley asked Pastor Duncan if he feels that their church would be completed within the three year period. Pastor Duncan responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he has no problem with the request, particularly in as much as it is temporary - -three year period of time. I do not believe the operational hours are going to be objectional to other tenants, nor will it create a parking problem. Chairman Brown commented on Unit K of the Parking Lot Survey and asked Mr. Brown if these units are permanent storage or convertible? Mr. Steve Brown responded that as far as he knows it is just storage and will remain that way; does not believe they are equipped for conversion. Chairman Brown stated that the Parking Survey submitted did not dedicate any parking spaces for these units, wonders if this should not be dedicated at 1,000 square feet for vacant. Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative, and stated that even if you allocated four spaces for that 1,000 square foot, during the operational hours that the church is proposing there would still be more than adequate parking. Chairman Brown stated that this information is for the record, as this will be a permanent document, and requested that the Parking Lot Survey be corrected to reflect the appropriate rate of 500 square feet for both units, unless it is proven to be non - rentable. Chairman Brown referred to page 3 of the Parking Lot Survey, Businesses Closed Tuesday night, and stated that Unit J should be included in that column. Chairman Brown asked staff why annual review was deleted from this proposal. Community Development Director Miller stated that, as indicated in the Staff Report, they have satisfied the conditions and as Mr. Brown has indicated this has been a very difficult space to lease. We do not anticipate that there will be any conflicts with the use. The conditions are easily fulfilled and rather than spend the applicant's and Commission's time on annual Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1989 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -1 _ CALVARY CHAPEL OF LAKE ELSINORE reviews we felt it was appropriate to do it this way. If there is any violation of the conditions then we can bring it back. Discussion at the table ensued on annual review of proposal; whether or not fixed seating is provided and room available for additional seating. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see annual review of the proposal which would include compliance of parking requirements and occupancy of the building. Commissioner Saathoff stated that if this is the case, then believes that those conditions should be part of the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Brinley suggested that annual review be added as condition number 7, so that if something were to change within the next year - -say the congregation grows or new businesses come into the center, the parking requirements would still be met. Discussion at the table ensued on parking requirements and uses within the center. Community Development Director Miller stated that if you want to add a condition, suggested verbiage: there shall be an annual re- evaluation of the parking survey and church uses to demonstrate sufficient parking for church operations. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt Negative Declaration No. 89 -5 and approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -1 based on the findings and subject to the 6 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 7: "There shall be an annual re- evaluation of the parking survey and church uses to demonstrate sufficient parking for church operations. The Parking Lot Survey shall be corrected to reflect a total of four (4) parking spaces for Unit K, and under Businesses Closed Tuesday Night include Unit J. Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3 -1 Commissioner Brinley voting no BUSINESS ITEMS 6. Residential Project 89 -1 - George Wimpey, Inc. (Morrison Homes) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a request for Minor Design Review of a model complex, consisting of three (3) model homes and a parking lot, and to approve the proposed single - family dwellings for the remaining fifty -five (55) lots of Tract 20139 -1. The project is 10.4 net acres located westerly of Grand Avenue, south of Macy Street, east of Laguna Avenue and north of Ortega Highway. Assistant Planner Restivo suggested that condition number 39 be deleted as this requirement is covered in condition number 37. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that staff received a tele- phone call today from Mr. Carl Fuhrmann, 15630 Shadow Mountain Lane, who was unable to attend the meeting tonight, but wanted his opposition to the proposal noted for the record. Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1989 Page 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -1 - GEORGE WIMPEY. INC. (MORRISON HOMES CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if there was any one present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Gary Kaiser, Project Manager for Morrison Homes, stated that he has not had a chance to review the Conditions of Approval, but we have tried to do whatever we could to meet the conditions of the City, as well as the water district. Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on Residential Project 89 -1. Mr. Gordon Gregory, 15620 Shadow Mountain Lane, stated concern over the loss of his view lot. Ms. Barbara Corhn, 15651 Laguna Avenue, stated concern over the loss of her view lot. Mr. Tim Senne, 15641 Laguna Avenue, commented on the proposal not having an access road to Ortega Highway and concerned with Laguna Avenue becoming a freeway. Mr. Terry Summers, 15689 Laguna Avenue, asked if a stop light will be provided at Macy and Grand. Ms. Linsey Block, 15700 Shadow Mountain Lane, stated concern over the loss of her view lot. Ms. Frye, 15610 Shadow Mountain Lane, stated that she is concerned with the loss of view and flooding. There is an existing flooding problem at Grand and Macy, and I wonder what they are going to do about the water as well as our view. Mr. Kaiser asked to address some of the concerns, stating they do not have access onto Ortega Highway, as I understand it, Cal Trans would not allow access. Mr. Kaiser stated that as far as the elevation of the lots, I do not know exactly what the numbers are in between the curb and the pad, but they are not five feet (51) above where that curb is going. We are going by the guidelines that we received from the City and we are not trying to block anyone's view. Mr. Kaiser then questioned condition number 31, pertaining to increased front yard setback. We thought that we had staggered the front of the houses pretty well, within the limitations that we had on the lots that were existing. Mr. Kaiser questioned condition number 37, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any unit a zone change application must be submitted and approved. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 31 and 37; continuing the proposal for two weeks to allow the applicant time to review conditions; condition number 34, submittal of a plot plan, addresses condition number 31, 32 and 33; modify condition number 34 adding verbiage: this condition refers to condition number 31, 32 and 33, which will allow all of the other conditions acceptable and allow the applicant to proceed. Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to reiterate that this project was originally approved back in 1984, and we have before us this evening the design of the houses. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would like to address some of the concerns expressed by the residents. Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1989 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -1 - GEORGE WIMPEY. INC. (MORRISON HOMES nn�tmr�nrc+n The current condition on the site does have dirt, a considerable height above the street; however, the final grading plan indicates, as Mr. Kaiser says, that the rear of the lot will be approximately one -foot above the curb line. The curb would be approximately the same location as the curb on the other side of Laguna. There is dirt stockpiled on that level, at this time, for a number of reasons, allot of which relate to the construction of the storm drain. Community Development Commission would like believes that this is in any case. But for concurrent with the be improved all of the help to alleviate some Director Miller stated that if the to include a condition to clarify, the intent of the Engineering Department the benefit of the residents, that First phase construction Macy Street will way to Grand Avenue. This would also of the drainage and traffic conditions. Mr. Kaiser stated that he had a meeting with the Engineering Department and it was indicated that this would be a condition. We will improve the curb and gutter and Macy Street all the way down to Grand Avenue. Commissioner Kelley stated that a case in point is the design, likes the design of the homes thinks that they are attractive, likes the idea of Xeriscaping and would like to see this continue in the conditions of approval for the model homes. Commissioner Brinley asked if a stop light would be installed at Macy and Grand. Community Development Director Miller responded in the nega- tive, stating that currently Macy Street and Grand Avenue is not slated for a traffic signal. At the time of development of the lower property it will be re- evaluated. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 17, asking if the dual glazed windows were for sound attenuation. Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirma- tive. Chairman Brown suggested that condition number 37 be deleted rather than condition number 39. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 33, pertaining to the lot coverage for Lot 27, this is just about the largest lot in the tract. Asked that staff double check the lot number to verify that this is the correct lot number. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 89 -1 based on the Findings and the 39 Conditions of Approval list in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 33: "The single - family district allows 35 percent (35 %) lot coverage. Lots 27, 47, 49, 52, 55, 13 and 59 shall be reviewed by staff for compliance." Condition No. 37: "Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any unit, a change of zone application must be submitted for approval by the City Council for the project site. DELETE Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1989 Page 7 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -1 _ GEORGE WIMPEY. INC. (MORRISON HOMES CONTINUED Condition No. 39: "Applicant shall improve Macy Street to Grand Avenue. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 At this time, 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:15 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. It was the consensus of the table to discuss BUSINESS ITEMS 1 through 5, but to make separate motions. 1. Single - Family Residence - 217 Davis Street - John Lynne - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a split -level 1,899 square foot residence on a 9,000 gross square foot lot on the west side of Davis Street between Heald and Sumner Avenues. 2. Single - Family Residence - 502 Lookout Street - Rancho Canyon Lake Design - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a request to construct a 1,838 square foot, single- story, residence on a 7,150 square foot lot on the northeast side of Lookout and Flint Streets. 3. Single - Family Residence - 504 Lookout Street - Rancho Canyon Lake Design - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a request to construct a 1,838 square foot, single- story, residence on a 7,150 square foot lot on the east side of Lookout and Flint Streets. 4. Single - Family Residence - 407 Lowell Street - Sand Springs Development Corporation - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a request to construct a 1,479 square foot, single- story, residence on a 9,000 square foot lot on the west side of Lowell Street between Pottery and Flint Streets. 5. Single - Family Residence - 408 Lowell Street - Sand Springs Development Corporation - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a request to construct a 1,651 square foot residence on a 9,000 square foot lot on the east side of Lowell Street between Pottery and Flint Streets. Discussion at the table was held on upgrading the roofing material; wood trim around the windows and doors and this being included in condition number 4; sewer hook -up, if the project is within 200 -feet of the sewer trunk line it shall connect to the sewer system, condition number 9; percolation test being done prior to grading and whether or not this is appropriate; condition number 12, pertaining to mechanical equipment and this equipment being placed on the ground to the rear or in the side yard, provided it does not encroach into the setback; whether or not fireplaces are allowed to encroach into side yard setbacks. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 217 Davis Street based on the Findings and subject to the 31 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: "Applicant shall use roofing material with a Class "A" fire rating; random tab extra dimensional roof or equivalent to be used, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1989 Page 8 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 217 DAVIS STREET = JOHN LYNNE CONTINUED Condition No. 9: "Prior to issuance of building permits applicant shall submit a soils report which includes a sewage disposal plan approved by Riverside County Health Department. If project is within 200 -feet of the sewer trunk line it shall connect to the sewer system." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3 -1 Commissioner Kelley voting no Motion by Commissioner Saathoff dence at 502 Lookout based on the 35 Conditions of Approval listed Commissioner Kelley. Approved: 4 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff dence at 504 Lookout based on the 36 Conditions of Approval listed Commissioner Kelley. Approved: 4 -0 to approve Single - Family Resi- Findings and subject to the in the Staff Report, second by to approve Single - Family Resi- Findings and subject to the in the Staff Report, second by Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Resi- dence at 407 Lowell Street based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: "Applicant shall use roofing material with a Class "A" fire rating; random tab extra dimensional roof or equivalent to be used, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 9: "Prior to issuance of building permits applicant shall submit a soils report which includes a sewage disposal plan approved by Riverside County Health Department. If project is within 200 -feet of the sewer trunk line it shall connect to the sewer system." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 4 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Resi- dence at 408 Lowell Street based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: "Applicant shall use roofing material with a Class "A" fire rating; random tab extra dimensional roof or equivalent to be used, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 9: "Prior to issuance of building permits applicant shall submit a soils report which includes a sewage disposal plan approved by Riverside County Health Department. If project is within 200 - feet of the sewer trunk line it shall connect to the sewer system." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission February 7, 1989 Page 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kelley: Thanked staff and the other Commissioners, in case this is my last meeting. I have enjoyed setting on the Planning Commission and it has been a pleasure working with you. Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsev Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 Approved, Jeff B wn, Chairman Respectfully ubmitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Director Miller. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, City Planner Thornhill, Associate Planners Last and Magee and Assistant Planner Merrett. Chairman Brown introduced and welcomed Commissioner Gilenson. MINUTE ACTION Chairman Brown questioned the following items: Pages 7 and 8, amended condition number 8, in regards to the random tab roofing material. If the applicant wishes to choose another type of roofing material does this allow him or does this dictate that he will have to use the extra dimensional random tab? Community Development Director Miller responded that the condition as stated would require the random tab. I under- stood this was the Planning Commission's intent. We could amend the conditions to include verbiage "or equivalent ". Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of February 7, 1989, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Commissioner Saathoff asked for discussion, asking if Commissioner Brinley would like to see condition number 8, listed on Pages 7 and 8 amended. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to amend condition 8, listed on Pages 7 and 8, as follows: Condition No. 8: "Applicant shall use roofing material with a Class "A" fire rating; random tab extra dimensional roof or equivalent to be used, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Due to a legal technicality the Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 1989, were not approved and will be brought back before the Commission on March 7, 1989, for action. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1989 Page 2 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87 -7 REVISED - Devenplus Corporation - Associate Planner Last stated that City Council approved a 60 unit hotel complex and a 9,500 square foot commercial building for this site on September 9, 1987. The applicant is request- ing approval to relocate hotel building #2 from the southeast property line to the northwest side of the property, due to a utility easement change. 1.7 acres, on the north side of Casino Drive, approximately 180 feet west of San Jacinto Road. Associate Planner Last requested that condition number 5 be added, which will read: Condition No. 5: "All landscape improvements to be bonded 120 %, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for materials and labor for one year." Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Danny Lee, representing Devenplus Corporation, stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Brinley asked if the trellises along the rear elevation and the front would be the same size as previously proposed? Are we talking about the elevation in the back using more landscaping, are we using a trellis system? Associate Planner Last responded there would be no trellises in the rear. Trees, shrubs and a 2x6 wood band will be used to help break -up the elevation of the center. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 3, asking who has the authority to approve the landscaping /irrigation plans, would it be the Community Development Director? Associate Planner Last responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Saathoff recommended that condition number 3 be amended to include this verbiage. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council approval of Commerical Project 87 -7 REVISED, based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the addition of condition number 5, which will read as follows: Condition No. 5: "All landscape improvements to be bonded 120 %, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for materials and labor for one year." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Chairman Brown asked Commissioner Wilsey if he wished to include in his motion the amendment to condition number 3, adding verbiage: "approval by the Community Development Director ". p Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1989 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87 -7 REVISED = DEVENPLUS CORPORATION Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to include the amendment to condition number 3, as follows: Condition No. 3: "Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a revised landscape and irrigation plan for the entire site that includes additional trees and large shrubs at the rear of hotel building #2, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. The plans are to include approved plans for the commercial building and hotel #1." Commissioner Brinley maker of the second concurred with the amendment. Approved 5 -0 2. Residential Project 88 -5 - Century American, Inc. (Continued from January 3, 1989) - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a request for approval of a 144 unit apartment complex, 8.38 acres located on the north side of Casino Drive, east of Franklin Street, south of I -15. Assistant Planner Merrett requested that the following be added as a condition: "All landscape improvements to be bonded 120 %, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for materials and labor for one year." Assistant Planner Merrett stated that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting Design Review approval for a two (2) year period, rather than the standard one (1) year, condition number 1. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Long, representing Century American, stated that they have reviewed the conditions placed on the project and have no objections, other than the requested amendment to condition number 1. This request is based upon the need to coordinate with property owners for major infrastructure in the area (water, sewer, road and drainage), which we feel will take time to plan, design and build. We feel that it will take over a year to develop these facilities, and we request your consider- ation on the two (2) year approval. Mr. Long stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he did not have a problem with the applicant's request for a two (2) year approval. They would have up to two (2) years to pull permits, is this correct? Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirma- tive. Commissioner Wilsey asked what about their grading and exca- vation permits? Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1989 Page 4 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88 -5 _ CENTURY AMERICAN, INC. CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller responded that this would be considered one of the permits that would be subject to that condition. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the landscaping and street widening; they will be participating in a program all the way to Main Street down Franklin, is this correct? Community Development Director Miller stated that there are a number of improvements recommended by the traffic study that cover a number of projects in this area. The City is in the process of developing a fee program for improvements along all thoroughfares, that would be collected upon development. They would do the improvements directly adjacent to their project and pay a fee for the other improvements to major streets within the City. The City would then utilize those funds to improve those areas as they were needed. Commissioner Wilsey, referring to the rendering posted, stated that he was concerned with the landscaping of the upper corner around the apartments themselves, and if there is enough of a landscape barrier to help defray some of the noise levels. Commissioner Brinley asked what the proposed width of the bridge, Casino Drive bridge, and road along Franklin would be? Assistant Planner Merrett responded that the widening of that bridge would be done at the ultimate build -out of all six of these projects. It would not be done necessarily with this project. Commissioner Brinley commented on the carports with the rock roofing material, concerned with the maintenance. Asked what was the reasoning for rock, and if there is another material that could be used? Mr. Long stated that he believes this was a design consider- ation of City standards, this was recommended to us and we agreed to it. Other alternatives are more of a metal corrugated type of roof. We would be happy to work with the City on whichever they prefer. Commissioner Brinley stated that she would prefer to see some other type of roofing material provided for the carports. Commissioner Brinley commented on the buffering of the apart- ments near the freeway, what are you going to do besides the landscaping and the walls around the patios? What are you going to use on the exterior walls? Mr. Long stated that the exterior walls are wood frame and stucco. There are methods of construction techniques for the wall sections -- insulation that will mitigate the interior noise levels to the State standards of 45db. Commissioner Brinley asked about security lighting for the complex and parking area. Mr. Long responded that they are planning low pressure sodium lighting, which will be shielded, and believes this is addressed in one of the conditions. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he is concerned with the noise level around the apartments of the upper right hand corner, referring to the rendering posted, and asked Mr. Long to go over this. Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1989 Page 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88 -5 _ CENTURY AMERICAN. INC. Mr. Long stated that right now there is a very high plateau on the property. We plan to cut the plateau and create a 2:1 slope back down to our property, which is shown on the exhibit with the wall section. As you approach the south end of the property, down the freeway, we have a natural grade situation and we are close to the freeway elevation. We do not feel that we have a whole lot of alternatives there for sound mitigation other than possibly a wall along the property line, and some berming that would shield the first floor units, but a high wall of 15 -20 feet might be aesthetically unpleasing there. We plan to mitigate the sound there by the balcony walls and through the exterior wall construction, to make sure our interior noise levels are satisfactory. Landscaping will be provided along there; although our sound consultant and City staff concurred that landscaping until it is mature, and even then, it is not a very good sound buffer. Community Development Director Miller referred to conditions 18 and 19, which address the sound barrier. Discussion at the table ensued on the location and height of the wall proposed for the sound barrier; appearance of the 13 foot high wall from the freeway, and combination of berming and a wall for aesthetics and sound mitigation. Community Development Director Miller suggested the addition of a condition requiring the applicant to contribute to the Landscape Program that the City is developing. Commissioner Saathoff asked to see an elevation of what is going to be along the freeway. Mr. Long responded that the typical building elevation from the site will have both sides and ends facing the freeway and will probably be buffered by the berm, referring to the rendering posted. Chairman Brown asked if the metal roofing material that looks like "S" tile is real cost prohibitive, or a weight problem where you would not want to put "S" tile on the carport structures, and asked for the roof pitch of said structures. Mr. Long responded that the carport roofs are basically flat with a slight pitch for drainage, and they would look into the "S" tile material. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to add a condition dealing with the landscaping, which will read: "Final landscaping plans for the entire project will be subject to the review and approval of the City's Landscape Architect and Community Development Director. All landscape improvements to be bonded 120 %, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for materials and labor for one year." Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88 -41 and approval of Residential Project 88 -5 based on the Findings and subject to the 66 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with Minutes of Planning February 21, 1989 Page 6 Commission RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88 -5 - CENTURY AMERICAN, INC. the following amendments: Condition No. 1: "Design Review Board approval will lapse and be void unless Building or Grading Permits are issued within two (2) years. The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with submitted development plans date stamped January 26, 1989, except as modified herein." Condition No. 27.a: "Final landscaping plans for the entire project will be subject to the review and approval of the City's Landscape Architect and Community Development Director. All landscape improvements to be bonded 120 %, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /acceptance, and bond 100% for materials and labor for one year." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Commissioner Saathoff asked for further discussion, requesting that condition number 25 be amended to add verbiage allowing the Community Development Director to approve something other than rock roofing material. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would also like to add a condition, condition number 27.b., that the applicant contribute to the landscaping of the freeway right -of -way. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to include the amend- ment to condition number 25 and the addition of condition number 27.b., which will read as follows: Condition No. 25: "Carport construction shall be of wood construction including support structures. Roofing material of carports shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and match the color of the tile roofs of the dwelling units." Condition No. 27.b: "Developer shall contribute a fee to the City to offset costs of landscaping of the freeway right -of -way adjacent to the project site. This is part of a program the City is developing for the entire freeway frontage in the City." Chairman Brown asked if a dollar limit is to be set on condition number 27.b. Commissioner Saathoff stated that the condition on the previous project established a limit of $5,000.00 and the same formula should be utilized. Chairman Brown asked if this formula was based on a footage? Community Development Director Miller responded that this formula was based upon some rough estimates of the footage that was involved. Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1989 Page 7 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88 -5 _ CENTURY AMERICAN, INC. CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would stand with his recommendation to amend the motion with a limit not to exceed $5,000.00. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to include the amend- ment to condition number 27.b., as follows: Condition No. 27.b: "Prior to issuance of Occupancy Permit the developer shall pay $5,000.00 to the City to offset costs of landscaping of the freeway right -of -way adjacent to the project site. This is part of a program the City is developing for the entire freeway frontage in the City." Commissioner Wilsey maker of the second concurred with the amendments. Approved 5 -0 3. Industrial Project 89 -2 - Peter C. Yong - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to construct a commercial manu- facturing complex consisting of six (6) buildings. 3.52 acres on two (2) lots located on the south side of Collier Avenue approximately 233 feet west of Chaney Street. Associate Planner Magee requested that condition number 51 be added, which will read: Condition No. 51: "All landscape improvements to be bonded 120 %, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for materials and labor for one year." Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Konrad Rieger, of Building Concepts, architect for the applicant, questioned conditions 24 and 26, pertaining to loading zones, requesting that the Commission accept the plans as shown, and a loading zone shown along the backs of the building without increasing the area in between the buildings. The reason being, I have found that a loading zone 44 foot wide already excessive and it induces people to use the area for purposes other than loading. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would like to point out that the condition requires a redesign. It could either provide additional space, as Mr. Rieger has pointed out, or consolidate those three units in the "L" into one unit so that unit would have a loading space. As illustrated in the exhibit there are three units there two of which do not have a loading space adjacent, so anyone loading at those doors would have to block the driveway. Discussion at the table ensued on loading space requirements; turning radius for trash disposal trucks and emergency vehicles, and continuing the proposal for resolution of the loading space issue. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Industrial Project 89 -2. Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1989 Page 8 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -2 = PETER C. YONG Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Brinley stated that she was in agreement with staff findings. Asked staff, when talking with the applicant, if he understood exactly what you were saying on these conditions. Associate Planner Magee stated that he contacted Mr. Yong and our specific conversation related to the Conditions of Approval and if he understood all of the conditions; if he had any questions of those requirements, and I read condition number 51 verbatim over the phone, so it would not be a surprise to him. At that point, Mr. Yong indicated that he had no problem and he also indicated that he would see me this evening. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he was concerned with the ingress /egress to the project itself. It appears that these are land locked. I assume that they have easements going into these adjacent properties that are fixed and permanent. Associate Planner Magee stated there are presently easements that go from Minthorn up to these two lots, which would be lots 28 and 29 within the Warm Springs Subdivision and then another easement from Third Street that comes across lot 30, lot 30 easement is indicated in Exhibit "F" and the exhibit shows an overlay of the previously approved Industrial Project 87 -4, which is yet to be constructed. Exhibit "C" illustrates how both easements relate to the lots. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he intends to go along with the conditions provided by staff. Asked Mr. Rieger if he preferred a continuance to resolve the issues in question. Mr. Rieger responded that if Mr. Yong goes along with the conditions then this is fine, just made the request as the architect. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -6 and approval of Industrial Project 89 -2 based on the Findings and subject to the 50 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and the addition of condition number 51, which will read as follows: Condition No. 51: "All landscape improvements to be bonded 120 %, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for materials and labor for one year." Second by Commis Approved 5 -0 4. Sign Program - ment - Associate of a Master Sign C 88 -12, C 88 -14 side of Casino Canyon Road. sioner Saathoff. Shoppers Square Phase II - Brookstone Develop - Planner Magee presented a request for approval Program for Shoppers Square Phase II: C 88 -9, and C 88 -16. 7.98 acres located on the east Drive approximately 800 feet south of Railroad Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1989 Page 9 SIGN PROGRAM = SHOPPERS SQUARE PHASE II = BROOKSTONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that he was under the impression that the approval tonight by the Planning Commission would eliminate having to come back again for the Pizza Hut monument sign. I see that condition number 3, requires all future freestanding monument signs shall be subject to the Planning Commission's review again. Associate Planner Magee responded that the City's Sign Code requires that monument signs be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and, unfortunately, no monument sign was included for Pizza Hut within this criteria. Community Development Director Miller referred to the Sign Criteria, Page 2, Section II.B.3., which states: "A monument sign may be permitted on freestanding pads pending project approval by City of Lake Elsinore." Discussion at the table ensued on textured material and color being used to match the center's architectural design, and transitional landscaping to be provided for freestanding monument signs. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the Sign Program for Shoppers Square Phase II, including Commercial Projects 88 -9, 88 -12, 88 -14, 88 -16, and future Buildings on Pads "B" and "C" as illustrated in Exhibit "B ", based on the Findings and subject to the 5 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 INFORMATIONAL Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that City Council has invited the Planning Commission to the Joint Study Session, to be held at the Chamber of Commerce office, Saturday, February 25, 1989 at 9:00 a.m., to discuss Title 17. Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission of the League of California Cities Conference to be held April 5 -7, 1989, please let the secretary know, as soon as possible, if you wish to attend. DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner wilsev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission February 21, 1989 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Will not be able to attend the Joint Study Session on Saturday, February 25, 1989, due to prior commitment. Chairman Brown: Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Respectful1 submitted, 0�� Linda Grindsta Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Assistant Planner Merrett. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Assistant Planners Merrett and Restivo. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of February 7, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3 -0 Commissioners Wilsey and Gilenson abstaining Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of February 21, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single - Family Residence - 307 Mohr Street - Tony Villicana - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a single - family residence (Geodesic Dome) with detached garage. 2,211 square foot single - family residence on the west side of Mohr Street between Sumner and Pottery. Commissioner Wilsey asked what are we doing for drainage down at the bottom of that hill? This indicates that drainage will come off the side street and run down that hill and it pools at the bottom of that hill. Is there anything in the future planned for draining off that pooling area at the bottom of Mohr Street? Assistant Planner Merrett responded that he would have to consult with the Engineering Department, and to his knowledge they have no immediate plans. Assistant Planner Merrett stated that the alley at the side of the property is right at the crest of the hill between Pottery and Sumner. So the water could, if it drains to the alley and up to Mohr Street, go either way. Commissioner Wilsey stated that this would be a concern and does not know if staff has addressed that. It is something that should be looked at and possibly the other homes that are coming on line in that area should get together and maybe do something about it. It is a concern as we get more homes going into that area. Commissioner Wilsey asked for the width of the alleyway with the additional easement requested. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1989 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 307 MOHR STREET _ TONY VILLICANA Assistant Planner Merrett responded that it is a 20 foot alleyway. This property owner was required to dedicate 2.5 feet. Commissioner Brinley stated that she would like to know where you find in the Findings that a dome shape is allowable. Because I don't see where that is acceptable in the Findings of what they are saying, could you address that. Assistant Planner Merrett stated that he did not see in the Code where it was precluded. Commissioner Brinley stated that in the Community Design, Policy 6.1 it states: "It is the policy of the City to create the highest order visual continuity and functional compatibility among the various physical and historic components of the Lake Elsinore community." I don't think that continuity is being followed with a dome shaped among the standard houses that are being built along that street. I also want to know about the curb and gutter; has that been included in the conditions? Assistant Planner Merrett stated that he believed that this was included under the Engineering Department conditions under off -site improvements. Commissioner Brinley asked if these will be put into effect immediately? I noticed that down the street there is no curb and gutter where the other homes were constructed. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that the usual practice of the Engineering Department has been to require the curb and gutter installation at the time of construction. Commissioner Brinley stated that she has a problem with Finding number 2, pertaining to consistency and continuity. City Planner Thornhill stated that this is a unique situation for us because to the best of our knowledge there is no dome type house existing in this area. It is a unique situation and there are not Code prohibitions against it. There are findings of compatibility that the Commission should be making in approving a design like this. But in terms of Code requirements there are no prohibitions in Title 17 against this type of construction; it is just a judgment call on the Commission's part. Commissioner Brinley asked City Planner Thornhill to point out to her the continuity of this dome shape versus the standard on this street. Because the houses that are being constructed across the street are standard houses, as far as what we consider to be standard, not in the dome shape. The house that again is across the street on Mohr and under construction, I believe 317 Mohr, is a standard, not dome shaped. This is where I found the problem with the Finding of number 2 because it is not in the continuity or visual effect of creating continuity on the street. City Planner Thornhill responded that single - family resi- dences are difficult to call because they are a permitted use and you do not have the same parameters of review that you would have with say a discretionary project. The situation with this dome house is that because there are no Code requirements - -I know what you are saying and there are judgments that are made whether it be Spanish style, typical Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1989 Page 3 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 307 MOHR STREET - TONY VILLICANA stucco style and those are very difficult things to call. I think our feeling was that we were not going to try and make that call at staff level. We were simply going to comment on the architectural design of the structure and let Commission decide as to whether or not this type of architectural design is acceptable in that location. Commissioner Brinley asked on this project, the dome shaped, are they proposing to have roof mounted air conditioning? Because I thought that we had discussed that everything would be ground level. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that in the event that they were proposing any external equipment this was a standard condition to deal with that. Commissioner Brinley asked about the landscape maintenance bond stating that she did not find this listed in the conditions. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that we normally do not do this on a single - family residence, just on commercial, industrial and large residential projects. Commissioner Brinley stated that her other concerns were the alley and the drainage coming there and landing towards the bottom of Mohr Street and Sumner Avenue. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he agrees with what has been said so far. I agree that the continuity doesn't blend in with the area, the architecture of the area. There is nothing in our City Ordinance prohibiting this type of architecture, but in the general goals we do have to keep the continuity intact with the area. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 9, stating that he would like to see the project connect to the sewer. There is sewer line available in the area, running both down Pottery and Sumner and the homes in the area are on sewer, they are not on septic. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he agrees that condition number 12 should be amended and show that no roof mounts will be permitted. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he really has no problem with the project, just a couple of comments. As far as continuity of design certainly it stands out that there is not continuity of design. I personally feel, that in a residential structure there should be a certain amount of leeway to allow the person to have the opportunity to express something other than the standard dwelling. As long as the property that is being built is not detrimental to the specific area, that it is not going to create a reduction of the standards or the economics of that particular area. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he does not feel that economically it is going to be of a detriment to that particular area and feels that those people should be allowed to build even with this more exotic design. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the drainage concern and stated that there is a Master Plan and it has been in the works for several years. I might request that staff provide the Planning Commission with any update on the Master Storm Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1989 Page 4 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 307 MOH R STREET = TONY VILLICANA CONTINUED Drainage Plan, in that particular area so that we could be cognizant of that. Because I know that this is a study that has been going on for some time. I would certainly hope that that area has been looked into. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he feels that we have in the past set a standard as far as the roof material is concerned, and would prefer something a little more other than just a simple composition roof. I would prefer that they provide something with more design. City Planner Thornhill responded that we will amend this to pick up the condition imposed, random tab extra dimensional roofing material. Chairman Brown stated that this was a real judgment call, if it meets 6.1. I would strongly suggest that before this goes to Council. Commissioner Saathoff stated that this will not go to Council. Chairman Brown asked if this would go to Council at all. City Planner Thornhill responded only on appeal. Chairman Brown stated that this is one of the instances that possibly we did not foresee, dome homes within an infill area. Requested that staff go over to Adelfa Street as there is an existing dome home about three - quarters of a mile up the street, get some pictures of that and see possibly in that unit what you would want to see and what you would not want to see. Believes there is still literature available on the one at Box Springs right next to the freeway. Chairman Brown stated that he wants to see something about the Class "A" roofing and some other material used either random tab, shingle or something in that nature. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it with a dome home seventy percent (70 %) of the visual area of the home is roof material. So something very different is going to have to be done with that other than just the material board they have selected. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 12, stating that in the future there will be no more roof mounted equipment. Thinks the only time that we are going to run into difficulty with that, will defer to staff, is with swamp coolers. Chairman Brown asked if anyone knew whether or not there is a sewer line in Sumner? Assistant Planner Merrett responded this is why the standard condition was included, if the sewer trunk line is within 200 -feet the applicant shall connect to sewer. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if he would like to address any of the issues discussed. Mr. Villicana commented on connecting to the sewer system, giving location of the closest sewer trunk line, and stated he has no problem with the suggested roofing material. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the roofing material and stated that with this type of construction if we would not want a shingle type rather than composition roof. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1989 Page 5 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE = 307 MOH R STREET - TONY VILLICANA Chairman Brown asked if shingle was available in a Class "A" type roofing material. Assistant Planner Merrett asked Chairman Brown if he was referring to wood shake. Thinks that the best you can get is Class "B ", even with treated wood. Discussion at the table ensued on the roofing material and the color of the roofing material. Chairman Brown stated that the color of the roofing material needs to be extremely compatible with the siding of the house. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he concurred with Chairman Brown. Commissioner Brinley asked if this project was denied this evening would they have the chance - -they could appeal to Council, would that be the only way? City Planner Thornhill responded in the affirmative, and stated that they would have to pay a fee to appeal the decision to Council. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 307 Mohr 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; random tab extra dimensional or equivalent to be used, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 12: "All exterior air conditioning units, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be ground mounted and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -2 Commissioners Brinley and Gilenson voting no Chairman Brown asked for and received the consensus of the table to consider BUSINESS ITEMS 2, 3 and 4 concurrently. Assistant Planner Restivo gave a description on Residential Project 89 -2, Residential Project 89 -3 and Residential Project 89 -4, as follows: Residential Project 89 -2 - Albert Leon /Rancho Canyon Lake Design - A request to construct a two -story duplex on a 7,150 square foot lot, located approximately 200 feet north of Pottery Street on the eastern side of Ellis Street (410 Ellis Street). Residential Project 89 -3 - Albert Leon /Rancho Canyon Lake Design - A request to construct a two -story duplex on a 7,150 square foot lot, located approximately 250 feet south of Flint Street on Ellis (424 Ellis Street). Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1989 Page 6 BUSINESS ITEMS 2, 3 AND 4 = ALBERT LEON /RANCHO CANYON LAKE DESIGN CONTINUED Residential Project 89 -4 - Albert Leon /Rancho Canyon Lake Design - A request to construct a two -story duplex on a 7,150 square foot lot, located at the southeast corner of Flint and Ellis Street (415 Ellis Street). Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. David Madden, Rancho Canyon Lake Design, representing the applicant stated that they were in agreement with staff recommendation. Discussion at the table was held on amending condition number 12, to read no roof mounted equipment; condition number 13, pertaining to size and location of street trees; whether or not landscaping improvements, material and labor should be bonded for one year and this verbiage added as a condition; condition number 8, pertaining to roofing material, and the condition on Residential Projects 89 -2 and 89 -3 to be amended to read the same as Residential Project 89 -4; if there is considerable slope on any of these properties and the maintenance of said slope. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Residential Project 89 -2, Residential Project 89 -3 and Residential Project 89 -4, based on the Findings and subject to the 35 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Reports with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: "Applicant shall use roofing material with a Class "A" fire rating; random tab extra dimensional or equivalent composition shingle roofing material shall be used." Condition No. 12: "All exterior air conditioning units, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be ground mounted and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall also be screened." Condition No. 36: "Landscaping material and labor to be bonded, or other instrument acceptable by the City, for one year." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5 -0 5. Residential Project 89 -6 - William Brugman - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a three -story duplex, situated on a 8,000 square foot lot, located south of Riverside Drive, easterly of Palm Street, and north of Illinois. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Ed Carver, representing the applicant, gave a brief description of the proposal and stated that they are in agreement with staff recommendation. Discussion at the table was held on amending condition number Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1989 Page 7 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -6 - WILLIAM BRUGMAN 12, to read no roof mounted equipment; condition number 9 pertaining to the distance of the sewer trunk line and the location of the gravity flow line; whether or not landscap- ing improvements, material and labor should be bonded for one year and this verbiage added as a condition; condition number 19, pertaining to dual - glazed windows; condition number 13, pertaining to size and location of street trees; if investigation was done on any other street for ingress/ egress other than Riverside Drive; surface drainage on River- side Drive and evidence from Cal Trans that this develop- ment will not alter the surface swale in any manner and that the drainage will continue on its present course. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Residential Project 89 -6, based on the Findings and subject to the 35 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 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. 36: "Prior to issuance of Building Permit applicant shall provide evidence from Cal Trans that they are cognizant of the grading, and that they will be able to maintain an adequate flow or satis- factory flow along Riverside Drive. Condition No. 37: "Landscaping material and labor to be bonded, or other instrument acceptable by the City, for one year." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey: Commented on hearing what remember to volume. the audio and the difficulty that viewers have in is being said and requested that the Commissioners speak up and maybe King Video Cable can turn up the Commissioner Brinley: Would like a response from the Engineering Department, either a personal response or response by the next meeting, in regards to the curb and sidewalk improvements at 315 Mohr Street. Were these improvements waived via a lien agreement? Also, a home is under construction at 317 Mohr will the improvements coincide? In other words, when 317 Mohr gets ready to put in curb and sidewalk will this automatically draw in 315 Mohr, installation of said improvements and street lighting. Minutes of Planning Commission March 7, 1989 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS On Strickland, three houses were constructed, what oversight was it that there was no street light installed? City Planner Thornhill responded that this was being looked into. Commissioner Gilenson: Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Would appreciate it if everyone would go by an look at the service station /carwash at Dexter and Highway 74, and see if that is really what we had envisioned. I would like to review the Conditions of Approval for this project, and requested that the conditions be provided to Commissioners who wish to review them. It was the consensus of the table that the Conditions of Approval for the service station /carwash be provided to the Commission. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Approved,-,,\ Jeff Bra Chairman Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 1989 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 was Assistant Planner Merrett and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Brinley referred to Single- Family Residence at 307 Mohr, Page 1 of the minutes, and requested that her reasons of incompatibility with the General Plan be shown along with her no vote. Chairman Brown stated that the reasons for the Commissioners no vote should be stated in the discussion segment on an item and not after the designation of the vote. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of March 7, 1989, with the inclusion of Commissioners reasons of incompati- bility included in the discussion segment, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance 89 -1 - Joe Deleo - Deleo Clay Tile - Assistant Planner Merrett stated that this application along with the application for Industrial Project 89 -1 were withdrawn by the applicant through written communication dated March 20, 1989, effective said date. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 89 -1 - Joe Deleo - Deleo Clay Tile - Application withdrawn by applicant. 2. Single - Family Residence - 31769 Via Verde - R.E. Seward - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a request for Minor Design Review of a mobile home to be located on a 7,000 square foot lot on the west side of Via Verde in the Mobile Home Community District. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the plot plan indicating a driveway 12 x 45, but no plans for a garage. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that at this time the applicant did not submit any plans for a garage. The standard conditions in the Code does not require a garage in the Mobile Home District. The condition requires that one of the tandem parking spaces be covered and that the roofing match the main structure. Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1989 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 31769 VIA VERDE = R.E. SEWARD Commissioner Gilenson requested clarification on condition number 16; this would not preclude the use of aluminum awnings, would it? Assistant Planner Merrett stated that he did not believe so. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 31769 Via Verde based on the Findings and subject to the 30 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 DISCUSSION ITEM Chairman Brown stated that before moving on to the INFORMATIONAL ITEM there has been some discussion about bringing the application at 307 Mohr Street back to the Planning Commission or sending it directly to Council because of some possible conflicts with the General Plan. For those that are not aware, this is a dome home in a single - family residential area of unlike construction. Several of us feel that it is in direct conflict with the General Plan. One of the concerns at the time was a policy statement coming from Council. There was also discussion at the time to deny it without prejudice and send it on to Council with a recommendation that all fees for an appeal be waived. There has been further discussion with the City Attorney to get an opinion on whether this can be brought back; it can. We can bring it back and cover the matter and deny it; reaffirm the matter; or deny it without prejudice and suggest a waiver of fees for the appeal to Council. In order to do any one of these actions, it would take the consensus of the Commission. Chairman Brown commented that if there is any discussion at the table he would like to hear it to support what they would like to do or not do on the matter. Commissioner Wilsey stated that if we brought this back, we would not be discussing it this evening. Would we give the applicant enough time to regroup and address the matter? Commissioner Brinley stated that the applicant has to be notified and given time. Chairman Brown stated that he was trying to save the applicant time and wondered if it has to come back before us or could it go directly to Council? Commissioner Gilenson stated that the way he understands it from the attorney we can bring it back here or a member of Council can request that it go directly to them. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he was not sure about the legal ramifications, and has no comments on that. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he fully approves the request by the applicant. in fact, would like to see more imaginative architecture in our community. I am very much in favor as long as it does not detour the economic value of any of the surround- ing properties. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he has no reason to request that it come back. Feels that the design is not a criteria to deny it, and probably would not change his vote. Commissioner Gilenson stated that there is no problem with upgrading an area or showing an imaginative design. The problem Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1989 Page 3 DISCUSSION ITEM CONTINUED is with the possible conflict with the General Plan Design Review Standards. I would like direction from City Council on how they are interpreting the General Plan, direction for us on subsequent plans that will come before us. Commissioner Brinley stated that interpretation is what we are talking about. What you read in that section of the General Plan, which I read earlier -- interpretation of compatibility with the neighborhood(s). Also, would like direction from Council on what they would like to see. Because geodesic in that area is not compatible. Chairman Brown stated that his concern is the same argument that we use for any structure that is not entirely compatible with the one next door. Would like an opinion from Council to resolve the issue. Chairman Brown stated that he wishes to cooperate fully with the applicant and not impede him, or at least impede to the least amount possible, during this process and expedite this to Council. Assistant Planner Merrett stated that there is a possibility that the applicant has submitted these plans for plan check. Chairman Brown stated that what he was asking for, with consensus of the table, it appears that we want to have Council's opinion on this, and not really bring it back to the Commission for further discussion. We realize that if Council requests this it can go back quicker than if the Commission were to request it. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that staff be directed to inform the Councilmembers, at the earliest possible moment, that there is concern by some of the Planning Commissioners and that they want an interpretation of the paragraphs that Commissioner Brinley brought up. Some of the Commissioners feel that the geodesic dome home is not compatible in design and would any of the Councilmembers wish to request that it be brought before City Council. Commissioner Saathoff stated that his reasoning for this is as Assistant Planner Merrett has pointed out, these people were approved and not required to go to Council unless requested by a Councilperson and these people may have well started the process. I would prefer to see it handled in this manner, rather than asking them to come back before the Commission and perhaps getting a denial and then their having to go through an appeal process, even if we have to waive fees. Chairman Brown stated that is why he was trying to get a consensus. The most expeditious way would be for Council to request it rather than the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff that Planning Commission direct staff to advise City Councilmembers of the concern in reference to the Mohr Street property, as a conflict with the General Plan, pertaining to compatibility and to ask for their determination as to whether any of them wish this matter to be brought before the City Council, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Response to Planning Commission Inquiries: A memorandum from the Engineering Department addressing the Master Plan of Drainage and off -site improvements at 315 Mohr Street was Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1989 Page 4 RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES CONTINUED presented to the Commission. Also, included in a memorandum to the Commission was information on the standard for sewer connection, excerpt from Uniform Plumbing Code provided. A lengthy discussion at the table ensued on sewer requirements and possible recommendation to the City Council to amend the ordinance to be more restrictive, requiring sewer connection within a greater proximity. Chairman Brown asked Public Services Director Kirchner if the City is still collecting in -lieu fees for curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. Public Services Director Kircher responded that the only time the City will take an in -lieu payment instead of having the improvements installed is when staff decides that it is not practical for some reason to install those improvements. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey At such time, in the near future, that we have a Joint Planning Commission /City Council Study Session scheduled, I would like to recommend that we go through and review the information that we have gathered with regard to Minor Design Review projects coming before Planning Commission. Commissioner Gilenson: Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff: Commented on Commissioner Wilsey's comment on Minor Design Review. For a number of years Design Review was brought before the Planning Commission and it worked very well, and then several years ago we decided it was a burden on the applicant, it required more time for the applicant to get approval, and required addition cost in fees and materials provided. I have no objection in talking with City Council, but the concern that I would have about taking away from Planning Commission is that we then eliminate the possibility of a geodesic design home. Under the circumstances where our intent is to upgrade the structures, in particular single - family residences as well as commercial developments, I feel that we really have not taken a very long time on this and would like to see it continue. Chairman Brown: Requested a Study Session to review in depth, with Planning staff individuals, the Mobil oil project at Dexter and Central, and go over the Conditions of Approval and the implementation of said Minutes of Planning Commission March 21, 1989 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS conditions. Discussion at the table ensued on a date, time and location for said Study Session. It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule Wednesday, March 29, 1989, 7:00 -9:00 p.m., for said Study Session. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Approved., Jeff Brow Chairman Respectfully ubmitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 1989 THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS BROUGHT TO ORDER BY PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY GRINDSTAFF AT 7:40 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY ADJOURNED THE MEETING DUE TO LACK OF A QUORUM AT 7:40 P.M. Approved;, Jeff Br,6wn/ V Chairmarn ' Respectfull ,submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 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 City Planner Thornhill, Associate Planners Last and Magee, Assistant Planners Merrett and Restivo, and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of March 21, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of April 4, 1989, second by Chairman Brown. Approved 2 -0 (Commissioners Gilenson and Wilsey abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 24401 - Brookstone Development - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to subdivide an existing 4.23 acre shopping center into four (4) separate parcels ranging in size from .48 to 1.6 acres. The property is located in the C -2 Zoning District on the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and - Lincoln Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24401. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, questioned condition number 4, pertaining to the contribution, design and construction of half a median on Riverside Drive. Mr. Brown stated that they are doing this parcel map to add flexibility for financing; we are doing no construction of improvements. Mr. Brown requested that the Planning Commission waive condi- tion number 4, and will also request that City Council waive this condition. If the Planning Commission can not make this recommendation then I would like the Planning Commission to recommend that we enter into an agreement to pay that fee if and when it is ever built. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24401. 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 7:08 p.m. Chairman Brown asked if staff would like to comment on condi- tion number 4, prior to discussion at the table. Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 2 PARCEL MAP 24401 - BROOKSTONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Mr. Kirchner stated that condition number 4 was imposed on this parcel map for the reason that there have been other parcel maps along Riverside Drive that have had similar conditions. It is a part of our General Plan Circulation Element that Riverside Drive is a street that should have a median. We have been conditioning, lately, any development along that line to either put in the improvement or pay a fee. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he understands that it wasn't conditioned when the initial construction was being done, is this correct? Mr. Kirchner responded that this was his understanding, yes. Commissioner Gilenson stated that we are now making this a condition on new construction any where on Riverside Drive, correct. Mr. Kirchner responded that we are making it a condition on new development along Riverside Drive. Commissioner Gilenson stated that if this is not going to have any new construction, this is for new finance only, why are we making this a condition on this project? Mr. Kirchner responded that under the Map Act we have the right to condition any parcel map for whatever purpose. We have received direction from City Council that we are going to start installing medians and that is why it was conditioned at this time. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 4 and 5, stating that the request is for parcelization for financing only, and can not see requiring the applicant to pay such a fee. Commissioner Saathoff asked Mr. Kirchner if the other two developments along Riverside Drive were conditioned prior to development. Mr. Kirchner responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the last sentence of condi- tion number 2, "Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy or new Business License on any parcel, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a site plan with all of the uses listed in all spaces." I would assume then that if the criteria for parking is met the business license would be automatic, is this correct? Assistant Planner Merrett responded in the affirmative. Chairman Brown stated that he would appreciate if the table would consider, if it has been a direction from Council to do this on parcel maps, and it is consistent with what we have done in the past, that we let the condition pass through to Council. If they feel that it is unjust and unwarranted they waive it at that point. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he feels that if the Planning Commission feels that this fee should be waived then a statement should be made in the motion. Chairman Brown stated that a majority of the Commission feels that it should be waived now. If the table does not mind it going as an issue, we can put in that the table did consider it prudent to waive the fee. Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 3 PARCEL MAP 24401 - BROOKSTONE DEVELOPMENT Commissioner Saathoff stated City Council would be aware of the fact that the fee was originally considered as one of the conditions and we requested that it be waived. They would still have an opportunity to override that decision, if so desired. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff adoption of Negative Declaration Tentative Parcel Map 24401 based on the 8 conditions of approval listed the deletion of condition number 4, Approved 4 -0 to recommend to City Council 89 -11 and approval of the Findings and subject to in the Staff Report, with by Commissioner Wilsey. 2. Zone Change 89 -4 - SunCal Development & Investment - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to rezone approximately 60 acres from County Rural Residential (R -R) to City R -1 (Single - Family Residential). The site is located north of Grand Avenue, west of Skylark Drive and east of Ontario Way. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 89 -4. Mr. Edward Sloman of K.W.C. Engineering representing Suncal Development, stated that they concur with staff recommendation, and would answer any questions. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 89 -4. 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. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -7 and approval of Zone Change 89 -4 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Chairman Brown stated that staff has recommended that PUBLIC HEARINGS 3,4 AND 5 be continued to the meeting of May 2, 1989, and called for a motion. 3. Tentative Tract Map 24138 - SunCal Development & Investment - A request to divide a 20 acre parcel into 73 lots located north of Grand Avenue, west of Skylark Drive and east of Ontario Way. 4. Tentative Tract Map 24139 - SunCal Development & Investment - A request to divide a 20 acre parcel into a 73 lot subdivision located north of Grand Avenue, west of Skylark Drive and east of Ontario Way. 5. Tentative Tract Map 24215 - SunCal Development & Investment - A request to divide a 16 parcel, 20 acre site into 74 lots located north of Grand Avenue, west of Skylark Drive and east of Ontario Way. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Tentative Tract Map 24138, Tentative Tract Map 24139 and Tentative Tract Map 24215 to the meeting of May 2, 1989, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 4 6. Tentative Tract Map 24235 - George Wimpy, Inc. (Morrison Homes) Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to subdivide an eight (8) acre site into twenty -eight (28) lots. A previous subdivision (TTM 21021) and Negative Declaration was approved but has since expired. The site is located on the southeast corner of Macy Street and Lake Ridge Road. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 24235. Mr. Jim Bolton of Butterfield Surveys representing Morrison Homes, stated that they have a few minor concerns on a few of the conditions, and would like to bring them forward to the Commission for comments and questions. Chairman Brown informed Mr. Bolton that he would be called back to the podium at the end of the public hearing to discuss the conditions in question. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 24235. 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 7:21 p.m. Mr. Bolton was called back to the podium. Mr. Bolton Approval: Condition "The CC & Developmei any deeds requested the following No. 5, next to last R's shall be subject to it Director or his desii or the recording of the changes to the Conditions of sentence, change to read: approval of the Community ynee prior to recordation of Final Map." Condition No. 6, first sentence, change to read: "House Plotting, architectural drawings, floor plan, landscaping and fencing plans shall require Minor Design Review approval prior to issuance of building permits." Condition No. 9, change to read: "Applicant shall submit and receive approval of landscape and irrigation plans for the model homes, back -up wall areas, street trees and slope planting in accordance with the City Landscape Guidelines (April 1988 unless revised), prior to issuance of building g Condition No. 17, change to read: "Dedicate underground water rights to the City, dedication to be made on Final Map." Condition No. 31, change to read: "Dedicate sufficient footage along Grandview Avenue to provide for a 33 foot half right -of- way." Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 5, pertaining to screening of ground base disk and asked staff what was being referred to here. Associate Planner Last responded satellite dish. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that the words "satellite dish" be added to clarify condition number 5. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff to comment on the amendments requested by Mr. Bolton. Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 5 TRACT MAP 24235 - GEORGE WIMPY, INC. (MORRISON HOMES Associate Planner Last responded to the proposed amendments as follows: Condition No. 5, no problem with change in verbiage. Condition No. to grading per the setbacks review with requirements. plan. 6, staff would still prefer to have plans prior mits, so that we can allow adequate review of and some of other standards that we have to our grading ordinance and zoning code We need to compare that with the actual grading Condition No. 9, the final landscaping plan can be submitted and approved prior to building permit issuance. We prefer to have the plan submitted at the time of Minor Design Review which would correspond with the grading permit. At least a conceptual landscape plan submitted along with the Design Review. Condition No. 17, does not believe there is a problem, but will defer to Mr. Kirchner. Mr. Kirchner responded that they will take that either on the Final Map or prior to approval of Final Map. Condition No. 31, the 33 foot half width can be added in parentheses. Commissioner Saathoff asked Associate Planner Last to repeat his comments on condition number 9. Associate Planner Last stated that for Design Review we require a conceptual landscape plan for residential tracts over four units. We would want to get the conceptual plan, at least, in conjunction with the Design Review process. Commissioner Saathoff suggested condition number 9 be reworded as follows: "Applicant shall submit a conceptual landscape and irrigation plan." Associate Planner Last responded that the conceptual plan is listed as condition number 6, house plotting, architectural drawings, floor plans, landscaping and fencing plan. It can be changed here, but condition number 9 is more or less for the final landscaping plan which is kept by the City, and relates to the Landscaping and Lighting District which the City would maintain. Chairman Brown asked how much off -site grading is expected to be done, and if there would be any slopes, referring to condition number 33. Mr. Bolton, referred to the site plan and stated grading would occur in the lower right, this is extent of it, and that would be a slope. Chairman Brown stated that he would like the erosion control plans to indicate any off -site slopes and that they be re- vegetated, protected and if need be irrigated. Chairman Brown stated that he has a concern on the practicality on condition number 6, designing, landscaping, plotting and everything prior to the issuance of grading permits. Invariably, I do not know too many grading plans that come out exactly, so you end up doing an as built grading plan and that Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24235 _ GEORGE WIMPY. INC. (MORRISON HOMES CONTINUED means that you would have to come in and change your plotting, landscaping and fencing plans to get any minor change that happens in the as built stage of the grading. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see the erosion control plans and landscaping, just in reference to erosion control, issued prior to grading permit. But I do not think that it is practical to make everything contingent upon the grading permit. Commissioner Wilsey asked if Chairman Brown was suggesting that on condition number 6, we take it back to building permit. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see the landscaping and in parentheses erosion control. That is more of an issue on cut and fill situations where you have slopes that you have to cover prior to issuance of grading permits, but the rest of it be prior to issuance of building permits. City Planner Thornhill informed the Commission that he had located the code section in regards to condition number 17, dedication of water rights, and read said section. Chairman Brown stated that they did not want to go against the ordinance, and this is something that would have to be set up so that it would record before the map was recorded, reference condition number 17. Commissioner Wilsey asked if erosion control language would be added to condition number 33. Chairman Brown recommended the following verbiage be added to condition number 33, "the erosion control plans for off -site be included in the on -site erosion control plans" City Planner Thornhill asked Chairman Brown if he wanted to retain conceptual landscaping as a submittal requirement, condition number 6. Chairman Brown stated he was more concerned with prior to issuance of grading permit that they have erosion control plans. The landscaping as far as front yard landscaping is more in the building stage. But any slopes or erosion control areas, including off -site, plans would have to be submitted and approved, along with a plan for vegetation or stabilization of any off -site slopes. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -8 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 24235 based on the Findings and subject to the 39 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the amendments: Condition No. 5: "Applicant shall record CC & R's for the project prohibiting on street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers, and trucks over one (1) ton capacity. CC & R's shall also include screening of any ground base disk, no roof mounted or front yard satellite dish to be allowed. The CC & R's shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee prior to recordation of any deeds or the recording of the final map." Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24235 — GEORGE WIMPY. INC. (MORRISON HOMES CONTINUED Condition No. 6: "House plotting, architectural drawings, floor plan, and fencing plans shall require Minor Design Review approval prior to issuance of building permits. All standards of development and processing steps in effect at the Minor Design Review submittal shall apply for this project. The landscaping and erosion control plans shall be approved prior to grading permits. Condition No. 17: "Dedicate underground water rights to the City prior to recordation of Final Map (Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.52.030)." Condition No. 31: "Dedicate sufficient footage along Grand- view Avenue to provide for a 66 foot right -of -way (33 foot half width)." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Chairman Brown suggested condition number 6 read as follows: Condition No. 6: House plotting, architectural drawings, floor plans, landscaping and fencing plans shall require Minor Design Review approval prior to issuance of building permits. Erosion control plans will be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of grading permit. The erosion control plans will include on -site and off -site mitigation. Chairman Brown stated that he believes that this addresses both condition number 6 and condition number 33. Commissioner Saathoff stated that originally Chairman Brown had stated prior to a grading permit, in reference to landscaping and fencing plans. You had made a comment that I thought was well stated "that those could well change as a result of grading" and those items, landscaping and fencing, should be prior to building. Now you are only requesting erosion control be prior to grading. Chairman Brown stated that the landscaping plan would include all of the slopes, after grading, minor slopes in the front yards, side yards and rear yards which can all change. Erosion control plans would require that possibly some delayed development area would be sprinkled and planted or just planted to prevent erosion during construction. Commissioner Saathoff asked Chairman Brown if on condition number 6 he prefers to continue with all items listed at issuance of building permit and then the erosion control would be prior to grading. Chairman Brown responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to include the amendment to condition number 6, to read as follows: Condition No. 6: "House plotting, architectural drawings, floor plans, landscaping and fencing plans shall require Minor Design Review approval Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24235 _ GEORGE WIMPY. INC. (MORRISON HOMES) CONTINUED prior to issuance of building permits. Erosion control plans will be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of grading permit. The erosion control plans will include on -site and off -site mitigation." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Annexation No. 46 - SunCal Development & Investment - Associate Planner Last presented a request to annex approximately 60 acres of unincorporated county land into the City of Lake Elsinore for future residential development. The property is located north of Grand Avenue, west of Skylark Drive and east of Ontario Way. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Edward Sloman of K.W.C. Engineering representing Suncal Development, stated that they concur with staff recommendation, and would answer any questions. 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 No. 89 -7 and approval of Annexation No. 46 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Commissioner Saathoff questioned the inclusion of adoption of Negative Declaration No. 89 -7 in the motion. Believes that the motion should only be for the annexation request. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council approval of Annexation No. 46 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 2. Single - Family Residence - 805 Sumner Avenue - Mark & Terri Mitchell - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a two - story, 2,500 square foot single - family residence, situated on a 8,250 square foot lot located at 805 Sumner Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. Mr. Mark Mitchell commented on condition number 33, on all off -site grading will this be my responsibility; not flooding the property that is referred to in this condition. We are talking about five pieces of property on one side and three pieces of property on the other. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the intent here would be that these improvements that we are speaking of only have to do with what adjoins his property line, it is not for the entire alley. Assistant Planner Restivo responded in the affirmative, however, there is potential there for drainage to flow onto the properties to the north and west. Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 9 SINGLE- FAMILY CONTINUED _ 805 SUMNER AVENUE - MARK & TERRI MITCHELL Mr. Mitchell stated it already is being damaged at this point, the water runs right through there, it is about four -foot low from Lowell Street Discussion at the table ensued on the topography of the property and adjacent property with regard to drainage and alley improvement necessary to get applicant's water to a public right -of -way or an easement to drain across other property. Commissioner Saathoff asked about the possibility of a dry well. Mr. Kirchner stated that the intent of the condition is to address the drainage issue. We cannot continue to develop those lots and continue to throw water across the alley onto that lower lot. We have to address the drainage issue, maybe it can be accomplished with a drainage acceptance letter. But our intent with this condition is to address the drainage issue and see if we can drain it to Lowell Street. Chairman Brown stated that this has been discussed several times, not sure if we have come to a resolution, but as long as the applicant does not increase the velocity, quantity or concentration those down hill lots must accept the water that they are getting. Mr. Kirchner responded in the affirmative Chairman Brown stated that the alley improvement was for the conveyance of water. If there is no water conveyance is it a concern? Mr. Kirchner responded only behind the applicant's property. We always require half alley width improvement along the property. Chairman Brown informed Mr. Mitchell that he would have to address the drainage; not concentrate it, increase the velocity or quantity or get a drainage easement. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he does not believe it is the City's intent to put a hardship on the applicant. We should address the fact that the applicant is required to install improvements on one -half of the alley. If the development does, in fact, increase the water flow or change the concentration and the applicant cannot get that flow to a street that he be allowed some other method approved by the City Engineer to either divert or hold that water on his own property. Chairman Brown recommended that condition number 33 be amended to read: "Alley improvements be installed at half width." Chairman Brown asked if there were any other conditions that addressed drainage. Assistant Planner Restivo responded condition number 27 and 29 relate to drainage. Chairman Brown recommended condition number 27 be amended to address additional drainage, which will read: "On -site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or additional drainage accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement." Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 10 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 805 SUMNER AVENUE = MARK & TERRI MITCHELL Chairman Brown stated that condition number 29, refers to the natural drainage traversing the site, and assumes that means a fine grading plan to show how the lot will drain. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 805 Sumner Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 27: "On -site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or additional drainage accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement." Condition No. 33: Second by Commission Approved 4 -0 At this time, 8:05 p.m., At this time, 8:20 p.m., "Alley improvements shall be installed at one -half width." er Wilsey. the Planning Commission recessed. the Planning Commissions reconvened. 3. Residential Project 89 -7 - Friedman Homes - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal which is part of a 462 single- family development on 185 gross acres in the Canyon Creek Specific Plan area, located east of Interstate 15 and north of Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. Mr. Bob Diehl, representing Friedman Homes, stated that they concur with staff recommendation and will answer any questions. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he has a concern about a tract of this size having a limited color selection, four - hundred and some homes having just the five colors and the four or five various colors of trim. Asked the applicant if he has any idea to the number of homes that might be in Phase 1. Mr. Diehl stated that they have not yet worked out the Phasing Plan, but would estimate approximately 50 homes for Phase 1. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like to make a firm statement or have the Commission allow staff to work with the applicant to generate as many color combinations as feasible, at least by stages. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see some additional variations, at least in the accent trims and possibly some additional colors. Mr. Diehl stated that Friedman Homes also has a lot of concern about color. We are going to phase this and one of our condi- tions is that we come back before you for every new phase, so you will have the opportunity to look at the colors we selected. Our intent, of course, would be to make some variations and refinements. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff,to approve Residential Project 89 -7 based on the Findings and subject to the 30 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 11 4. Single - Family Residence - 4180 West Crestview Drive - Russ & Dawn Grove - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 2,923 square foot dwelling situated on a 30,482 square foot lot, located at 4180 West Crestview Drive. Mr. Russ Grove commented on the roofing material, condition number 8, and stated that he selected a wood shake roofing material to be consistent with what is existing in the neighborhood. Mr. Grove stated that if the Commission does not approve of it or wants to change the roofing material, then will go with asphalt roofing shingles. Chairman Brown informed Mr. Grove of the reasons behind requiring Class "A" roofing materials. Chairman Brown stated that the Commission has been pretty strict on asphalt roofing material, requiring a variegated tab or something not just straight asphalt shingle. Commissioner Wilsey stated that maybe the roof trusses should be a little stronger now. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like condition number 8 amended by adding verbiage "random tab extra dimensional ". A brief discussion at the table ensued on roofing material available, and condition number 25, pertaining to drainage. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 4180 West Crestview Drive based on the Findings and subject to 29 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 8: "Applicant shall use roofing materials with a Class "A" fire rating. if composition roofing material is utilized then a random tab three dimensional roofing material or equivalent shall be used, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 5. Single - Family Residence - 900 Parkway - William T. Brown - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal for the relocation of a historical single - family dwelling from Graham Avenue to be positioned on an 8,760 square foot lot, located at 900 Parkway. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like condition number 8 amended by adding verbiage "random tab extra dimensional ". There being no further discussion at the table Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve the relocation of a Single - Family Residence to 900 Parkway based on the Findings and subject to the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 8: "Applicant shall use roofing materials with a Class "A" fire rating. if composition roofing material is utilized then a random tab three dimensional roofing material or equivalent shall be used, and shall be subject to the approval Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 12 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE 900 PARKWAY - WILLIAM T. BROWN CONTINUED of the Community Development Director." Second by Commissioner Wilsey Approved 4 -0 6. Street Abandonment 89 -1 - George Wimpy, Inc. (Morrison Homes) Associate Planner Last presented a request to abandon a portion of Orange Street, which currently runs through a vacant lot. Abandonment of this 40 foot by approximately 640 foot road will allow a more functional tract development. The site is located on the southeast corner of Macy Street and Lake Ridge Road. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Jim Bolton of Butterfield Surveys representing Morrison Homes, stated that they have reviewed the conditions and concur with staff recommendation. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to advise City Council that Street Abandonment 89 -1 is in conformance with the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan based on the Findings and subject to the 1 Condition of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 7. Industrial Project 89 -3 - Jeff Hardy Architecture - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a 17,290 square foot tilt -up concrete industrial building, on a 1.01 acre site located on the southeast corner of 3rd Street and Minthorn Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Jeff Hardy stated that they did a number of redesigns on this project to get it to comply with City Standards and still meet the requirements of the client. Commissioner Wilsey stated that in regards to the loading zones this is our objective as Commissioners to be able to look and analyze these things and be objective and work with the applicant for the betterment of the community. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the landscaping for the pro- posal, referring to the site plan, the southwest elevation where you concentrated your frontages, what are we doing for landscaping in this area? Mr. Hardy stated that in front of each office unit there is a planter that flanks the sidewalk that goes to the doors. We have proposed dense shrubbery in those areas to allow it to grow up and soften that side of the building. All along the southwest elevation there is planting in front of the store front doors. Also, on the other side of the parking lot, which is actually the property line, there is a planter strip that would have landscaping. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the loading zones, stating that this is a requirement, and staff had to bring it to our attention. I concur with Commissioner Wilsey in that there are numerous smaller offices or units where this is acceptable. In this particular case, allow loading zone as submitted. Minutes of Planning April 18, 1989 Page 13 Commission INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -3- JEFF HARDY ARCHITECTURE Commissioner Saathoff recommended that condition number 21 be amended to read: "Project shall be designed, in terms of the loading space, to be consistent with the plans approved by the Planning Commission on April 18, 1989." Commissioner Saathoff referred to condition number 22, and asked who the landscape and irrigation plan would be submitted to, is it Planning Commission or staff? Assistant Planner Merrett responded that the landscaping and irrigation plan is to be submitted to staff. Chairman Brown suggested verbiage "and approved by the Community Development Director or his designee" be added to condition number 22. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -16 and approval of Industrial Project 89 -3 based on the Findings and subject to the 40 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 21: "Project shall be designed, in terms of the loading space, to be consistent with the plans approved by the Planning Commission on April 18, 1989." Condition No. 22: "Prior to the issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall submit a revised Landscape and Irrigation Plan that shows at least 20% of the trees to be 24" box or larger. Also, revised Landscape Plan to show increased use of mounding in the landscape setback from the Minthorn property line, and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or his designee." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 8. Industrial Project 89 -4 - Jeff Hardy Architecture - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a 17,290 square foot tilt -up concrete industrial building, which is a mirror image of Industrial Project 89 -3, on a 1.01 acre site located on the southwest corner of Birch Street and Minthorn Avenue. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Hardy if he had any additional comments or concerns. Mr. Hardy responded in the negative. 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 89 -17 and approval of Industrial Project 89 -4 based on the Findings and subject to the 41 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 21: "Project shall be designed, in terms of the loading space, to be consistent with the plans approved by the Planning Commission on April 18, 1989." Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 14 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -4 _ JEFF HARDY ARCHITECTURE CONTINUED Condition No. 22: "Prior to the issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall submit a revised Landscape and Irrigation Plan that shows at least 20% of the trees to be 24" box or larger. Also, revised Landscape Plan to show increased use of mounding in the landscape setback from the Minthorn property line, and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or his designee." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 9. Monument Sign for Pizza Hut - Fugate Enterprises - Associate Planner Magee presented a proposal to construct a monument sign and drive -thru directional sign in conjunction with Commerical Project 88 -12. 0.80 acres on the east side of Casino Drive approximately 800 feet south of Railroad Canyon Road. Associate Planner Magee stated that staff has received a letter from Mr. Bruce Fuller of Fuller Sign & Design, representing Pizza Hut, stating that they are in agreement with staff recommendation. Chairman Brown asked what type of signage would be facing the freeway? Associate Planner Magee stated that based on preliminary discussions with the sign company it would be sign cans with individual letters, which says Pizza Hut, and was approved under the sign criteria for the whole center. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve monument and directional sign for Pizza Hut (Commercial Project 88 -12), based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 INFORMATIONAL 1. Discussion and Selection of Alternative Date for Planning Commission Meetings. It was the consensus of the Commission that Wednesday evenings be scheduled for Planning Commission Meetings. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill informed the Commission that Senior Planner Bolland has submitted his resignation, effective April 28, 1989. City Planner Thornhill gave a update on the Kangaroo Rat Report, covering the proposed fee; the study area shrinking considerably, and the time line for consideration from U.S. Fish and Wildlife. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsev: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission April 18, 1989 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson: Commissioner Brinley and myself attend the League of California Cities Conference and would like to get with the Commission and staff, either informally or through a study session, to discuss some of the things that we learned at the conference. Chairman Brown suggested that this be an Informational Item on the Agenda and that Commissioner Gilenson put together a presentation. Commissioner Gilenson stated that some of the items are procedural. Chairman Brown suggested that Commissioner Gilenson put together a list of the issues and we can decide what can be handled at a regular meeting. Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report Chairman Brown: New signs went up at the old Swamp Meet property, did Rancon get permits to do this? I did notice that the old one facing the freeway did not come down. Assistant Planner Merrett stated that Rancon did come in and pull permits to install the new signs. City Planner Thornhill stated that staff can look into this, and report back at the next meeting. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 Respectfully ubmitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary a MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND DAY OF MAY 1989 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, Saathoff, Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Wilsey Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Associate Planner Last Assistant Planners Restivo and Merrett, Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of April 18, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 3 -0 (Commissioner Brinley abstaining) Commissioner Wilsey arrived at 7:03 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Brown asked if there were any request to speak. The Secretary responded that Mr. Gary Kaiser, representing Morrison Homes would like to speak on Zone Change 89 -6. Chairman Brown informed Mr. Kaiser that he could speak now or at the time it is brought to the table. Mr. Kaiser stated that they were in agreement with staff recommen- dation. Chairman Brown asked if there were any further request to speak. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS It was the consensus of the Commission to consider PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 through 3 concurrently. Associate Planner Last presented the following proposals as listed. 1. Tentative Tract Map 24138 - SunCal Development & Investment (Continued from April 18, 1989) - A request to divide a 20 acre parcel into 73 lots located north of Grand Avenue, west of Skylark Drive and east of Ontario Way. 2. Tentative Tract Map 24139 - SunCal Development & Investment (Continued from April 18, 1989) - A request to divide a 20 acre site into a 73 lot subdivision located north of Grand Avenue, west of Skylark Drive and east on Ontario Way. 3. Tentative Tract Map 24215 - SunCal Development & Investment (Continued from April 18, 1989) - A request to divide a 16 parcel, 20 acre site into 74 lots located north of Grand Avenue, west of Skylark Drive and east of Ontario Way. Associate Planner Last stated that staff has discussed with the applicant three conditions, condition 42 of Tract Map 24139 and Tract 24215, condition 48 of Tract 24215 and condition 51 of Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 2 TRACT MAPS 24138, 24139 AND 24215 = SUNCAL DEVELOPMENT & CONTINUED Tract 24138 and the representative from the Engineering Department will provide the new verbiage for these conditions. Associate Planner Last stated that the faulting, liquefaction has been mitigated and no building pads will be located below the base flood elevation, therefore, the flooding issue is mitigated. Associate Planner Last stated that today we received the final abandonment papers from Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics for the runway, therefore, complying with one of the Mitigation Monitoring requirements. Associate Planner Last stated that there are three letters from SunCal in addition to a memorandum from staff indicating the concerns with those two conditions, and the Engineering Department will provide the new verbiage for these conditions. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of these items. Mr. Edward Sloman of K.W.C. Engineering representing SunCal Development, stated that they have gone through the conditions and they are acceptable except for the clarifications on the conditions as mentioned, reference letters dated May 2, 1989. We have worked with staff and worked out agreeable verbiage as far as the conditions of approval. Mr. Sloman stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposals. 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 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Brinley commented on the fault line - -the report states that this will be verified, all the right trusses will be put in place as far as swaying and erosion, who will be doing this verification? Associate Planner Last responded that during the building permit stage the applicant is required to submit a foundation plan, which include soil reports and engineering calculations for the foundations which will include the post tension _foundation slabs. Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 14, for each tract map, pertaining to the abandonment of runway, and asked if the proceedings have been completed. Associate Planner Last responded that he did speak with the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics, Sacramento, and received a copy of the corrected Airport Permit from the applicant. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like to see the Engineering Department keep a close monitor on those reports, the faulting. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff for input on conditions 42 and 48. Chairman Brown asked for the new verbiage on the conditions. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 3 ATIVE TRACT MAPS 24138, 24139 AND 24215 - SUNCAL DEVELOPMENT & STMENT CONTINUED Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell recommended the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Tract Map 24138 Condition No. 51: Developer shall agree to participate in a benefit reimbursement or benefit assessment district to build a storm drain along the northeast boundary of Tract 24139 and 24215 in conformity with the Lake Management Wetland Development Plan. Tract Map 24139 and Tract Map 24215 Condition No. 42: Developer shall agree to participate in a benefit reimbursement or benefit assessment district for the design and construction of a storm drain along the northeast boundary of Tract 24139 and 24215 in conformity with the Lake Management Wetlands Development Plan. Tract Map 24139 Condition No 48: Drainage necessary owners for drain. Tract Map 24215 acceptance letters will be from the downstream property outletting the proposed storm Condition No. 42: Developer shall agree to participate in a benefit reimbursement or benefit assessment district for the design and construction of a storm drain along the northeast boundary of Tract 24139 and 24215 in conformity with the Lake Management Wetlands Development Plan. Condition No. 48: Developer shall enter into an agreement with the County to provide for a benefit assessment district to construct - Skylark Drive off -,site to Grand Avenue for two (2) travel lanes, 25 feet. Should an assessment district not be formed this improvement will not be required. Secondary access will be provided through Tract 19344, Palomar Street. Should Palomar Street not be completed, the developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer of Tract 19344 to construct Palomar Street. Condition No. 51: Drainage acceptance letters will be necessary from the downstream property owners for outletting the proposed storm drains. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he had requested that staff check on some avigation easements, and asked if staff had a response. Associate Planner Last stated that both Cal Trans and FAA have indicated that it is up to the local jurisdiction to enforce or actually bring forth an aviation easement. Typically, the only areas in an aviation easement are the runway approaches and Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 4 TRACT MAPS 24138, 24139 AND 24215 = SUNCAL DEVELOPMENT & CONTINUED since this runway is being abandoned there is no longer an approach zone to a runway. Also, Cal Trans indicated that some cities do require, based on their local jurisdiction, an ordinance that they may have an overflight zone which is typically no more than a half -mile wide on each side of the airport that also contains an easement. These easements are basically set up to notify all the property owners within the area of the flight pattern, location of the airport and basically waives their right to sue. Commissioner Wilsey stated that this is his concern. We have an ongoing airport. We have discussions under way, how formal I do not know, about Mr. Pribble's property and an airport complex in that area. If that were to come to fruition that would be a lot closer to this tract. Avigation easement do nothing more than, as explained by Mr. Last, tell the people buying in the tract that there is aircraft activity in their adjacent area, and it protects the city from future law suits. I think that this is something that we should look into, particularly with the homes going in around this area, as we do not know how long the airport is going to be there. Chairman Brown asked Commissioner Wilsey if they were talking about adding an additional runway. Commissioner Wilsey stated that, as part of the Lake Management Plan, there has been discussion and it has been written up that Mr. Pribble has talked about putting in another private airport over there and moving Skylark into his area. Chairman Brown stated that if the homes are approved without the easements - -can you fly over the top or do you have to have an easement? Do you have to go back or is it something that is just given? Associate Planner Last responded that easements are not mandatory even over the approach zones. It is up to the local jurisdiction to bring forth an aviation easement. FAA, Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics and even the County Airport Land Commission indicated that they do process it and enforce the regulations of flight patterns. Very few cities have an over- flight zone which expands the approach zone to the airport, but most airports do have the approach zone easement which is the most dangerous area. Commissioner Wilsey stated that this would be correct, but what we are dealing with here on the down wind portion of these runways, even existing runways, we would have overflights in the pattern area of this tract, right now, and it is something that we should be looking at. Associate Planner Last stated that the only runway being used runs parallel with Grand Avenue. The only approach zone, runway 23/5, is being abandoned. Discussion at the table ensued on approach /departure cones and avigation easements. Chairman Brown asked if it is necessary to grant an easement for this type of thing or would it serve the same purpose to record on the maps that the properties are subject to over- flight from the aircraft landing and take off from the airport. Commissioner Wilsey responded that he was not sure of the verbiage that is commonly used. But, this is why I think something should be put in and we check on the verbiage. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 5 TRACT MAPS 24138, 24139 AND 24215 - SUNCAL DEVELOPMENT & Chairman Brown asked Commissioner Wilsey if rather than an easement, if it would satisfy him, that it must be recorded on the maps - -some notification /disclosure. Chairman Brown asked if we do environmental constraints for our maps, i.e., faults hazards and things that should pass along with the property. City Planner Thornhill responded that these are typically shown Chairman Brown stated that you are going to have to notify, in reference to the faulting issue - -has that been determined? Steve Kupferman, County Geologist, usually requires that the property owners be notified that they are either in a fault study area, or a potential fault area, or Alquist Priolo area if any of those conditions exist. Associate Planner Last responded that the project was conditioned that all home owners within the Alquist Priolo zone are notified that they are within a special study zone and there is a potential fault, running immediately adjacent off -site. Chairman Brown recommended that the same type of condition be added to notify the property owners that they are within an over flight area. However, I would like a definition here if they are in fact subject to a declared overflight area, or if it is just a standard procedure to fly that way as part of an approach. Associate Planner Last stated that this would have to be verified with the Airport Land Use Commission; to find out if they have that type of a flight pattern. Commissioner Wilsey suggested that a condition be added that would allow us the flexibility of time to research that and come up with some verbiage that says this is our intent, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. This would allow us time to get the research done, and I would like the research brought back to the table, so that we can see what they found. Commissioner Saatho easements, perhaps recommendation to going to go to City concern to allow whether or not they notification. Ef stated t] it would the City Council. staff and want an iat in reference to the avigation be adequate if we made a Council, because these maps are To make them aware of this the City Attorney to determine avigation easement or just a Chairman Brown suggested that this be added as a condition to each of the tracts, if the City Attorney determines that this property is appropriate for an avigation easement one will be added as an additional condition of approval or recommendation for a condition of approval to City Council. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -7 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 24138 based on the Findings and subject to the 52 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 24138, 24139 AND 24215 = SUNCAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CONTINUED Condition No. 51: "Developer shall agree to participate in a benefit reimbursement or benefit assessment district to build a storm drain along the northeast boundary of Tract 24139 and 24215 in conformity with the Lake Management Wetland Development Plan." Condition No. 53: "If the City Attorney determines that this property is appropriate for an avigation easement then one will be provided." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City 'Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -7 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 24139 based on the Findings and subject to the 47 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 42: "Developer shall participate in a benefit reimbursement or benefit assessment district for the design and construction of a storm drain along the northeast boundary of Tract 24139 and 24215 in conformity with the Lake Management Wetlands Development Plan." Condition No. 48: "Drainage acceptance letters will be necessary from the downstream property owners for outletting the proposed storm drain." Condition No. 49: "If the City Attorney determines that this property is appropriate for an avigation easement then one will be provided." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Motion. by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -7 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 24215 based on the Findings and subject to the 50 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 42: "Developer shall agree to participate in a benefit reimbursement or benefit assessment district for the design and construction of a storm drain along the northeast boundary of Tract 24139 and 24215 in conformity with the Lake Management Wetlands Development Plan." Condition No. 48: "Developer shall enter into an agreement with the County to provide for a benefit assessment district to construct Skylark Drive off -site to Grand Avenue for two (2) travel lanes, 25 feet. Should an assessment district not be formed this improvement will not be required. Secondary access will be provided through Tract 19344, Palomar Street. Should Palomar Street not be completed, the developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer of Tract 19344 to construct Palomar Street." Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 7 TRACT MAPS 24138, 24139 AND 24215 - SUNCAL DEVELOPMENT & Condition No. 51: "Drainage acceptance letters will be necessary from the downstream property owners for outletting the proposed storm drain." Condition No. 52: "If the City Attorney determines that this property is appropriate for an avigation easement then one will be provided." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 4. Zone Change 89 -6 - George Wimpey, Inc. (Morrison Homes) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a request to rezone 13.4 acres located south of Macy Street, east of Laguna Avenue and northerly of Ortega Highway from C -1 /C -P (Neighborhood Commercial and Tourist Commercial) to R -1 (Low Density Residential) for Tract 20139 -1. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:32 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 7:33 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council to reaffirm Negative Declaration (previously approved under Tract Map 20139 -1) and approval of Zone Change 89 -6 based on Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 5. Conditional Use Permit 89 -2 - Pro Marine - A request to allow outdoor boat storage, boat sales and boat displays at 31401 Riverside Drive between Walnut and Joy Street. Chairman Brown stated that the applicant has requested this item be continued to the meeting of June 6, 1989. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Conditional Use Permit 89 -2 to the meeting of June 6, 1989, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single- Family Residence - 16840 Bell Street - Keith Clarke - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a two -story structure, with 3,203 square feet of living area and a detached 800 foot garage /storage unit. The dwelling is situated on a flag lot to be created by the merger of four parcels between Wells and Bell Streets, located approximately 310 feet east of the intersection of Bell and Hague Streets. Commissioner Brinley asked staff to expand on the concerns about the residential second unit. Asked if the applicant was building an apartment above the garage. Assistant Planner Restivo responded in the negative and stated that this is for a storage unit. But it was a concern that this, referring to the rendering posted, shows the elevation of the garage and staff felt that it was being built to Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 8 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 16840 BELL STREET - KEITH CLARKE CONTINUED residential second unit standards. There is a small deck off the front portion and staff felt that there was potential for conversion. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Keith Clarke stated that he would answer any questions. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Clarke if he had plans to convert this into a living area in the future. Mr. Clarke stated that they explained to staff that the intent, sometime in the future, is to convert that with the proper permits, and we build that accordingly. The only other requirement, that would be required, from staff would be an attached breezeway. Commissioner Brinley asked if the attached breezeway would have to go in at this time. Assistant Planner Restivo responded in the negative. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 9, pertain- ing to the sewage disposal plan. Asked for the location of the main trunk line, in relation to this property. Mr. Clarke stated that the septic system is located north, of the north end of the site. It is on a lot by itself and adjacent to the public access driveway. There are no sewer lines in the area. Commissioner Gilenson asked if there was not a sewer line going down Machado. Mr. Clarke stated that he was not sure, but we checked with the water district and I think the closest sewer line was on Lake Street. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that a condition could be added, which would read: If project site is within 200 feet of an existing sewer line, applicant shall be required to hook up to sewer. Commissioner Saathoff asked what interior finish is planned for the garage. Mr. Clarke stated that the interior finish on the first floor is just that of a typical garage. It is a four car garage and we have an antique vehicle that we would store in there. The second floor would be used, at this time, for storage of parts and so forth. Later we plan on converting that with the proper permits to a secondary unit. Commissioner Saathoff asked whether or not laundry facilities were in there at this time. Mr. Clarke stated that there are no laundry facilities. There is a wash sink for working in the garage. Commissioner Saathoff asked Mr. Clarke if the only utilities that he would have connected would be electricity. Mr. Clarke stated that this is correct. Commissioner Saathoff stated that his concern is an illegal conversion. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 9 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE _ 16840 BELL STREET - KEITH CLARKE CONTINUED Mr. Clarke stated that he did approach the previous Community Development Director, Nelson Miller, and fully explained what our intent was on this - -to convert it and that we may provide hot water source at this time, and possibly even pre -plumb it. But we do not plan on converting it without proper permits. Again, the intent is for my mother, when she gets older, to possibly live with us. Commissioner Saathoff asked Mr. Clarke if he was going to plumb it now. Mr. Clarke stated he is really not sure, at this time. All of the walls would be open, so if anything we would stub it out at the first floor mudsill. Commissioner Saathoff asked for the distance between the house and garage, at present. Mr. Clarke responded that the he believes it to be fifteen -feet (15'). Commissioner Saathoff asked staff for the requirements if we did convert it for the fifteen -foot (151) area, would this have to be an enclosed breezeway or a roof breezeway? Assistant Planner Restivo responded a general breezeway would not have to be enclosed. City Planner Thornhill stated that he had the answer on the sewer location. The closest sewer trunk line is basically at Riverside and Lakeshore. Commissioner Saathoff asked Mr. Clarke for his reaction if he said that he would like too see him build a breezeway. Mr. Clarke responded not favorable right now, with our budget on this house we are cutting it pretty close. We would like to incorporate this with a future improvement on that structure. Chairman Brown stated that he was really concerned about this unit. Your intentions are very good, but you could sell the residence tomorrow and someone could go in and drywall it and they have a second unit. How would you feel about not hooking up any utilities, such as: sewer, water, or gas to that unit until the appropriate permits are pulled, or go ahead and do it now, hook up the utilities, but pay the permits including the school fees that would be required to convert it later. Mr. Clarke asked about paying the school fees on an unimproved area. Chairman Brown stated that if you are going to plumb it, maybe have gas, hook up to sewer, and you are going to have electrical in it, the next step is drywall and move in. Mr. Clarke stated that the first problem with that is the School District will not take the money up front. On unimproved areas they will not take the money now to pay for something that may be permitted later. It is only good for 90 days, I believe. Chairman Brown suggested the elimination of all utilities to the second unit, and when you get ready, you can bring in gas, water and pay the school fees. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 10 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 16840 BELL STREET = KEITH CLARKE CONTINUED Mr. Clarke asked about the water, stating that they would like to have a sink in the garage to wash our hands and without hot water - -can we have that? Chairman Brown responded that you then have sewage. Then it is just one easy step over the weekend to be in it. Mr. Clarke stated that this goes with just about any garage that has a washer /dryer. Chairman Brown stated that not many garages have sewer and gas. Mr. Clarke responded that they have washer /dryer hook -ups in them, many have mop sinks, and we are not asking for any more than that. I would not even put in the hot water heater if that bothers the Commission. Chairman Brown stated that if you do not hook -up gas to it now; if you do not pull a permit to do the trenching and so forth - -you have a panel that serves it off of one breaker running from the main unit, you are going to have to do something to that unit. Chairman Brown stated that it has already been said that it would be a very difficult situation for Code Enforcement to have to go by your house and make sure this weekend you did not drywall and move in. What you are describing is everything short of drywalling and moving in. Mr. Clarke stated that they are not putting the electrical circuitry up to the second floor. We are not putting the plumbing, the water supply, sewer system, insulation /drywall to the second floor. It is really nothing more than a large garage with a storage area. Chairman Brown commented on the slider and patio deck on the second floor. Mr. Clarke stated that a sliding glass door is allowed to be put on the side of a garage door. Chairman Brown responded that this is allowed on the same level. Mr. Clarke stated we do plan on converting it, so it would behoove us now to put all of those amenities in rather than destroying it trying to put them in later. Chairman Brown responded lets go ahead and do it now, pull the appropriate permits for it - -do it, and then we both don't have an argument. If you get caught you will have to settle it in court with the school district. Mr. Clarke asked Chairman Brown if they were still requiring the payment of school fees on the unimproved area, on top. Chairman Brown responded that if you got caught converting it we will be covered. You are going to do everything that is required to make that a second unit, lets go ahead and do it. Before you get a permit to finish it or to occupy it, I'm assuming, you are going to have to deal with the school district. If you go ahead any occupy it without paying the school fees, in other words without finishing up the permit process and paying the school fees you will be in immediate litigation with them. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 11 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 16840 BELL STREET - KEITH CLARKE CONTINUE Mr. Clarke stated that technically this would be a group individual occupancy. Most cities just issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the main structure, as an R -3. Chairman Brown asked if we require the applicant to make all of the improvements necessary for a second unit for future use, but then commented that the applicant does not want to pay school fees. Commissioner Saathoff stated that his are requiring is to put all ele breezeway, so it is not available for such time, when the applicant does requests occupancy on the second unit attach a breezeway and pay the school understanding of what you nents in, not requiring a occupancy, correct? At meet the requirements and he would then have to fees. Chairman Brown stated this is where we started. I am saying lets do it now. Commissioner Brinley stated that the applicant should attach the breezeway and pull all the appropriate permits. Commissioner Wilsey stated that the applicant just came out and said that he did not financially want to do that, make that commitment right now, and that that is his prerogative. Chairman Brown stated that it is our prerogative not to have a unit that is going to be occupied, and that is what I see here. If all of the things are there to make it a unit except the drywall it is going to be a unit, someone is going to go in and drywall. Mr. Clarke stated that he disagrees, our intent was to stub out the plumbing at the mudsill of the first floor of the stem wall. You say everything but drywall, this is not it; we have electrical, plumbing, sewer, insulation and drywall. Chairman Brown stated which work can all be done with no view from the street. Mr. Clarke responded affirmatively, but this type work can be done in any garage. Chairman Brown stated that in this instance, believes that we are encouraging it. Mr. Clarke stated that he believes that he is being up front about it. I have talked with the past Planning Director about it and he said that there was no problem. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he wonders whether or not we are getting into a Code Enforcement situation here where Code Enforcement could handle that type of thing. Chairman Brown asked if Code Enforcement is going to drive by there every weekend to see that there are no drapes on the window. Commissioner Wilsey responded in the negative, but I'll guarantee that they will be by sooner or later, and they will know whether it is occupied or not. City Planner Thornhill stated that the definition of a dwelling unit, under Title 17 is: "A dwelling unit basically containing kitchen facilities." Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 12 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 16840 BELL STREET = KEITH CLARKE CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley asked that when you speak of a kitchen are you talking about cooking facilities. City Planner Thornhill responded in the affirmative - -if you have gas into the upper unit. We looked at this and did not quite know how to approach it and thought that we would bring it to your attention. If you take a very strict interpretation of the ordinance, it is not a second dwelling unit until it has some kind of living facilities in it, and where you draw that here is very difficult because the ordinance does say basically kitchen facilities. Our concern, of course, was that it had an upper outside entrance, it did not have internal access, and it had a deck on the top. Our suggestion would be to eliminate it and just make it a garage structure and leave it open, or leave it as a storage area. But I do not know where you would draw the line here, maybe eliminate the outside entrance to the top facility. Typically, garages have wash basins and that sort of thing if they are attached to the main unit. City :Planner Thornhill stated that a second unit is defined as a complete independent living facility attached to or contained within a single - family detached dwelling. Chairman Brown stated that it could be used for many years as less than a second unit, but a habitable area which many people rely on for additional monies. It is either habitable or not, it is either a garage /storage area or habitable. It doesn't have to be a second unit, it could be a guest bedroom. Commissioner Saathoff stated that after the conversation and comments made by the applicant, staff and myself T did have a concern that staff brought to our attention and I do understand and appreciate the other Commissioner's concerns. Yes, it could very easily be converted over a weekend. I do feel, however, that the applicant has been very forthright; he indicated sometime ago, before appearing here, that he does intend to convert this unit and I feel that, yes, it may well be done behind our back. However, yes, it could be sold in 30 days and new tenants and someone else could make that conversion. I do feel, under the present circumstances and conditions, that the applicant should be allowed to construct the unit, as submitted, with the staff recommendations. At this time I would not require any other changes. Moved by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Resi- dence Second Unit at 16480 Bell Street based on the Findings and subject to the 28 Conditions of Approval, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Failed To Pass. Vote: 2 -3 (Commissioners Brinley, Gilenson and Brown opposed) 2. Single - Family Residence Second Unit - 4000 Crestview - Larry & Linda Keeney - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a second unit located on a developed 19,530 square foot, R -1 lot. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant or anyone representing the applicant was present. Mr. Roy Butler of Ameri -Cal contractor, representing the applicant, informed the Commission that this second unit is being requested for Mr. Keeney's mother. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 9, pertain- ing to sewage disposal, and requested verbiage be added "if project site is within 200 feet of an existing sewer line, applicant shall be required to hook up to sewer." Minutes of Planning May 2, 1989 Page 13 SINGLE - FAMILY LINDA KEENEY Commission SECOND UNIT - 4000 - LARRY & Assistant Planner Restivo stated that she believes the house is on septic, and condition number 9 requires a sewage disposal plan approved by the Health Department. Mr. Butler stated that the house is on septic and this second unit will be tied into the existing septic, which is more than adequate. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Butler if he would have to get a re- approved septic system with a 100 percent expansion. Mr. Butler responded that he does not believe so, because it was over engineered for that house. Chairman Brown asked if it is going to be approved by the Health Department will they require 100 percent expansion since you are adding to it. All of the new ones they require 100 percent expansion; so he may have adequate space now, but he would also have to provide 100 percent expansion space to add to that, and that may be something that you get snagged on. You are going to add to the system that you want re- approved from the Health Department and they may require that you put 100 percent expansion in. You may not have the room. Mr. Butler responded that he could check into this. When they were building the house this was one of their previews before- hand when they put in the septic system to accept another bathroom. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he had nothing to say other than this is an example of what we were discussing in the previous proposal. They are expanding in exactly the same way. Chairman Brown responded, in this case, the applicant is putting in all improvements. Commissioner Brinley stated that she had a concern on the septic system, but this has been addressed. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that she would like to bring up the fact that a condition for school fees is not listed in the Conditions of Approval, and would like to have this condition added. Chairman Brown stated that prior to the issuance of any Building Permits you require that school fees be there even if it is omitted, correct? Chairman Brown suggested that the condition for school fees be added, just in case. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Resi- dence Second Unit at 4000 Crestview based on the Findings and subject to the 15 Conditions of Approval with the following amendment: Condition No. 16" Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore School District and the Lake Elsinore High School District have been paid." - Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 14 At this time, 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:10 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Concept Review - Chevron Gas Station and Mini Mart - Southwest corner of Dexter Avenue and Central Avenue. Mr. Mike Lucey, representing Chevron, gave a brief presentation for the proposed service station and mini mart, highlighting the architecture and colors proposed for the building, signage and landscaping. Commissioner Gilenson had the following comment: - On Exhibit, besides the perimeter of the property there is no landscaping or planter boxes around the building. Mr. Lucey stated that it is their experience that planters in front of a food mart get trashed, and they are difficult to maintain no matter how hard you try. Commissioner Brinley had the following comments: - Likes the effect of the tile roofing. - Requested explanation on the color scheme and location for said colors. . Landscaping in front, are the trees illustrated the actual size that will be planted? Suggested additional berming and landscaping to take away the stark look of asphalt. - Asked for the location of air /water facilities. Mr. Lucey responded to Commissioner Brinley's comments as follows, respectively: Could not describe the size of the trees, the consulting engineer could have done this. As far as the colors go, there is a thin red stripe which you do not see on existing Chevron Stations, but they will all conform to these colors. We are removing the white and replacing it with the two grey colors and there will be a thin red stripe that will go around the building, about half -way up. We intend to put in berming to break up the view of asphalt. The air and water facilities will be located near the trash enclosure in the very back corner. Commissioner Saathoff had the following comment: - Depending on the treatment around the buildings, I would tend not to require landscaping on the interior. I would rather see more enhancement on visual impact before enter- ing. Once you get in, I do not think the visual impact is that important. Chairman Brown had the following comments: - Are the sides of the canopies, the uprights and the sides of the building textured, or are they going to be metal? - Asked for the major difference between this proposal and the Chevron station at Four Corners. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 15 CONCEPT REVIEW - CHEVRON GAS STATION - There is a whole new series of shopping centers that went in at Highway 76 and College, which depict considerable architectural changes to the standard of a gas station. Considerable increase in elevations compared to a regular gas station and compared to this station. They had very short distances, I believe less than ten feet, between the sidewalk and edge but a lot of mounding all the way down that shopping center. I would like too see something like that happen here. City Planner Thornhill asked about the potential of utilizing a combination berm and a very low decorative wall treatment. - Color rendering when submitted should illustrate landscaping at planting or six month maturity - Would like to see elevated planter boxes all the way around the building. - Would like something done with the monument sign other than just a mound with a monument sign. Would like to see some type of landscape transition. - Asked for the store size, service area Mr. Lucey responded to Chairman Brown's comments, as follows, respectively: Our plans are to texture the canopies. Described the architecture of the gas station at Four Corners, and stated that it is the basic corporate image. This one will not look like that simply because the pump islands will have that spandrel over the pump; so that will be quite a change. The canopy style is different and there is more landscaping. Also, this one will be a company operated facility, not an independent station, and we will have a little more power to deal with the maintenance issue. The gas station at Railroad Canyon Road is about 600 square feet. This one is larger, about 1,00 square -feet, but included in that are two restrooms, an interior restroom for the operator, an office and some storage. Mr. Lucey stated that in regards to the suggestion of a berm and decorative wall, he would prefer the berming over the wall. 2. Concept Review - Michael Brown - Two (2) Multi -unit Apartment Projects - North side of Joy Street between Riverside Drive and Machado. Mr. Michael Brown and gave a brief presentation on the proposed apartment units, highlighting the architecture, parking requirements, recreational facilities and amenities proposed for both units. Mr. Brown stated that they want to build these units to condominium specifications. Our working drawings, if approved, will reflect condominiums and we want them plan checked and pay fees on the basis of condominiums. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Brown to expand on the roofing material proposed. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 16 CONCEPT REVIEW = MULTI -UNIT APARTMENT - MICHAEL BROWN Mr. Brown stated that the roofing material would be a clay or concrete tile, depending on how the architect will size the buildings. We are going to make some modifications to the building footprints only because of how the site is configured. Commissioner Saathoff had the following comments: - Wood trim and window treatments; is there any proposed for the units. - What is the square foot of the units? Mr. Brown responded to Commissioner Saathoff's comments, as follows, respectively: The garage doors and trim will be wood. You are looking at, basically a prefab window treatment, thermal pane glass. If a flush mounted exterior type window is utilized then you would put some sort of trim or pop -out around it. The stairway will be modified. We will probably go with an open design, either a combination wrought iron /concrete treads or wood, not enclosed as illustrated on the exhibit. The square footage is as follows: 2 bedroom units - 825 -850 square feet 3 bedroom units - 950 -975 square feet Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows: - What architecture and landscaping is proposed along Joy Street? Mr. Brown stated that the exhibit reflects a 20 foot width, from the fence line, which is a required setback and we intend to have a rolling type lawn area in there. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill informed the Commission of the General Plan Town Hall Meeting scheduled for May 11, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., at the Community Center. Commissioner Gilenson asked if notices were being sent out. City Planner Thornhill stated that notices have gone out and a press release was done. City Planner Thornhill stated that the latest issue of Land Use Digest included articles on: Vacancy rates in strip shopping centers Landscaping as a Marketing Aid Copies of these articles can be provided, if desired. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey: Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission May 2, 1989 Page 17 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Saathoff: Will not be able to attend the May 16, 1989, meeting. Commissioner Brinlev: Concerned with the landscaping at K -Mart; it is dying. I would like to have this looked into and get it resolved. Chairman Brown asked if those improvements were bonded. City Planner Thornhill stated that staff will check into this. Chairman Brown: We did a parcel map on an existing center, are we being careful that the reciprocal ingress /egress situations are being passed on with the new parcels. Also, the landscaping. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that this is included in the conditions. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to make sure that one of the new parcel owners became responsible for all of the landscaping in the center, and asked if we were designating which parcel would be responsible. If not, would like to designate that the property owner of parcel 1 will be responsible for landscaping maintenance for the centers. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he was thinking more along the lines of - -if one defaults then the other ten are just as responsible for the entire center. Chairman Brown stated then you have to go after ten individuals. Commissioner Wilsey suggested that some type of association be formed, and we would have a recourse through the management group of the association. Chairman Brown asked what is happening with the triplex on Riverside Drive? Assistant Planner Merrett responded that the applicant had difficulty getting access from Cal Trans. Chairman Brown stated that he believed he had trouble with Cal Trans and sewer. City Planner Thornhill stated that he would check with the Building Division on the status of this. Chairman Brown stated that this structure sat for many months with a security fence around it and they even brought landscaping in. Now, the security fence is gone it was just abandoned, let's abate it. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approv 5 -0 Approve Respectfully /'submitted, Jeff Br Linda _47Z dstta f'12 Chairman Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 16TH DAY OF MAY THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Assistant Planner Restivo. ROLL CALL: 1989 PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Saathoff Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Assistant Planners Restivo and Merrett, and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Gilenson corrected the name of the second under Tentative Tract Map 24139, page 6. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of May 2, 1989, with the correction, 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. Variance 89 -2 - Julius P. Arocha - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to vary from the rear yard standards of the Single - Family Residential District requiring a 20 -foot rear yard setback to a 14 -foot rear yard setback for an existing, 5,111 square foot, substandard sized lot located on the northeast corner of Pope Circle and Wells Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 89 -2. 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 7:03 p.m. Commissioner Brinley asked staff if at some future date the applicant would like to add an additional room or a larger garage, since it is a substandard lot right now, what is the prognosis? City Planner Thornhill responded that staff would have to review it again, and if they did not meet the ordinance requirements they would have to come back for another variance. Unless the Commission desires, through your decision today, to address any future setback issues. Commissioner Brinley stated that she would have to see how the other Commissioners felt about the setbacks. Commissioner Gilenson stated this whole area is on septic. Will a lot of this size support a septic system with leach lines? City Planner Thornhill responded that this is a matter that will be borne out by the soil or percolation test. This is a Health Department requirement /criteria and if they do not determine that the lot has the ability to do that they will not grant a permit. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1989 Page 2 VARIANCE 89 -2 = JULIUS P. AROCHA Chairman Brown stated that he has no problem with the variance, in this particular case. But, as an item of information, if the applicant would wish to make one entrance off of Pope Circle and an additional entrance off of Wells Avenue would that be possible? Would it be possible to do a detached garage at one end of the property and have the actual entrance to the house at one end - -say the garage on Wells Avenue and the entrance to the house on Pope Circle. City Planner Thornhill responded that he did not believe staff looked at this particular potential, and does not know how that might be affected by septic constraints, either. Chairman Brown stated that he was just saying the configuration of the street, and would we require both setbacks - -20 feet on the house entrance and the garage entrance. City Planner Thornhill responded in the affirmative. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Variance 89 -2 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 2. General Plan Amendment 89 -3 - Larry Morser - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on a 2.29 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Grand Avenue and Morro Way. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 89 -3. Mr. Larry Morser gave a brief history on the property in question. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan 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 7:13 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 -12, and approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -3, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Motion by Commissioner Brinley to adopt Resolution No. 89 -2, entitled as follows, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 RESOLUTION 89 -2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -3 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF A 2.29 ACRE PARCEL FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1989 Page 3 3. General Plan Amendment 89 -4 - Michael Brown - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential (current zoning) on two parcels (7.414 acres total) on the north side of Joy Street approximately 200 feet west of Riverside Drive. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 89 -4. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Michael Diab, Project Number 13, their association Concerned with the value and the he of view. 274 Parkview, Rancho La Laguna Condominium stated that he represents the people in and they are opposed to the amendment. density, possible decrease in property fight of the buildings proposed and the loss Chairman Brown asked Mr. Diab if he brought with him a petition or a letter of authorization. Mr. Diab responded in the negative. Chairman Brown stated that it is difficult to let you speak for everyone unless you have some authorization. . 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 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey asked for the current zoning of the property in the back. Assistant Planner Merrett responded R -3. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Brown to respond to the comments made by Mr. Diab. Mr. Brown stated that whether it is an R -1, R -2, or R -3 Zone the height limits are the same, so it does not really matter what we build. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that there is a five -foot (51) difference, R -2 is 30 foot and R -3 is 35 foot. Mr. Brown stated that he believes that the project submitted shows no more than 28 foot. Mr. Brown stated that the density is exactly within the 24 units per acre that is allowed. We are looking at about 19.5 as average for the two projects. We exceed the parking that is required and we meet the setback requirements. The Fire Department has approved the project. A brief discussion was held at the table on whether or not a General Plan Amendment could be conditioned. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -13, and approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -4, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -1 (Chairman Brown opposed) Motion by Commissioner Brinley to adopt Resolution No. 89 -3, entitled as follows, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -1 (Chairman Brown opposed) Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1989 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -4 = MICHAEL BROWN CONTINUED RESOLUTION 89 -3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -4 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF A 7.414 ACRE PARCEL FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (12.1 -20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) 4. General Plan Amendment 89 -6 - Greg Block, San Jacinto High- lands - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential on an 82 acre parcel at the northerly terminus of Scenic Ridge Drive one -half mile north of Railroad Canyon Road and adjacent to a portion of the west boundary of Canyon Lake Hills. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 89 -6. Mr. Jim Devlin, engineer for the project, stated that they are in agreement with the staff recommendation, and will answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 89 -6. 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 the Commission would have the opportunity to review the related tract later on. Assistant Planner Merrett responded in the affirmative Chairman Brown asked who will own Lots A, B and C? Assistant Planner Merrett responded that those lots will be dedicated as open space and ownership is unclear. Chairman Brown asked if we are continuing to accept open space or have we stopped that completely? Assistant Planner Merrett stated that he believes that in other tracts we have been doing a conservation easement. The property remains in their ownership and we have an easement. Chairman Brown stated that his concern is with this many units if they are going to be able to support the liability and so forth of those lots. They would have to maintain ownership, correct? Therefore, provide us with liability insurance or whatever is required. City Planner Thornhill responded in the affirmative. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Devlin if he foresees this as a problem. Mr. Devlin stated that he does not foresee this as a problem. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Devlin if they intend to set -up a homeowners association or an assessment district for the taxes. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1989 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -6 = GREG BLOCK, SAN JACINTO HIGHLANDS Mr. Devlin stated that there is already a condition on Friedman Homes for an assessment district, for landscape maintenance and so forth, and we believe that these types of things can be annexed into that assessment district. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -20, and approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -6, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to adopt Resolution No. 89 -4, entitled as follows, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 RESOLUTION 89 -4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -6 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF AN EIGHTY TWO (82) ACRE PARCEL FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THIRTY ONE AND ONE -HALF (31.5) ACRES DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL AND FIFTY ONE AND ONE -HALF ACRES (51.5) DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Sign Program for Commercial Project 87 -6 (Del Taco) - Ad Art, Inc. - Assistant Planner Restivo presented the Uniform Sign Program for Commercial Project 87 -6 Revised, which consists of a monument sign, drive - through menu board sign, caution sign at drive - through terminus and two Del Taco logo signs for the front and right side elevation, located on the east side of Lakeshore Drive approximately 245 feet north of Riverside Drive. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant. Mr. Rol Peterson, representing Ad Art, Inc., stated that they are in agreement with staff recommendation. Commissioner Gilenson stated for clarification on condition 1, the following verbiage should be added "equivalent must be approved by the Community Development Director or his designee ". Commissioner Brinley asked for the height and location of the monument sign. Assistant Planner Restivo referred to the site plan posted and identified the location of the monument sign, and stated the sign itself will be 6 feet. Commissioner Brinley asked if the monument sign would be on a mound. Chairman Brown asked if it would be in a mounded landscape area that would place it at 9 feet. Commissioner Wilsey asked if you would want to make that more specific, maybe 6 -feet from the curb line or curb height. Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1989 Page 6 SIGN PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87 -6 DEL TACO = AD ART, INC. CONTINUED Assistant Planner Merrett stated that the code restricts it to 6 -feet from the level of the sidewalk to the top of the sign. Commissioner Brinley stated that she would prefer to see something under 6 -feet, and referred to the monument sign for Chief Auto at Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive, which is approximately 4 -5 feet in height. City Planner Thornhill stated the landscape plan submitted shows a conceptual mound for the monument sign. Discussion at the table ensued on mounding height for the monument signs, and whether or not mounding was desired. Chairman Brown stated that he wants to see the mounding there and the sign to be - -the measurement that we will use will be from the height of the sidewalk. City Planner Thornhill responded that this is the standard ordinance provision. Chairman Brown commented on the monument sign for the Black Sea Restaurant across the street and the monument sign for the Chevron Station adjacent, and asked for the height of these signs. Believes the Chevron Station monument sign is about 6 -feet. Assistant Planner Merrett stated that the monument sign for the Black Sea Restaurant was never installed, but was restricted to 6 -feet above the level of the parking lot. Commissioner Brinley stated that she would like to see continuity, and believes the monument sign for Chief Auto is less than 6 -feet, approximately 4.5 feet, and the monument sign proposed for the Black Sea Restaurant was around 5 -feet. Chairman Brown recommended that the conditions of approval designate that it must be mounded, in that area. Chairman Brown stated that he does not want to give up landscaping for the sign. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve the Sign Program for Commercial Project 87 -6 based on the Findings and subject to the 3 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendment: Condition No. 1: "The monument sign cabinet and base shall be Texcoted or equivalent for a smooth surface as approved by the Community Development Director or his designee and shall be painted to match the main structure colors, approved for Commercial Project 87 -6. The menu board cabinet and base shall also utilize colors of the main building for Commercial Project 87 -6.11 Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1989 Page 7 DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill responded to inquiries from the meeting, as follows: K -Mart: Associate Planner Last inspected the landscaping and up a meeting with the K -Mart representative. They went over of the deficiencies, they were itemized and a list sent. have agreed to fix everything within the next two weeks. Commissioner Brinley requested a copy of the deficiency list. last set all They Triplex at Riverside and Robertson: The last building inspection done on this was back in February and apparently the building permit has expired. Our understanding is that there was a foreclosure on this property and now the bank, Cal West Bank, owns it, and Associate Planner Magee has contacted them. They are cooperating and trying to get the property cleaned up. Chairman Brown asked if we can request that they fence the property. City Planner Thornhill stated that he was not sure we can request fencing. But, will keep the Commission posted on both of these issues. City Planner Thornhill reported that there was a good turn out for the Town Hall Meeting on the General Plan, May 11th. The next scheduled Town Hall Meeting will be July 27, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson: Requested a copy of the deficiency list prepared on K -Mart. Attended the Town Hall Meeting on the General Plan and was surprised at the turnout. I would like to encourage more people to come, as it was a productive meeting and we did get some good input. Asked if the consultant has taken any of this to heart and devised an Alternate C. City Planner Thornhill responded that this is going to take some time, as there was various comments /consensus and we will try to put it all together. We are not sure what the alternative will be called. Commissioner Wilsey: Commissioner Gilenson covered everything that I wanted to cover. Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. Chairman Brown: Would like the community to respond to these meetings (Town Hall Meetings), as we do care about what you think - -it is your community as well as ours. The more input that you give us the better we can respond to your needs. Commissioner Saathoff Absent Minutes of Planning Commission May 16, 1989 Page 8 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Respectfully su mitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 1989 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, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Assistant Planners Restivo and Merrett, and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of May 16, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Commissioner Saathoff abstaining. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 89 -2 - Steve LeProhon - Pro Marine (Continued from May 2, 1989) - City Planner Thornhill stated that the applicant has withdrawn this application. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 AND BUSINESS ITEM NO. 2 CONCURRENTLY. Assistant Planner Merrett presented the following proposals as listed. Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 - Chevron U.S.A., Inc - A request to place a gasoline retail sales station and mini -mart on the 0.904 acre site on the southwest corner of Dexter and Central Avenues in a General Commercial Zoning District. Commercial Project 89 -2 - Chevron U.S.A., Inc. - A request to construct a gasoline retail sales station and mini -mart on the 0.904 acre site on the southwest corner of Dexter and Central Avenues in a C -2 Zone. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 /Commercial Project 89 -2. Mr. Mike Lucey, representing Chevron, stated that they concur with staff recommendation except for the blue on the canopy fascia, this is our corporate color. We would request that we be allowed to keep all of the blue, as proposed on the rendering, or be allowed to keep a panel, at least the width around the Chevron. Mr. Lucey stated that the red line that staff referred to does not go all the way around the building it extends over the top of the windows. Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 /Commercial Project 89 -2. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -2 - CHEVRON U.S.A.. INC. CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsey stated that in regards to Commercial Project 89 -2, believes that Mr. Lucey's point on the blue is well taken, not impressed with the blue fascia across the front. Also concerned with the mixing of colors. City Planner Thornhill stated that staff is not suggesting the elimination of the blue. Simply that the area of the blue be reduced in size so that you just have a border around the Chevron logo. Commissioner Saathoff asked if we were talking about some- thing rectangular that the letters would sit in, or something triangular that would follow the roof line. Commissioner Wilsey asked if it was a blue field with white letters. Assistant Planner Merrett responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Wilsey stated that this should be looked at carefully to make sure that the colors combine /blend and compliment each other, especially around the blue field. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the rendering and stated that he would like to see more emphasis on the landscaping, especially at the corner along Central. Commissioner Gilenson asked if we have an estimate on what these fees are going to be, referring to conditions 14 and 23 of Commercial Project 89 -2. Assistant Planner Merrett stated that this was discussed with Ray O'Donnell in the Engineering Department and, at this time, they do not have an exact fee. But by the time this proposal goes to City Council it will be narrowed down. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Lucey if they intended to have freeway signs with the logo. Mr. Lucey responded that there is one freeway sign. Believes that your code calls for 82 square feet. The freeway sign will have three uses portrayed, by our contract. Mr. Lucey stated that of the freeway sign on 28.6 feet and believes course, like that put Commissioner Brinley on the building itself there there is a mistake in the height the plans. Believes the plan shows the codes says 45 feet. We would, of to the maximum height allowed. asked if any other logos were proposed or on the roof. Mr. Lucey responded that there is a logo on each side and a small button logo. Commissioner Brinley stated with all of this and the sign she would rather see less blue or no blue at all, just the name Chevron. With the sign and the logos being around it that tells people who and what you are. Commissioner Brinley asked if the conditions of approval included a landscaping and maintenance district or bond. Assistant Planner Merrett responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brinley commented on the berming, when we Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -2 - CHEVRON U.S.A.. INC. CONTINUED discussed this previously, did we not discuss a three to four -foot high berm with the monument sign placed upon that. Assistant Planner Merrett stated when this was discussed at concept review, believes there was discussion regarding a separation between the base of the monument sign and the mounding, meaning some sort of ground cover. Commissioner Brinley asked if this was not going to be set into the ground, correct? Assistant Planner Merrett responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brinley, referring to the rendering posted, asked if the poles would be textured or are they wood? Assistant Planner Merrett responded that the proposal was conditioned to be textured and colored to match the building. Commissioner Saathoff stated that in reference to the Chevron sign, concerned with the overall appearance. Feels that there is going to be adequate signage; wondering about eliminating that sign entirely and texturing the canopy. Mr. Lucey stated that if he were to agree to any sign elimination, he would agree to the elimination of the button Chevron hallmarks on the corner of the canopies. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he believes the Commission's concern is the boldness of the blue overpowering the project. How about going with the texcote and natural colors across there and reversing the colors using blue letters instead of white, would this go against your corporate image? Mr. Lucey stated that he does not believe that it would have the effect. Would just like to see some type of blue on that canopy facade. Chairman Brown asked where the roof treatment for the mini -mart is addressed in the conditions. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that it is a parapet roof with no tile. Chairman Brown asked if there would be signage or advertising on the outside of the building, as permanent advertising. Mr. Lucey stated that there has been, in the original models we did of the food marts, there was generic advertising that showed customers drinking milk, etc. We found that this did not go over well and would not have it on this project. Chairman Brown asked if generic advertising would be allowed? Assistant Planner Merrett responded that generic advertising would not be allowed, and a Master Signage Program would be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see condition number 5 of Commercial Project 89 -2, amended to read: Condition No. 5: "The blue fields on the north and south canopy facades shall be eliminated and the facades shall be textured and colored to match the building." Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -2 _ CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. CONTINUED Chairman Brown stated that he would entertain at such time the Signage Program is submitted discussion of a button sign in the center of that facade. But does not wish to see the entire facade match the logo. Believes that there will be sufficient signage and recognition with the freeway and the monument sign. Chairman Brown stated that he would like all of the planters, including the one in front of the store, elevated to 18 or 24 inch, condition number 9. Chairman Brown suggested that a condition pertaining to the roof treatment of the mini -mart be added, as follows: Condition No. 21.a: 'The roof treatment on the mini -mart shall be exactly the same in ap- pearance as the roof treatment sub- mitted for the canopy, although materials may vary." Mr. Mark Murphy, architect for the project, stated that the proportions of both buildings are 90 degrees to one another, and asked if the Commission has a preference to orientation. The gable end is on the long side of the canopy, the canopy _ is 38 foot in width and about 92 foot in length. Chairman Brown stated that you could change the roof line over the mini -mart to match it. Put a similar type pitch on it, the same type fascia with roof line. Mr. Murphy asked if the Commission would have a problem with a depression in it for equipment. Chairman Brown responded in the negative. Discussion at the table ensued on the roof and the roof line looking exactly like the canopy, angle may be greater but the material to be exactly the same; roof to be tile with an overhang; and the rear elevation. Chairman Brown suggested the creation of a roof that will be tiled extending over the front of the fascia to the parapet, roofing material to overhang the fascia and shall be identical. Commissioner Saathoff commented on Chairman Brown's comment indicating a button type sign and pinpointing it to that specific item. Would rather allow the applicant to come back, if they so desire, and submit a sign program. Chairman Brown stated that he was trying to indicate that he was willing to look at something on that facade, but it is not going to be all blue. Chairman Brown stated that condition number 6 of Commercial Project 89 -2 is in direct conflict with some of the items we have been discussing. Their roof mounted equipment is shielded from view. The reason for the parapet wall is to hide all of the equipment, as discussed. Are they going to be allowed to put any equipment inside that parapet wall? Assistant Planner Merrett responded that it was his under- standing that the Commission did not want to see any roof mounted equipment. Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -2 - CHEVRON U.S.A.. INC. CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley responded air conditioners and things like that were to be ground mounted. Commissioner Gilenson responded that the only thing allowed on the roof would be swamp coolers. Commissioner Wilsey asked about the refrigeration equipment, and was informed that this should be ground mounted. Discussion at the table was held on roof or ground mounted equipment and its location, eliminating parapet wall if condition number 6 remains as stated; location of refrigeration equipment, air and water, and trash enclosure; and relocating the handicap parking space. Considerable discussion ensued on roof or ground mounted equipment; location of the external refrigeration and air conditioning equipment to be on the ground, preferably, provided it does not cause a major problem with traffic circulation; deleting condition number 6 of Commercial Project 89 -2, and allowing the equipment to be placed within the roof depression thereby screening it from public view. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 and adopt Negative Declaration No. 89 -21 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 89 -21 and approval of Commercial Project 89 -2 based on the Findings and subject to the 50 Conditions of Approval with the following amendments: Condition No. 5: "The blue fields on the north and south canopy facades shall be textured and colored to match the building." Condition No. 6: "NO roof mounted equipment shall be permitted." DELETED Condition No. 9: "All planters boxes shall be elevated 18 to 24 inches. Any additional requirements deemed necessary by the City Landscape Architect shall be fully incorporated within the final plans prior to issuance of Building Permits. Final Landscape Plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 21.a: "The roof treatment on the mini -mart will be consistent in material and ap- pearance with the canopy roof. The slope area shall have the same roof treatment, exactly the same overhang to the parapet area. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 7:55 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:01 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING NO. 31 4, AND 5 CONCURRENTLY. Assistant Planner Restivo presented the following proposals as listed. Variance 89 -3 - A & A Investments - A request to vary from the common open space requirements of multi - family development (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Section 17.28.120.B) by providing additional private open space in lieu of common open space for a triplex project at the northwest corner of Langstaff and Sumner. Variance 89 -4 - A & A Investments - A request to vary from the parking requirements requiring landscape planters ten -feet (101) wide and five -feet (5') wide when driveways are adjacent to public right -of -ways and interior residential lot lines, respectively, to six -feet (61) and two -feet (2') wide landscaped area, respectively. This variance is for a triplex development at the northwest corner of Langstaff and Sumner. Variance 89 -5 - A & A Investments - A request to vary from the parking ordinance prohibiting direct back -up of vehicles onto public streets for multi - family projects (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Section 17.66.080.B) for a triplex project located at the northwest corner of Langstaff and Sumner. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 89 -3, 89 -4 and 89 -5. Mr. Alan Manes, representing A & A Investments, commented on the findings /standards for the granting of a variance; gave the history on the proposals submitted for this property, and the numerous designs contemplated. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Variance 89 -3, 89 -4 and 89 -5. Mr. George Alongi, one of the controlling partners of A & A Investments, stated that they have been working on this proposal for the better part of a year. The variances that we are requesting are very minor. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Variance 89 -3, 89 -4 and 89 -5. 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 8:20 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey stated that it is an unusual piece of property with unusual problems. All of the bases have been covered and staff has done a good job. Commissioner Brinley stated that her only concern is the traffic and backing out. We do not know how the General Plan is going to go at this point, but that could be a major problem later on. I am sure this will be addressed and taken care of later on. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the driveway that comes out onto Langstaff, asking Mr. Alongi if they are going to grade there? What is the elevation - -will it be pretty level? Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 7 VARIANCE 89 -3, 89 -4 AND 89 -5 - A & A INVESTMENTS CONTINUED Mr. Alongi responded that it will be pretty level, a 15% driveway going into that particular garage. Commissioner Saathoff stated that on Unit 3 a deck has been suggested, assumes that this private open space is on the second floor, correct? Mr. Alongi the street Discussion 24 feet; decorative property 1 stated that the private area and sits right over the encl at the table ensued on the location of landscaping block walls and what is in Lne. can not be seen from Dsed garage. turn - around radius of planters, proposed between the walls and Mr. Alongi utilizing the posted site plan, pointed out the location of the planters, their exact dimensions, and the decorative block walls to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Saathoff stated that on projects such as this, in -fill lots where variances and adjustments made, when it comes to Design Review of this project, and similar projects, he would be looking for more than minimum landscaping requirements and quality building materials. Chairman Brown asked about alley right -of -way and dedication. Mr. Alongi stated that this is a private alley, and will do whatever the City requires. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Variance 89 -3 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Variance 89 -4 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Variance 89 -5 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 89 -1 - Sam Hsieh - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct an 18,000 square foot commercial retail building with office use above to be located on a 42,808 square foot lot located at the northwest corner of Casino Drive and San Jacinto Road. Assistant Planner Restivo requested that the plant species listed in condition number 29.e and f. be corrected, and that condition number 64 be added, to read: Condition No. 29e: "Incorporate mounding and shrub hedge, is photinia, along Casino Drive and San Jacinto. Condition No. 29f: Delete the following frost sensitive plant species from plant list: Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -1 - SAM HSIEH CONTINUED 1) Cupania anacardioides (Carrot - wood Tree) 2) Erythrina Caffra (Kaffirbloom Coral Tree) 3) Hibiscus Huegelii (Blue Hibiscus)" Condition No. 64: "Applicant shall stripe a Class II bicycle lane to Cal Trans specifi- cations along Casino Drive." Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Danny Lee, representing the applicant, stated that they will work with staff to satisfy all of the conditions, and will answer any questions that may arise. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would like to see more color in the planting areas fronting Casino Drive. Commissioner Gilenson recommended that conditions 7, 9, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 25 be amended by adding the following verbiage "or his designee ". Commissioner Gilenson stated that condition number 17 calls for screening of roof mounted equipment. In the past, we have removed all roof mount equipment except for swamp coolers. I would like to stay consistent and allow nothing on the roof except swamp coolers. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Wilsey in regards to providing additional .landscaping for the area fronting Casino Drive. Commissioner Brinley stated that her only concern was condition number 17, the roof mounted equipment being visible from the freeway, and would like to see this mounted on the ground. Commissioner Saathoff recommended that the second paragraph of condition number 29 be amended, to read: "Final landscape plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of building permits" Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 17, we are requesting ground mounted equipment and I believe staff understands exactly what we are looking for. I do feel, if it is not at all feasible and if the roof mounted equipment can be adequately screened from freeway visibility that is acceptable to me. This needs to be addressed more specifi- cally. City Planner Thornhill responded that a lot of this depends on the roof design. With this type of roof it would be infeasible to shield it without damaging the architectural integrity. Commissioner Saathoff stated that, in this case, we have landscaping areas sufficient enough that we could just go with the ground mounted. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -15 and approval of Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 9 PROJECT 89 -1 - SAM HSIEH Commercial Project 89 -1 based on the Findings and subject to the 63 Conditions of Approval listed in the staff report with the following amendments: Condition No. 7: "Materials and colors depicted on the materials board shall be used unless modified by the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 9: "A revised plot plan shall be submitted by the applicant prior to Building Division issuance of permits which reflects all Conditions of Approval. This revised plot plan shall become the approved plot plan only upon review and approval by the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 15: "No outdoor storage shall be allowed for any tenant unless completely screened with solid screening from public view to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 17: "All equipment must be ground mounted and enclosed." Condition No. 19: "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." Condition No. 21: "Any proposed metal mailboxes shall be treated to blend with the center's design theme. A detail shall be included in the building plans, subject to the approval of the postal service and the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 25: "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 approved by the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 29: "Any transformers and mechanical or electrical equipment shall be indicated on landscaping plan and screened as part of the landscaping plan. Final landscape plans shall be sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of building permits and shall include the following: a) Irrigation and plant specifications consistent with City. Landscape Guidelines. Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -1 - SAM HSIEH b) Pay applicable fees. c) Landscape entry shall utilize more Agapnathus Africanus, Hemerocallis species, and mordea bicolor. d) Only City Street Trees from ap- proved list may be used along Casino Drive and San Jacinto Road frontages. e) Incorporate mounding and shrub hedge, ie photinia, along Casino Drive and San Jacinto. f) Delete the following frost sensi- tive plant species from plant list: 1) Cupania anacardioides (Carrot - wood Tree) 2) Erythrina Caffra (Kaffirbloom Coral Tree) 3) Hibiscus Huegelii (Blue Hi- biscus) g) All plants listed in plant legend must be shown on landscape plan or deleted from list. Condition No. 64: "Applicant shall stripe a Class II bicycle lane to Cal Trans specifi- cations along Casino Drive." second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 2. COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -2 - CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. - CONSIDERED AND ACTED UPON WITH PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3. 3. Residential Project 89 -8 - Bruce Ayres - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a request for Design Review approval of 75 single - family dwelling units to be built on separate R -1 zoned lots of an existing subdivision located in an area bounded by Casino Drive and Lakeshore Drive on the north and south and Avenue 9 and 12 on the west and east. Assistant Planner Merrett stated that he would like to bring to the Commission's attention the errata sheet dealing with the Findings and adding condition number 20.a. Also, would like to add condition number 20.b., which reads as follows: FINDINGS 1. Subject to the Conditions of Approval, Residential Project 89 -8 is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts. 2. The project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the R -1 Single - Family zoning District in which it is located. 3. The project complies with the design directives contained in Section 17.82.060 and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 11 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -8 = BRUCE AYRES 4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Section 17.82.070, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to insure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of this Chapter and the planning district in which the site is located. Condition No. 20.a: "Applicant shall use roofing materials with a Class "A" fire rating; random tab extra dimensional or equivalent, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 20.b: "Applicant shall stripe a Class II bicycle lane to Cal Trans specifi- cations along Casino Drive." Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Bruce Ayres stated that he has worked with staff extensively for over a year and feels they have a very viable project. Mr. Ayres stated that he concurs with the conditions of approval other than condition number 37, which deals with Mill Street having a 44 foot curb -to -curb. Kuzman and Associates did a traffic study that was tied in with surrounding property, and some how this got into the report that Mill Street should be a 44 foot curb -to -curb as opposed to a 40 foot curb -to -curb, as the rest of the tract is that way. Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Ayres if he was asking for a 40 foot curb -to -curb. Mr. Ayres responded 40 foot curb -to -curb and a 50 foot right - of -way along Mill Street. Commissioner Wilsey referred to the posted plot plan and asked for the driveway length of the very corner piece. Mr. Ayres responded that it was roughly 80 -100 feet Commissioner Wilsey asked how this pertains to local codes, don't we have some type of restriction on flag lots like that as far as ingress. Assistant Planner Merrett responded in the negative, stating that the code only addresses cul -de -sac streets. Commissioner Wilsey asked at what point this changes from a 50 year old plot plan to a new residential development? Chairman Brown stated that if it is a recorded subdivision it does not change. Commissioner Wilsey stated that we have a 1938 subdivision with inferior lot sizes - -we are looking at 4,800 square foot lots in a town where our current code calls for 6,000 square foot lots, and no more than 6 dwelling units per acre and we are looking at 7 or 8. I do not know what we can do about it, if anything. My problem is we have gone through on this project and changed approximately 16 homes; cul -de -saced the roads, which is probably better, and made major design changes. At what point does the old plot plan get thrown Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 12 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -8 - BRUCE AYRES CONTINUED out, and we start looking for a developer to come in and start with a clean sheet of paper. Assistant Planner Merrett responded this would require a reversion to acreage for the whole tract. In theory you could do lot line adjustments on every lot in this tract and it would still remain as the old tract. Commissioner Gilenson recommended that conditions 4, 8, 11, 19, and 21, be amended by adding the following verbiage "or his designee ". Commissioner Gilenson asked what would happen if the City does not declare the property surplus, as condition number 48 requires; or as in condition number 45, the applicant does not make the bid to purchase the property, does this cancel out the whole project? City Planner Thornhill responded only pertaining to those lots. Commissioner Brinley stated that her concern was the lot sizes, but with legally subdivide lots you have to live with that. Commissioner Saathoff commented on a portion of the lot facing the end of Avenue 11 requiring a street abandonment, this has not yet been requested, correct? Assistant Planner Merrett utilizing the posted site plan highlighted the lot requiring street abandonment, the original lot configuration and the creation of the new lot. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the statement made earlier on condition number 45 and 48 pertaining only to those lots, and stated that condition number 45 is site specific and not lot specific. There will be nothing started on the project until condition number 45 and 48 are adhered to, correct? Assistant Planner Merrett responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he had no problem with the 50 foot right -of -way and 40 foot curb -to -curb along Mill Street. Chairman Brown stated that the size of the lot has nothing to do with the quality of the project. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 16, pertaining to the installation of front yard landscaping being the responsibility of the homeowner, and recommended this condition be amended to read, as follows: Condition No. 16: Residential front yard landscaping, sprinklers with 100% coverage and some type of hydroseed shall be the responsi- bility of the developer. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -19 and approval of Residential Project 89 -8 based on the Findings and subject to the 53 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 4: "Building elevations, materials and colors shall be constructed as depicted Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 13 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -8 _ BRUCE AYRES CONTINUED on plans and /or as modified by the Community Development Director or his designee. Any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 8: "The mailboxes for the project shall be architecturally treated to soften the appearance of the hard edge "metal box" construction, with treatment to match the building materials used in the development of the units, as approved by the Community Development Director or his designee. Condition No. 11: "Applicant shall record CC & R's for the project prohibiting on street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers, trucks over one (1) ton capacity. CC & R's shall also include screening of any ground based disc, no roof mounted or front yard satellite discs - to be allowed. The CC & R's shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee prior to recordation of any deeds of record of survey. CC & R's shall be recorded prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the units in Residential Project 89 -8. Any _ modification or amendment to the CC & R's shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney and the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 16: "Residential front yard landscaping with 100% irrigation system to be the responsibility of the developer." Condition No. 19: "Lots created or recreated at the cul -de -sac of Avenue 11 will require a partial street abandonment of Mill Street right -of -way. The acquisition of this property will be subject to the standard surplus property procedures as provided in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. In the event that that property is not acquired by the applicant any modification of this project will be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development or his designee." Condition No. 20a: "Applicant shall use roofing materials with a Class "A" fire rating; random tab extra dimensional or equivalent, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 20.b: "Applicant shall stripe a Class II bicycle lane to Cal Trans specifi- cations along Casino Drive." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission - June 6, 1989 Page 14 4. Single - Family Residence - 4109 Crestview Drive - John D. Schultz - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 2,500 square foot single - family home situated on a 24,930 square foot lot. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. There being no one present representing the applicant, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on roofing material. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 4109 Crestview Drive based on the Findings and subject to the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 COMMUNITY DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill updated Commission on the following items: Zone Code Amendments, originally considered back in January, are finally making their way to City Council. Councilman Buck has requested that they be reconsidered and they will go to City Council on June 13th. Councilman Buck has recommended, and staff supports this recommendation, that the R -2 and R -3 District be amended to only provide for common open space when there are more than 4 units on the property. The Stephens Kangaroo Rat Ordinance will be going to City Council June 13th, which will formally involve us in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process that the County is going through. I believe all of the cities will now be participants as of the first week in July. Homestead Development Company reached an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain a Section 7 Permit, which would basically allow them to take the kangaroo rat. The way they accomplished that was to agree to purchase a significant portion of land, that just happen to coincidentally be a prime candidate for a reserve, and to agreed to donate that property in total, in lieu of payment of fees. The habitat conservation plan and the interim plan is expected to have its approval in about 4 to 6 months. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Received information from staff on the avigation easements and Commissioner Gilenson gave me some information in regards to this out of Los Angeles. If any one else wished to see it I will give it back for copies. Commissioner Gilenson Informed the public that as of July 5, 1989, we will be holding our meetings on the first and third Wednesday of each month. Minutes of Planning Commission June 6, 1989 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Brinlev Asked staff if a response had been received from K -Mart regarding the letter sent on landscaping. City Planner Thornhill responded that he has gone over some of the recommendations and suggestions with John Ballew, our consultant, and they are proceeding with the work. I believe that they are moving from the southerly end towards the north, so if the other end looks ragged it is because they have not gotten there yet. Chairman Brown The corner of Robertson and Riverside Drive is becoming a major junk yard again, 6 to 9 abandoned vehicles, or state of abandonment. I would appreciate it if someone would check into this. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Approved', � Jeff Brown Chairmt�/ Respectfully su itted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Wilsey and Brown Saathoff Also present were City Planner Magee, Assistant Planners Restivo Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Thornhill, Associate Planner and Merrett, and Public Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of June 6, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS Chairman Brown closed the IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MOVE BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 4 TO THE BEGINNING OF THE BUSINESS ITEMS. Commissioner Brinley asked to be excused due to conflict of interest. 4. Sign Program for Commercial Project 85 -1 and Commercial Project 85 -1 Revised - Rick Estes - City Planner Thornhill presented a request to amend a previously approved Sign Program for the Brookstone Landing commercial center, located on the northwest corner of Lincoln Street and Riverside Drive. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if there were any concerns. Mr. Rick Estes, applicant, stated that he was in favor of the conversion, and that it would present a more attractive appearance than the can signs that are existing. Mr. Estes stated that only problem he has with staff recommendation is the length of time, and requested that this be changed to three years. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he discussed condition number 2 with the applicant, and agrees with staff recommendation. Feels that 3 years is too long to have mixed signage in the area. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he tends to agree with Commissioner Gilenson. Three years is too long, however, one year might be too short, so we could probably split the difference. Mr. Estes stated that during the initial conversation with Mr. Thornhill we did not have a time limit. All of the support coming out of the center right now is based on no Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 2 SIGN PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85 -1 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85 -1 REVISED CONTINUED time limit. I was proposing the three years and believe it will happen much more rapidly than that. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would prefer to see a little longer time than what he just spoke of -- rather than see a businessman put under an undue hardship, and asked for staff's opinion. City Planner Thornhill responded that it will look a little odd for a while with the mixture. Anything beyond 2 to 3 years gets difficult to get a handle on, and it may get shabby after a while if we do not address it with some specific time period. City Planner Thornhill suggested amending the condition to discuss the potential for requiring change of signage also at new occupancy. Commissioner Wilsey suggested the addition of condition number 3, which would read: Condition No. 3: "New tenants entering the shopping center will have to conform to the new upgraded Sign Ordinance." Chairman Brown stated that condition number 1 would address any new tenants having to conform to the new Signage Program. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Estes for the current percentage of occupancy of the center. Mr. Estes responded that the vacancy is about 30 %. Chairman Brown stated that because this is an upgrade and voluntary action by the applicant /owner, believes that three years would be reasonable for existing tenants. If it does have a 30% vacancy factor that percentage will be addressed immediately. So at least 30% of the center and over a three year period the balance of the center would be turned over. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Sign Program for Commercial Project 85 -1 and Commercial Project 85 -1 Revised based on the Findings and subject to the 2 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 2: "All existing can signs shall be removed within three (3) years from the date of approval from the Sign Program." Second by Chairman Brown. Approved 3 -0 Commissioner Brinley abstaining 1. Single - Family Residence - 3720 Ulla Lane - Alvin Cuelho - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a 3,095 square foot single - family residence on a 0.98 acre lot at 3720 Ulla Lane. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if there were any concerns. Mr. Alvin Cuelho stated that he agreed with staff recommen- dation. Commissioner Wilsey asked for the width of Ulla Lane, condi- tion number 30, stating usually this requires half -width Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 3 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 3720 ULLA LANE - ALVIN CUELHO improvement not two paved lanes. Suggested that this condition be amended to require "half -width improvement ". Commissioner Brinley stated that some of the homes on Ulla Lane have bridges and asked Mr. Cuelho if he proposed to have a bridge. Mr. Cuelho responded in the negative. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Cuelho about the ground water situation. Mr. Cuelho responded that the percolation test was approved for a septic system. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Cuelho if his property was within 200 feet of an existing sewer trunk line. Mr. Cuelho responded in the negative. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Cuelho about the Walnut Trees on the property, and if he intended to preserve them. Mr. Cuelho responded in the affirmative. Chairman Brown suggested that condition number 21.a., be added, which would read: Condition No. 21.a.: "Preservation of at least 50% of the existing mature trees, if healthy. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Resi- dence at 3720 Ulla Lane based on the Findings and subject to the 31 Conditions of Approval with the following amendments: Condition No. 21.a: "At least 50% of existing natural trees will be preserved." Condition No. 30: "Applicant shall improve Ulla Lane, half -width asphalt paving only, from property frontage to the northwest existing improvements. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 2. Single - Family Residence - 15093 Larson Road - Steve McDowell - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a 2,650 square foot, single- story, residence on an 8,400 square foot lot on the southwest corner of Larson Road and Machado Street. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if there were any concerns. Mr. Steve McDowell informed the Commission that there are two Walnut Trees on the property which will be retained, and the water district has informed him that he can connect to sewer. Mr. McDowell commented on the street improvements and asked if he could bond for the street improvements in lieu of installing said improvements. Chairman Brown asked Public Service Director Kirchner if they were not allowing an in lieu fee. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 4 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 15093 LARSON ROAD = STEVE MCDOWELL Public Services Director responded in the negative, and stated that the ordinance provides for an in lieu fee at our discretion. We only utilize this when it is not physically or practically possible to install the improvements. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Kirchner if there were any concerns on drainage, in that area. Upstream and downstream problems created by this will be addressed so that there is not a problem created by the homeowner. Public Services Director Kirchner responded that this will be be worked out when the engineering plans are submitted. Commissioner Wilsey asked for the width of Larson Road and if we will be doing half -width improvements on Larson, as well. Public Services Director Kirchner responded that Larson Road is 60 foot right -of -way, which would be 40 foot total paving. Commissioner Brinley stated that she was glad to see the applicant volunteering to connect to sewer, and as long as the applicant is volunteering would like to have this put in the record. Chairman Brown stated that with that much square footage and that big of a footprint on that yard he is concerned with connecting to sewer, and suggested condition number 9 be amended to include verbiage that the proposal connect to sewer regardless of the distance. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 15093 Larson Road based on the Findings and subject to the 32 conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 9: "The project shall connect to sewer." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 3. Single - Family Residence - 113 Mohr Street - Time Construction Services - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,425 square foot dwelling on a 7,500 square foot lot located 100 feet south of Heald on the west side of Mohr Street. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Brinley stated that her concern is on drainage and its flow. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that she discussed this with the Engineering Department and, basically, the applicant will have to obtain drainage acceptance letters from surrounding property owners or, direct to the drainage out to Mohr Street. Also, this was discussed with the applicant and he had no comment at the time. Chairman Brown asked that the Commission be provided examples of drainage acceptance letters. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 113 Mohr Street based on the Findings and Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 5 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE _ 113 MOHR STREET - TIME CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CONTINUED subject to the 29 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 4. CONSIDERED AND ACTED UPON AT THE BEGINNING OF BUSINESS ITEMS. 5. Tuscany Hills Recreation Center - Homestead Land Develop- ment Corporation ( Hunsaker & Associates) - Associate Planner Magee presented a proposal to construct a Recreation Center within the Tuscany Hills Development. The center will provide two pools, a spa, sun deck, tot lot, picnic area, Community Meeting Room, gym room, basket ball court, picnic areas and four tennis courts. The center will also provide two off - street parking areas. The center will be centrally located within Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4, approximately one mile north of Railroad Canyon Road. Mr. Chris Taylor, representing Homestead Land Development Corporation, gave a brief description of the project and then introduced Mr. Kris Weber of Hunsaker & Associates. Mr. Kris Weber commented as follows: Condition No. 1: Request that the approval period be amended to reflect two years, and asked what extension process is available, if any. Condition No. 7: Since the Recreational Center will be functioning as the information center for Tuscany Hills we would request that we be able to be issued a Building Permit prior to the recordation of the underlying parcel, so that we can get that facility up and going. The underlying parcel which has recorded, which is parcel 3 of Parcel Map 23910, includes quite a few single - family lots, so it would be a large map that we would be recording, which the recreational site is one small lot within that parcel. Condition No. 10: Requested clarification on wall pack type lighting. Condition No. 13: On -site surface water run -off shall not cross sidewalks. We anticipate that our drainage pattern, especially for the parking lot areas, will be sheet flow system and coming out the driveway apron onto the public street and getting into a catch basin and then into the storm drain. I do not know if this qualifies as crossing the sidewalk or not. Also, clarification is needed on the condition of on -site sidewalks and drainage crossing said sidewalks. Condition No. 19: We would like to point out that we are at the whim of the utility company on what we can and cannot do, as far as screening and permitting walls around transformers and vaults. They have very specific design standards. Condition No. 20: Asks for decorative pavers or stamped concrete with a minimum dimension of ten feet, believes these are at the ingress /egress driveways. We would not like to do this, we feel that it is just an additional cost to the project, it has no real utility. We feel that we have a quality recreation site that has a very aesthetic appeal with the architecture and landscaping treatments. Condition No. 24: Again deals with the drainage issue across sidewalks. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 6 TUSCANY HILLS RECREATION CENTER CONTINUED Condition No. 25: I think what is intended by this condition is, a condition that relates to erosion control measures. Suggested wording be added "erosion control plan to be submitted and approved prior to the rainy season in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer." Condition No. 26: Requested clarification. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 23910, this parcel map is recorded. Tentative Parcel Map 17413 is a Tentative Tract Map. In looking at those conditions, Parcel Map 23910 is recorded all of those conditions have been met, and in reviewing the conditions for Tentative Tract Map 17413 we have only found one condition that refers to the recreation site, and that relates to the establishment of a Homeowners Association to manage the private recreational facility, which we intend to establish. Mr. Weber stated that he would let Mr. Keith French, the landscape architect for the project, address the design of the tot lot, condition number 33. Condition No. 34: We do not intend to have a lifeguard on duty. The pool will be posted with "no lifeguard on duty" signs. Again, this is an additional expense, and if you have a lifeguard stand with no lifeguard, it may be construed as having a guard on duty. Condition No. 39: Refers to the redesign of the parking lot to meet the City's minimum backup space. We feel that the Site Plan, as proposed, does meet the City's design standards for a one way 45 degree angle parking, parking layout with 15 foot travel aisle. Condition No. 40: Error on our part, the correct dimension is 88 feet. Clarification is more on the amendment process. If this is just re- dimensioning the street width and giving the City a new set of plan, we have no problem with that condition. Condition No. 41: Again refers to a lifeguard, plan of services. Until we received these conditions this had been an issue that we had never been aware of. As mentioned, a Homeowners Association will be managing this facility and imposing those hours of operation and conditions. Condition No. 44: We have shown loading and delivery areas on the Site Plan. If they are inadequate or if there are additional areas the City staff desires we would like to discuss those. Condition No. 45: Would like to insert wording that would give us more design flexibility in the design of the parking areas and it would read: "concrete ribbons or curb and gutters shall be provided in both parking areas ". Condition No. 48: We received comments where the Engineering Department did not have any specific comments other than those already addressed in the conditions, but if there are additional comments at this time we would be happy to discuss them. Mr. Weber stated getting back to the parking lot. On the Site Plan we have designed a one -way in one -way out parking lot which we feel has achieved the most parking spaces that we can achieve in the area. We feel that providing parking in this area is very beneficial to the recreation site, it is Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 7 TUSCANY HILLS RECREATION CENTER CONTINUED needed, and the more parking we can get in that area the better it will be. Going to a 90 degree parking configuration we sacrificed approximately 26 parking spaces, and we feel that is a less desirable alternative to the angle parking, one -way in and one -way out, which is an acceptable design standard in the City Codes. If you have any specifics that relate to that we would be happy to address those. Mr. Keith French utilizing the Site Plan, described locations of entry monumentation; basket ball court, volley ball court, tennis courts; additional parking area, pool /spa areas, and the protection of view from amenities proposed. Mr. French, utilizing the Floor Plan, illustrated which part of the building would be utilized for marketing. Mr. French, utilizing the Site Plan, commented on the tot lot and staff recommendation that this be increased. We would like to submit the fact that this area surrounded by fences is really the entire tot lot, and if you include all of that we believe that meets the criteria. Because we have allowed areas for people to sit at tables and watch their children. Also, we believe that if you include the other area that we are providing which is for free -play as well as picnic and barbecue, that this more than adequately meets those requirements. Mr. French, utilizing the Site Plan, commented on the re- location of the trash enclosure, away from the tot lot and adjacent to the parking lot. Mr. John Lazootin, explained the design of the Floor Plan for the Recreation Center highlighting public access; court yard area; elevation of the Community Hall being two -feet lower than the information center, and the location of the - office, physical fitness and storage areas. Mr. Lazootin then commented on the architecture of the Recreation Center and materials and colors which will be used. Chairman Brown asked staff respond to the concerns raised by Mr. Weber. Associate Planner Magee responded as follows: Condition No. 1: This is a standard condition placed on all proposals from a single - family residence to the largest commercial or industrial project. An extension is handled simply by the filing of a letter and a fee to the Planning Department, and then that item would be brought back before the Commission. Condition No. 7: Staff would have no problem, if Commission wished to allow the issuance of a Building Permit prior to the recordation of the underlying map. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Taylor which Building Permits he was concerned with. Mr. Taylor responded the Building Permit for the Recreation Center. Associate Planner Magee gave an lighting, condition number 10. Condition No. 13: Again, this explanation of wall pack is a standard condition. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 8 TUSCANY HILLS RECREATION CENTER CONTINUED Basically, to direct the water within the parking lot out through the driveway. As Mr. Weber indicated, not through an open drain that would go out between the sidewalk and the buffer or across the sidewalk. Discussion ensued on directing water to a catch basin within the parking lot; if this includes the driveway depression area; whether or not this applies to on -site sidewalks versus public right -of -way sidewalks and this not applying to on -site sidewalks. Condition No. 19: Mr. Weber indicated that they are at the whim of the utility company, and we know to a great extent that they are. However, several project, specifically on Casino Drive, have been conditioned to do exactly this. They have included block enclosures on three sides of the transformers, and the utility companies have allowed this to occur. Sometimes there is a problem with locating the exact placement of that vault, and staff is aware of this. Generally what we do is indicate on the plans approximate location subject to change based on field inspection. We understand these problems and are willing to work with the applicant. Discussion ensued on whether or not staff was accepting the utility companies plans as adequate for location; adding verbiage "subject to the approval of the Community Development Director for their location "; intent of condition is to allow staff to okay the enclosure facility; deleting the definition of how that should be done and leave it to the Community Development Director to provide for approval of screening. Associate Planner Magee suggested verbiage be added "masonry structure, landscaping or other method as deemed appropriate ". Condition No. 20: The addition of stamped concrete at the entry ways is something that staff has been conditioning with all commercial developments, and we see this as more or less a commercial facility. In keeping with the community, specifically Casino Drive and Mission Trail, staff elected to include this. Mr. French stated that their intent was to develop an entry to a building which is a major facility for Tuscany Hills, and the entry to the building is at the doorway not at the driveway. As we come into to the project, come in the driveway, we enter the building that is the place where we would like to make our statement. Discussion ensued on the possible conflict with materials to be used at the entrance to the parking lot with what is at the entrance to the building, and applicant having some flexibility to work with staff as the definition of material is unclear, and deleting the condition, if the Commission desires. Condition No. 24: Refers to the downspouts that would carry the drainage off the roof and down the side of the building merely indicates that they should be painted to match the building so that we do not have them standing out. Staff would prefer, in this particular situation, if a roof is carrying a large amount of water we would like to see the planter absorb the water and then take it under the sidewalk out onto the parking lot. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 9 TUSCANY HILLS RECREATION CENTER CONTINUED Condition No. 25: Relates to containing the run -off of a graded pad within 30 days if the Building Permits are not pulled and construction begun. I believe that Mr. Weber indicated that he would like to see this condition changed to upon approval of the City Engineer, and in our City the Chief Building Official and the Planning Department review grading plans. If the developer would like to go with erosion control staff would be willing to accept the Chief Building Official as the deciding factor in that. Discussion ensued on retaining any silting on -site; applicant providing erosion control plans that are reviewed by the City and implement during the wet season; whether or not proposal will be phased and if phased the empty pads be hydroseeded and irrigated; if staff was satisfied with an erosion control plan that shows interim control of non - developed areas, and adding verbiage "subject to approval of the Chief Building Official ". Condition No. 26: Tentative Parcel Map 23910 has recorded, therefore, all conditions have been met. Staff would have no problem with deleting this condition. The only condition on Tentative Tract Map 17413 relative to this project discussed a plan of services for the recreation center. We could delete this as it is covered in a later condition. Condition No. 33: Relates to the tot lot. The City recently completed construction, with some Community Development Block Grant money, on Machado Park adjacent to the school on Joy and Machado Street. Out there the facility is approximately 2,500 square feet and utilizes several of the items illustrated in Exhibit "C ". Staff, in researching this, went to the Community Services Director and his staff and they tended toward these recommendations. Also, realizing that the lot would serve different functions: The Machado Street School is open to the general public and also utilized with the school facilities, and the proposed lot is going to be a private facility which would have a lesser intensive impact. Discussion ensued on the ratio used for the Machado Study, and its source identifying 2,500 to 5,000 square feet for a community or neighborhood park facility; usable area versus total area; tot lot being enclosed with a gate; anything within the hardscape would not be included in the usable area. Condition No. 34: This condition may be deleted. Condition No. 39: Mr. Weber is correct, the backup space for 45 degree parking space would be 15 feet. However, when staff scales off the parking lot we come up with 13 feet. It is not dimensioned in the plans, so staff included that as a safeguard. Condition No. 41: Asks for a plan of services on how the Recreation Center will be used. Discussion ensued on this being a private facility, and maintenance of this facility being through a Homeowner Association fee; a copy of budget proposed to the Department of Real Estate being provided to the City which outlines all operations, and at what point this would be submitted at time of Building Permit issuance or along with the Specific Plan. Condition No. 44: Would ask Mr. Weber to identify the loading /delivery areas. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 10 TUSCANY HILLS RECREATION CENTER Discussion ensued on the location of the loading /delivery area; if this area will be posted 15 minute parking for loading /delivery. Mr. Weber indicated that signs would be posted. Discussion ensued on the distance from curb to curb, and the the need for a driveway aisle for delivery trucks or vehicles while it is in use by other trucks or vehicles. Condition No. 45: Mr. Weber indicated that he would like to include verbiage "concrete ribbons or curb and gutters shall be provided in both parking areas ". Staff is acceptable to that and agree that this would be a better method of drainage. Condition No. 48: Would defer to the Public Services Director. Public Services Director Kirchner stated that he did not believe that the Engineering Department added any conditions to this proposal. Discussion ensued on deleting condition number 48, as condition number 5 requires applicant to comply with all City Codes and Ordinances; condition number 33, in regards to enlarging the tot lot into the cut - across area, no square footage mentioned, as per Site Plan date stamped April 28, 1989. Chairman Brown suggested amending condition number 19, as follows: "location of all transformers /utility vaults, risers or stands shall be shown upon the final site plan and will be dictated by the provider. Enclosure and screening will be approved by the Community Development Director." Associate Planner be amended to read: shall be screened scaped screening or to the approval of designee, prior to utilities.,, Magee requested that condition number 19, "All transformers /utility vaults, risers by a decorative masonry enclosure, land - other method deemed appropriate, subject the Community Development Director or his certificate of Occupancy and release of Discussion ensued on condition number 20, in regard to the the brick pavers and the willingness expressed by the applicant to work with staff on this issue, and this coming back before the Commission without a fee; condition number 22, no roof mounted equipment; condition number 44, in regards to the loading /delivery area, and the potential problem in the turn - around area - -no other ingress /egress. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the Recreation Center for Tuscany Hills based on the Findings and subject to the 48 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 19: "Location of all transformers /utility vaults, risers or stands shall be screened by a decorative masonry enclosure, landscaped screening or other method deemed appropriate, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee, prior to Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities." Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 11 TUSCANY HILLS RECREATION CENTER CONTINUED Condition No. 22: "No roof mounted equipment shall be allowed." Condition No. 25: "If building permits are not pulled for the entire project within 30 days after commencement of grading, graded pads will be landscaped or all water run -off will be maintained on -site. Applicant to submit erosion control plans, prior to the wet season, for review and approval by the Chief Building Official." Condition No. 26: "Conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 23910 and Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revised #4 are adopted herein by reference and shall be complied with prior to the release of utilities and Certificate of Occupancy for the Recreation Center." DELETED. Condition No. 34: "A lifeguard stand shall be provided in pool area. Evidence of compliance shall be contained within the Building Plans and shall include: location, dimensions and materials proposed, prior to the issuance of Building Permit." DELETED. Condition No. 44: "Loading /delivery provided adjacent and shall be indicating 15 loading /delivery, approval of the Director. area(s) shall be to the main building, posted with signs minute parking for subject to the Community Development Condition No. 45: "Concrete ribbons or curb and gutters shall be provided in both parking areas directing surface run -off to 'Marwah Drive. Evidence of compliance shall be provided in Building Plans." Condition No. 48: "Applicant shall meet all requirements of the City's Engineering Department." DELETED. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0. AT THIS TIME, 8:49 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:57 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. 6. Commercial Rehabilitation - Centennial Community Developers - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal for the rehabilitation of the Mission Trail Plaza, located approximately 1,300 feet south of Railroad Canyon Road /Mission Trail. Staff has concerns with the overall harmony and compatibility of the proposed rehabilitated center with those building not a part (i.e., the thrift and loan building, the roofing material of Naugles and the bank building elevations); architectural treatment, and land- scaping. Therefore, staff recommends that this item be continued to the meeting of July 5, 1989. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone representing the applicant. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 12 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION _ CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS Mr. David Materson, representing Centennial Community Developers, gave a brief history on the shopping center, and stated that their center in terms of style and design needs to be refurbished. This is why we are here on a voluntary basis, to improve the center with what you have seen with the surrounding areas. Mr. Materson stated that generally they concur with staff recommendation. But it would be our interest this evening, if we could, to seek your approval with certain stipulations or certain conditions. Mr. Glen Trice stated that he would like to clarify a few things that were in the staff report that may resolve some of the items. First of all, Naugles restaurant is part of this renovation. Also, Household Bank is part of the renovation. The Heritage building is not a part of this renovation and it under separate ownership. Mr. Trice commented on the treatment of the masonry walls; planter and landscaping enhancement not decreasing any parking spaces, and proposed roofing material is aged copper. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with staff, concerned with the landscaping; treatment of the building, and the aged copper roofing material. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to have the landscaping plan brought back to the Commission. Discussion at the table ensued the starkness of the building and providing additional architectural treatment; enhancement of landscaping; eliminate the repair of vehicles in the parking lot adjacent to Chief Auto Parts. Mr. Trice stated that back to the design issue as far as the roof materials and the concept that we have here, believes that staff is looking for direction, as we are, from the Commission. Does this seem to be an acceptable material- - are we in the right direction? Chairman Brown stated that for someone who has not seen this material it is hard to conceive, I have seen it and like it. Chairman Brown stated that for a consensus for the conceptual idea of this architecture - -we are going to see the drawings with landscaping and signage. Asked Mr. Trice if it would cause any difficulty to bring back the final architectural plans. Mr. Trice stated that they were hoping, at least from a concept standpoint - -the landscape is an issue that we can deal with and start our work on the working drawings. Chairman Brown stated that unless he hears some major objections we will try and come up with conceptual approval of the architectural treatment. We want to see the final plans with enhanced landscaping treatment. Chairman Brown suggested that the air conditioning equipment behind Naugles be screened. Mr. Trice responded that screening of this equipment has just been completed. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 13 REHABILITATION - CENTENNIAL DEVELOPERS Mr. Trice stated that he would like to clarify that the landscaping plan is a renovation and maintenance program and not a new plan, this is the intention. Discussion at the table ensued applicant wished to have a phased replacement of individual signage under a separate submittal. Assistant Planner Restivo asked if conditions on this project - -are we right now? on whether or not the signage program for the and signage being handled we were going forward with going to form conditions Discussion at the table ensued on not having a list of conditions available creating a problem, and specific conditions need to be generated to address the rehabili- tation. Chairman Brown stated the only condition is, that we are going to look at the landscaping plan and final architectural drawings. We are not making any renovation to or require- ments of changing drive aisle ingress /egress or dedication of property - -what are we missing? Assistant Planner Restivo responded a detailed description of the not a part of the rehabilitation. Chairman Brown responded that this will be handled in the architectural drawings. City Planner Thornhill asked if there were any comments on the materials and colors, and stated that the colors on the color board submitted are darker that the colors on the presentations. Mr. Trice stated that if he understands the Commission, correctly - -the design and concept is acceptable. But you want to see more detail in the landscaping, so that you feel like you see more of a complete package. We are happy to do this and thinks that it will help out staff. It is our position that we bring this back to you as a complete package. We will have the landscaping issue resolved with staff, hopefully, at that time. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Commercial Reha- bilitation of Mission Trail Plaza to the meeting of July 5, 1989, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 7. Commercial Project 89 -3 - Ray Grage & Associates - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a 6,375 square foot split -level commercial office building on an 18,000 square foot lot located on the southwest corner of Flint and Mohr Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Ray Grage, applicant, commented on condition number 31, in regards to exterior lighting, flood lighting of the building. The north face of the building faces over the industrial area and faces the freeway, and would like to be able to light that area for marketing and security purposes. Mr. Grage commented on condition number 35, project shall Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 14 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -3 = RAY GRAGE & ASSOCIATES CONTINUED connect to sewer. I will check this out again, but believes that it is about 1,000 feet to the nearest sewer line. Mr. Grage commented on condition number 46, stating that does not really want to add another design element. Discussion ensued on condition number 31, in regards to concern with Palomar Observatory; lighting to be shielded and directed on -site, and lights being turned off and to remain off one hour after closing; amending condition number 35 "project shall connect to sewer if a sewer line is within 200 feet of the project boundary, and constructive notice on the deed and recording of such." Commissioner Gilenson stated that condition number 31 could be deleted as condition number 32 addresses this issue, and exterior lighting need not be placed on timers. Also, would request that the distance of sewer lines be check into. Commissioner Brinley stated that her concern was connection to sewer, if feasible. Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 46, more wood trim. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that he wanted additional texturing in the darker upright columns, referring to render- ing, condition number 46. Commissioner Brinley suggested that condition number 46 be amended to include additional texturing on exterior surface walls. Chairman Brown stated that the only issue he has is the lighting as far as interference with the R -1 uses across Chaney Street, approximately 150 feet to the first residence on Strickland. Commissioner Wilsey stated that we are talking about architectural enhancement lighting, and this could be low wattage. Mr. Grage stated that it was his intention to just do this to the north face, not the face that could face Davis Street or the residences. If that restriction was included would not be opposed. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 89 -23 and approval of Commercial Project 89 -3 based on the Findings and subject to the 58 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 31: "All exterior lighting shall be placed upon timers such that these lights turn off and remain off one (1) hour after closing to the following evening. This shall include building and parking lot lighting systems. DELETED. Condition No. 32: "All exterior on -site lighting shall be architecturally enhanced low wattage, shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare into neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture." Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 15 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -3 - RAY GRAGE & ASSOCIATES Condition No. 35: "The project shall connect to sewer if a sewer line is within 200 feet of the project boundary unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that this is infeasible. If the project does not connect to sewer, applicant shall comply with the following: a) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a soils report which includes a sewage disposal plan referenced to the grading plan and approved by the Riverside County Health Department. b) Prior to release for occupancy, the developer shall record a notice entitled "Septic System Disclosure and Restrictions" specifying that the property is served by a septic system and that no structure or paving may be placed over the sewage disposal area or the expansion area. A copy of the approved septic system plot plan shall also be recorded along with this notice. A copy of this recorded notice shall be provided to the City for verification. c) An acknowledgment of receipt of this notice by the expected occupant of the property shall also be submitted to the City." Condition No. 46: "Applicant to submit revised elevations which depict enhanced architectural treatments such as increased use of contrasting textures on exterior walls and /or trim. Such elevations shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Industrial Project 89 -6 - Dura Construction - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct two buildings, 21,316 square feet each, on 2.7 acres, located approximately 345 feet north of Third Street and 244 feet west of Collier Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Engineering and Surveys, representing Dura Construction, gave a brief history on the proposal. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 17, asking if roof mounted equipment would be allowed or are we changing it to no roof mounted equipment? Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 16 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -6 = DU RA CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED Assistant Planner Restivo stated that she discussed this with the Chief Building Official, and was informed that for most industrial building the equipment is roof mounted. Also, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance requires equipment to roof mounted. Discussion ensued on whether or not the site was visible from the freeway, and parapet walls for screening of said equip- ment. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 33, project connecting to sewer and the distance from trunk line. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 14, with regard to construction activity be limited to Monday through Friday, and suggested that this condition be deleted. Discussion ensued on retaining the condition and changing the construction activity to be limited to Monday through Saturday. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Crowe if they were satisfied with the flood control restrictions. Mr. Crowe responded in the affirmative, stating provided there are not others that were not on the parcel map. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 89 -24 and approval of Industrial Project 89 -6 based on the Findings and subject to the 77 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendment: Condition No. 14: "Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday, to protect adjacent occupants from unreasonable noise and glare associated with construction." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 9. Residential Project 89 -6 Revised - A & A Investments - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a two - story, 2,604 square foot triplex, on an 8,250 square foot lot, located at the northwest corner of Sumner and Langstaff. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone representing the applicant, and if there were any concerns. Mr. George Alongi, one of the controlling partners of A & A Investments, commented as follows: Condition No. 14: The construction of a six -foot masonry wall along the side property line. Because of the cut of the elevation, we will have a three foot retaining wall there, I would have to construct a nine foot wall. Condition No. 18: Pertaining to all conditions of approval being reproduced upon page one of the building plans. Condition No. 21: Landscape material and labor to be bonded for one year. This is just an added expense and requested that this be deleted. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 17 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -6 REVISED = A & A INVESTMENTS Condition No. 26: Dedication of water right to the City. If the City is going to ask for this, I would like to have the wording change. The first line of the document says: "In consideration of ". I am getting no consideration for that document, and if the document holds value then I think the value should be shared with the owner and the City. Condition No. 27: Sign agreement for City Landscaping and Street Lighting District. Again, we are signing a document in lieu of getting a permit. The wording should be changed as to the agreement between the owner and City as to why that document is being signed. Condition No. 33: Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities. I think that the City has a responsi- bility to the builder, especially an owner /builder, who does not have the facilities or knowledge to combat the utility companies. When utilities have to be relocated because of road improvements or road work done in the right -of -way, those poles are moved at the utility's expense. The City should try an assist a builder when a pole has to be removed. They could write a letter to the utility company indicating some sort of assistance on this matter. Commissioner Gilenson stated that on condition number 14, he has no objection to the three -foot (31) masonry and six -foot (61) wood. Would like condition number 18 to remain. On condition number 21, if you would like to make it five (5) years that would be fine. Considerable discussion ensued on condition number 21, pertaining to bonding and maintenance of landscaping. Commissioner Gilenson asked if this proposal will connect to sewer. Mr. Alongi stated that the project will be on sewer. Commissioner Gilenson stated that his other concern is the west elevation, it is just blank. Mr. Alongi stated that elevation will be hidden by a nine - foot wall. There will be a three -foot retaining wall and six -foot on top of that, so that whole bottom floor will not be seen. Discussion ensued on the height of the second floor and its visibility, and providing additional architectural enhance- ment on this elevation. Commissioner Wilsey asked why the standard verbiage was not used in condition number 21. Assistant Planner Restivo responded that this was taken from another triplex project that had been approved a few months ago. It was my understanding, at that time, that this wording was more acceptable for this type of project. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with Commissioner Gilenson, would like to see some trim around the windows on the west elevation; between the two buildings, on the west elevation is that a patio or garage? Is there a patio cover? Mr. Alongi responded that this is a garage. There is no patio awning now, I am contemplating on putting one, though. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 18 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -6 REVISED = A & A INVESTMENTS Commissioner Brinley stated that she would like to see one added as a feature. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to include a condition "a patio cover to be added to the area over the top of the garage." Chairman Brown commented on provided on the garage door, elevations. Chairman Brown asked for the wi east elevation of the door extend equal to the distance of architectural treatment being windows and doors on all ith of the overhang on the on the second floor. Does it the staircase? Mr. Alongi stated that he believes the overhang is three -foot (31) and the staircase would come out three and one -half feet (3- 1/2'). Chairman Brown stated that this would have to either be extended out to provide coverage over that front door or provide rain gutter along that elevation to catch all of the water. Mr. Alongi responded he was going to do this anyhow. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Residential Project 88 -6 Revised based on the Findings and subject to the 35 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 4: "Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans with additional architectural treatment provided around windows and doors on all elevations and the garage door, and access shown for Unit #2 to private open space. A patio cover to be added over the top of the garage, and a three -foot (31) overhang to be provided over the door /landing on the second floor, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 14: "A three -foot (3') block and six -foot (61) wood fence shall be constructed along the side property line, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill informed the Commission that the General Plan Advisory Committee will be meeting on Thursday, June 22, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., at the Community Center. We will have the Preferred Land Use Alternative at that meeting. The Draft Policies and Implementation Programs will also be presented by the consultant. Mr. Fred Crowe asked to comment on an issue brought up by Mr. Alongi, and then gave a brief history on the dedication of water rights to the City. Minutes of Planning Commission June 20, 1989 Page 19 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Clarification for Mr. Howard, I am not an employee of Mr. Washburn. Commissioner Wilsev Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinlev Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Jeff Bro Chairman Respectfully s bmitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 1989 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, Wilsey, Saathoff and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Public Services Director Kirchner, City Planner Thornhill, Assistant Planners Merrett and Restivo. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of June 20, 1989, as submitted, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION THAT BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 1 BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND BE TAKEN UP BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. BUSINESS ITEM 1. Commercial Rehabilitation - Centennial Community Developers - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal, continued from the June 20, 1989, meeting, for the rehabilitation of the Mission Trail Plaza, located approximately 1,300 feet south of Railroad Canyon Road /Mission Trail, and further outlined project enhancements, revisions and conditions of approval which have been incorporated to resolve concerns raised at the previous meeting. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if there were any concerns. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson questioned Condition #10 and Assistant Planner Restivo replied that this condition is within keeping of the Noise Control Ordinance restriction to disallow working on the weekends and holidays. Commissioner Gilenson commented that he believed they have allowed it in the past. Chairman Brown responded that in the past it has been on new construction and this is an existing shopping center within an existing commercial zone. Saturday work might really interfere with businesses. Commissioner Gilenson then questioned the verbiage in Condition #20, fourth line from the end of the condition which reads "The Master Signage Program shall be approved prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or release of utilities." Feels since this center is already occupied, this verbiage should be deleted. Commissioner Gilenson further stated that on Condition #22 he would like to see some provision added there for the stores that are already leased, to change within the three (3) year period instead of just leaving it open. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 2 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION = CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS - CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson addressed the starkness of the concrete block on the buildings, specifically Stater Brothers and the Sprouse Reitz buildings. Would like to see something done with those, either in the way of columns or something to break up the starkness of all that concrete. Commissioner Brinley remarked that in reviewing the report, she did not see a condition for a landscaping maintenance bond and would like it added as Condition #24. Also, Commissioner Brinley stated she agrees with Commissioner Gilenson's comments on the starkness of the buildings and asked if he wished to see pylons. Commissioner Gilenson replied in the affirmative - columns or pylons to relieve the starkness. Commissioner Wilsey stated he felt everything had been pretty well covered. Commissioner Saathoff asked on Condition #17.e and .f, regarding the size of the parking lot shade trees to provide for 50 percent parking lot shading in fifteen years, what would be the present size of those trees going in today? Assistant Planner Restivo replied that the present size would be 15- gallons. Commissioner Saathoff responded that on the landscaping he is really looking for some instant shade out there. Would like to see if a larger tree could be put in, one that would show immediate shading. This is an existing center; it is very stark now; feels it would behoove the project people and applicant to get some immediate shade in there - would like to see some larger trees or a type of trees that would show some immediate appearance of shade. Would like to hear some comments from the Commissioners on the 15- gallon or larger trees. Commissioner Saathoff commented further on the stark walls on particularly Stater Brothers. Feels they should be specific and tell the project people exactly what the Commission wants. Commissioner Saathoff remarked that he had talked to Assistant Planner Restivo earlier in the day and she did indicate that there are some evergreens that do go up over half the distance there now at Stater Brothers in the rectangular planter boxes, so there is some breaking up of the starkness. The only concern is if those evergreens are removed then they will have an extremely stark wall; so what do they want to see. Someone is going to have to tell them what they want to see there. Chairman Brown coma word "sufficient" Also, Chairman Brot more absolute dire He further stated t about the problem to seen other centers,; dozens. Would lik program that those be a little bit about what the City there. anted on Condition #17.h, he wants the •eplaced with the verbiage 11100 percent." i stated he too would like a little bit ition on something on additional columns. .at they'd also talked to Centennial th one of the tenants now that they have `here they are working on cars by the to see that included in the new signage igns be re- posted and perhaps Centennial more active in talking to their tenants wants to see and doesn't want to see out Chairman Brown stated he agree with the requirement for a landscape bond. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 3 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION = CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS _ CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if the 1115 years" was an item pulled from the City's Landscape Architect. Assistant Planner Restivo replied that it is a standard condition of approval. Chairman Brown then remarked that he would like to go back to the additional architectural enhancement and opened it to general discussion so that they can come to a consensus on it. Commissioner Brinley asked if the tall evergreens were between the Cattle Company and Stater Brothers. Assistant Planner Restivo replied they are in the rectangular planters in front of Stater Brothers. Commissioner Brinley said what she would like to see are columns; take out the trees, she would like to see the store; or put the columns behind the trees; would it be feasible to use decorative lighting down in the planters to shine up on the wall at night with the columns and trees. Commissioner Saathoff asked if they wished the pylons right up against the building and coming out six to eight inches (6" to 811) and using the accent trim color there, or a variance of color, or use the same existing color; use two on each side or three on each side. Chairman Brown commented that he feels they are defeating the architecture. The reason it is done in the way it is shown is to give length and projection to the building and feels accenting the height defeats the purpose and feels that if they want to put something in they must go along with the consistency of it being vertical instead of horizontal. Commissioner Wilsey remarked that personally he would prefer to see the enhancement done in a landscape manner, such as enhance the planter areas, raise the planter boxes, enhance planter theme in there that might grow up a little bit on the building, background lighting. Chairman Brown stated he would like to see their architect look at it since they feel there is a deficiency in the open wall areas and see if the architect can come up with something that will be consistent with the architecture to eliminate some of the starkness rather than the Commission coming up with an idea that defeats their architecture. There was unanimous consent at the table on Chairman Brown's recommendation. Commissioner Saathoff asked if they were going to add this as Condition #25 or trash the whole thing and ask them to come back. Discussion commenced at the table on length of time needed to bring this matter back without holding up the applicant; whether Commission needs to see it or just go before the Community Development Director; just need something to break up the large expanse of wall; applicant not being present and desiring not to create an undue hardship for them. Assistant Planner Merrett informed the Commission he had spoken with the applicant earlier in the evening and since Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 4 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION = CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS CONTINUED this project was scheduled towards the end of the agenda, the applicant would be making an appearance later in the meeting. Chairman Brown remarked that since they had moved this item forward on the agenda, they would have no problem taking it up later on. Commissioner Saathoff moved they table the motion on this item and take it in order, which will allow the applicant to appear and Commisssion would have the opportunity to ask questions. Chairman Brown commented that he had no problem with this but that Assistant Planner Restivo is really not feeling well. City Planner Thornhill informed the Commission that he could handle this matter later in the meeting and Assistant Planner Restivo was excused from further attendance. Chairman Brown stated they would move this item back to its former place on the agenda and thus give the applicant a chance to appear. Commissioner Saathoff remarked that he would like to take up the signing program on this item. Chairman Brown stated they could go ahead with every item except the architectural enhancement issues. Commissioner Saathoff stated there is concern with existing signage hardware and wonders if Condition #22 should be incorporated with Condition #20, because the applicant will have to come back with the Master Signage Program for approval and the existing signage could be addressed in the Master Signage Program. Chairman Brown commented that they had discussed problems before about having the existing signage sunset at some given point in time. Perhaps they could add some language that all existing signage be removed in three years. With no further discussion on this matter, the Commission returned to the PUBLIC HEARING section of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Brown brought Items 2 and 3 forward since they are recommended for continuance. 2. Tentative Parcel Realty Fund IV - A into 11 parcels acres, located at Collier Avenue, and (Commercial Park) ,a'. (General Commercia conformance with th located at the n Avenue, respectivel: 24571 and Zone Change 89 -7 - Rancon ,posal to subdivide 22.67 gross acres ging in size from .76 acres to 4.61 .e northwest corner of Central and proposal to change the zoning from C -P M -2 (General Manufacturing) to C -2 which would bring the zoning into eneral Plan, for 22.67 gross acres, hwest corner of Central and Collier Chairman Brown asked if there were any comments from the table. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24571 AND ZONE CHANGE 89 -7 = RANCON REALTY FUND IV - CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to continue Tentative Parcel Map 24571 and Zone Change 89 -7 to August 2, 1989, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 1. Tentative Tract Map 22904 Revision #6 - San Jacinto Highlands - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to subdivide an 82 acre parcel at the northerly terminus of Scenic Ridge Drive, one -half mile north of Railroad Canyon Road and one -half mile east of Interstate 15. The subdivision would create eighty -two (82) residential lots on thirty -one and one -half (31.5) acres and three open space parcels on the remaining fifty and one -half (50.5) acres. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22904 Revision #6. Jim Devlin, Devlin Engineering, 1991 Village Parkway, Encinitas, representing the applicant and also Engineer of Record for the project, stated they are generally in agreement with the Staff Report on this project but they have requested some minor changes to the conditions which pertain to flexibility in the final design simply because there are several alternatives to a number of the issues. They wish to be able talk to the City Engineer during the final design process. Mr. Devlin then commented that he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to Tentative Tract Map 22904 Revision #6. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:29 P.M. Discussion commenced at the table with Commissioner Gilenson bringing their attention to the letter from Mrs. Mohylyn and asked if anyone had spoken with Mr. Devlin regarding this letter. Assistant Planner Merrett replied that he had discussed the letter with Mr. Devlin over the phone and had also discussed it with the City's Engineering Department and their position is that the streets "A" and "C" are at maximum for the neighborhood they are intended to serve right now. City Senior Civil Engineer Ray O'Donnell said if they were to increase the streets to the 66 -foot right -of -way that Mrs. Mohylyn is requesting, that would move them up a notch to a collector street and; therefore, none of these lots would be allowed access fro .these streets. There would have to be some sort of frontage road. These streets are at the maximum for that type of neighborhood. Commissioner Gilenson enquired about Condition #18 and asked if Assistant Planner Merrett could tell him when the rainy season is. Assistant Planner Merrett replied that this is a standard condition but that he couldn't define a definite period of time for a rainy season. Chairman Brown commented that he believes it starts around in December until Around February or April. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 6 'ATIVE TRACT MAP 22904 REVISION L6 - SAN JACINTO HIGHLANDS Commissioner Gilenson replied that they might want to put that time frame in the condition for clarification. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that the City's Grading Ordinance does deal specifically with the seasons of grading operations and types of erosion control measures. Commissioner Gilenson asked if the applicant was aware of what our definition is. Commissioner Saathoff asked why don't we just say in accordance with the City's Grading Ordinance. Commissioner Gilenson, on Condition #26, asked staff to check into the applicability of this section anymore since the City no longer owns the water company. Assistant Planner Merrett replied that this questions would probably be answered soon since an appeal regarding this requirement has been filed with Council. Commissioner Brinley questioned the water pressure in the low district. Is that going to be a problem if there is a fire? Assistant Planner Merrett replied that the water pressure is the same, it's just that if you have a lot at a certain level, then it has to be served by a tank that is at a relatively higher elevation so that it gets the same pressure. Pressures will be relatively the same. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the 50.5 General Plan designated Environmentally Sensitive acres for open space and a conservation easement dedicated to the City and he presumes this means the homeowners association, or whomever they designate, will hold title to this but that the City will have an easement. Who maintains this? Assistant Planner Merrett replied that the City is proposing the homeowners association be established to maintain this. Commissioner Wilsey asked if the City is proposing guidelines for the homeowners association with respect to fire control and animal control. Assistant Planner Merrett responded that there are fuel modification zones and so forth, similar to Cottonwood and surrounding projects. The City is not taking title to the easement. Commissioner Saathoff commented that he just wanted to reconfirm Assistant Planner Merrett's statement, in regard to the westerly property, Mrs. Mohylyn's property, that the 60 -foot is going to be adequate, that there will be no restrictions placed with regard to the development of that property with the present access that is going to be provided. Assistant Planner Merrett responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Saathoff asked that "C" Street be pointed out on the map and clarified for him since it is no longer going to be an emergency access street but a fully dedicated street. Assistant Planner Merrett complied and stated the Fire Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22904 REVISION #66 = SAN JACINTO JACINTO - Department requires the full street, but in the meantime the tract of the Specific Plan Area has been acquired by a different group and they apparently are not willing to give up one of their residential lots for the accessway so the proposal now is to come down and make a knuckle rather than a cul -de -sac and come over to Summerhill Drive rather than from cul -de -sac to cul -de -sac. Commissioner Saathoff asked what are fuel modification zones. What can be required there? Assistant Planner replied that these zones are where you go in and thin out the brush so there is less fuel to burn. Karen Kiefer of the Riverside County Fire Department volunteered from the audience to address the fuel modification zones. Chairman Brown asked Ms. Kiefer to come forward to the podium so that her remarks could be heard by everyone, including the people at home. Karen Kiefer, Riverside County Fire Department, Planning and Engineering, 3760 12th Street, Riverside, stated they represent the City of Lake Elsinore for fire protection. Ms. Kiefer informed the Commission that basically what fuel modification consists of is no longer disking. Depending on the terrain and the fuels that are out there, and on this project she believes it is very light fuel, probably what they would be asking for is an irrigated green belt, maybe fifty feet of that, and beyond that fifty feet of thinning. It would be up to the homeowners association to provide that green belt and provide that irrigation. Every 1500 feet they would require some sort of fire access road which consists of a 24 -foot access road that also needs to be maintained by the property owners. Commissioner Saathoff stated he would like the applicant to address each of the conditions he has sent to the Commission requesting some changes and verbiage because he has some questions on two or three of them and asked Mr. Devlin if he would please come forward so they could take up each one individually and get the correct verbiage. Commissioner Saathoff asked on Condition #18 if the verbiage change "in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance,' made earlier is adequate. Mr. Devlin replied his only concern was being totally locked out for the period from October to April. It is his belief that when this property comes up for grading that Summerhill will have completed their grading operations and their storm drain and, therefore, it should be a relatively easy thing to put up a desilting basin and believes there may be some encroachments on the rainy season that would be allowable with the proper erosion control measures. If the Grading Ordinance allows for those kind of erosion control measures that would be adequate. Commissioner Saathoff reworded Condition #18 to read as follows: "All grading operations to be in accordance with City Grading Ordinance or as approved by the Chief Building Official.'' Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22904 REVISION _ SAN JACINTO HIGHLANDS Commissioner Saathoff brought up Condition #21 and after a short discussion it was determined to leave this condition as presently worded. Commissioner Saathoff read Condition #37 with applicant's verbiage added. There was unanimous consent at the table to change Condition #37 to read as follows: "Drainage acceptance letters will be necessary from the downstream property owners for outletting the proposed storm runoff on private property unless public right -of -way and storm drain are secured to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." Commissioner Saathoff read Condition #38 with applicant's additional verbiage of "or other cul -de -sac design acceptable to the City Engineer" and asked Assistant Planner Merrett for his comments. Assistant Planner Merrett stated he had discussed this with the applicant and the Engineering Department. This street is not going to stay a cul -de -sac and they didn't want lots fanning around it but wanted something that would allow for a turnaround. The applicant has indicated they can engineer something temporarily that will allow for the increased space to turn around but it will not be the standard knob -type cul -de -sac. Commissioner Saathoff remarked that there would not be a problem then with the applicant's requested verbiage. Commissioner Saathoff continued by reading Condition #40 with applicant's added verbiage of "or other right -of -way satisfactory to the City Engineer," and questioned this added phrase. Assistant Planner Merrett replied that they are talking about the access road connecting to Summerhill Drive. Mr. Devlin commented that right now it is designed at 50 -foot right -of -way with a retaining wall behind it but they could design it at 60 -foot with an additional retaining wall down at the toe of the fill slope at the bottom. But he feels there are a number of alternatives that could be pursued and he didn't want to lock out or preclude the possibility of some other alternative being discussed. Assistant Planner Merrett remarked there is still a possibility something could be worked out with Tuscany Hills but they can't be compelled to do that. Commissioner Saathoff asked if he had any problem with the added verbiage and Assistant Planner Merrett replied in the negative. Commissioner Saathoff stated he had no problem with Condition #40 as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Saathoff read Condition #43 with applicant's added verbiage of "or other maintenance association acceptable to the city Engineer." Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Devlin what he had in mind with that phrase. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 9 TENTATAIVE TRACT MAP 22904 REVISION JL6 = SAN JACINTO HIGHLANDS - CONTINUED Mr. Devlin replied perhaps a Mello -Roos or something of that nature for a landscape maintenance district that is fully and privately insured through the tax funds so there would be no burden on the City. That might or might not work here but he'd like the possibility to be open if it could be achieved. Chairman Brown asked who would maintain title. Mr. Devlin replied title could be attached to either one of the lots in the subdivision or to the developer. The easement over the top of it with the insurance that would go along with it would be no different if a homeowners association had it with an insurance policy. Chairman Brown asked if, in this instance, they would be setting up a Mello -Roos and the property would be held privately but the taxes would pay for the insurance to protect private property. Mr. Devlin replied that he isn't sure but maybe the landscaping maintenance district would have to hold title too. He feels it would be set up so that it is totally subsidized by the homeowners in the development in perpetuity. Chairman Brown commented it would be subsidized but the title passes to public entity which is ultimately liable under any cause of action. Mr. Devlin replied that he was right except they would have an insurance policy that would cover that liability. Commissioner Saathoff then read applicant's request for changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Program starting with Item B: Circulation - the change to read: "prior to occupancies." Mr. Devlin stated he should have written that as "prior to occupancy of the first phase." If he has to put in streets prior to issuance of building permits, it would involve large amounts of money way ahead of time. Chairman Brown asked if what he wants to change is just being able to get his building permits but not his Certificates of Occupancy prior to providing both accesses. Mr. Devlin replied that that was right. Assistant Planner Merrett asked if the change was "prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the first phase" and received an affirmative reply from Commissioner Saathoff. Commissioner Saathoff then read requested change to Item C: Schools - Implementation, adding the phrase "as may be applicable to Tract 22904." Mr. Devlin stated he was not privy to the Cottonwood Hills Mitigation measures and didn't think there was an agreement although the project has been in existence for around two years and the owner now and himself are new to the project. Chairman Brown recommended Mr. Devlin check with the school district because there is probably an existing agreement. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 10 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22904 REVISION J6 = SAN JACINTO HIGHLANDS - After discussion at the table, no change was made to Item C. Commissioner Saathoff Stephen's Kangaroo Rat approval of grading sentence. City Planner Thornhill respond to this. The adopted addresses this. prior to occupancy or whichever comes first. read requested change to Item E: - Mitigation, adding phrase "or of this property" to the second commented that he would like to fee ordinance the City has just Basically, it says you pay the fees issuance of the grading permit, Mr. Devlin stated his only concern was the mention of U. S. Fish and Wildlife approval of interim plan, and asked if that meant the Section 10 permit. U. S. Fish and Wildlife has indicated to them that they would not have to do that in their case because they have no rats. City Planner Thornhill informed Mr. Devlin that they would still be responsible for paying the fees set out in the fee ordinance. Chairman Brown stated he would like to go back to Condition #18 and change the second sentence to read, "All exposed on -site slopes to be reseeded following construction and all exposed off -site slopes to be reseeded prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy." This would include the models, a conditional release on the models. The reason he is asking for this is because there have been several tracts that have had to do some pretty big cuts off -site; the tracts are beautiful but the off -site slopes with the access road are draining into the streets forever. Mr. Devlin asked if some type of temporary reseeding such as hydroseed could be used for erosion control since it would be irrigated and planted later on. Chairman Brown replied that on -site is taken care of but his main concern is off -site slopes that they have graded and he wants that taken care of before certificates of occupancy or release of utilities. After a short discussion at the table and with Mr. Devlin, the second sentence of Condition #18 was changed to read, "All exposed on- site and off -site slopes to be reseeded prior to first certificate of occupancy." Chairman Brown stated he wanted to make sure this condition addressed drainage mitigation, especially if they think they will be grading during any part of the rainy season. Mr. Devlin replied that he believed their erosion control plan would take care of any drainage considerations. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -20 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 22904 Revision #6 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition #18: All grading operations to be in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance or as approved by the Chief Building Official. All exposed on -site and off -site slopes to Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 11 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22904 REVISION A66 = SAN JACINTO HIGHLANDS - nnVMT TTTTw+ be reseeded for erosion control prior to first Certificate of Occupancy or conditional release on the models. Condition #37: Drainage acceptance letters will be necessary from the downstream property owners for outletting the proposed storm runoff on private property unless public right -of -way and storm drain are secured to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Condition #38: Street "A" shall terminus with a standard cul -de -sac or other cul -de -sac design acceptable to the City Engineer. Condition #40: Secondary access shall be provided for Tract 22904. The secondary access shall be from the westerly or easterly teminus of "C" Street. The access road shall provide a 60 -foot right -of -way with 40 -foot curb -to -curb or other right -of -way satisfactory to the City Engineer. The access road shall meet Riverside County Road Department Standards. With the present state of development in the area, the preferred secondary access road should traverse through Tract 17413 -3. Condition #43: Developer shall provide an approved open space conservation easement for the Tract's open space with a fuel modification zone for a fire break to be maintained by a homeowner's association or other maintenance association acceptable to the City Engineer. Mitigation Monitoring Program: Issue B: Circulation. Mitigation: 1. All primary and secondary access - ways (streets) to be constructed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy of the First Phase. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 8:00 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:10 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION, BUSINESS ITEM 1, COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION - CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS, INC., WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, DUE TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE APPLICANTS, TO COMPLETE FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROJECT. Chairman Brown informed the applicants that the Commission had discussed their project earlier in the meeting and then decided to wait for them to arrive. The only problems they really had were concerns with the stark areas and all the expansive block areas and were asking for some architectural enhancement. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 12 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION - CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS - CONTINUED Mr. David Mansfield, Centennial Community Developers, Inc., 282 S. Anita Drive, Orange, commented that there are some elevations that they haven't seen yet and they are putting them up on the board now. He explained that the prior elevations didn't show anything on certain walls (he pointed them out). He further pointed out a tower and trees and other shrubbery. So it won't be quite as stark as the previous elevations were. He stated they also have some pictures and roof materials they wish to share with them. Commissioner Gilenson asked if the landscaping as shown is the way it is going in planted. Mr. Mansfield replied that most of what they see is in there now but the landscaping in front of Sprouse Reitz is new and will be 15- gallon and trees 24 inch box. Commissioner Gilenson replied that the problem he still had was the starkness of Stater Brothers. The trees on top look great and cover a lot of that wall but there is still a lot of open wall. Is there any reason you wouldn't put those trees all across there? Mr. Mansfield said they certainly could and would have their architect take a look at that in terms of space -wise, but that in reality it is tighter than what it looks on the elevation. Commissioner Gilenson replied that he was looking at the height, not the tightness of the planting. Sprouse Reitz appears to have more coverage. One of the alternatives they suggested would be pylons, maybe six to eight inches out from the building. Mr. Mansfield informed them that their architect could have answered all their questions quickly but he is ill and couldn't be present tonight. Chairman Brown said their concern is the large overhang in front of Stater Brothers and the end of the building. if you notice for instance on the Sprouse Reitz building there is a very short distance and you have filled it up nicely. You have a large expanse on either side of the entrance to Stater Brothers and it is rather stark. Mr. Mansfield replied that a broader tree might solve the problem. They would rather solve it from a landscaping standpoint rather than from a structural standpoint. Commissioner Brinley stated that a broader tree would take care of her concern too and asked if they were 24 -inch box. Mr. Mansfield replied that he thinks they are 24 -inch box but he is not sure what fits in that planter box. Chairman Brown informed Mr. Mansfield that the Commission had a ruling that the rendering must show the plantings as they will look six months later. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Mansfield if he had any concerns with the report or conditions. Mr. Mansfield replied that they had a few but they were more a need for clarification than changes. Condition #12 regarding trash enclosure, there are seven trash enclosures Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 13 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION _ CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS - CONTINUED on the back side of the building, areas you would not see. Would suggest they add language to that condition that would read, "Trash bins not contained in trash enclosures except from Mission Trail shall not be allowed." They would not be visible from the freeway but they would from Casino because you can see everything from Casino, including roof tops. City Planner Thornhill remarked that Condition #12 is a standard condition that is applied to all commercial projects. Mr. Mansfield commented on Condition #13 and the requirement that all roof mounted equipment be screened or removed and /or ground mounted. They can screen everything from within the center and Mission Trail but they can't screen it from Casino because down the road at K -Mart you can see everything as well. It's impossible because the height of the road sits right on top of the center and all mechanicals cannot be screened from Casino Drive. They suggest language to read, "All existing roof mounted equipment shall be screened from Mission Trail in a manner compatible with the architectural design." Chairman Brown commented that he is trying to get an agreement on what they are screening it from - ground view, freeway view or Casino view, because he doesn't think it would be very realistic to think you could screen it from freeway view. It would require a two -story building. A short discussion was held at the table on ability to screen from view and if it can't be screened from any view, although it is screened from Mission Trail right now, what is the point in requiring it. City Planner Thornhill replied that it is a standard condition again and in this particular situation it may not be applicable. Mr. Mansfield commented that the second part of that same condition reads that any existing roof mounted antennas shall be also screened or removed. You can't screen antennas and there are only two up there; one belongs to Stater Brothers who use it for their music throughout the store. He talked to the manager this evening and what they can do is move it back into the roof so that it will never be seen from the center. Mr. Mansfield proposes language on this portion of Condition 13 to read, "Any existing roof mounted antennas shall be relocated so as not to be visible from the center or from Mission Trail." Mr. Mansfield then commented on Condition #15 not permitting any exterior roof ladders. He stated they have three existing there already; one on Stater Brothers, one on Sprouse Reitz, and one on the far left one and they are all at the back end. They would prefer to leave them. Discussion was held at the table on this being a standard condition; new construction requiring interior access, older construction, if it has interior access, could remove ladder and place inside, but if not, ladder could remain outside; City Planner Thornhill commented that they could modify this condition by saying where there is no interior access, no additional roof ladders would be permitted. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 14 REHABILITATION = CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS - Mr. Mansfield then commented on his last concern, Condition #18, regarding existing ground mounted equipment surrounding the Naugles building being enclosed. The only thing he is concerned with is the gas meter and what conditions Southern California Gas would require them to screen or not screen and what standards they would have for that size of a gas meter. They recommend Condition 15 be changed to read, "The existing gas meter at the Naugles building shall be enclosed per the Southern California Gas Company standards subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Chairman Brown asked if there is any other ground mounted equipment. Mr. Mansfield replied that they have walked all around the building and there is nothing but the gas meter. Commissioner Saathoff responded that they could say, "Any existing ground mounted equipment surrounding the Naugles building shall be enclosed and have a lattice cover and the gas meter shall be enclosed subject to the requirements of Southern California Gas Company and the approval of the Community Development Director." Chairman Brown brought some of the concerns expressed earlier in the meeting. Condition #17.h - change the word "sufficient" to "one hundred percent (100 %) ". Commissioner Saathoff informed the applicants that they were talking about 24 -inch box trees up against Sprouse Reitz, but on the landscaping plan they have some trees in the various planter islands spread around and those are all 15- gallon. What would be the problem with putting a 24 -inch box tree in there and the reason he is asking this is because Condition 17.f says they are parking lot shade trees to provide for 50 percent parking lot shading in 15 years. He would prefer to see a larger and bushier tree put in the planters spread throughout the parking lot area to give a semblance of more shade and cooler. Mr. Mansfield replied that is a cost item. They might want to look at doing a portion of them to be 24 -inch box and a portion of them to be 15- gallon. In different areas you might want them at different growth rates anyway. He feels they can look at doing something like that. Chairman Brown then brought up Conditions #20 and #22 - combined them; made an emphasis on all existing non - leased units, the signs will be removed and match the new sign program and all the existing signage will sunset within three (3) years; has to be converted over into the new sign program. Mr. Mansfield asked if Stater Brothers and Sprouse Reitz signs would remain the same and received an affirmative reply. Chairman Brown stated they were adding as Condition #24, the standard landscape bonding condition, to read as follows: "All landscaping to be bonded 120 percent, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of Landscape requirement approval/ acceptance, and bond 100 percent for material and labor for one year." Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 15 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION = CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS - CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson commented that he had a question on Condition #17.f; on the 15- gallon or 24 -inch box planter. Commissioner Saathoff asked, on the language in Condition #17.f, do they want to ask for 24 -inch or do they want a combination of 15- gallon and 24 -inch. Consensus of the Commission that the parking lot planters be planted with 15- gallon and 24 -inch box trees in a 50 -50 ratio. Mr. Mansfield passed around some photographs showing the green -type landscaping at a church in Escondido and how it brings out and enhances the colors of the building. Chairman Brown mentioned Condition #23 and brought to Mr. Mansfield's attention the matter about the roof. They will probably have to do something imaginative there because of the break in the roof gives access to the roof and equipment. Mr. Mansfield stated they could put a door in and then there would be no break in the roof and the tenant would have access. Chairman Brown stated they wanted to add some language for the changes in front of Stater Brothers. Commissioner Gilenson requested they add as Condition 17.j the following verbiage: "Remove the four (4) evergreen trees to the left of the Stater Brothers entrance, under the logo, and replace with a minimum of three (3) 24 -inch box trees, or as large as practical, and one (1) 24 -inch box tree on the right of the entrance in the far corner of the planter. With no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Commercial Rehabilitation of the Mission Trail Plaza based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendments: Condition #13: All existing roof mounted equipment shall be screened from Mission Trail in a manner compatible with the architectural design of the building or removed and /or ground mounted. Any existing roof mounted antennas shall be relocated so as not to be visible from the center or from Mission Trail. All roof top equipment or projections shall be painted to match the buildings whenever practical. Evidence of compliance shall be included in the building plans. Condition #15: Existing exterior roof ladders on the rear elevations shall be permitted provided no interior access to the roof exists. No Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 16 REHABILITATION - CENTENNIAL DEVELOPERS - Condition #18. Any existing ground mounted equipment surrounding the Naugles building shall be enclosed and have a lattice cover and the gas meter shall be enclosed subject to the requirements of Southern California Gas Company and the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition #20. The applicant shall develop a Master Signage Program for the center which specifies harmonious and consistent colors, materials and specifications which will enhance the center's design and meet the provisions of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.94. The program may include a phasing in program for all existing tenants to include any "Change of Face" sign permits. The Master Signage Program shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. All signage, including free - standing signs shall be by City permit and in conformance with the approved Master Signage Program. Individual sign permits are required prior to the erection of each sign. All existing signage hardware for those units not leased shall be removed and match the new sign program and all the existing signage will sunset within three (3) years additional exterior roof ladders shall be permitted. All wall mounted utility boxes or metal covers shall be painted to match the building. Condition #17.f. Landscape planters shall be placed between opposing rows of parking stalls as shown in the submitted landscape plan date stamped 6/30/89. These interior planter islands shall be five feet (51) wide and shall be bordered by a concrete curb not less than 6- inches wide and no more than 8- inches in height, and planted with an appropriate 15- gallon and 24 -inch box parking lot shade trees in a 50 -50 ratio to provide for fifty percent (50 %) parking lot shading in fifteen (15) years. Irrigation, shrubs and ground cover shall also be provided. All trees shall be aligned with parking stall stripes. Condition #17.h. Only existing dead or unhardy plant materials shall be replaced. All planter areas shall have one hundred percent (100 %) ground cover and shrubs. Condition #17.J. Remove the four (4) evergreen trees to the left of the Stater Brothers entrance, under the logo, and replace with a minimum of three (3) 24 -inch box trees, or as large as practical, and one (1) 24 -inch box tree on the right of the entrance in the far corner of the planter. Condition #18. Any existing ground mounted equipment surrounding the Naugles building shall be enclosed and have a lattice cover and the gas meter shall be enclosed subject to the requirements of Southern California Gas Company and the approval of the Community Development Director. Condition #20. The applicant shall develop a Master Signage Program for the center which specifies harmonious and consistent colors, materials and specifications which will enhance the center's design and meet the provisions of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 17.94. The program may include a phasing in program for all existing tenants to include any "Change of Face" sign permits. The Master Signage Program shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. All signage, including free - standing signs shall be by City permit and in conformance with the approved Master Signage Program. Individual sign permits are required prior to the erection of each sign. All existing signage hardware for those units not leased shall be removed and match the new sign program and all the existing signage will sunset within three (3) years Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 17 COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION = CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED and shall then be converted over into the new sign program. Condition #24. All landscaping to be bonded 120 percent (120%), Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirement approval /acceptance, and bond one hundred percent (100 %) for material and labor for one (1) year. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARINGS NO. 4, NO. 5, NO. 6 AND BUSINESS ITEM NO. 2 CONCURRENTLY. Assistant Planner Merrett stated the items being considered tonight are a General Plan Amendment, a Pre -Zone, the Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and an Annexation. The General Plan Amendment being proposed tonight is to designate the entire Annexation Area at this time as Specific Plan Area; the pre- zoning designation that is also being requested is Specific Plan Area, with more specific zoning designations to be proposed at the next meeting when the Specific Plan is scheduled for consideration. Assistant Planner Merrett made a change to the amount of acreage. What is being proposed in the Specific Plan is the development of 3,705 dwelling units on 1,853 acres of land, but in addition another 822 acres are also being proposed for annexation for a grand total of 2,667 acres. Assistant Planner Merrett further stated this project is unique in that it has been reviewed and processed for the City by a Consultant Planner, Mr. Hardy Strozier, and at this time Assistant Planner Merrett deferred to Mr. Strozier to make the presentation on this project. Chairman Brown stated that before they continued, he wanted to ask about Item #5, the Zone Change, as he understood, they mentioned that they possibly would pull that item. Assistant Planner Merrett replied that rather than pulling it, the zoning designation they will request tonight is Specific Plan Area but the more specific zoning designations will be proposed when the Specific Plan is presented at the next meeting. Mr. Hardy Strozier, . Special Projects Consultant for the City, presented the following proposals as listed: General Plan Amendment 89 -7 - Long Beach Equities (Alberhill) - A „request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to designate the,,project area a Specific Plan Area. The Alberhill Ranch „project area is 2,667 acres bounded generally by I -15 to the north, Terra Cotta Road /Nichols Road to the south, E1 Toro Road to the east and Robb Road /Lake Street to the west. Zone Change 89 -8 - Long Beach Equities (Alberhill) - A Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 18 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -7, ZONE CHANGE 89 -8, CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89 -2 AND ANNEXATION NO. 48 = LONG BEACH EQUITIES - CONTINUED request to pre -zone the 2,667 acre Alberhill Ranch annexation area according to the land use designation specified in the Specific Plan for the area. Certification of Environment Impact Report - Long Beach Equities (Alberhill) - A request to certify the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and response to comments for the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and Annexation area. Annexation No. 48 - Long Beach Equities (Alberhill) - A request to annex the 2,667 acres Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Area to the City of Lake Elsinore. Mr. Strozier then took them through the material in their packets so everyone would be familiar with the documents which are listed as follows: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 89 -2 Response to Comments Technical Appendices Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Exhibit II) Statement of Finding of Facts (Exhibit III) Statement of Overriding Considerations Table 10 (Summary of the General Plan Goals and Project's Compliance with the Adopted General Plan) Alberhill Specific Plan Mr. Strozier explained that the project contains 2,667 acres. The Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan is an area currently controlled or owned by Long Beach Equities and it contains approximately 1,853 acres. The additional acreage is above the Long Beach Equities proposal and is 822 acres and is not owned or controlled by Long Beach Equities but is areas that have been proposed by staff for annexation for future Specific Plan development in the City of Lake Elsinore. This comprises a logical project annexation boundary area. In Exhibit 1 of the Specific Plan the areas marked SPA* are the areas for future development and not part of the Alberhill Specific Plan development and will not be included in the Specific Plan to be considered at the next meeting. Mr. Strozier then made the following changes to Resolution No. 5: Add to the end of the title the following: Zone Change 89 -8, Annexation No 48, Findings of Fact as to Environmental Impacts, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report 89 -2. Section 1, paragraph 1, where it says 1,853, change to 2,667. On the eighth line of Section 1, paragraph 1, where it says "(Exhibit I) ", they are going to recommend a change of the Terra Cotta Area to SPA. Commissioner Wilsey asked if he should be changing the boundaries also. Mr. Strozier replied in the negative and said it wasn't necessary. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 19 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -7, ZONE CHANGE 89 -8, CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89 -2 AND ANNEXATION NO. 48 - LONG BEACH EQUITIES - CONTINUED Mr. Strozier then continued with the changes. Section 1, paragraph 4, after the words "General Plan Amendment ", add the verbiage "and Zone Change ". Section 1, paragraph 5, after the words "General Plan Amendment ", add the verbiage "and Zone Change ". Section 1, paragraph 6, after the words "General Plan Amendment ", add the verbiage "and Zone Change ". Section 3, after the words "staff report" put a comma and add the verbiage "adopt Zone 89 -8, approval of Annexation No 48, adopt Findings of Fact as to Environmental Impacts, approval of Statement of Overriding Considerations and Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report 89 -2. Mr. Strozier stated this completed his presentation and suggested to the chair that the project proponent address the project. Mr. Bob Friedman, President of Long Beach Equities, developer of the Alberhill Ranch project, stated he planned to give a brief summary on the project, introduce their consultants and then respond to questions. Mr. Friedman clarified the annexation area which is referred to in the documents by pointing out the boundary line on the map on display, which totals 2667 acres. Long Beach Equities or Pacific Clay Products, who are joining them in this application, are owners or contract purchaser of all the land in the Terra Cotta Area, so they do own a significant amount of property that is included in the annexation but not in the Specific Plan. The reason for that is that at the time they started the planning they felt the area that is colored on the map is the area that is more prime and ready for development. They are holding the other two areas in reserve for future planning efforts. Mr. Friedman then introduced Pam and Doug Wood who are the environmental consultants, Bob Brinks who is the land planner for the project, Rob Wade from the fiscal consulting company and Mike Stearns from the engineering company. The representatives from Pacific Clay and Murdock Company are present who are part of this project. Mr. Friedman then turned the podium over to Mr. Brink to give a quick rundown on what they are proposing. Mr. Robert Brink, Principal in the firm of Torini and Brink, commented that he has been working on this project for the last two years. The documents are many and very technical but he feels he'd rather just speak to the plan, but what it really gets down to in the final analysis is what the land is proposed to be used for. The property really enjoys some great freeway exposure, the immediate access is at two locations - Nichols Road to the south and Lake Street to the north. On the map, the red areas are categorized for commercial kinds of uses, regional in nature, some highway oriented, some community oriented. The majority of the commercial areas are called out for future Commercial Specific Plans. The land use categories primarily within the community are residential in nature and run a broad range of density types. The project, in terms of time, is probably a 10 to 15 year timeframe. The project is set up by its natural land form. Mr. Brink then pointed out the residential areas on the map and gave the densities for each Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 20 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -7, ZONE CHANGE 89 -8, CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89 -2 AND ANNEXATION NO. 48 - LONG BEACH EQUITIES - CONTINUED area, pointed out the commercial area, the school sites for two elementary and one junior high, 30 acre park plus some 500 plus acres of natural open space. Mr. Brink remarked that this concluded his very brief overview of the project and turned the podium over to Doug Wood. Mr. Strozier asked if Mr. Wood could give a brief summary to Response to Comments and Overriding Considerations review. Mr. Douglas Wood, Principal of the firm of Douglas Wood and Associates, stated they prepared the draft E.I.R. before them this evening. The E.I.R. had to take a two - tiered approach, if you will, relative to its analysis of impacts. Within the 1,853 acres out of the 2,667 they analyzed the full range of environmental impacts. The second tier, if you will, related to the annexation areas. Only certain impacts were discussed within those annexation areas given the limitations of land ownership and basically the inability to get the scientists out on that land. They have had to defer to a later development stage to cover the physical impacts that might be related to site specific resources within the annexation area. This is clearly allowed within CEQA in that there is language within the Act that talks about providing a level of analysis that is commenserate with the level of information that you have and that is reasonably feasible to obtain. However, prior to any approval of development plans within those areas, that level of environmental analysis can occur so that coverage is provided prior to any development within those 822 acres in the annexation area. Mr. Wood then stated that as a result of their analysis, two primary areas of significant adverse impact came out. One was in terms of regional air quality and that statement is made within the Findings package before them. One of the primary reasons behind that finding of adverse impact is the sheer volume of the project in relation to the level of development in the surrounding area. In this case, within the Source Receptor Area. At this point in time, the level of pollutant generation within the entire SRA is so low that the percentage associated with this project are high enough to necessitate that type of determination. Commissioner Saathoff asked what is the SRA area. Mr. Wood replied that it means Source Receptor Area 24. It is a breakdown of a larger analysis area that has been set up by the Air Quality Management. Area 24 is roughly this portion of Western Riverside County, south of the City of Corona, north of Perris /Hemet area. Mr. Wood continued with the second area of significance which has to do with several sensitive biological species that were subsequently found on the property that were identified in the draft E.I.R., commented on in the Response to Comments and subsequent surveys during the Spring season occurred so that a precise determination of the existence of these species was included within the Final E.I.R. At the same time, mitigations are also proposed in conjunction with these sensitive plant species that could lessen those impacts. The follow -up to these significant impact determinations is the necessity for a Statement for Overriding Considerations to be assigned to those impacts. That Statement is also in the Commission's packet tonight Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 21 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -7, ZONE CHANGE 89 -8, CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89 -2 AND ANNEXATION NO. 48 - LONG BEACH EQUITIES - CONTINUED and provides the legal justification that all the agencies must make when significant adverse impacts are identified. Mr. Wood stated this completed his comments and was available for any questions. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on General Plan Amendment 89 -7, Zone Change 89 -8, Certification of Environmental Impact Report 89 -2 or Annexation No. 48. 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 on response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Chairman Brown brought the items to the table for discussion. Commissioner Gilenson remarked that he had no questions. Commissioner Brinley asked if the SPA area in the uncolored area on the map was addressed in the E.I.R. Mr. Wood replied that it was addressed to the extent that they were able to gather data, with the only reservation being with site specific physical impacts because they were outside the ownership. Commissioner Brinley asked, off the record, what was the projected date they would be able to begin development. Did they have any set time - 5 years, 10 year? Mr. Friedman responded that actually when they started they thought they were much further away than they now appear to be. The City Manager has introduced them to several perspective commercial users, so it may become more usable than they thought. They assume the large 500 acre piece will be 5 years before they really start something. Commissioner Brinley asked if the other piece could be within a couple of years and received an affirmative reply. Commissioner Wilsey stated he didn't have anything at this time on this aspect of the project. Commissioner Saathoff stated he didn't have any questions with this aspect of the project. He mainly concentrated on the E.I.R., the most involved item and feels they covered the impacts well. Complimented them on their summary brochure - it helped a great deal. Is very pleased with the project. Chairman Brown stated he concentrated on the E.I.R. and the Fiscal Impact Study. Would like to see a good blending of the commercial with the residential. Doesn't want to see the 4,000 homes built before they decide to do anything with the commercial part. Chairman Brown asked for a motion on the floor for General Plan Amendment 89 -7 and Resolution No. 89 -5 with the change of language and asked if there was any question on the language at all. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 22 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -7, ZONE CHANGE 89 -8, CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89 -2 AND ANNEXATION NO. 48 - LONG BEACH EQUITIES - CONTINUED approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -7 and adoption of Resolution No. 89 -5 as amended based on the Findings; second by Commissioner Gilsenson. Approved 5 -0 RESOLUTION NO. 89 -5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -7 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN IMPOSING A DESIGNATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, ZONE CHANGE 89 -8, ANNEXATION NO. 48, FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 89 -2. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Zone Change 89 -8, based on the Findings, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report 89 -2, based on the Findings, second Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Annexation No. 48, based on the Findings, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Mr. Strozier asked the Commission, if in the ensuing two weeks, if they have any questions about the Specific Plan document to please contact Assistant Planner Merrett or himself. They would like a list of their questions so they have ample time to prepare themselves for their comments. Chairman Brown agreed and directed everyone to get their questions in - write them or phone them in. It will make things go much smoother. Chairman Brown called for a motion on Business Item #2 - Annexation No. 48. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Annexation No. 48, based on the Findings, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Mr. Friedman informed the Commission that if it would be of interest or if any of the Commissioners would like a tour of the property, they could arrange it, separately or however they wished to participate. All of the Commissioners said they would like to take the tour and Mr. Friedman asked them to work it through Mr. Merrett and they will be available anytime. DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill had nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1989 Page 23 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey He hopes this is the start of a very fast project to get improvements down at Robb Road by the Tee Pee Ranch. There is so much water at that corner. Commissioner Brinlev Nothing to report but thanked the City for a lovely 4th of July. Commissioner Gilenson 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 9:35 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Appro Jeff Chair Respectfully subllLtt-ed, Ruth Edwards Acting Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Wilsey, Saathoff and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Assistant Planners Merrett and Restivo, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of July 5, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT BUSINESS ITEMS NUMBER 1 THROUGH 4 BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND BE TAKEN UP BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single - Family Residence 16900 Wells Avenue - Julius P. Arocha /Roybal Associates - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,783 square foot dwelling, situated on a 5,110 square foot lot, located on the northeast corner of Shry and Wells 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. Discussion was held at the table on amending condition number 9, to include the standard verbiage for sewer; condition number 12, deleting the last sentence as it is redundant. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 16900 Wells Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the 29 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 9: "The project shall connect to sewer if a sewer line is within 200 feet of the project boundary unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that this is infeasible. If the project does not connect to sewer, applicant shall comply with the following: a) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a soils report which includes a sewage disposal plan referenced to the grading plan and approved by the Riverside County Health Department. b) Prior to release for occupancy, the Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 16900 WELLS AVENUE - AROCHA /ROYBAL ASSOCIATES CONTINUED 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." Condition No. 12: "All exterior air conditioning units, gas meters, 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. (Solar energy collectors and apparatus excepted.)" Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 2. Single - Family Residence - 312 Lewis Street - Mark Hommel - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,841 square foot dwelling, situated on a 9,000 square foot lot, located approximately 295 feet north of Sumner on the east side of Lewis 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. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 12, deleting the last sentence, as it is redundant; condition number 29, pertaining to the drainage situation, and the possibility of the City assisting the applicant with getting a drainage easement down the back into the alley way. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 312 Lewis Street based on the Findings and subject to the 29 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 12: "All exterior air conditioning units, gas meters, 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. (Solar energy collectors and apparatus excepted.)" Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 3 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE _ 312 LEWIS STREET - MARK HOMMEL Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 3. Single - Family Residence - 17271 Sunnyslope Drive - David E. Hartzheim - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a 2,000 square foot residence on a 18,700 square foot lot, located on the south side of Sunnyslope Drive approximately 200 feet west of Butters Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. & Mrs. Hartzheim stated that they concurred with staff recommendation. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 12, deleting the last sentence, as it is redundant; proposed design being conducive to the area. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 17271 Sunnyslope Drive based on the Findings and subject to the 29 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 12: "All exterior air conditioning units, gas meters, 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. (Solar energy collectors and apparatus excepted.)" Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 4. Single - Family Residence - Anderson - Assistant Planner construct a 1,637 square foot lot, located on the approximately 100 feet west Avenue. 407 East Heald Avenue - Helge A. Merrett presented a proposal to foot residence on a 7,000 square north side of Heald Street, Df it's intersection with Conklin 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 condition number 12, deleting the last sentence, as it is redundant. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 407 East Heald based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 12.: "All exterior air conditioning units, gas meters, 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. (Solar energy collectors and Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 4 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 407 EAST HEALD - HELGE A. ANDERSON CONTINUED apparatus excepted.)" Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 89 -4 - Howard Palmer (Chris' Kids Club) - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to allow additional outside play yard area for expanded child care center. A 4,000 square foot pad area northeast of the Sizzler restaurant, downslope west of the Pizza Hut restaurant, located in the Shopper's Square Center. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -4. Mr. Howard Palmer, owner of Shopper's Square, stated that he concurs with staff recommendation, and then introduced Ms. Chris Greer of Chris's Kids Club. Ms. Greer gave a brief history on the proposal and the expansion of the facility. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -4. 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 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson asked if the landscape plan should be brought back before the Commission, or leave it to the Community Development Director, condition number 6. Commissioner Wilsey asked if there is a review time limit on this Conditional Use Permit; the type of equipment anticipated for the play area; if sun screening will be provided. Assistant Planner Merrett stated that once a Conditional Use Permit is approved it runs with the land. Ms. Greer stated that the current facility has all of the climbing structures. The new playground area proposed will be a soccer field, basketball court, and more of the large motor skills for the children. Grass /sod will be provided. A sixteen -foot by sixteen -foot (161x16') gazebo will be provided and is a requirement of state licensing. Commissioner Brinley commented on the letter from a concerned citizen, included in the packet, with regard to the three - foot (31) walkway - -how is this going to be done? Ms. Greer stated there is an existing eight -foot (81) stucco wall that berms the freeway. We are coming out three and one -half feet (3.51)< with a three and one -half foot (3.51) high chainlink fence that will create a walkway that will only be used by the children trafficking from one playground to the other. Commissioner Brinley commented on the chainlink fencing being climbable and suggested wrought iron fencing. Also, suggested larger trees be provided for shading, condition number 6. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -4 = HOWARD PALMER (CHRIS' KIDS CLUB Commissioner Saathoff commented on the original Conditional Use Permit and there being no review times, correct? Assistant Planner responded that he has the file and will check this. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he has concern with a three and one -half foot (3.51) fence. The applicant spoke to, in this particular case, a three and one -half foot fence being adequate as far as the state is concerned. But under other circumstances a four and one -half foot (4.51) fence is required. Would prefer to see a fence higher than three and one -half feet. Concerned with wrought iron fencing due to the safety factor. Would prefer a highgrade chainlink fence rather than wrought iron. Commissioner Saathoff commented on larger trees being provid- ed for shading, and suggested a mix of fifty -fifty (50 -50), 24 inch box and 15 gallon. Discussion at the table ensued on time limit review for the Conditional Use Permit. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -4 based on the Findings and subject to the 8 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 4: "The proposed walkway between the child care center and the new play area shall be highgrade chainlink vinyl, a minimum of four and one -half feet (4.5') in height, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 6: "A precise landscaping and irrigation plan shall be provided for review and approval of the Community Development Director or his designee, which shall include shrubs, a mix of 15 gallon and 24 inch box trees (50 -50 ratio), and ground cover outside the play area. Any plant materials removed in the construction of the walkway shall be replaced, on a two - for -one basis in the area surrounding the new play area." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 7:33 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 7:42 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. 2. Specific Plan 89 -2 - Long Beach Equities, Inc. - Mr. Hardy Strozier, Special Projects Consultant for the City, presented the Specific Plan to develop 3,705 dwelling units of varying densities on 1,853 acres of a 2,667 acre annexation area, for an overall gross density of 1.99 dwelling units per acre. The project also includes 304 acres of commercial, institutional uses, parks and schools, and 531 acres of open space. The project area is located in the vicinity of Interstate 15, Lake Street, Robb Road and Nichols Road adjacent to the City Limits. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 6 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 = LONG BEACH EQUITIES, INC. Mr. Strozier stated that there perty owners and would like to of the Commission: were several letters from pro - bring those to the attention - Letter dated June 19, 1989, from Mr. Marlyn Stockdale requesting that his property, located in the northern part of the Terra Cotta area, be zone changed to a combination of C -1 and R -3. - Letter dated July 13, 1989, from Mr. Norman Levenson and Mr. Alvin Kurtzman, requesting that their lots retain it's current MSC Zoning. The alternative, if there is a change would like to see C -1 Zoning. Mr. Strozier stated that it was staff's recommendation on the Terra Cotta area that the area be zone changed to SPA (Specific Plan Area), but no specific guidelines be attached to the Terra Cotta area. The Terra Cotta area come in under a specific plan for the entire area, and staff has discussed this plan being brought forward to the Commission and Council during this next fiscal year. Mr. Strozier comm follows: Condition No. 21: lines described in maps are approved. this, but we just reiterated. anted on condition number 21 and 22, as Developer will incorporate those guide - the Specific Plan as individual tentative This goes without saying when they adopt wanted to make sure that those were Condition No. 22: Developer will comply with all Environ- mental Impact Report (EIR) mitigation measures as identified in EIR 89 -2. As each subsequent entitlement comes through this Commission, you will note those primarily as tentative tract maps, they will have to demonstrate compliance with each and every one of those mitigation measures, which I think is a security measure this City requires for conform- ing to all of the environmental concerns. Mr. Strozier stated that he has received most of the Commission's concerns from the previous meeting and these were passed on to, the proponent of the project. He is prepared to respond to each one of the technical concerns. Mr. Strozier then asked for additional comments /concerns from the Commission. Chairman Brown asked if there were any additional questions the from the table before going into the public hearing. There being no additional questions from the table, Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Specific Plan 89 -2. Mr. Robert Friedman,; President of Long Beach Equities, developer of the Alberhill Ranch project, stated that he would like to summarize some of the major constraints that led to this plan, the ,phasing and some of the other things that are in the document, and commented as follows: - The basic overriding controlling feature in the phasing of the development of the property is the availability of sanitary sewer. Presently, the Elsinore valley Municipal Water ,District sanitary sewer is to the south of this project. There are plans currently under way to bring the sewer ;up to serve the new high school site which is to the south of us. There are also plans to Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 7 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 _ LONG BEACH EQUITIES. INC. come up along Collier to service the industrial property that fronts on the freeway, between the freeway and Collier, just to the south of our property. When we began the project and established the phasing plan we had a basic assumption that part of the property, basically the Nichols Road area, would sewer to that existing sewer plant. The rest of the property will sewer to a new sewer plant, which Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District has planned on property that we have put into escrow off of Temescal Canyon Creek, just off this plan. Therefore, the phasing plan that we have, Chapter 12 of this document, assumes that we start at Nichols Road while the balance of the sewer is arranged. If for some reason, the Nichols Road area can't get down in to the existing sewer then we would have to reverse the phasing, starting from the new sewer and work down south. We are working with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District trying to work out the scheduling of the two facilities. Public water is available. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District already has a line in, and as part of our development we will be putting in some water tanks, which can go with either phase. There were some questions raised about the mining on this property from prior time. Approximately 300 acres of this property has been mined. The basic timing of the development is a function of the re- grading of that area to make it usable. In the course of the clay mining there were a number of areas within the disturbed area where there was excavations placed uncompacted -- meaning that there were holes and they filled it with top soil from one as they went down the area excavating for clay. The result of that is, within that 300 acre area we have a significant amount of dirt that will have to be excavated /re- compacted. That is the first step that has to be done before any development can take place, in that whole mine area. When that is done, of course, any shafts that may have existed prior will be removed - -it will be excavated/ re- compacted as part of that whole process. While that grading is going on there is some additional mining that will continue. There are some clay stockpiles that are on the property and Pacific Clay will be removing these stockpiles - -no longer than a 4 year period, but prior to any people moving in and occupying. There may be additional mining in some of the areas just south of what is already disturbed as part of the grading operation. - The Specific Plan makes reference to the tails system: sidewalks, bikes and horses. Basically, there was a bike system to be included on the main streets. The only horse trail system that we proposed was into Walker Canyon. We received comments from U.S. Fish and Game on their concerns over having a horse trail in Walker Canyon. - Our Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report conditions state that we will dedicate and develop completely the parks, and dedicate the parks to whomever directed. - We have had some preliminary discussion with the school board about having the school perhaps own their school Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 8 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 = LONG BEACH EQUITIES, INC. building and the land under it. The remaining land be part of a park and maintained by either the Park Board or the City Park Department. We feel that our responsi- bility is to develop the parks and get them into a position to be taken over by some public agency. Mr. Friedman stated that Mr. Strozier introduced the project as 11,841 units and it is actually 11,841 people, requested this correction be made to the Staff Report. Mr. Friedman then stated that they are prepared to answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Specific Plan 89 -2. 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 8:04 p.m. Chairman Brown asked that Mr. Strozier address the various questions submitted to him by the Commission. Mr. Strozier responded to the questions submitted by the Commission as follows: - What is FAR (Floor Area Ratio)? In the text there was a typographical error and the response was left out, that was on page 9C of the text. If you refer to page 135, 143 and 151 of the text we have floor area ratio standards applied to the three commercial designations. A FAR standard is like a density standard for residential. It is merely a density standard for commercial or industrial land use. Why is it in here? It is in here now because state law now requires it. The first condition, would be to amend this typographical errors. - Reclassification of the There will have to through the state. Roof mounted equipment if this project were adopted today, text to correct all omissions and mining area be a reclassification applied for In the text this specifically applies to all land uses. It is the intent of these zoning standards and guidelines to prohibit any roof mounted equipment that could be seen from anywhere. Carports Concern was that there are certain types of architectural- ly pleasing metal carport designs that would be compatible in the City ofs;Lake Elsinore. This Specific Plan has prohibited metal carports--it requires stucco, wood or a combination carport. If it is the. Commission's desire to allow some type of enhanced architec fural metal carport combination, and if that is the direction staff will include modification to the text to permit that. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 9 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 - LONG BEACH EQUITIES. INC. CONTINUED - Phasing Primarily, the first phase in this project occurred in the commercial area. I believe that Mr. Friedman explained that this was occurring because of the sewer issue. But if a new treatment plant had to be built northerly then it would be primarily commercial and residential components coming on line first. While the phasing plan is included in the document, it is here for your review - -you are not adopting a phasing plan, you are adopting the zoning code and guidelines. - Parks /Park Maintenance The City is currently reviewing the issue of parks /park maintenance. It is an institutional question- -you know that you have a parks district. The City is moving, I think, in the direction to take over the responsibility of that district. Current Local Agency Formation Commis- sion (LAFCO) direction has been to begin to phase the park district out and phase the city in. I think that is the current direction the City Council is moving and that is the direction that has been endorsed by LAFCO, as these large projects such as Cottonwood and Alberhill move into incorporated City jurisdiction. The conditions do require dedication and improvement of these parks to your design detail, and that design detail will be reviewed by this Commission. - Public Financing Mechanisms The Public Financing Programming for Alberhill Ranch has not been submitted. A plan is proposed for submittal and once submitted it will come before this Commission for review and approval. Mr. Strozier asked if there were any further questions from the table. Commissioner Gilenson requested additional information on the re- classification of the mines and geology areas. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he would like the carports to include the enhanced metal or aluminum type structures. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 14, and asked Mr. Strozier to define SCAQMD Rule 403. Mr. Strozier stated that he believes that rule deals with what is called fugitive dust. Fugitive dust is a watering program. The City of Lake Elsinore has a grading ordinance that requires erosion control, and the Southern California Air Maintenance District has a similar regulation dealing with dust that is kicked up by vehicles. It is a watering program - -it requires regular watering and clean streets after hours, so that mud and dust brought on the public street is not picked up by the traffic that goes by. Commissioner Wilsey asked that Mr. Strozier address the Walker Canyon area more specifically. What they anticipate doing in that area to rehabilitate, etc. Mr. Strozier responded that Walker Canyon, at this point in time, is not intended to be touched. There are no rehabilitation programs in there. If this project begins to Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 10 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 = LONG BEACH EQUITIES. INC. CONTINUED touch that specific water way it will require significant review by the Department of Fish and Game, Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Friedman, in his presentation, in the Specific Plan stays away from that. It does provide at the two major interchanges potential access into that area. If in the infinite wisdom of the City, County and the State and Federal Agencies they want to permit human and other introduced animal activity down there it can occur. But it is not the City's or the project proponent's intent to encourage that, at this time. Commissioner Wilsey stated that what he was looking for in this area is abatement of all trash and debris. Mr. Strozier responded that a clean up type of condition could be added. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the trail systems, condition number 19, assumes that the trail system will be coordinated with the County. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would like to see the trail systems interconnect off street, where possible, to the various schools in the area so that the community that those schools are servicing would have a means to transport by foot those children to their school. Would also like to see where possible walking, hiking and bicycle trails off street. Mr. Strozier responded that it is possible. When you can have a safe long unobstructed off street trail, that would probably be the direction to you from a traffic consultant. We have those opportunities here, and I can see those coming back to you during the tentative map review. Commissioner Brinley stated that public safety, fire and police, should be our number one concern in this new community that we are creating. Commissioner Brinley commented on the SPA area in regards to it's zoning and development. Commissioner Brinley; asked when the mining operations will cease, and if the water district had given any idea to the future date or the size and capacity of the new water plant. Mr. Friedman stated - that they are in negotiations with the water district on the sewer plant. We already have the site and preliminary design. The capacity question relates to their master plan gf4service for areas beyond ourselves. In our Environmental,14 --pact Report the capacity requirement for our property is 1.4�;inillion gallons. It is my understanding that the water district is planning in their master plan of service an ultimate capacity of 5 million gallons. Mr. Friedman state ,dthat when they started on this plan they did not have immedte plans for the two SPA areas. This is being proposed t6i be zoned SPA, which means that we would have to come back 1 with a Specific Plan application for what we want too.on that property. We have not prepared that yet, but our tinking is that that will be a business use. 'EY Mr. Friedman stated that Pacific Clay Products owns the property to the weStof Lake Street /Robb Road, where their manufacturing fac l ty is and where they will continue to mine. Within the area that we are talking about there are Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 11 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 = LONG BEACH EQUITIES. INC. CONTINUED three types of activities that will be taking place as we are proceeding with the development of the sewer plan and the grading. They are removing the stockpiles from two areas (referred to posted plan for location of stockpiles) into the Pacific Clay plant. There will be some mining (referred to the posted plan showing location of mining), our understand- ing and discussion with Pacific Clay is that mining operations will be completed four years from now. Commissioner Saathoff asked how many parcels were involved. Mr. Friedman responded 15. Commissioner Saathoff stated that his concern is on Lake Street. If you commence to develop there, parcel by parcel, we may start seeing only segments of Lake Street being developed. It would be my preference, if development commences on any parcels adjoining Lake Street that the required dedication be for it's entire length, rather than small segments of Lake Street being developed. Would prefer to see Lake Street developed in it's entirety. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the 21 acres of commercial property at Cole Road. We are looking at a significantly large commercial area that perhaps would not be totally supported by this one development, there would be additional traffic. Therefore, it would be my suggestion that Cole Road have turning lanes. Mr. Strozier commented on the concerns on traffic, stating that the intent of condition number 18, is that a phasing/ circulation plan be submitted to the Commission for review and approval with the first tentative map, and then administered by the City Engineer. The Minutes will be part of the Specific Plan when codified, or we can bring it forward in this condition as a comment. I believe that your issues will be satisfied with condition number 18, when it is brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that condition number 18 be amended to read: "The phasing of the circulation plan for the entire Specific Plan area will be submitted to the City Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission at submission of the first tentative tract map." Mr. Strozier stated that it will probably be part of a comprehensive financing program for these off tract roads. With that direction staff can re -word that condition to be more attentive to the first tentative map that comes through with a master circulation plan, and making sure that it is clear that it is going to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Strozier stated that he has taken Commission's direction and added a condition to clean up Walker Canyon, as a rehabilitation program. Discussion at the table ensued on clean up of all open space, and type of time line to be established; removal of all illegal material from the entire site. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 8, pertaining to developer shall make a good faith effort to negotiate assistance to the schools in providing adequate school facilities. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 12 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 _ LONG BEACH EQUITIES, INC. Mr. Friedman informed the Commission that they have met with the school district, and they (school district) were going to get back to us on their terms of calculations of their capacity and other things that were happening in this general vicinity. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 8, pertaining to good faith effort; there being other creative measures to get to schools on line. Commissioner Brinley commented on the proposed sewer plant and asked if this takes in the SPA and commercial areas. Mr. Friedman responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that the last sentence of condition number 8, be changed to read: "which may include dedication of land and fees ". Mr. Strozier suggested the following verbiage be added to condition number 8, "which may include a financing program, dedication of land." Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 8, verbiage added to strengthen the fact that you (developer) are going to do more than make a good faith effort; adding verbiage "other suggested ways, advancement of funds, advancement of architectural fees, or CFD". Commissioner Saathoff suggested that condition number 8 be amended to read as follows: "Developer shall negotiate with the schools in providing adequate school facilities to serve the project in a timely manner." Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 8, pertaining to school facilities and what is considered a timely manner; school facilities being provided to serve the children generated by this project. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Strozier to address the mining situation discussed earlier. Mr. Strozier stated the concern discussed on the dais by the Commission was how do they insure that there is safe and adequate interface timing between the removal of the mining operations and the arrival of first residents in this planned community. The „,;problem being any nuisance issues involved with blasting, removal of sand, gravel, clay. The Commission was suggesting that there be a condition added that they review the first, residential tentative map - -the proposed phasing program for the removal of mining operations shall be submitted with the first tentative map. Commissioner Briniey stated that she would like this added as a condition. 4f,_ Commissioner Gilenson asked the table for their comments on allowing he u r g upgraded metal or aluminum on the carport structures. Discussion at thi table ensued on material to be used on the carport structures,and carport structures being harmonious with the structures. Chairman Brown asked that Mr. Strozier review his notes and go over the concerns raised. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 13 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 - LONG BEACH EQUITIES. INC. CONTINUED Mr. Strozier commented as follows: Condition No. 8: Developer shall negotiate with the school district in providing adequate school facilities to serve the project in a timely manner. Condition No. 18: With the submission of the first tentative map, the developer shall submit, a circu- lation plan, phasing, timing, cross section alignments for review and approval by the City Engineer and sub- sequent approval by the Planning Commission. Condition No. 23: The developer will provide, as part of the phasing plan, a rehabilitation plan for the clean up of the entire Specific Plan site area, which would include Walker Canyon. Condition No. 24: The phasing plan would be submitted concurrent with the first tentative map for the removal of the mining operations consistent with the residential interface. Mr. Strozier stated that he would provide better wording for condition number 24, but this is the intent. Mr. Strozier stated that he would like to point out that with the adoption of the resolution you are making the necessary environmental findings that you made in Resolution 89 -5. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Specific Plan 89 -2 and adoption of Resolution No. 89 -6 based upon the Findings and subject to the 22 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: "Developer shall negotiate with the school district in providing adequate school facilities to serve the project in a timely manner." Condition No. 18: "With the submission of the first tentative map, the developer shall submit, a circulation plan, phasing, timing, cross section alignments for review and approval by the City Engineer and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission." Condition No. 23: "The developer will provide, as part of the phasing plan, a rehabilitation plan for the clean up of the entire Specific Plan site area, which would include Walker Canyon." Condition No. 24: "The phasing plan would be submitted concurrent with the first tentative map for the removal of the mining operations consistent with the residential interface." RESOLUTION NO 89 -6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 14 SPECIFIC PLAN 89 -2 = LONG BEACH EQUITIES, INC. CONTINUED Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 9:09 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 9:25 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. Commissioner Wilsey absent from the table when the Planning Commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS BUSINESS ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 CONSIDERED AND ACTED UPON BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. 5. Residential Project 89 -5 Phase II - Curtis Elsinore Ranch - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct forty -four (44) single - family residences, which are identical to the fifty -two (52) residences completed as phase one, Residential Project 87 -4. The basic subdivision for both phases is the townsite of Lucerene. The project area is bounded by Lakeshore Drive and Broadway Street on the north and south and California and Massachusetts Streets on the west and east. Assistant Planner Merrett informed the Commission that the conditions attached to the memorandum should be substituted in total for the conditions that were included in the Staff Report. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Bob Curtis, of Curtis Elsinore Ranch, stated that they concur with staff recommendation. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the proposal connecting to sewer, and requested that this requirement be added as condition number 20.a. Commissioner Brinley commented on the sewer and it already existing in the area. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 10, pertaining to verbiage "each applicable condition "; assumes that the street trees will not be put in until the houses are put in - -that type of thing. Assistant Planner Merrett responded in the affirmative. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 16, pertaining to front yard landscaping and irrigation. Asked Mr. Torn if they would have a,problem with doing front yard landscaping and irrigation --hydroseed and 100% coverage on sprinklers. Mr. Torn responded in the negative, stating that their typical installation also includes shrubbery that is not often seen. Commissioner Wilsey returned to the table at 9:29 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to adopt Negative Declaration No. 89 -10 and approve Residential Project 89 -5 based on the Findings and subject to the 49 Conditions of Approval listed in the memorandum dated July 19, 1989, with the following amendments: Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 15 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -5 PHASE II = CURTIS ELSINORE RANCH CONTINUED Condition No. 16: "Residential front yard landscaping not related to slopes, shall be the responsibility of the developer. The developer shall place a deed restriction in the CC & R's which requires the installation of landscaping in yards subject to public view within six (6) months of the original purchase date and reasonable upkeep and maintenance. The CC & R's shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee prior to recordation. Condition No. 20a. "Project shall connect to sewer." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 6. Residential Project 89 -9 - Michael Brown - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct two (2) apartment projects, Walnut Grove 63 units and Walnut Shores 77 units. 16 buildings totaling 111,000 square feet on a 6.96 gross acre site on the north side of Joy Street, starting 200 feet west of Riverside Drive. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 1, pertaining to the word "substantial" and suggested that this be changed to 100 %. Commissioner Gilenson recommended that condition number 20.a. be added, which would read: No roof mounted equipment with the exception of swamp coolers. Commissioner Gilenson recommended that condition number 24.a. be added, which would read: Project shall connect to sewer. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the suggested change to condition number 1, asking if the table concurs. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 1, and amending it to read: "The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted development plans, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -27 and approval of Residential Project 89 -9 based on the Findings and subject to the 57 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 1: "Design Review Board approval will lapse and be void unless Building or Grading Permits are issued within one (1) year. The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted development plans, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 16 PROJECT 89 -9 MICHAEL BROWN CONTINUED Condition No. 20a: "No roof mounted equipment with the exception of swamp coolers." Condition No. 24a. "Project shall connect to sewer." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 7. Residential Project 89 -10 - Michael Brown - Assistant Planner Merrett presented a proposal to construct a new eight (8) unit structure on a .78 acre site adjacent to an existing six (6) unit apartment building on the north side of Joy Street between Riverside Drive and Machado Street. Chairman Brown apologized to Mr. Brown for failing to asked him if he had any concerns on the prior item, and stated that he would re -open it for his comments. It was the consensus of the table to consider and act upon Residential Project 89 -10 and then go back to Residential Project 89 -9 for the applicant's comments. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Brown if he had any concerns on Residential Project 89 -10. Mr. Brown gave a brief history on the proposal, and stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 1, requesting that this be changed to read: "The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted development plans, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Commissioner Gilenson recommended that condition number 14.a. be added, which would read: No roof mounted equipment with the exception of swamp coolers. Commissioner Gilenson recommended that condition number 20.a. be added, which would read: Project shall connect to sewer. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the exterior of the old buildings and asked what is being done architecturally to bring it up to modern standards, and inquired about landscap- ing. Mr. Brown stated that the site was inundated with landscap- ing, the trees had never been controlled and trimmed and completely covered the building. We have removed the old roof mounted equipment and eliminated the radiant ceiling heat and put in heat pumps, central systems. We have screened those compressors from view on the roof, and we have completely thinned out and cleaned up the landscaping. We will be painting the exterior of the building. Additional landscaping is in the game plan and good architectural coloring on the exterior of the building will bring it up to speed. Commissioner Brinley stated that her concerns were on exterior enhancements, colors and the landscaping proposed for the project. Commissioner Saathoff recommended that the landscaping plan come back before the Planning Commission for review and approval, this added to condition number 17. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 17 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -10 - MICHAEL BROWN CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff stated that we all have a concern with the six (6) units. But bear in mind, that the six units have to do with code enforcement and building inspectors and absolutely nothing to do with these eight (8) apartments, submitted this evening. Our decision should be based on the conditions on these eight (8) apartments. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council that Negative Declaration 88 -21 be re- affirmed and approval of Residential Project 89 -10 based on the Findings and subject to the 50 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 1: "Design Review Board approval will lapse and be void unless Building or Grading Permits are issued within one (1) year. The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted development plans, subject to the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director or his designee." Condition No. 14a: "No roof mounted equipment with the exception of swamp coolers." Condition No. 17: "Landscape plan to be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 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 materials and labor for one year." Condition No. 20a. "Project shall connect to sewer." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Chairman Brown stated that since Mr. Brown was not permitted to speak earlier on Residential Project 89 -9, he was now being called forward to address any issues or concerns that he might have. Mr. Brown questioned condition number 41, dedication of sufficient right -of -way along Joy to provide a 66 -foot right -of -way and 44 -foot curb -to -curb collector street, and asked if they would be relieved of 3 feet of the required setback if the Engineering Department determines that they must dedicate additional footage to the 200 foot merge lane. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 41, pertaining to dedication of right -of -way, and applicant's request for relief of setback being a variance. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that if the Engineering Department requires additional footage for Joy Street, and that results in the applicant having to reduce his setback requirements that he be allowed to submit the application for variance without any additional fees. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 18 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -9 = MICHAEL BROWN Discussion at the table continued on condition number 41, pertaining to dedication of right -of -way for transition. Mr. Brown stated that they understand that any conditions requiring sprinklers or fire - alarms will be dictated by the Fire Department, referring to conditions 28 through 38. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 41, when the issue of additional right -of -way came up. Moved by Commissioner Saathoff to rescind the original motion on Residential Project 89 -9 and Negative Declaration 89 -27, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Residential Project 89 -9, second by Commissioner Brinley. Chairman Brown asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Wilsey requested further discussion on the time frame involved. Discussion at the table ensued on time frame involved; applicant requesting a variance; re- design the proposal, or get the Engineering Department to relieve condition number 41; providing written information on how long we have been working on this, why it has gone this far and then at the last minute we have a new condition for the street; what we are looking at for the transition area and legal ramifi- cations on this transition area. Commissioner Saathoff withdrew his motion and Commissioner Brinley withdrew her second. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -27 and approval of Residential Project 89 -9 based on the Findings and subject to the 57 Conditions of,.Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 1: "Design Review Board approval will lapse and be void unless Building or Grading Permits are issued within one (1) year. The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with the submitted development plans, subject to the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director or his designee." Condition No. 20aa "No roof mounted equipment with the exception of swamp coolers." Condition No. 24a. "Project shall connect to sewer." Condition No. 41: "Dedicate sufficient right -of -way along Joy Street to provide for a 60 foot right -of -way and 40 foot curb -to -curb collector street." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIfiECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill informed the Commission and public that Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1989 Page 19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS CONTINUED the next Town Meeting for the General Plan will be held next Thursday, July 27, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. We will be discussing the policies and implementation and the preferred Land Use Plan. This is the final Town Meeting on this subject. City Planner Thornhill informed the Commission that Assistant Planner Merrett has resigned his position, effective July 28, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinlev Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Asked if anyone knew of an old asbestos mine site on Railroad Canyon Road. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:11 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Jeff Bro Chairman Respectfully tted Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Wilsey and Saathoff ABSENT: Commissioners: Brown Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Assistant Planner Restivo, and Public Services Director Kirchner. Being as Chairman Brown was conducted the meeting. MINUTE ACTION absent Vice Chairman Saathoff Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Minutes of July 19, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Vice Chairman Saathoff closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 24571 - Rancon Realty Fund IV - A proposal to subdivide 22.67 gross acres into 11 parcels ranging in size from .76 acres to 4.61 acres, located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier. 2. Zone Change 89 -7 - Rancon Realty Fund IV - A proposal to change the zoning from C -P (Commercial Park) to M -2 (General Manufacturing), which would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan, for 22.67 acres located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there were any comments from the table. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Tentative Parcel Map 24571 and Zone Change 89 -7 to the meeting of September 6, 1989, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single - Family Residence - 16523 Stevens Avenue - Vincent Dale Berry - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 2,008 square foot dwelling, situated on a 27,120 square foot lot, located 660 feet east of Stoddard, north of Bailey and south of Stevens Avenue. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that the applicant has informed staff that Assessor's Parcel Numbers 378 - 223 -020 and 021 will not be included in the proposed lot area for the project and requested that condition number 9.d. be added, which would read as follows: Condition No. 9.d: "On -site sewage disposal system must be located on the same lot as the proposed Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1989 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 16523 STEVENS AVENUE - VINCENT DALE BERRY CONTINUED dwelling. Prior to issuance of build- ing permits, evidence that leach lines do not cross parcel lines, regardless of whether they are under common ownership, must be submitted. Any necessary parcel mergers to fulfill this condition will be required." Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Vincent Dale Berry stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 4, pertaining to the additional architectural treatments and whether or not they had been submitted to staff; condition number 16, pertaining to the park -in -lieu fees, and staff to review this condition with City Ordinances and if applicable it shall remain otherwise it shall be deleted. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single- Family Residence at 16523 Stevens Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the 29 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 4: "Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans date stamped August 2, 1989, or as modified by the Community Development Director or his designee. Additional architectural treatment (i.e., windows, plant -on treatments, vegetation) is required on the north and south elevations, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. Windows on these elevations must be fully trimmed." Condition No. 9.d: "On -site sewage disposal system must be located on the same lot as the proposed dwelling. Prior to issuance of build= ing permits, evidence that leach lines do not cross parcel lines, regardless of whether they are under common ownership, must be submitted. Any necessary parcel mergers to fulfill this condition will be required." Condition No. 16: "Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. If this is an ordinance requirement, this condition will stand, otherwise it shall be deleted." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 2. Commercial Project 87 -7 Revised, Sign Program - Fortune Sign (William Lin) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented the Uniform Sign Program for an eight (8) unit commercial retail building and motel located at 31610 and 31620 Casino Drive. Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1989 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87 -7 REVISED. SIGN PROGRAM = FORTUNE SIGN (WILLIAM LIN ) CONTINUED Assistant Planner Restivo requested that condition number 8 be amended to read: Condition No. 8: "The Travel Lodge monument sign cabinet and base shall be texture coated. The cabinet shall be painted bronze (Travel Lodge corporate colors) and the base shall be painted to match the hotel building." Discussion at the table was held on condition number 8, per- taining to the portion of the sign that would be bronze and the portion to receive texture coat treatment; condition number 5, pertaining to landscaping around the base of the sign, and whether or not a landscaping/ maintenance bond will be provided; condition number 4.h, pertaining to time limit for the installation of a sign once a unit is leased. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the Sign Program for Commercial Project 87 -7 Revised based on the Findings and subject to the 9 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 8: "The Travel Lodge monument sign cabinet and base shall be texture coated. The cabinet shall be painted bronze (Travel Lodge corporate colors) and the base shall be painted to match the hotel building." Condition No. 10: "In the event that a landscaping /mainte- nance bond has not been posted, assuring landscaping and maintenance around the base of the sign, then a bond shall be posted to insure that landscaping and maintenance is performed. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill informed the Commission that the Planning Division is advertising for two positions, an Assistant Planner and a Senior Planner. Interviews are anticipated to being the first week of September. In the mean time, we have a consultant group helping out. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey: Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report Commissioner Gilenson: Nothing to report Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1989 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONER °S COMMENTS Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Chairman Brown: Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:23 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Liii V0.0.1..11V 11 Vice Chairman Respe ! tft l ly s mitted, inda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Wilsey, Saathoff and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Associate Planner Last, and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of August 2, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 Chairman Brown abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Robert Reinen representing Crowell Industries, commented on the expansion of Skylark Airport and requested that Crowell Industries be notified of any action of expansion or changes at the airport. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 89 -1 - Brookstone Development, Inc. - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to amend the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, as follows: Section 17.54.020, amend the text of the Commercial - Manufacturing Zone, to allow additional uses: hardware stores; offices, professional sales and service, including business, law, medical, dental, chiropractic, architectural and engineering; banks and financial institutions; donut shop; bakeries; restaurants, including drive - thrus; Section 17.66.050, amend the loading requirements in the Commercial- Manufacturing District. If approved, this amendment would apply 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 -1. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, gave a brief history on the requested amendments. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 89 -1. 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 7:13 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he could agree with the addition of hardware stores and wholesale bakeries with incidental sales to Section 17.54.020, but could not agree with amending the loading space requirements, Section 17.66.050. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1989 Page 2 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 89 -1 = BROOKSTONE DEVELOPMENT, INC. CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson asked for the loading space require- ments for the Business Park District. City .Planner Thornhill responded that we do not have the implementing regulations designed for the Business Park District. We anticipate the adoption of the General Plan mid December, and if we can work out the loading problem the use problem may resolve itself by the time he (the applicant) constructs the building and gets occupancy. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he agrees with Commissioner Wilsey and staff. Commissioner Wilsey suggested addressed more specifically in before us this evening. that the loading zone issue be the related industrial project Commissioner Brinley stated her concern was with the loading zone, and agrees with Commissioners Wilsey and Gilenson. Commissioner Saathoff stated that this is a request for a city -wide amendment, and yet the text of the material addressing it is site specific. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to deny Zone Code Amendment 89 -1 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 2. Zone Code Amendment 89 -2 - Planner Thornhill presented Commercial- Manufacturing and Districts to allow health clubs conditionally permitted uses. would apply city -wide. City of Lake Elsinore - City request to amend the the Limited Manufacturing under 20,000 square feet as If approved, this amendment Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 89 -2. 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 7:26 p.m. Discussion at the table was held on the minimum square footage for health clubs, and standard for minimum distance between equipment. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Zone Code Amendment 89 -2 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 3. Tentative Parcel Map 24751 - Brookstone Development, Inc. - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to subdivide 9.67 acres into thirty -seven lots, located on the southeast corner of Collier and Central. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24751. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that they concurred with staff recommendation and would answer any questions that may arise. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1989 Page 3 PARCEL MAP 24751 - BROOKSTONE DEVELOPMENT, INC. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24751. 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 7:31 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 No. 89 -26 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24751 based on the Findings and subject to the 35 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Chairman Brown. Approved 5 -0 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848 - Cottonwood Hills - Chairman Brown stated that it has been requested that this proposal be continued to September 6, 1989, and called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848 to September 6, 1989, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single - Family Residence - 211 Davis - Eddie M. Taketa - City Planner Thornhill presented a proposal to construct a 2,185 square foot dwelling, situated on 9,000 square foot lot, located 285 feet north of Heald, west of Davis Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Taketa stated that he was in agreement with staff recom- mendation. Discussion at the table was held on the steep slopes and drainage in the area; assisting the applicant in obtaining drainage easements; condition number 17, pertaining to park -in -lieu fees and amending this condition by adding "if applicable ", and condition number 9, pertaining to sewer connection. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 211 Davis Street based on the Findings and subject to the 30 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 17: "Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fee in effect at time of building permit issuance, if applicable." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 2. Single - Family Residence - 4126 Crestview Drive - Jim Parker - City Planner Thornhill presented a proposal to construct a 2,676 square foot dwelling, situated on a 24,975 square foot lot, located 545 feet west of Machado Street, north of Crestview Drive. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1989 Page 4 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE _ 4126 CRESTVIEW DRIVE CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Parker stated that he was in agreement with staff recom- mendation. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 8, pertaining to roofing material; condition 16, pertaining to park -in -lieu fees and amending this condition by adding "if applicable "; condition number 9, pertaining to sewer connection, and if the detached three car garage in the rear would create a problem with the leach lines. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 4126 Crestview Drive based on the Findings and subject to the 27 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 16: "Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fee in effect at time of building permit issuance, if applicable." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 3. Single - Family Residence - 742 Mill Street - Richard Pierce - City Planner Thornhill presented a proposal to construct a 1,664 square foot dwelling, situated on a 6,565 square foot lot, located 250 feet east of High Street, south of Mill 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. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 17, pertaining to park -in -lieu fees and amending this condition by adding "if applicable ", and whether or not sewer is available in this area. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 742 Mill Street based on the Findings and subject to the 31 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 17: "Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fee in effect at time of building permit issuance, if applicable." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 4. Industrial Project 89 -7 - Brookstone Development, Inc. - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to construct thirty -seven buildings totaling 152,662 square feet within a business /industrial park, located on the southeast corner of Collier and Central Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that the only issue of concern is the loading space require- ment. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1989 Page 5 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -7 - BROOKSTONE Chairman Brown asked for general discussion at the table regarding the loading space requirements. Considerable dis- cussion ensued with regard to said matter. Commissioner Wilsey asked for the type of rear doors to be provided on these units. Mr. Brown responded that store front door would be provided. Chairman Brown asked what control we have that prevents three of these units from being combined for one business. Mr. Brown responded that they are individual buildings with air space between the walls. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that on condition number 20, a variance be allowed dealing with the loading space. If tenants in this first development stage are all allowed under a Conditional Use Permit, or whatever the mechanism, that they be allowed to have the normal parking space requirements required for commercial use only, Commercial Park. If a tenant is put into this development that would fall under Commercial- Manufacturing then they must meet the parking requirements for Commercial- Manufacturing. Chairman Brown suggested that language be added in the conditions that would address this as site specific. We have an understanding of the intention - -in the interim, between now and the Business Park zoning, this project will be dealt with on a case by case basis. - Associate Planner Last stated that right now the site is over- parked on the front portion and, utilizing the posted site plan, indicated where the applicant could remove some parking spaces and provide loading space to meet the technical aspects of the City's standards on loading, as a temporary measure. After the City develops the Business Park concept these could be converted back to parking spaces to meet the intent of the office uses. Commissioner Wilsey suggested that condition number 20 be replaced with the following verbiage: "The applicant will meet loading requirements for the Commercial- Manufacturing Zone subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." City Planner Thornhill suggested the following verbiage for condition number 20: "The applicant shall be allowed to build but must meet Commercial- Manufacturing requirements or apply for variance unless the Business Park Zone District is in effect." Discussion ensued on the suggested verbiage by staff and that the last part be dropped as the Business Park District standards are unknown. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 19, and suggested the final landscape plan meet the Commercial Park standards instead of the Commercial - Manufacturing standards and said plans to come before the Planning Commission for review and approval. Chairman Brown commented on the parking ratio (number of spaces over requirement) and the dedication of some parking spaces to open space, semi - sheltered area, for employees, and this added as condition number 19.i. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1989 Page 6 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -7 = BROOKSTONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 20, clarification on language to be used; continuing proposal and get language from the City Attorney, and loading space to be provided per the Commercial- Manufacturing District standards. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 89 -26 and approval of Industrial Project 89 -7 based on the Findings and subject to the 55 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 19i: "Applicant to work with staff on providing a lunch, rest /shade area with seating for employee." Condition No. 20: "Loading space shall be provided per City standards for the Commercial - Manufacturing Zone." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 5. Planning Commission Determination for a use in the Limited Manufacturing (M -1) Zoning District - Bruce Ayres - City Planner Thornhill presented a request for determination on a blueprint /reproduction establishment in the M -1 Zone. The use is proposed to be located within two units totaling 2,700 square feet located at the Ayres Industrial Complex. Commissioner Wilsey stated that this specific project in this specific area would be harmonious. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with staff. Commissioner Saathoff stated that this is a retail business and referred to the letter included in the packet from the applicant. Mr. Bruce Ayres stated that basically he concurs with staff, it is a borderline use, and not sure of the percentage of the retail versus the blueprinting. Considerable discussion at the table ensued on the use being basically retail, as per applicant's letter; allowing the use within the Limited Manufacturing District with incidental retail; the retail aspect being considered incidental; use being seen as retail outlet with a sideline of blueprinting; reference Section 17.56.040. Accessory Uses, subsection E, which states: "retail sales of products produced on the premises and incidental retail sales." Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to adopt the site specific determination for the proposed blueprint /reproduction establishment, by Dresco Reproduction, Inc., in the Limited Manufacturing District, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Vote: 2 -3 (Gilenson, Saathoff and Brown voting no) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill informed the Planning Commission that the final General Plan Advisory Committee meeting will be held September 7, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., at the Community Center. Topics for discussion include: Land Use, Circulation Element and the Implementation Policies. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1989 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley 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 8:55 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Respectfully s mitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 6TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner.Saathoff. ROLL CALL: 1989 PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Associate Planner Last, Assistant Planner Restivo and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of August 16, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 24571 - Rancon Realty Fund IV (Continued from August 2, 1989) - A proposal to subdivide 22.67 acres into 11 parcels ranging in size from .76 acres to 4.61 acres, located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue. 2. Zone Change 89 -7 - Rancon Realty Fund IV (Continued from August 2, 1989) - A proposal to change the zoning from C -P (Commercial Park) and M -2 (General Manufacturing) to C -2 (General Commercial), which would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan, for 22.67 acres located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the matter., Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there were any comments from the table. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Tentative Parcel Map 24571 and Zone Change 89 -7 to the meeting of October 4, 1989, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848 - Cottonwood Hills (Continued from August 16, 1989) - A request to subdivide 455 acres of land to create 669 lots. Land uses will include residential densities ranging from Low Density Residential (R -1) to High Density (Multi - Family), 208.7 acres of open space, 11.2 net acres of Neighborhood Commercial, and 14.3 net acres for schools and parks. The project is located along Railroad Canyon Road in the approximate center of the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan Area. City Planner Thornhill stated that staff met with the applicant today and they have minor concerns with wording on some of the conditions, and they have requested a continuance to the next meeting so that these concerns may be resolved. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848 to the meeting of September 20, 1989, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1989 Page 2 4. Tentative Parcel Map 24465 - Frank Ayres & Son - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to subdivide 1.8 acres into two lots, located on the north side of Collier Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24465. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Engineering & Surveys, stated that they prepared the map for Mr. Ayres and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24465. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 the Engineering Depart- ment conditions and whether or not these conditions were applied at the time of project approval, as these buildings are under construction. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -28 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24465 based on the Findings and subject to the 17 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 5. Conditional Use Permit 89 -5 - Lake Elsinore Unified School District - A request to allow a 5,730 square foot expansion of Lake Elsinore School District administrative offices at 541 Chaney Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -5. Mr. Mike McCarty, representing the Lake Elsinore Unified School District, stated that since the school unified we have a number of staff members in various isolated spots throughout the district and would like to bring them all together. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -5. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Brinley stated that her only concern was on the parking, and asked if the district office was open year round. Mr. McCarty responded that the school district office was open year round. City Planner Thornhill stated that the number of parking spaces were calculated on maximums, and staff's site visit was during business hours. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1989 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -5 = LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff asked for the amount of square footage devoted to storage space, and the remaining square footage for storage once they take over building 541. City Planner Thornhill responded that the square footage devoted to storage is 5,000 -6,000 square feet, and referring to the exhibit included in the packet stated that the square footage for storage will be about the same -- literally a mirror image. Chairman Brown commented on the remaining 6,000 square feet - -the least intensified use that would be allowed and the number of parking spaces that would be required. City Planner Thornhill responded that storage would be the least intensified use, and six parking spaces (one per thousand) would be required. Chairman Brown stated then it can only be rented as a storage unit, period. City Planner Thornhill responded unless they come in and request a variance from the parking requirements or add additional parking. Chairman Brown suggested that the following verbiage be included: "Inadequate parking exists for any further rental of the remaining 6,000 square feet of floor space, unless the applicant applies for a variance from the parking require- ments or a change from warehouse use." Commissioner Saathoff stated that he believes that the DISCUSSION portion of the Staff Report, which states: "the property owner should be notified that approval of Conditional Use Permit 89 -5 could restrict future occupancies of the remainder of the 541 building to low- employee intensive uses, unless the owner can demonstrate that sufficient parking is available on adjacent lots to satisfy the parking ordinance ", is adequate and addresses the concerns raised. We could amend this to say that the property owner "will be" notified instead of "should be". Chairman Brown commented on providing rest /open areas for employees. Mr. McCarty responded that the interior has been improved for employees and two (2) rest areas have been provided. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -5 based on the Findings and subject to the 6 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the DISCUSSION portion of the Staff Report, second paragraph third sentence amended by replacing the words "should be" with "will be", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single- Family Residence - 388 Avenue 3 - Tommy D. Gennusa - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,300 square foot, single- story, dwelling situated on a 7,250 square foot lot, located at the southeast corner, of Mill Street and Avenue 3. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1989 Page 4 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 388 AVENUE 3 CONTINUED 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 Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 388 Avenue 3 based on the Findings and subject to the 37 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to consider items 2 through 6 concurrently. Assistant Planner Restivo presented the following proposals as listed: Single - Family Residences - 407 Kellogg Street - Thomas Brothers Development Corp. - This dwelling is one of five dwellings proposed by the applicant. The proposed dwelling is Plan "A" and is stucco with wood trim, brick veneer and concrete tile roofing. Single- Family Residence - 409 Kellogg Street - Thomas Brothers Development Corp. - This dwelling is one of five dwellings proposed by the applicant. The proposed dwelling is Plan "B" and is stucco with wood trim, brick veneer and concrete tile roofing. Single - Family Residence - 609 Pottery Street - Thomas Brothers Development Corp. - This dwelling is one of five dwellings proposed by the applicant. The proposed dwelling is Plan "C -R" and is stucco with wood trim, brick veneer and concrete tile roofing. Single - Family Residence - 611 Pottery Street - Thomas Brothers Development Corp. - This dwelling is one of five dwellings proposed by the applicant. The proposed dwelling is Plan "D" and is stucco with wood trim, brick veneer and concrete tile roofing. Single - Family Residence - 701 Pottery Street - Thomas Brothers Development Corp. - This dwelling is one of five dwellings proposed by the applicant. The proposed dwelling is Plan "D" and is stucco with wood trim, brick veneer and concrete tile roofing. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Viet Dinh, representing Thomas Brothers Development Corp., stated that they have no comments for 407, 409 Kellogg and 609 Pottery. However, 701 Pottery is where we use Model "D" and 611 Pottery is Model "D -R" which was incorrectly labeled by our architect as Model "C -R", and we would like to correct this labeling error. We think that site elevation is adequate for the areas given, condition number 4 for 611 and 701 Pottery. Discussion was held at the table on condition number 4, pertaining to correcting the model number for 611 Pottery to Model "D -R" and 701 Pottery to Model "D ", and deleting the remainder of the condition. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1989 Page 5 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES 407 KELLOGG, 409 KELLOGG, 609 POTTERY, 611 POTTERY AND 701 POTTERY CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residences as follows: 407 Kellogg Street based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report; 409 Kellogg Street based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report; 609 Pottery Street based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report; 611 Pottery Street based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with condition number 4 amended, as follows: Condition No. 4: "Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans date stamped July 28, 1989, or as modified by the Community Development Director or his designee." 701 Pottery Street based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with condition number 4 amended, as follows: Condition No. 4: "Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans date stamped July 28, 1989, or as modified by the Community Development Director or his designee." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill informed the Commission of the following: 1) The General Plan Advisory Committee meeting will be held on September 7, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., at the Community Center. 2) Numerous applications have been received for the Senior and Assistant Planner positions. We antici- pate conducting interviews within a couple of weeks. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Would like to take this opportunity to extend our condolences to the Mayhall family. Roger Mayhall was a Planning Commissioner for the City of Lake Elsinore and he passed away this past Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 1989 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENT'S Saturday. We would like to let the family know that our deepest sympathies are with them. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Appro d, Jeff Br Chairman Respectfully s mitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES HELD ON THE OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 20TH DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Gilenson. ROLL CALL: 1989 PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Associate Planner Magee, Assistant Planner Restivo and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of September 6, 1989, 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. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848 - Cottonwood Hills /Pardee Construction - (Continued from September 6, 1989) - City Planner Thornhill presented a proposal to subdivide 455 acres of land to create 669 lots. Land uses will include residential densities ranging from Low Density (R -1) to High Density (Multi- Family), 208.7 acres of open space, 11.2 net acres of Neighborhood Commercial, and 14.3 net acres for schools and parks. The project is located along Railroad Canyon Road in the approximate center of the; Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan Area. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848. Mr. Mike McGee, Pardee Construction, stated they concur with staff recommendation and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 Wilsey commented on the turn -key parks, condition number 30, concerned with putting a dollar amount on this and having a mechanism in place to control the design costs. City Planner Thornhill stated that this condition came out of the negotiations that Mr. Watenpaugh, Community Services Director, had with the developer. Mr. McGee stated that the condition is a piece of a larger condition that was arrived at during the Specific Plan process, whereby we worked with the City Manager and the Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 2 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23848 = COTTONWOOD HILLS Community Services Director to determine the amount of dollars necessary to improve the parks starting in 1989. Then those dollars are indexed to the engineer's new record index for inflation each year. There was an allocation provided to each of the neighborhood parks and the community parks and that is what is represented in this condition. As far as the design fees, we are working with the Community Services Director to get multiple bids from design firms. In addition, through the joint powers agreement with the School District and the City we are looking at using school facilities on a portion of the park site to provide for some of the improvements, so there will be shared facilities. Commissioner Wilsey stated that his intent was to get this information in the minutes because we do not have the specifics to be able to study the language of the agreements before us this evening. Commissioner Brinley commented on the Stephen's kangaroo rat mitigation fee, and asked for the dollar amount. City Planner Thornhill responded that the fee is $1,950.00 per acre. Commissioner Brinley inquired about police protection. Mr. McGee stated that if you refer back to the Specific Plan document, at the time those conditions were approved, there is a condition in there in which the City placed a burden upon itself to examine the issue of police and the increase of police protection. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he believes that the previous conditions presented included language having to do with when the park would be place; when Railroad Canyon Road would be completed - -their phase of it; when the school would be in place, and now there is no language pertaining to that. Mr. McGee stated that condition number 54 addresses the completion of Railroad Canyon Road prior to the issuance of the 501st Certificate of Occupancy. Condition number 30 addresses the dedication of land for a neighborhood park and this occurring concurrently with recordation of adjoining final maps in Phase 1 within Phase 4, 6 or 9, which are subphases of this overall phase. Commissioner Saathoff commented on fencing, condition number 10, and suggested wrought iron or combination fencing be approved by the Community Development Director as long as it does not impair visibility. City Planner Thornhill responded that as the Commission you have that authority to approve that at Design Review. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 30, pertaining to the dedication of land (infrastructure) and rough grading for a park concurrently with phases 4, 6 or 9 - -and phase 4 is when? It also goes on to state, believes that the two are tied together, in addition to the infrastructure and the rough grading that you are going to do the improvements up to that dollar amount at the same time. Mr. McGee stated that their intent was to tie these together. As for timing, 4, 6 and 9, each of those phases borders on Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 3 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23848 = COTTONWOOD HILLS CONTINUE the first school and neighborhood park site, and they will be within the first sale release for either the small or large lot product, both of which we are bringing on at the same time. I do not have the sales release breakdown to give the exact time. Chairman Brown asked Mr. McGee when they intend to have the park in, dedicated and improved by the release /completion of how many houses? Mr. McGee responded within the first 200 -300 houses, if not sooner. Given that as the first sale release within the first phase of a new development we will try to get the park in sooner rather than later. We have not discussed with the Community Services Director an exact timing. Chairman Brown asked Mr. McGee if they would have any objection to putting in language to that affect - -by the closing of the final of 300 units. Mr. McGee stated he is concerned with putting a number of units on it unless it is sufficiently high enough to provide flexibility in what I can come in with phase 4, 6 or 9, so that I can do the park concurrent with the surrounding improvements and the mapping of the adjacent area. If we could set a limit of about 300 units, I think it gives me the flexibility at this point to be able to commit to that tonight. Chairman Brown asked for the distribution of the Stephen's kangaroo rat mitigation fee. City Planner Thornhill responded that right now it is just being held. The Department of Fish and Wildlife will be the beneficiary of the money. Chairman Brown commented on the school district park site and asked Mr. McGee for the status of these discussions. Mr. McGee responded that he has not had any discussions with the school district on the joint usage between the sites. The Community Services Director has had those discussions and my discussions with him has led me to believe that the way it is going to work is that the City is going to take the responsibility for maintaining the area of the school that will be included in the park. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council reaffirmation of Environmental Impact Report 88 -1 and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23848 based on the Findings and subject to the 68 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 30: "Turn -key public parks shall be provided for Cottonwood Hills as follows: Developer shall dedicate the land (infrastructure) and rough grading for one (1) 5.0 acre neighborhood park, designated on the tentative map as Lot 669. This dedication shall occur concurrently with recordation of adjoining final maps for either Phase 4, 6 or 9, whichever comes first or at a later time if mutually agreed upon by the City and applicant. In Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 4 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23848 _ COTTONWOOD HILLS addition, the developer shall provide turn -key park improvements for this park in accordance with a conceptual park development plan to be prepared by the developer and approved by the Community Services Director prior to the recordation of the First Final Map. Said improvements plus the design costs shall be limited to a maximum expenditure by the developer of $450,000 (1989 dollars). The above mentioned items will be completed no later than the Certificate of Occupancy of the 300th unit within the entire development." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 2. Tentative Tract Map 24856 - Capital Formation Concepts - City Planner Thornhill presented a proposal to subdivide 18.49 acres to create 75 residential lots, located north of Mountain Street, west of Robb Road. City Planner Thornhill stated that the Engineering Department has requested the following amendments: Condition No. 46: "Developer shall contribute twenty -five percent (25 %) of the cost for the design and construction of a forty -eight inch (4811) storm drain lateral from the culvert under Mountain Avenue to the terminus of the proposed storm drain on Robb Road. Cost of the storm drain is to be estimated by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer." Condition No. 47: "If drainage is directed off -site towards Robb Road, then developer shall provide detention basins on -site for storage of a one - hundred (100) year storm run -off and only a ten (10) year storm run -off will be allowed to drain from Tract boundary. As an alternative, an off -site detention basin may be used, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. These detention basins shall remain until the storm drain is constructed on Robb Road. Storm drain to be constructed by developer of Tract 18719 (Premier Homes)." Condition No. 50: "Applicant shall provide an in -lieu payment for the future half street improvements on Running Deer Road along the northerly tract boundary." Condition No. 54: "Developer shall improve Mountain Avenue from easterly tract boundary to Robb Road which will provide for a forty foot (401) curb -to -curb roadway, except for the plus /minus two hundred and fifty feet (2501) westerly of Robb Road which will be a forty -four foot (441) roadway. Applicant shall complete improvement prior to release of bonds based on a Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24856 _ CAPITAL FORMATION CONCEPTS good faith effort to secure additional right -of- way." Condition No. 56: "Developer shall construct rip -rap erosion and sediment control facilities for the culvert inlet and outlet under Mountain Avenue, subject to the approval of the City Engineer." Condition No. 57: "Widen the pavement and stripe Robb Road at Mountain Avenue to provide for a left -turn lane northbound and a right - turn lane southbound with appropriate transitions, subject to the approval of the City Engineer." Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 24856. Mr. John Robertson, Vice President of Capital Formation Concepts, stated they concur with staff recommendation and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 24856. Mr. Dwayne Vest, 28891 Robb Road, expressed concern on the use of Running Deer Road; asked who will pay for the extension of Running Deer Road, and if there will be a barrier at the end of Running Deer Road. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 24856. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 7:38 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff to give a brief synopsis on the changes in the conditions. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell gave the reasoning behind amending conditions 46, 47, 50, 54, 56 and the addition of condition number 57. Commissioner Gilenson suggested that condition number 16 be deleted as it is a duplication of condition number 6. Commissioner Gilenson commented on Streets "D" and "A", referring to the posted plan, and the potential for a drag strip with such a long street. I know the City is not going with speed bumps - -is there any other way we control this? Commissioner Brinley suggested a three -way stop at Street 11F". Discussion at the table ensued on traffic mitigation measures for Streets "D" and "A", and the number of trips generated per day on these streets. Commissioner Saathoff asked why we have to wall in the entire project, condition number 16. City Planner Thornhill stated that we had to deal with the Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 6 TRACT MAP 24856 = CAPITAL FORMATION CONCEPTS issue of not allowing traffic to backout onto Mountain or Running Deer Road. This was a prime consideration which meant that we had to orient everything inward, so we ended up with walls around it unfortunately. Chairman Brown stated that you are going to have fences along the rear property line anyway, so let make it out of a material that is impervious to rot and decay. Commissioner Saathoff asked if we could not use something other than walls. City Planner Thornhill responded that this is up to the Commission when it comes forward for Design Review. Mr. Robertson stated this is probably the condition that created the duplication of condition number 16. Condition number 16 talked about the solid masonry wall and it was changed to a Minor Design Review because I confronted staff with the same question- -why don't we take the opportunity to do something that is maybe a little variable around the perimeter edge and it may not end up being all masonry and they took that into consideration. It did not get changed in the ANALYSIS section of the report, but it did get changed in condition number 16. City Planner Thornhill stated that the project planner indicated to him that there is a condition that was changed and the condition relative to walls will prevail over comments made in the Staff Report. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -29 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 24856 based on the Findings and subject to the 56 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 16: "House plotting, architectural drawings, floor plans, landscaping and wall /fenc- ing plans shall require Minor Design Review approval prior to issuance of grading permits. All standards of development and processing review requirements in effect at time of Minor Design Review submittal shall apply for this project." DELETED. Condition No. 46: "Developer shall contribute twenty -five percent (25 %) of the cost for the design and construction of a forty -eight inch (4811) storm drain lateral from the culvert under Mountain Avenue to the terminus of the proposed storm drain on Robb Road. Cost of the storm drain is to be estimated by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer." Condition No. 47: "If drainage is directed off -site towards Robb Road, then developer shall provide detention basins on -site for storage of a one - hundred (100) year storm run -off and only a ten (10) year storm run -off will be allowed to drain from Tract boundary. As an alternative, an off -site detention basin may be used, subject to the approval of the City Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24856 - CAPITAL CONCEPTS Engineer. These detention basins shall remain until the storm drain is constructed on Robb Road. Storm drain to be constructed by developer of Tract 18719 (Premier Homes)." Condition No. 50: "Applicant shall provide an in -lieu payment for the future half street improvements on Running Deer Road along the northerly tract boundary." Condition No. 54: "Developer shall improve Mountain Avenue from easterly tract boundary to Robb Road which will provide for a forty foot (401) curb -to -curb roadway, except for the plus /minus two hundred and fifty feet (2501) westerly of Robb Road which will be a forty -four foot (441) roadway. Applicant shall complete improvement prior to release of bonds based on a good faith effort to secure additional right -of- way." Condition No. 56: "Developer shall construct rip -rap erosion and sediment control facilities for the culvert inlet and outlet under Mountain Avenue, subject to the approval of the City Engineer." Condition No. 57: "Widen the pavement and stripe Robb Road at Mountain Avenue to provide for a left -turn lane northbound and a right - turn lane southbound with appropriate transitions, subject to the approval of the City Engineer." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 3. Tentative Parcel Map 25005 - Homestead Land Development Corporation (Hunsaker) - Associate Planner Magee presented a proposal to redivide /reconfigure six (6) existing parcels into eight (8) parcels varying in size from 35 acres to 88 acres, located within the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan Area approximately one and one -half mile north of Railroad Canyon Road and south of Greenwald Avenue. Associate Planner Magee requested that condition number 5 be deleted, as this condition relates to the previous Tract 17413. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 25005. Mr. Chris Weber, Hunsaker & Associates, civil engineer for Homestead on this project, stated that he would address any concerns the Commission may have on this project. We would like to briefly discuss two of the conditions that we have questions about. Chairman Brown informed Mr. Weber that he would be called back to the podium at the close of the public hearing. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 25005. Receiving no Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 8 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25005 - LAND DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 7:51 p.m. Mr. Weber commented on condition number 6 and 7, as follows: Condition 6: Requires an easement for connecting roads for Tract 17413 Revision 4, Tuscany Hills Phase IB and Phase 2 road improvements. Basically this was for the connection to Greenwald through Tuscany Hills from the south to the north along the alignment of what is now called Summerhill Road. This condition was met on the underlying recorded Parcel Map 23910, which recorded a 40 foot wide easement for road purposes over the parcels within that northern sector. This easement would also be shown on this subsequent Final Map 25005, as an existing easement. It is our contention that this condition could be removed. The condition has been met with the underlying recorded final parcel map. Condition No. 7: Refers to an Acquisition Agreement in regards to Railroad Canyon Road. This Acquisition Amendment was entered into and executed by Homestead on January 24, 1989. It is our contention that this condition could be removed since it has been previously satisfied. Commissioner Wilsey asked staff if there were any additional comments. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell commented on conditions 6 and 7 as follows: Condition No. 6: The easements are being requested to be put on this parcel map because on the previous map there are six lots, under this new parcel map there are eight lots. If you overlay another map on top of some easements, those easements could be gone. Secondly, these easements have not been accepted by the City. Condition No. 7: This condition was put on here as a disclosure, and anyone wishing to purchase this parcel map or a parcel within this parcel map automatically knows that he is in an assessment district. Associate Planner Magee stated that he believes that Mr. O'Donnell is providing the City with a safety net. If it is the wish of the Commission or if they would like to give staff direction, we could go ahead and approve this map tonight with the deletion of condition number 5, leave condition number 6 and 7 as stated, and have the city attorney, staff and the developer's representatives try to formulate a common opinion and establish common ground by the time this proposal goes to City Council. Chairman Brown stated that the worse case is that these conditions are just redundant, and causes no harm to leave them. Associate Planner Magee responded in the affirmative. Mr. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development, stated that they just try to eliminate any potential conflicts. The easement is an easement on the land and will show up on the title report. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 9 PARCEL MAP 25005 = HOMESTEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Mr. Taylor stated that the only clarif condition number 7, stating that they have amendment to the Acquisition Agreement and of that tonight, if desired. We just want we are not talking about another amendment Agreement. ication would be on entered into an can provide a copy to make sure that to the Acquisition Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 7, adding the following language "Homestead has executed an amendment to the Acquisition Agreement dated January 24, 1989. This amendment has provided, in substance, etc." Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council reaffirmation of Environmental Impact Report and Addendums certified for Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 25005 with the deletion of condition number 5, condition number 6 and 7 to remain as stated and encourage staff to work with the developer to reach a mutually agreeable solution, which could include the deletion or modification of condition number 6 and 7 prior to City Council hearing date, second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would prefer to have a simple motion, approve as conditioned except with new verbiage added to condition number 7 and condition number 5 deleted. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he concurs with Commissioner Saathoff. Also, we have had indication from the applicant that the two issues are mute. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he concurs with Commis- sioner Saathoff. Commissioner Saathoff asked that Chairman Brown call for the question. Motion failed to pass. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council reaffirmation of Environmental Impact Report and Addendums certified for Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 25005 with the following amendments: Condition No. 5: "All Conditions to Tentative Tract Map 17413 as may be revised will be dis- closed to all purchasers of property over one (1) acre, pursuant to this Parcel Map 25005." DELETED Condition No. 7: "Homestead Land Development Corporation has executed an amendment to the Agreement for Acquisition (Canyon Lake Hills Project) by and between the City of Lake Elsinore and Homestead Land Development Corporation, dated January 24, 1989. This amendment has provided, in substance, that the lands within Tentative Parcel Map 25005 shall participate in the cost of improving Railroad Canyon Road and that Homestead Land Development Corporation shall enter into good faith negotiations with the City, in behalf of the lands within Tentative Parcel Map 25005, to establish Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 10 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25005 _ HOMESTEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED the terms and conditions of such participation. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 8:10 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:15 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. 4. Tentative Parcel Map 24752 - Brookstone Development - Associate Planner Magee presented a proposal to divide one (1) lot into three (3) parcels ranging in size from 0.50 acres to 1.19 acres, located on the east side of Casino Drive approximately 1,100 feet south of Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24752. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated they concur with staff recommendation, and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24572. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 8:19 p.m. Discussion at the table was held on this building being constructed as three separate building with air space between the walls; condition number 17, pertaining to responsibility and maintenance of landscaping. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -32 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24752 based on the Findings and subject to the 19 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 17: "The applicant shall cause to be recorded an irrevocable reciprocal drainage, parking, circulation and landscaping maintenance easement in favor of all lots, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. In addition, CC & R's shall be approved by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development which enforces standards of building maintenance, participation in landscape maintenance, prohibition of outside vehicle or material storage. The CC & R's will address the issue of mandating a property management organization to be in charge of exterior building and ground maintenance. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 11 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single - Family Residence - 29600 Nichols Road - Heff Holl - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 2,214 square foot dwelling on a 6,000 square foot lot located on Nichols Road between Sannell Street and Pope Drive. 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 29600 Nichols Road based on the Findings and subject to the 29 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 2. Single - Family Residence - 312 Scrivener Street - Chris Meece - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,666 square foot dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot located on the west side of Scrivener Street between Sumner Avenue and Pottery Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Chris Meece stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation, and informed the Commission that the inside garage dimensions are 19 x 25. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 29, pertaining to drainage and the applicant having the opportunity to mitigate drainage on -site, and the possibility of the City assisting the applicant with getting a drainage easement on Lots 7 -14, conveying the drainage to 'a public right -of -way. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 312 Scrivener Street based on the Findings and subject to the 30 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 29: "On -site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement. Applicant shall be allowed to mitigate drainage on -site, if necessary. The City will assist the applicant in forming an agreement with the various property owners to obtain easements for drainage." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 3. Single - Family Residence - 31766 Via Verde - Robert Dewitt - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to place a 1,782 square foot mobile home and a 380 square foot detached garage on a lot in the Ortega West Mobile Home Park, and informed the Commission that there was an error when the project was submitted and the address should be corrected to: 15130 Via Valle. 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. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 12 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 15130 VIA VALLE = ROBERT DEWITT A brief discussion was held on the proposed fiberglass patio cover. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 15130 Via Valle based on the Findings and subject to the 24 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 4. Commercial Project 89 -4 - Brookstone Development - Associate Planner Magee presented a proposal to construct an 11,241 square foot two -story office /bank building with drive -thru lanes on Parcel #4 of Parcel Map 23710, located on the east side of Casino Drive approximately 1,200 feet south of Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated they concur with staff recommendation, and would answer any questions that may arise. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 2, suggesting that the word "substantial" be deleted, and stated he saw no mention of the standard bonding for landscaping in the conditions. Associate Planner Magee stated that the landscaping for this project, for the entire second phase, is included as part of the master plan development, which includes the performance bond for one year. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -32 and approval of Commercial Project 89 -4 based on the Findings and subject to the the 42 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson with discussion. Commissioner Gilenson asked Commissioner Brinley if she was going to delete the word "substantial" from condition number 2. City Planner Thornhill stated that the word substantial was included because it is a very standard form condition, which allows a little latitude and flexibility to staff for minor design changes. Discussion at the table ensued on the Commission /staff definition of the word substantial; amending condition number 2 by adding verbiage "all buildings will appear as approved ". Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to amend condition number 2, as follows: Condition No. 2: "The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with submitted revised development plans date stamped July 18, 1989. It is the Planning Commission's intention that the word "substantial" is to mean that all build- ings will appear as presented in the renderings approved by said Commission." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 1989 Page 13 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill introduced Jerry Haag and Mark Rhoades, two contract planners that are working with us from Willdan and Associates. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Would like to acknowledge the work that Code Enforcement is doing on cleaning up some the blighted areas that we have in the City. Commented on the condition that was just amended for Commercial Project 89 -4, pertaining to the word substantial. Requested that Mr. Thornhill bring back a standard condition dealing with this. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Welcomed Jerry Haag and Mark Rhoades. Commented on the K -Mart site. I am extremely bothered by the assistance the City gave that organization to get them opened, and assisted them with the problems that they had and that place looks terrible, it looks worse every day. It is very difficult to sit here and place conditions on other projects that have adhered to our wants and desires especially with landscaping and see all of the assistance that that project got and it sits there. If it is not our problem why aren't we straightening it out. There being no further business the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Appro" , Jeff Br n, Chairman Respectfully L nda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1989 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, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were City Planner Thornhill, Assistant Planner Restivo and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of September 20, 1989, 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 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING 1 & 2 CONCURRENTLY, 1. Zone Change 89 -7 - Rancon Realty Fund IV (Continued from September 6, 1989) - A proposal to change the zoning from C -P (Commercial Park) and M -2 (General Manufacturing) to C -2 (General Commercial), which would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan, for 22.67 acres located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 24571 - Rancon Realty Fund IV (Continued from September 6, 1989) - A proposal to subdivide 22.67 acres into 11 parcels ranging in size from .76 acres to 4.61 acres, located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there were any comments from the table. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Zone Change 89 -7 and Tentative Parcel Map 24571 to the meeting of November 1, 1989, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO MOVE BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 11 TO THE BEGINNING OF THE BUSINESS ITEMS. 11. Industrial Project 89 -5 - Big Al Oil Company - Assistant Planner Restivo requested that this item be continued to the meeting of October 18, 1989, due to project revisions which necessitate an extension of time. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Industrial Project 89 -5 to the meeting of October 18, 1989, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 1. Single - Family Residence 16770 Hunt Avenue - Arthur Cuevas - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1989 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE _ 16770 HUNT AVENUE = ARTHUR CUEVAS a 1,700 square foot two -story dwelling on a 5,112.8 square foot lot, located south and east of the junctions of Hague Street and Hunt Avenue. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that the building official has determined that a spiral stairway can only be used as a required exit when the area serviced is limited to 400 square feet. Therefore, staff would like to add the following condition, which will read: Condition No. 22.a: "An exit other than a spiral stair- case will have to be provided from the second story. Any alternative exit will have to meet all City Codes governing height and setback limitations." Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present represent- ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Arthur Cuevas stated that he did not understand the condition on the stairway, but sure the architect will. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that this was a condition Placed on the project by the Building Official, and pertains to the Building Codes. Discussion at the table was held on whether or not a single - family residence requires two exits; amending condition number 9 to include the standard verbiage for sewer connection, and ingress /egress from the second floor. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 16770 Hunt Street based on the Findings and subject to the 31 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 9: "The project shall connect to sewer if a sewer line is within 200 feet of the project boundary unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that this is infeasible. If the project does not connect to sewer, applicant shall comply with the following: a) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a soils report which includes a sewage disposal plan referenced to the grading plan and approved by the Riverside County Health Department. b) Prior to release for occupancy, the developer shall record a notice entitled "Septic System Disclosure and Restrictions" specifying that the property is served by a septic system and that no structure or paving may be placed over the sewage disposal area or the expansion area. A copy of the approved Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1989 Page 3 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE 16770 HUNT AVENUE - ARTHUR CUEVAS septic system plot also be recorded this notice. A co recorded notice provided to the verification. plan shall along with Dy of this shall be City for c) An acknowledgment of receipt of this notice by the expected occupant of the property shall also be submitted to the City. Condition No. 22.a: "An exit other than a spiral stair- case will have to be provided from the second story. Any alternative exit will have to meet all City Codes governing height and setback limitations." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 2. Single - Family Residence - 617 Acacia Street - Patrick Prouty - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,880 square foot two - story dwelling on a 6,831 square foot lot, located on the north side of Acacia Street between Center and High Streets. Chairman Brown asked if there ing the applicant and if there no response, Chairman Brown table. was anyone present represent - were any concerns. Receiving asked for discussion at the Discussion at the table was held number 9 to include the standard connection. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to Residence at 617 Acacia Street based subject to the 35 Conditions of Appro• Report with the following amendment: on amending condition verbiage for sewer approve Single - Family on the Findings and ial listed in the Staff Condition No. 9: "The project shall connect to sewer if a sewer line is within 200 feet of the project boundary unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that this is infeasible. If the project does not connect to sewer, applicant shall comply with the following: a) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a soils report which includes a sewage disposal plan referenced to the grading plan and approved by the Riverside County Health Department. b) Prior to release for occupancy, the developer shall record a notice entitled "Septic System Disclosure and Restrictions" specifying that the property is served by a septic system and that no structure or paving may Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1989 Page 4 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE 617 ACACIA STREET = PATRICK PROUTY CONTINUED 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." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER BUSINESS ITEMS 3 THROUGH 6 CONCURRENTLY. Assistant Planner Restivo presented the following proposals: Single- Family Residences: 804, 806, 808, 810 Pottery - Mark Hommel - Each lot contains 7,750 square feet of area, and the dwelling units are 1,834 square feet with the exception of 810 Pottery Street which is 1,854 square feet. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present represent - ing 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 sewer connection; staggered setbacks and amending condition number 5, on 806 Pottery Street, to reflect a staggered setback; condition number 4, pertaining front window trim matching the fascia. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residences at 804, 806, 808 and 810 Pottery as follows: 804 Pottery: Based on the Findings and subject to the 29 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 4: "Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by the Community Development Director or his designee. All windows facing right - of -way shall be trimmed and match fascia." 806 Pottery: Based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 4: "Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by the Community Development Director or his designee. All windows facing right- of -way shall be trimmed and match fascia." Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1989 Page 5 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES 806, 808, 810 POTTERY STREET _ MARK HOMMEL Condition No. 5: "Meet all setback require- ments. Front yard setback shall be twenty -five feet from the front property line." 808 Pottery: Based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 4: "Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by the Community Development Director or his designee. All windows facing right - of -way shall be trimmed and match fascia." 810 Pottery: Based on the Findings and subject to the 36 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 4: Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 "Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by the Community Development Director or his designee. All windows facing right - of -way shall be trimmed and match fascia." 7. Single - Family Residence - 16364 Stevens Street - Brad Pomeroy - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to place a 1,936 square foot manufactured home on a 9,960 square foot lot. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present represent- ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Brad Pomeroy stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation, and informed the Commission that the living area is 1,536 square feet and the garage is 400 square feet. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 16364 Stevens Street based on the Findings and subject to the 32 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 8. Garage Addition - 17561 Sunnyslope Avenue - Frank Wong - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to enlarge and improve an existing single car garage. The applicant is proposing to convert his existing single car garage into a two car garage with work storage and study space. The proposal is for two stories. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present represent- Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1989 Page 6 GARAGE ADDITION - 17561 SUNNYSLOPE AVENUE = FRANK WONG CONTINUED ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Lloyd Roybal, Roybal and Associates, representing the applicant commented on the following conditions: Condition number 15, pertaining to wood fence or masonry wall - -this is somewhat of a special case in the County Club Heights Area, where this property exists, the southerly property line is the rear property line, approximately 248.5 lineal feet total. This particular pad has a terrific view of the lake and from the existing residence, proposed addition and the renovation structure, it would obstruct the view of the lake. Mr. Wong is requesting that this condition be deleted. However, Mr. Wong has no problem with putting a wood fence along the side property line, since this has nothing to do with the view. Condition No. 24, pertaining to the in -lieu fee for future off -site improvements. Mr. Wong has 292 lineal feet of street frontage, as a result this practically doubles the cost of his project which makes it infeasible for him at this time. Chairman Brown asked Assistant Planner Restivo to comment on condition number 15. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that the lot is in the Country Club Heights Area and is extremely large, and for large lots we do not require fencing, so staff would concur with the applicant's request. Chairman Brown asked Public Service Director Kirchner to comment on condition number 24. Public Service Director Kirchner stated that there is an existing ordinance that requires the collection of in -lieu fees, if it is deemed infeasible to put in the improvements. In the Country Club Heights Area this has been done without exception. At this time, we do not know what is going to happen in that area, when the improvements might be put in. It is going to take detailed studies of the entire neighborhood to determine what width of streets can be built, and what design criteria needs to be used, because of sharp curves and steep grades. Commissioner Saathoff asked Mr. Kirchner if they were collecting in -lieu fees for future off -site improvements on additions or new dwellings. Mr. Kirchner responded that he believes the ordinance states any addition over 600 square feet and any structure regardless of the size. Mr. Roybal stated that on behalf of the applicant, he would like to request that the Planning Commission recommend that we go before City Council and request a waiver for this. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 24 being a requirement of the Municipal Code and staff not having the authority to make any change, and the applicant being notified that he has the right to appear before City Council and request a waiver; if a waiver is granted when these fees would go into effect; possibility of a future lien, anticipated assessment district, where the property owner would agree to a future date lien on the property which would follow it through title; applicant requesting a Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1989 Page 7 GARAGE ADDITION = 17561 SUNNYSLOPE AVENUE - FRANK WONG CONTINUED waiver on condition number 17, pertaining to park -in -lieu fees; this being a garage addition the reason for condition 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16. Motion by Commissioner Gilenson to approve the Garage Addition at 17561 Sunnyslope Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the deletion of conditions 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and a request to City Council for a waiver on condition number 17 and 24. Condition No. 9: The project shall connect to sewer if a sewer line is within 200 feet of the project boundary unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that this is infeasible. If the project does not connect to sewer, applicant shall comply with the following: a) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a soils report which includes a sewage disposal plan referenced to the grading plan and approved by the Riverside County Health Department. b) Prior to release for occupancy, the developer shall record a notice entitled "Septic System Disclosure and Restrictions" specifying that the property is served by a septic system and that no structure or paving may be placed over the sewage disposal area or the expansion area. A copy of the approved septic system plot plan shall also be recorded along with this notice. A copy of this recorded 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. DELETED. Condition No. 11: All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (31) in height shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed to meet the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director or his designee. DELETED. Condition No. 12: All exterior air conditioning units, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be ground mounted and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall be screened. DELETED. Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1989 Page 8 GARAGE ADDITION = 17561 SUNNYSLOPE AVENUE = FRANK WONG CONTINUED Condition No. 13: Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City Street Tree list, a maximum of 30 feet (301) apart and at least 15- gallon in size as to meet the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. DELETED. Condition No. 15. A six -foot (61) high wood fence or masonry wall shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines and shall conform to Section 17.14.080 (Fences and Walls), subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. DELETED. Condition No. 16: Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid. DELETED. Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5 -0 9. Residential Project 89 -12 - A & A Investments - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 2,812 square foot duplex on a 9,017 square foot lot, located on the west side of Lowell Street between Flint and Pottery Streets. Assistant Planner Restivo presented an exhibit, drawn by staff, which illustrates proposed revisions to this project in an effort to have the project meet code requirements. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present represent- ing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. George Alongi, representing A & A Investments, commented on the Circulation and Parking Space Layout, Section 17.66.080.B and E of Title 17, there is a discrepancy here and it should be addressed. Section 17.66.100.0 and G provides a definite definition between a driveway and drive aisle. The codes exempts a single - family and two - family from the drive aisle ordinance. City Planner Thornhill referred to Section 17.66.080 which refers to all parking areas and Section 17.66.080.0 gives the width and depth for one -way and two -way drive aisles. Mr. Alongi stated that as long as he does not loose the private area in the back he is willing to go along with the revisions that staff illustrated in the exhibit. Discussion at the table was held on there being some ambiguity in the code and City Council should be made aware of this; adding the standard landscape verbiage for bonding to condition number 13. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Residential Project 89 -12 based on the Findings and subject to the 36 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the adoption of the exhibit presented by staff for the revision to the drive aisle, and the following amendment: Condition No. 13: "Applicant shall plant street trees, Planning Commission Minutes October 4,,1989 Page 9 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -12 = A & A INVESTMENTS CONTINUED selected from the City Street Tree list, a maximum of 30 feet apart and at least 15- gallon in size and plant ground cover in the parkway area so as to meet the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. The planter island within the driveway area may not encroach into public right -of -way. All landscape improve- ments 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." Second by Commissioner Gilenson with discussion. Commissioner Gilenson suggested that condition number 15 be amended to allow a wood fence or masonry wall. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to include the modification to condition number 15, which will read as follows: Condition No. 15: "A six -foot (61) high wood 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 Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 10. Residential Project 89 -13 - Jeffrey Juhasz - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 2,733 square foot duplex on a 6,930 square foot lot, located at 745 Quail Drive. Chairman Brown asked if there ing the applicant and if there no response, Chairman Brown table. was anyone present represent - were any concerns. Receiving asked for discussion at the Discussion at the table was held on adding the standard landscape verbiage for bonding to condition number 13. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 89 -13 based on the Findings and subject to the 33 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: 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 so as to meet the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. 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." Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1989 Page 10 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -12 = A & A INVESTMENTS Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS City Planner Thornhill informed the Co Associate Planner, has resigned, effective have recruited and conducted interviews and we will be conducting interviews for a the meantime we will continue to utilize Willdan and Associates. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Wilsev Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff emission that Tom Last, October 13, 1989. We for Associate Planners Senior Planner. In contract planners from As the Planning Commission, if we see any ambiguity in the code we should request staff to address it, bring it back to the Commission and then forward it to City Council with our recommendation. If anyone wants that to happen with any of the sections discussed this evening then this is the manner in which it should be handled. Asked City Planner Thornhill for the status of the General Plan Update. City Planner Thornhill responded that we are still working on the Circulation Element. We have the latest revised Circulation Plan and we will probably have an additional General Plan Advisory Committee meeting to discuss that Circulation Plan. Commissioner Saathoff asked if there would be any possible way that minor elements of the General Plan could be given to the Planning Commission, and we could take 30 to 45 minutes to discuss these elements when there is a light agenda. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Commented on the K -Mart site, it looks even worse from the top than it does from the bottom. Requested that the Secretary write a letter to K -Mart expressing the Commission's concern, or at least my concern. Also, if any Commissioner feels this is appropriate, would appreciate your signature on the letter. Commissioner Saathoff suggested, if you want the endorsement of the Planning Commission, that the letter be submitted to the Planning Commission and formal action be taken. Chairman Brown stated that he would be happy to do it that way. Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 1989 Page 11 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:10 P.M. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Respectfully su itted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 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 City Planner Thornhill, Assistant Planner Restivo and Public Services Director Kirchner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of October 4, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 24900 - E1 Moro Investments - Planning Manager Thornhill stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next scheduled meeting. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there were any comments from the table. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Tentative Parcel Map 24900 to the meeting of November 1, 1989, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 89 -5 - Big Al Oil Company - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a card - automated, ' self- serve, commercial /industrial fuel station consisting of approximately ten diesel fuel pumps and four gasoline pumps on five islands, on a .68 acres site, located at the northwest corner of Flint and Spring Streets. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Jeff Hardy of Hallmark Design, representing the applicant, stated that they have done the best they can to meet both the City's and the applicant's requirements. We understand that the City is in a Redevelopment type mode right now for the area, and based on our use we have tried to fit the architectural design of the building as close to that proposed development as possible. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 13, pertaining to the hours of operation, and suggested that this be changed to Monday through Saturday. Commissioner Brinley stated she has concern with: the noise factor, referring to the Environmental Assessment; the block wall around the exterior; the underground tanks; the existing Minutes of Planning Commission October 18, 1989 Page 2 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -5 = BIG AL OIL COMPANY CONTINUED structures on site and what will be done with them; maintenance and upkeep of the streets, and traffic circulation. Commissioner Brinley stated that she does not see this as the view to our city -- cannot see it right there, it has freeway access and visibility. Does not see this going in the direction in which we were trying to aim Main Street as a tourist visitation place. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that staff wanted direction from the Planning Commission on the walls around the project. Walls may be able to contain some of the noise; however, there was concern at the last Planning Commission meeting, that walls have a tendency to make a project less aesthetically pleasing. I contacted the Fire Department because there was a question that walls may contain any possible fire hazards, but that is not one of the fire prevention methods that they use, so there was no concern with the Fire Department. Commissioner Brinley asked if the tanks were within a land- fill area, concerned with the tanks sinking or rising in the event of a flood or earthquake. Assistant Planner Restivo responded in the negative. Commissioner Brinley asked if the operation would be open 24 hours a day seven days a week. Mr. Hardy stated his understanding of the operation is that it is a self -serve type facility, in which the customer would use a credit card type application, and the facility would be open 24 hours. Commissioner Brinley expressed concern over the possibility of trucks utilizing the facility as an overnight stop. Mr. Hardy stated that he did not believe the lot was large enough to allow this. Commissioner Brinley commented on the compatibility of the project with the proposed residential and commercial land uses. Commissioner Brinley asked Public Service Director Kirchner to address the maintenance and upkeep of the streets. Public Service Director Kirchner stated that what really damages the roads is the repetition of heavy loads. It is a matter of designing the thickness of the roadway to accommodate this, and maintenance will be the City's responsibility. Mr. Hardy commented on the underground tanks, stating that the tanks that Al will be using and the ones that are currently being used are very sophisticated. They have multi -alarm systems on them, they are very durable - -much more so than what is in the ground today. The Environmental Protection Agency has really cracked down on tank design, enough to say that we feel safe on the new installation now. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he fails to see how a commercial use, by contract, would fit into Tourist Commercial area. You stated that most of the people would be using the facility after hours, then we have the noise factor Minutes of Planning Commission October 18 1989 Page 3 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -5 - BIG AL OIL COMPANY CONTINUED with the rigs going up and down the street, and there are residential units close enough to the area where late at night there will be a noise factor. Commissioner Gilenson asked if the existing structures on site would be torn down. Mr. Hardy responded that they would be completely removed. Commissioner Gilenson referred to the Environmental Assessment number 7.1.b., which addresses the existing underground gasoline storage tanks. If the Commission decides to recommend approval of this project would like to see this added as a condition, which would read: "The existing underground gasoline storage tanks will be removed and replaced with new tanks, in accordance with County Health Department regulations ". Commissioner Saathoff commented on some of the issues raised by the other Commissioners. In some sense, the ultimate of course would be not to have this type of operation at that exact location, for thinking twenty years down the road. However, at this particular time, it is zoned M -1 and under the present General Plan it is considered Limited Industrial. It is almost a continuance of our Manufacturing District, it is borderline. I do appreciate the traffic problem, particularly coming off the Main Street exit. However, under the circumstances, I do feel that it should be allowed to continue to be there. A great deal of effort by the applicant and the City, as indicated in the Staff Report, was put in in an attempt to move it and circumstances just did not allow it. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he did not have a problem with having construction activity Monday through Saturday, or with the removal of the tanks. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like to address the walls. At the present time, there is nothing to screen it from. The only walls that are being requested are the walls on the flag portion of the lot, the 52 x 160 plus feet, and that will be storage of trucks, equipment and that type of thing. Would prefer a landscape treatment up against the fence, and if we require them to have landscaping around that area we should request landscaping and an automatic sprinkler system. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he also has a concern with solid block walls for security situations. It allows people behind the wall to be hidden, and if you have vegetation it would not screen it as solidly as a wall, and requested comments from the table on this issue. Chairman Brown stated that he does not have a problem with the project or its location, major problem is with the environmental concerns, and the street configuration. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Hardy how many gasoline and diesel pumps exists now? Mr. Schwartz, of Big Al Oil, responded that there are two pumps, one diesel and one gas. Chairman Brown stated that he does not see how you can safely get trucks in there to Spring or Flint, coming either from Minutes of Planning Commission October 18, 1989 Page 4 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 °5 = BIG AL OIL COMPANY CONTINUED Main Street or the other way. Does not see how they can get in or out or how they can cross Spring Street at that intersection. Mr. Schwartz responded that is why it is 24 hours, and most of the traffic will be late in the evening. Chairman Brown asked for the width, the actual roadbed not the existing right -of -way, of Flint Street between Main and Spring. Public Service Director Kirchner stated that he was not sure, but seems to remember that there is enough room for two parking lanes and two travel lanes. Two parking lanes and two travel lanes require a width of 36 feet. Chairman Brown stated that he does not feel the traffic impacts are adequately addressed in the Environmental Assessment, item number 13. Mr. Hardy stated that this may not answer your questions, but the driveway approaches that we designed are much larger than what Al uses today. The trucks are able to get in and out of the site and are well straightened out and in line before they hit any of the intersections. Chairman Brown stated that he does not have a problem with the current operation. Concern is increasing the business to this level and having streets that completely surround the project that are totally inadequate for the service that they are providing now. The streets at that particular inter- section do not work now. Discussion ensued on the amount of heavy vehicle traffic on Flint and Sprint Streets, and this facility being a bulk keylock service. Chairman Brown stated that he does not agree with the Environmental Assessment and could not support the Negative Declaration. If we had a traffic study that proved me entirely wrong I would agree with it, but does not see it there. Commissioner Brinley stated that she could not support the Negative Declaration. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -18 and approval of Industrial Project 89 -5, based on the Findings and subject to the 49 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. MOTION FAILED TO PASS: Vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: Wilsey and Saathoff Brinley, Gilenson, Brown 2. Single - Family Residence 317 Lowell Street - Alan Winger - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,500 square foot single - family dwelling, located at the northwest corner of Pottery and Lowell 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. Minutes of Planning Commission October 18, 1989 Page 5 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE - 317 LOWELL STREET = ALAN WINGER A brief discussion at the table was held on condition number 25, pertaining to additional right -of -way dedication for standard corner cutback, and alley improvement /use. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residence at 317 Lowell Street based on the Findings and subject to the 36 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 3. Commercial Project 89 -5 - Kenneth Brown and Company - Assistant Planner Restivo presented the applicant's request for a continuance of this item to November 15, 1989. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there were any comments from the table. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Commercial Project 89 -5 to the meeting of November 15, 1989, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 4. Residential Project 89 -11 - MacLeod Development - Assistant Planner Restivo presented the applicant's request for a continuance on this item to the meeting of November 1, 1989. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there were any comments from the table. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Residential Project 89 -11 to the meeting of November 1, 1989, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 5. Sign Program for Commercial Project 89 -2 - Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (Murphy Architects) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented the Sign Program for Chevron, located at the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Dexter. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Mark Murphy, Murphy Architects, representing the applicant, commented on the food mart and 24 hour sign on the buildings, to accommodate construction, with texcoat the surface of the building is textured and it makes it difficult to apply decals, material being basically painted on decals. Would like to change this to cut plastic Plexiglas or Polycarbonate letters, one - quarter to one -half inch thick, to be attached flat to the building. Also, we would like the color to be blue. A brief discussion was held on Mr. Murphy's request, and recessing the letters into the texcoat. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the Sign Program for Commercial Project 89 -2 based on the Findings and subject to the 9 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the modification to the food mart elevation sign and the 24 hour sign to be done in the generic plastic and secured to the wall, and the letters to be blue, consistent, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission October 18, 1989 Page 6 6. Letter to K -Mart Corporation Addressing Landscaping Concerns at 32250 Mission Trail. Chairman Brown asked if there were any comments from the table. Commissioner Wilsey stated he did not think that the letter was necessary after the modifications /corrections that have been done in the last week or so in that area. Chairman Brown asked for staff's comments. Planning Manager Thornhill stated that for months. In my opinion, there has change in the landscaping out there in or so. Mr. O'Byrne has been working Building & Safety Manager, to identify to correct them. this has been ongoing been a significant the last three weeks with Kevin Shear, the problems and try Mr. Leonard O'Byrne, Camelot Properties, informed Chairman Brown that he was aware of his comments; did receive a letter from Mr. Shear and immediately got down there and requested the information. I can not speak for K -Mart, but things are being done and they are going to continue to be done to your satisfaction or at least what would be reasonable. Mr. O'Byrne requested that he be allowed to continue working with Mr. Shear and Mr. Thornhill, would send the Commission copies of correspondence /communications. If there is a problem in the two week period where you don't think something is moving to your satisfaction I would be happy to appear with whatever specifics needed. But there has been a lot of progress made, from our point of view, including contractually with K -Mart, in the past two weeks. Chairman Brown stated that what really concerns him is what did occur with that project, the efforts made on both sides. Granted, the effort is being made now, but what can we do now that will assure that continued cooperation. Mr. O'Byrne stated that he would like to have an opportunity for the two week period, and would personally report back to the Commission, if so desired. Mr. O'Byrne stated that there is one major concern to him and that is the street improvement. Heard various things as to why that has not been done, and does not have those facts where an answer could be provided this moment, close to having them and close to being done. I am able to represent that with Mr. Shear I would set some time limitations on all of these things. As to the specific landscaping, there were some letters sent to K -Mart which we had not seen. I understand that there is another letter with specific deficiencies being done, and as soon as we receive that, I represent to you that a priority with us will be to take care of those things one at a time. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the City had received a reply from K -Mart Corporation on the May 12, 1989 letter. Planning Manager Thornhill stated he believes an oral communication was made to Mr. Last. Chairman Brown asked Mr. O'Byrne if it would be out of line to request a written response from K -Mart Corporation on those concerns. Mr. O'Byrne stated that he could not speak for K -Mart, but Minutes of Planning Commission October 18, 1989 Page 7 K -MART LETTER assured Chairman Brown that he would provide a written response. Chairman Brown stated that since the letter was written at his request, we could hold off on sending the letter, unless there is an objection from the table, for a period of thirty (30) days. Mr. O'Byrne requested that he be able to respond in writing to the Commission, rather than appear again, and if everything is not satisfactory within the thirty (30) day period, he would appear before the Commission. COMMUNITY DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Planning Manager Thornhill stated that Dan Fairbanks has accepted the position of Assistant Planner, and will be coming on board October 30, 1989. Also, a consultant has stepped in to help out with the General Plan Update. A status report on this will be prepared for the next City Council meeting, and copies will be distributed to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey: Requested information on the Del Taco situation at Four Corners. Planning Manager Thornhill responded that there was a problem dealing with right -of -way. Commissioner Gilenson: Would like to congratulate a local resident, Stacey Macias, at last count she had won three times on Jeopardy. Commissioner Brinley: Industrial Project 88 -1, Bruce Ayres, I requested that staff determine whether or not the wall mounted air conditioning units were a part of the approved project, and now we are talking about how to screen these architecturally. Requested comments from the table on the alternatives suggested by staff and the project superintendent's recommendation that an architectural grill be used. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like an opportunity to drive by and look at the site. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be brought back in two weeks for resolution. Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Chairman Brown: Commented on the opening of the project at Riverside Drive and Lash and the traffic hazards that will inevitably take place, coming around the curve. Minutes of Planning Commission October 18, 1989 Page 8 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Respectfully Slubmitted, L /tz� a Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:13 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 Planning Manager Thornhill, Associate Planner Magee, Assistant Planner Restivo and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of October 18, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Tracy Delew, 19715 Neil Road, Perris, California, stated that he did not receive notification on the Ramsgate project, and commented on the responsibility of the notification process. He then requested to be placed on the mailing list so that he would be notified of future proceedings. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 89 -7 - Rancon Realty Fund IV (Continued from October 4, 1989) - A proposal to change the zoning from C -P (Commercial Park) and M -2 (General Manufacturing) to C -2 (General Commercial), which would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan, for 22.67 acres located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 24571 - Rancon Realty Fund IV (Continued from October 4, 1989) - A proposal to subdivide 22.67 acres into 11 parcels ranging in size from .76 acres to 4.61 acres, located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Zone Change 89 -7 and Tentative Parcel Map 24571 to the meeting of November 15, 1989, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 3. Tentative Parcel Map 24900 - E1 Moro Investments - Planning Manager Thornhill stated that the applicant has requested that this item be dropped from the agenda. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to drop Tentative Parcel Map 24900 from the agenda, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 4. Specific Plan 89 -1 - Ramsgate - L. D. Johnson Companies - Planning Manager Thornhill requested that this item be continued indefinitely, as there is a new buyer involved and there will probably be a change in the project design. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Specific Plan 89 -1 indefinitely, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 2 BUSINESS ITEMS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER BUSINESS ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5 CONCURRENTLY. 1. Single - Family Residence - 309 Silver Street - Donley - Bennett - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,898 square foot two -story dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot, located at the southwest corner of Pottery and Silver Streets. 2. Single - Family Residence - 313 Silver Street - Donley - Bennett - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,898 square foot two -story dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot, located at the southwest corner of Pottery and Silver Streets. 3. Single - Family Residence - 315 Silver Street - Donley- Bennett - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 1,898 square foot two -story dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot, located at the southwest corner of Pottery and Silver Streets. 4. Single - Family Residence - 317 Silver Street - Donley - Bennett - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 2,090 square foot two -story dwelling on a 8,550 square foot lot, located at the southwest corner of Pottery and Silver Streets. 5. Single- Family Residence - 319 Silver Street - Donley - Bennett - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 2,090 square foot two -story dwelling on a 7,950 square foot lot, located at the southwest corner of Pottery and Silver Streets. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Hugh Roberts, representing the applicant, stated that after conferring with Mr. O'Donnell, in the Engineering Department, it was decided that the best way to approach the street improvement was to have a cul -de -sac at Silver and Pottery. Chairman Brown asked Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell to expand on the proposed cul -de -sac. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell stated that they worked with the applicant to develop the site, specifically the corner of Pottery and Silver. If a cul -de -sac is put in at Silver there will be a grade difference between Silver and Pottery of 6 or 7 feet; there will be a 2:1 slope, and we will abandon that section of Silver. Condition number 41, 319 Silver Street, addresses the design of Silver Street for a vertical sag curve or cul -de -sac. Chairman Brown commented on existing drainage going down Silver Street and the location of the cul -de -sac; if additional right -of -way will be required on the opposite side of the street. Commissioner Gilenson referred to the ANALYSIS section of the Staff Report pertaining to the driveway having a minimum length and width of 18 feet, and amending condition number 10 to include this dimension on all of the projects. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 3 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES - 309. 313, 315, 317 AND 319 SILVER STREET - DONLEY- BENNETT CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Residences at 309, 313, 315, 317 and 319 Silver Street based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Reports, amending condition number 10 and adding the verbiage of condition number 41 from 319 Silver to 309, 313, 315 and 317 Silver, which will read as follows: Condition No. 10: "Garage shall be constructed to provide a minimum of nine feet six inches by twenty feet (916" x 20') of interior clear space for two (2) cars for a total interior clear space of nineteen by twenty feet (19' x 201). Driveway must have a minimum length and width of eighteen feet (181).11 Condition No. 41: "Applicant shall design Silver Street for a 20 MPH vertical (sag) curve per Cal Trans standards or cul -de -sac Silver Street at Pottery if the design is ap- proved by the City Engineer and property owners on the east side of Silver. Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 6. Single - Family Residence - 321 Acacia Street - Robert & Laurie Cook - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 2,000 square foot, two -story dwelling on a 4,823 square foot lot, located at the northerly juncture of Acacia Street and Grand View Place. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Robert Cook commented on the listing of the square footage, staff may have included the 9 x 20 area next to the garage as living space. The total square footage is 1,328. Mr. Cook was informed that the 9 x 20 area is considered habitable area. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the driveway having a minimum length and width of 18 feet and amending condition number 10 to include this dimension. There being no further discussion at the table Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Single - Family Resi- dence at 321 Acacia Street 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 twenty feet (916" x 20') of interior clear space for two (2) cars for a total interior clear space of nineteen by twenty feet (19' x 201). Driveway must have a minimum length and width of eighteen feet (181)." Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 4 7. Single - Family Residence - 18266 Strickland - Arthur Gertz, Jr. - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal for a 1,405 square foot, single -story dwelling, on a 3,330.3 square foot lot, located at the northeast corner of Strickland and Gedge Avenues. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Arhtur Gertz, commented on the Special Project Concerns listed in the Staff Report, pertaining to sewer /septic requirements; condition number 11, pertaining to exposed slopes and whether or not his drainage plan submitted was acceptable; and, condition number 28, pertaining to dedication of a three -foot wide strip of additional right -of -way, the site plan was drawn to the new street width. Considerable discussion was held at the table on the develop- ment of the substandard lots with regard to septic /sewer system and code requirements; condition number 11, pertaining to the irrigation and vegetation of all exposed slopes in excess of three -feet; condition number 28, pertaining to the three -foot dedication and if this dedication is to bring it up to the new street width or in addition to the new street width. Chairman Brown suggested that condition number 28 be amended to read: The improved section of Strickland is to match the Gedge Avenue right -of -way, and sufficient dedication shall be provided. Commissioner Wilsey suggested window treatments be continued along all elevations facing right -of -ways, and this added as a condition. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to .approve Single - Family Residence at 18266 Strickland based on the Findings and subject to the 43 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 28: "Provide sufficient dedication to meet the right -of -way width that presently exists on Strickland to match the other side of Gedge Avenue right- of- way.11 Condition No. 44: "Window treatments shall be continued along all elevations facing right -of- ways." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 7:59 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:10 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. 8. Residential Project 89 -11 - MacLeod Development (Continued from October 18, 1989) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a request for design review approval of 170 single - family homes intended for development in Tracts 19358, 19358 -1, 19358 -2 and 19358 -3. Four models are proposed with four varying elevations. Tracts 19358, 19358 -1, 19358 -2 and 19358 -3 are located generally southerly of Grand Avenue, easterly of Ortega Highway and Morrow Way, and westerly of Sangston Drive. An addendum to the September 13, 1989, Final Environmental Impact Report was adopted April 9, 1985. Therefore, impacts for this project have already been addressed by the above environmental documentation. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -11 - MACLEOD DEVELOPMENT Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. John Dierksen, PHB Engineering, representing the applicant, questioned condition number 14, pertaining to the six -foot solid block wall. A brief discussion was held at the table on condition number 14, pertaining to the six -foot solid block wall and this being required by the Municipal Code; if the lots would be tiered and preserving view for homes as they are tiered; grading and run -off with the steepness of terrain. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Residential Project 89 -11 based on the Findings and subject to the 26 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 9. Residential Project 89 -14 - Alan Weiss - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a six -unit apartment complex, 5,851 square feet, situated on a .3 acre site, located at the northwest corner of Franklin Street and Ellis Street. This project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption under Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Radu - Mihnea Cristescu, representing the applicant, commented on staff's request to reduce the garage openings on the first floor, referring the posted elevation. These openings are for natural ventilation of the garage and represent a minimum required area of 2.5 percent of the garage floor area. I am at the minimum and cannot reduce these openings and still have the legal natural ventilation area required. In regards to crime deterrent, security grills are provided, and the garage will be lit at night. Chairman Brown asked if staff would like to respond. Assistant Planner Restivo responded that if this is the minimum to meet the Uniform Building Code, staff has no comment. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Mr. Vern Ross, 261 Ellis, stated that when he started building his apartment project he was informed that Ellis Street would be straightened out. The applicant will not have 150 feet as it states on the drawing, he will have 135 feet, he will have to dedicate 15 feet in the front. Also, concerned with the 15 foot easement in the rear on Franklin. Assistant Planner Restivo stated that Engineering Department conditions 33 through 35 address the necessary dedications. Discussion was held on the alignment and improvements for Ellis Street with a recommendation that the City participate in the street improvements with the applicant, and this added as a condition; alley improvements. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -14 - ALAN WEISS Commissioner Saathoff suggested condition number 49, be amended to read: Applicant shall dedicate 5 feet and remove existing street improvements on Ellis and replace the street improvements to match the curb and gutter on the northerly side of his project. Discussion ensued on the suggested amendment to condition number 49; applicant having the opportunity to appeal to City Council and request assistance on street alignment and improvements. Mr. Weiss stated that he had discussed this with his father, and they would consent, if it will help the situation, to take care of the curb, gutter and the street in front of our property, the two lots. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see the condition remain as stated. If staff would like to take it to Council, as a business item, that the applicant would be willing to discuss going ahead and putting in the additional improvements and if they wish to participate, otherwise he will build it as conditioned. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Residential Project 89 -14 based on the Findings and subject to the 50 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with condition number 49 to remain as stated and any further recommendations to be worked out between the applicant and the City, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 10. Freeway Pole Sign (C 88 -14) - The J Company - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to amend the original Master Sign Program for Shopper's Square Phase II by adding a third freeway sign. The applicant has identified three areas of concern relative to the previously approved freeway sign which had been designated for this use. The sign was approved to be constructed on an adjacent property owner's site, to be use by the carwash and adjoining commercial and motel sites. Both property owners (Burnstine and Polsky) have stated that the issues of sign maintenance, access and copy size were not consistently addressed by the seller of the property, and has resulted in several misunderstandings. In an effort to resolve these concerns The J Company is requesting approval of their own freeway sign, which would be located on the carwash site and exhibit the same colors, materials and designs as previously approved in the Master Sign Program. This sign has been identified as a Class 11 Categorical Exemption under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Joel Burnstine expanded on the reasoning behind their request for a freeway sign. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he has some real problems with this proposal as we have a comprehensive Master Sign Program that was developed for Shopper's Square Phase II. Commissioner Gilenson stated that he did not want to see a number of freeway sign at this location, and referred to the approved Master Sign Program for the location of the two freeway signs that were approved, and stated we should stand by the Master Sign Program. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 7 FREEWAY POLE SIGN C 88 -14 = THE J COMPANY Commissioner Brinley stated this is a legal matter between the buyer and the seller, and would stand by the approved Master Sign Program. Commissioner Saathoff stated he had no objection to the freeway sign. Since the commitment of signs has already been made and, from a visual view point, does not feel that this sign is going to be a negative thing. Chairman Brown stated that this sign is not the issue, the issue is the Master Sign Program; believes it is a precedence. What you have is a civil matter. Chairman Brown stated that we have a request to amend the Master Sign Program which was not requested by the the applicant who prepared the Master Sign Program, and suggested that this matter be continued; denied without prejudice and let you go before City Council, or revoke the entire signage program and anything going on in those three projects will not get a sign until this matter is resolved. Mr. Burnstine stated obligation lies to mak, someday it is going that obligation lies. a precedence is being City has been asked to that the first issue is where the a sure that all parties are aware that to impact them, and does not know where Does not agree with the statement that set, or that the Planning Commission or be involved in any litigious activity. Mr. Burnstine stated that the primary issue here is that the City Code allows for individual property owners, which we are, to have a freestanding pole sign. Discussion at the table ensued on the proposal being within the development of Shopper's Square and being under it's Master Sign Program; signage allowed under the code and reasons behind having master sign programs; parcelization of the site occurring after the Master Sign Program was approved; continuing the matter; deny without prejudice and let the proposal go to Council, maybe they can take a different position; or request Council to revoke any permits and not issue any permits on site until the Master Signage Program is brought into compliance or a new Signage Program is resubmitted for the entire center. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to deny without prejudice the Freeway Sign for the Lake Elsinore Carwash (Commercial Project 88 -14), second by Chairman Brown. Approved 5 -0 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Planning Manager Thornhill introduced Dave Gunderman, Community Development Director, who will start on November 27, 1989, and Dan Fairbanks, Assistant Planner, who started on October 30, 1989. Announced that Robert Magee has submitted his resignation, effective November 10, 1989. Announced that a Special Planning Commission meeting has been scheduled for November 29, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., to consider the General Plan Amendments and related applications. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsev Nothing to report. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 1989 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Advised the Commission that November 15, 1989, meeting. Commissioner Brinley he will not be in attendance at the Welcomed Dave Gunderman and Dan Fairbanks. Chairman Brown Welcomed Dave Gunderman and Dan Fairbanks. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Approved, Jeff Brow Chairman Respectfully bmitted, inda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Assistant Planner Restivo. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brinley, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Gilenson and Saathoff Also present were Planning Manager Thornhill, Assistant Planner Restivo and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of November 1, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 89 -7 - Rancon Realty Fund IV (Continued from November 1, 1989) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to change the zoning from C -P (Commercial Park) and M -2 (General Manufacturing) to C -2 (General Commercial), which would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan, for 22.67 acres located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 89 -7. Mr. John Libiez, representing Rancon Realty Fund IV, stated that they concur with the staff findings on the change of zone, and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of of Zone Change 89 -7. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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. A brief discussion was held at the table on liquefaction mitigations. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -22 and approval of Zone Change 89 -7 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 2. Tentative Parcel Map 24571 - Rancon Realty Fund IV (Continued from November 1, 1989) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to subdivide 22.67 acres into 11 parcels ranging in size from .76 acres to 4.61 acres, located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue. Assistant Planner Restivo requested that the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 24571 be amended to read as Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 2 PARCEL MAP 24571 = RANCON REALTY FUND IV follows: Planning Division 5. At the time of map recordation the applicant shall cause to be recorded an agreement to provide access for parking, circulation, loading and landscaping maintenance in favor of all lots, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. 7. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for Lots 1 and 11 a minimum six -foot (61) high decorative block or masonry wall with wrought iron sections to allow for drainage as necessary shall be provided along the western property line from Collier Avenue to the Interstate 15 boundary, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. 8. The side yard setback for the first 50 feet northerly from Collier Avenue along the westerly boundary shall be 15 feet; the remaining side yard setback shall be 5 feet along this property line to the Interstate 15 boundary and along the Interstate 15 boundary (northerly property line) to lettered Lot A. 9. Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, by RMG Design Group, illustrating conceptual development plans shall become a part of Tentative Parcel Map 24571 case file and commercial development of the site shall illustrate consistency with the integrated design /signage concept. 10. One (1) lettered lot shall be indicated on the final map for dedication to the City for the City's Entry Way Landscape /Signage theme. The lettered lot shall be located at the northeastern most section of the map (intersection of I -15 and Central) and shall have a minimum dimension of 25 feet adjacent to Central Avenue and a total square footage of 4,200 square feet. A triangular shaped, numbered lot shall be provided at the southeastern portion of the map (intersection of Central Avenue and Collier) and shall have a minimum dimension of 25 feet and a total square footage of 1,625 square feet. Lettered Lot "A" shall be landscaped in accordance with the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines and shall include ground cover, shrubs and trees, permanent irrigation and be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee, the City's Landscape Consultant and the City's Redevelopment Consultant. Said improvements shall be provided prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for Lots 7 and 5. The lettered Lot "A" landscaped area shall be maintained by the developer until the intersection, public right -of -way improvements and public landscaped areas have been approved by the City. 11. A second numbered lot in parcel 1 shall be provided as a buffer between the cemetery and commercial land uses. The lot shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width from the western property line and shall have a depth of at least 50 feet along the westerly property line. This area shall be fully landscaped in accordance with the City's adopted Landscape Guidelines and shall include ground cover, shrubs, trees, permanent irrigation and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24571 - RANCON REALTY FUND IV Director or his designee and the City's Landscape Architect. This lettered lot shall be fully improved prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for any structure. This lot shall be considered an open space lot and no commercial structures or commercial accessory structures may encroach into this area. 12. DELETE. 13. All landscape improvements shall be bonded 120% Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirements approval /ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one (1) year. Engineering Department 15. Applicant shall provide sufficient additional right -of -way along the frontage of Central for a ninety -four foot (941) roadway for a dual right turn and dual left turn lane at Collier with a minimum seven foot (71) sidewalk and deceleration lane for driveways and not to exceed a sixty -one (61) foot half -width right -of -way. 17. Applicant shall provide sufficient dedication along Collier for a fifty foot (501) half -width right -of -way to provide for a forty -three foot (431) half -width roadway with a seven foot (71) sidewalk adjacent to curb. 18. The applicant shall provide the following signal require- ments related to this parcel map and future development upon project site. a) Applicant shall install a signal at the intersection of Collier and Central upon the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within the shopping center. Applicant to pay full cost of said signal to a benefit reimbursement district agreement between applicant and City. Applicant shall, as a process of finalizing improvement plans cause to be designated the necessary signals and systems to operate same signals subject to the City Engineer and Cal -Trans approval. In lieu of fees, applicant may cause required signals to be constructed with credit given and excess cost reimbursable by the City from the benefit reimbursement district agreement between applicant and City. b) Applicant shall submit a revised traffic study that addresses the need to install a traffic signal at either the future "B" Street location or main project entry on Collier at such time as 75% of the total square footage of occupancy of the project occurs; if warranted by the revised study applicant shall install the required traffic signal at the identified location as a portion of the area system and shall be reimbursed for expenses above developer's share apportionments set forth in benefit reimbursement district agreement. c) Developer shall, absent previous installation by Cal -Trans or by City, install a signal at the I -15 Southbound off -ramp at such time as 85% of the total square footage of occupancy of the project occurs, as a portion of the area system and shall be Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24571 = RANCON REALTY FUND IV reimbursed for expenses above applicants fair share apportionment set forth in benefit reimbursement district agreement. d) Design of signals shall incorporate appropriate interconnects. e) Developer shall pay the lesser of the following as a contribution toward a signal at the northbound on -ramp to I -15. 1) Twenty percent (20 %) of the combined construction and design cost, or; 2) A fair share apportionment of the value of such signal as a portion of the total signal program i.e., benefit reimbursement district agreement referenced by this condition in total. 19. DELETE. 20. DELETE. 21. DELETE. 22. DELETE. 23. Applicant shall construct a raised median along frontage of Collier and Central as permitted by Cal -Trans and the City. The developer will be reimbursed for one -half the cost of the median by property owners on the opposite side of the street when they develop. If the grades of the existing street make installation of the median infeasible, then the developer shall pay for one -half the cost of design and construction of the median subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 24. Minimum seven -foot (71) sidewalks will be required along the frontage of Collier and Central. The developer may provide a parallel pedestrian sidewalk on -site in an easement in lieu of sidewalk adjacent to the curb, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 25. The street improvements shall be constructed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. 38. Applicant shall obtain all necessary easements for off -site grading from the adjacent property owners prior to grading permit. 45. Collier south of Central will need to be improved for proposed improvements at intersection as required by Cal -Trans and the City. Improvements only to include AC paving for thru lane transition. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24571. Mr. John Libiez, representing Rancon Realty Fund IV, requested the following amendments to the revised Conditions of Approval: Condition 10: The applicant dedicate for future City Entry Theme Landscaping a triangular shaped lot, Lettered Lot "A ", Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24571 - RANCON REALTY FUND IV CONTINUED with a minimum 25 feet dimension adjacent to Central Avenue and dimensions along freeway boundary as shown on the tentative map for a total lot area of 4,200 square feet at the intersection of the I -15 southbound off -ramp and Highway 74. The applicant shall provide and maintain for dust control purposes and erosion until City schematic landscaping is installed. The lot shall become a portion of the City's Landscape, Lighting and Maintenance District. Condition 11: Delete first sentence, and incorporate remainder of the condition into condition 8. Condition 15: The applicant shall provide sufficient right -of -ways on Central Avenue to incorporate deceleration lane between the I -15 off -ramp and the driveway entry on Central Avenue, and that subject to the approval of Cal -Trans a minimum half- street right -of -way be 61 feet. Condition 18.a.: The word "signal" was omitted and should be added between the words finalizing and improvement, in the 7th line. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of of Tentative Parcel Map 24571. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 7:20 p.m. A brief discussion at the table was held on the amendments proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Brinley commented on the liquefaction hazards and requested that a condition be added which would read: "The information that certain areas of the site may be subject to liquefaction hazards shall be recorded and the report, including its findings and recommendations, will be made available to all potential buyers /lessees." Commissioner Wilsey commented on the following: power poles indicated on the plans along Collier, assumes that these will be placed underground; block wall between the project and the cemetery; noise buffer along the freeway corridor area and whether or not a block wall was required, and the freeway off -ramp beautification program and coordination with this project; continuing the project to allow sufficient time to review the proposed amendments to the conditions. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 5, pertaining provide access rather than an this meant that each parcel wouli requirements, because this is reciprocal parking. the proposed amendment to to providing agreement to irrevocable easement, and if i stand alone for parking only providing access not Chairman Brown recommended that a landscape maintenance and building maintenance association (tenant association) be developed and included in the CC & R's, and this added to condition number 5. Motion by Chairman Brown to continue Tentative Parcel Map 24571 to the meeting of 11- 29 -89, to allow sufficient review time of the proposed amendments to the Conditions of Approval, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 6 3. Zone Change 89 -15 - Doctor H. Irvani /Kenneth Brown - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to change the zoning from C -P (Commercial Park) to C -2 (General Commercial) for 1.24 gross acres at the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Joy Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 89 -15. Mr. Kenneth Brown, architect for the project, spoke in favor of the proposal. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of of Zone Change 89 -15. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 7:42 p.m. A brief discussion at the table was held on the zoning and uses in the area. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -33 and approval of Zone Change 89 -15 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3 -0 4. Tentative Parcel Map 25157 - Four Corners Elsinore, A Limited Partnership (Bainbridge Investments) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to subdivide 5.4 net acres into five lots ranging in size from .49 acres to 2.04 acres, located at the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Lake- shore Drive. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 89 -15. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 7:46 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the mitigation measures for Riverside Drive, street improvements and widening, and the existing traffic safety problems. Chairman Brown commented on the width of Lot 1; the distance for safe deceleration at 55 m.p.h.; elimination of all access along Riverside Drive and have one access next to the Standard Station; creating an unsafe traffic condition, and having to allow access if parceled down to this size. Discussion at the table ensued on traffic safety issues at Riverside Drive; whether or not access could be denied - -not allow ingress /egress from Riverside Drive; conditioning the Parcel Map so that there will never be ingress /egress from Riverside Drive, and being able to do so provide the applicant was in agreement. Mr. Saeed Shahidzadeh, Bainbridge Investments, stated that they do not have a problem with this; already signed an agreement with Cal -Trans that they would not have more than one driveway, and asked about recording the easement as a separate document. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see this on the parcel map, that none of the parcels have access except by the Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 7 PARCEL MAP 25157 - FOUR CORNERS ELSINORE, A_ LIMITED P (BAINBRIDGE INVESTMENTS) CONTINUED one driveway illustrated on the Exhibit, Tentative Parcel Map 25157, added as condition number 27. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -31 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 25157 based on the Findings and subject to the 26 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition 27: "Applicant has agreed to waive additional access rights, driveway ingress /egress, on Riverside Drive, except for the one drive- way illustrated on Tentative Parcel Map 25157.° Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 AT THIS TIME, 8:00 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:09 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. 5. Conditional Use Permit 89 -7 - Galardi Group, Inc. - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a proposal to allow a drive -thru aisle in conjunction with a fast food restaurant, located on the west side of Riverside Drive approximately 200 feet north of Lakeshore Drive. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -7. Mr. Bob Wess, representing the Galardi Group, presented an exhibit illustrating the canopy over the drive -thru, and stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -7. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone wishing 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 8:13 p.m. A brief discussion was held on the possibility of drive -thrus being banned by the Air Quality Control Board in the future. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to adopt Negative Declaration 89 -42 and approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -7 based on the Findings and subject to the 6 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 89 -5 - Doctor H. Irvani /Kenneth Brown (Continued from October 18, 1989) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 21,000 square foot, two -story commercial retail /office building, at the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Joy Avenue. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Brown if he had any concerns. Mr. Kenneth Brown, representing the Galardi Group, commented on the theme established for the area and, as indicated, we were not aware of the nautical theme prior to our coming in Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -5 = DOCTOR H. IRVANI /KENNETH BROWN with our initial design. We would like the Commission to consider the proposal as presented. Discussion at the table was held on adding the standard landscaping verbiage for bonding; the nautical theme set for the area; if the building is on a zero setback; changing the exterior treatments of the building to reflect a nautical theme; deny without prejudice and the time frame involved for the appeal process. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -33 and approval of Commercial Project 89 -5 based on the Findings and subject to the 60 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report. Discussion ensued on the nautical theme set for the area, and if the project could be approved but hold the approval on Design Review. Second by Chairman Brown. Approved 3 -0 2. Street Abandonment 89 -2 - Tony Schiavone - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a request for abandonment of High Street right -of -way between Mill Street and Country Club Boulevard. An approximate 200 foot segment of the High Street right -of -way from Mill Street north to Country Club Boulevard. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Schiavone gave the reasoning behind the requested abandon- ment. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Street Abandonment 89 -2 based on the Findings and subject to the 1 Condition of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 3. Commercial Project 89 -7 - Galardi Group, Inc. - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a proposal to construct a 1,950 square foot fast food restaurant, located on the west side of Riverside Drive approximately 200 feet north of Lakeshore Drive. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Ken Wess, representing the Galardi Group, questioned condition number 42, pertaining to the right -turn in /right turn out only, and requested that left turn access into the project be granted and subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer upon submittal to the Engineering Department of a traffic study provided by a certified traffic engineer. Mr. Wess commented on the lighting on the front awning and stated that it doesn't make a lot of difference to them whether the canopy is lit from the top or bottom. Mr. Wess stated that there is only one awning on the building and the color will be red, our standard color, not rust as indicated on the color of the sign and the umbrella color. Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 9 PROJECT 89 -7 = GALARDI GROUP, INC. CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley commented on the standard landscaping verbiage for bonding and this added as condition 26.a.; all equipment shall be roof mounted not ground mounted, condition number 12. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 17, pertaining to suitable drains to collect all surface run -off, are we talking about a grease trap? Recommended that this condition be deleted. Commissioner Wilsey commented on pedestrian access across the drive -thru, grass median and parking lot, referring to the posted exhibit. A condition should be added to provide room for pedestrians to walk through to the parking lot. Chairman Brown asked for the parking ratio. Planning Manager Thornhill responded that he would have to research this. Chairman Brown commented on the driveways, and stated that his concern is that a traffic study may support your recommen- dation, but it doesn't work - -now what do we do? Mr. Wess stated that part of staff recommendation was to call for a bond or payment of contribution to have construction of half a median through that intersection. Considerable discussion at the table ensued on the existing and future traffic conditions at Riverside Drive and Lakeshore Drive; what length a left turn access lane has to be for effectiveness at 45 -50 m.p.h.; Riverside Drive having a median and denying left and right turns; providing a traffic study that adequately addresses the reconfiguration, installation and safety issues of a left turn pocket. Planning Manager Thornhill stated that 24 parking spaces are provided for the project and the required number of spaces is 22, responding to the question on parking raised earlier. Commissioner Wilsey recommended that the following be added as conditions of approval: Condition No. 49: "The wood siding treatment shall be continued over into the carport portion." Condition No. 50: "Class "A" fire retardant roofing materials are to be used." Condition No. 51: "There shall be a walkway traversing the drive aisle from the walkway across the drive -thru area to the parking lot at the rear of the property." Chairman Brown commented on the color of the canopy and recommended that the color of the canopy and accent trims on the building be dark blue and this added as condition number 52. Discussion ensued on referring the specific drawing presented this evening, illustrating the canopy over the drive -thru and this labeled as Exhibit 111589. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to deny without prejudice Commercial Project 89 -7, until we can come up with some better ideas on the traffic problems. Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 89 -7 = GALARDI GROUP, INC. CONTINUED Discussion ensued on condition number 42, restricting the project to right -turn in and right -turn out and this not being accepted; this condition can be brought back for amendment or add a condition that states: "If the traffic study can be supported and additional mitigations can be proven that would not only reduce the current problem but not impact the problem, then condition number 42 could possibly be modified." Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would like to rescind his motion at this time, and believes that condition number 42 should be amended to reflect this. Discussion ensued on structuring the driveway approaches in such a manner that would only allow right turn in and right turn out. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to deny without prejudice Commercial Project 89 -7, until traffic mitigation measures can be brought back, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3 -0 Industrial Project 89 -10 - The Karcher Company (Lytle Creek Partners) - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a proposal to construct two (2) additional single -story self storage buildings consisting of approximately 18,810 square feet, located at the northeast corner of Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive. Planning Manager Thornhill requested that the Conditions of Approval for Industrial Project 89 -10 be amended to include the following standard conditions, which will read as follows: Condition 4: Applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. Condition 5: All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the plans date stamped October 25, 1989, and /or as modified by these Conditions of Approval or the Planning Commission through subsequent action. Condition 6: Meet all Riverside County Fire Department requirements. Condition 7: All exterior lighting sources 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 fixture. No wall pack units shall be permitted. Condition 8: A final grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the Chief Building Official. Condition 9: Applicant shall submit a revised Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan, which shall include 100% watering coverage. The revised plan shall be subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Architect. The plan shall be approved prior to the Certificate of Occupancy and the release of utilities and include the following: a) At the southeast property corner and heading west, the second and Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 11 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -10 = THE KARCHER COMPANY LYTLE CREEK PARTNERS) CONTINUED fifth trees shall be changed to 15 gallon Platanus Acerifolia. b) Beginning at the southwest property corner heading north, the first and fourth trees shall be changed to 15 gallon Platanus Acerifolia. Condition 10: A six -foot (6') high decorative split face wall with one -foot (11) of wrought iron treatment at the top shall be erected. This wall will be along the south and east property lines and will tie to the existing adjacent wall. A decorative slumpstone fence will screen the west elevation. Condition 11: Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permits, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Mark Hepp, representing the applicant, requested clarification on condition number 7, pertaining to the wall pack units; condition number 17, pertaining to the street lights; condition number 21, asked if there would be any objection to a cash deposit in lieu of a bond. A brief discussion was held on conditions 7, 17 and 21; if there are any current uses on -site that are not allowed, there had been in the past and there is a restriction on storage of non - operational vehicles, and would like the site walked to ensure compliance before permits are cleared. Planning Manager Thornhill recommended that the standard landscaping verbiage for bonding and this added as condition 9.c. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -40 and approval of Industrial Project 89 -10 based on the Findings and subject to 23 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition 4: Applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. Condition 5: All site improvements shall be constructed as indicated on the plans date stamped October 25, 1989, and /or as modified by these Conditions of Approval or the Planning Commission through subsequent action. Condition 6: Meet all Riverside County Fire Department requirements. Condition 7: All exterior lighting sources 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 Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 12 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -10 = THE KARCHER COMPANY LYTLE CREEK PARTNERS) CONTINUED fixture. No wall pack units shall be permitted. Condition 8: A final grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the Chief Building Official. Condition 9: Applicant shall submit a revised Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan, which shall include 100% watering coverage. The revised plan shall be subject to the approval of the City's Landscape Architect. The plan shall be approved prior to the Certificate of Occupancy and the release of utilities and include the following: a) At the southeast property corner and heading west, the second and fifth trees shall be changed to 15 gallon Platanus Acerifolia. b) Beginning at the southwest property corner heading north, the first and fourth trees shall be changed to 15 gallon Platanus Acerifolia. c) 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 (1) year. Condition 10: A six -foot (61) high decorative split face wall with one -foot (11) of wrought iron treatment at the top shall be erected. This wall will be along the south and east property lines and will tie to the existing adjacent wall. A decorative slumpstone fence will screen the west elevation. Condition 11: Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permits, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3 -0 COMMUNITY Nothing to report. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1989 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Absent Commissioner Saathoff Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Motion by Chairman Brown, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3 -0 Appro Jeff Chairman Respectfully bmitted, C� Linda Gri dstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 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, Assistant Planner Restivo, Consultant Planner Haag and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of November 15, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3 -0 (Commissioners Gilenson and Saathoff abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 24571 - Rancon Realty Fund IV (Continued from November 15, 1989) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to subdivide 22.67 acres into 11 parcels ranging in size from .76 acres to 4.61 acres, located at the northwest corner of Central and Collier Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24571. Mr. Fred Crowe, representing Rancon Realty Fund IV, stated that he believes that the concerns expressed by the Commission at the last meeting have been resolved, and they are in agreement with the conditions. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 24571. 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. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 35, pertaining to the dollar amount contribution to the City's Master Entryway Sign Program, and asked if this fee was figured in and considered fair - -in so much as we are getting the property, or is this a fee that has been generated by the number of parcels and not taken into consideration? Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded that this was a standard fee charged the developer and the developer did not request any credit for the land. Commissioner Wilsey recommended that condition number 35 be waived. Commissioner Wilsey recommended that condition number 12.b be added, which would read: "Temporary planting and irrigation shall be provided on pads if building permits are not pulled 90 days after grading." Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24571 - RANCON REALTY FUND IV CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 35, where a developer provides a certain amount of free land, if policy has been established to provide some relief. Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell responded in the negative. Commissioner Saathoff recommended that condition number 35 remain. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 5, pertaining to maintenance for signage, and recommended that a reciprocal agreement for ingress /egress for maintenance of any master signage program identifying the center as a whole be included. Chairman Brown recommended that condition number 4, be amended by adding the words "the Master Sign Program," after the words Design Review approval. Mr. Crowe requested that this be included in the agreement, that way when it comes to Design Review that would be one of the items considered. Discussion at the table, ensued on the the master sign program and tying it to the tract map instead of the agreement; recording the agreement identifying all of the items so that every user will be aware; condition number 5, pertaining to ingress /egress for maintenance; recording the agreement separately which will include the addition of a reciprocal ingress /egress agreement for maintenance of signage, and adding signage program to the design review part of condition number 4; when and who will submit the master sign program, and the master signage program to be submitted to Design Review at the development of the first parcel. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -22 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 24571 based on the Findings and subject to the 41 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 4: "All development associated with this map requires separate Design Review approval, the Master Sign Program to be submitted at the development of the first parcel, in accordance with Section 17.82 of the Municipal Code prior to building permit approval and shall be subject to further environmental review and project conditions in accordance with the provision of California Environmental Quality (CEQA) Guidelines." Condition No. 5: "At the time of map recordation the applicant shall cause to be recorded an agreement to provide for future reciprocal parking, access, circulation, loading, and landscaping maintenance, and a reciprocal ingress /egress agreement for maintenance of signage in favor of all lots, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. The agreement shall also include information on any environmental hazards or similar development constraints including the information that the site may be subject to liquefaction hazards; the report, its findings and recommendation shall be made available to all future owners /lessees." Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 3 PARCEL MAP 24571 = RANCON REALTY FUND IV CONTINUED Condition No. 12.b: "Any pads that are not developed within 90 days after grading shall be provided with temporary planting and irrigation." Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report 88 -2 - RMG Engineering /The Keith Companies - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a Draft Environmental Impact Report to consider the formation of the West Lake Elsinore Assessment District, a special district to provide utilities and related infrastructure improvements to the study area, as well as related follow -on residential development which will be facilitated by the utility and infrastructure improvements. The project area encompasses approximately 1,127 acres of land generally bounded 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 to the west. Planning Manager Thornhill stated that there are three projects located within this assessment district that are being considered by the Commission this evening and they are: the Marinita Tract, Ortega Partners Tract and Centex Homes. Ms. Marlis Mang, Keith Companies consulting firm, gave a brief background report on the Environmental Impact Report and its analysis of environmental impacts of the assessment district with its infrastructure improvements, and the impacts of six (6) development project located within the assessment district. Ms. Mang gave a brief summary on the following impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report: traffic, air quality, noise, hydrology, land forms and topography, biological resources, agricultural, population housing and employment, schools. Mr. John Kane, of Kunzman & Associates, gave a brief summary on the circulation element, and stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Mr. John Mandrell, Butterfield /Keith Companies, gave a brief background report on the overall issues: drainage, traffic -- connection of Grand Avenue from its current northerly terminus up to Robb Road, and the extension of Lincoln to Grand; sewer and water facilities; fire station and the need for a park in the area. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Draft Environmental Impact Report 88 -2. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Jim Bishop, 15080 Christina Court, Lake Elsinore, stated he is opposed to this because of the impact on the schools. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Mrs. Rita Wilsey, 15015 Lincoln, Lake Elsinore, stated that she was not in opposition, but has a question. If all of these impacts are going to cause the air pollution and other things that we have been hearing, is there a possibility that more developers can be involved, enlarge the entire area and still get the assessment going? Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 4 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 88 -2 - RMG ENGINEERING /THE KEITH COMPANIES CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing 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. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Mandrell to address some of the issues brought up. Mr. Mandrell commented on the impact on developer working with the school district to solution; magnitude of improvements requi funded through a very low density type usage; district and the significantly benefited already included in the assessment district. schools and the come up with a red could not be expansion of the properties are Mr. Mandrell stated that he did not feel he was qualified to comment on the air pollution concerns. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the initial figure of eleven million dollars for the improvements and the current figure of twenty -two million. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the air quality and the primary impact given, what about the long term impact? In the long term, will the air quality be acceptable or not acceptable? Ms. Mang stated the long term impacts are usually based on pollution from traffic, household appliances, gas heating /air conditioning. Long term impacts are considered significant, and the criteria used is defined by the Air Quality Management District. We compare the amount of pollution generated by the project to that criteria then we have to say that the impact is significant. The only method to reduce those impacts are transportation management approaches and those are usually implemented for commercial projects. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the traffic circulation - - #17 install traffic signal at Lincoln and Machado, #22 install traffic signal at Grand and Lincoln, these are under the fair share, why aren't they under the specific mitigations? Mr. Kane responded that they were not created by the development. Commissioner Brinley commented on the distribution of the fees for the improvements. Mr. Kane stated that this information was submitted with the resolution of intent to form the district, and a copy of this information can be provided. Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Kane to define who would be participating in the assessment district. Mr. Kane responded that all of the participating property is currently vacant. No existing residences would be included. Chairman Brown commented on acquisition of land for a park and the improvements. Commissioner Gilenson stated his question is the need for an assessment district for this particular project. We have other big projects, Alberhill, Tuscany Hills and Ramsgate, without an assessment district. The developers are paying for Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 88 -2 - RMG COMPANIES CONTINUED KEITH it. If you put in a project the streets have to be improved, sewer and water lines have to be put in why charge charge the prospective home owners for something that the builder has to put in. Planning Manager Thornhill stated that on the Alberhill project and many of the others they will have to form an assessment district. It is the only feasible way of extending services, infrastructure, public, sewer, water, roads, out to those areas. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the impact on schools, does not know how these impacts will be mitigated. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council that Draft Environmental Impact Report 88 -2 be certified, second by Chairman Brown. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 8:09 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:20 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. 3. General Plan Amendment 88 -7 and Zone Change 88 -11 - Rancon Realty Fund IV - Consultant Planner Haag presented a proposal to change the General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (0 -6 dwellings per acre) to High Density Residential (12 -24 dwelling per acre) and an associated Zone Change from C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to R -3 (High Density Residential), for a 9.12 acre parcel generally located on the south side of Franklin Street west of Avenue 6. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88 -7 and Zone Change 88 -11. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield /Keith Companies, representing the applicant, stated that they prepared the application and spent a lot of time evaluating the infrastructure needs, traffic circulation; the existing water tank on the hill will not serve the area and water will have to be brought in from another location, and we need these densities to support the costs. Does not believe the property is benefited with either the R -1 or Commercial Zoning - -it would not yield to compatible development. Chairman Brown asked if in favor. Receiving no anyone wished to speak Chairman Brown asked if Receiving no response hearing at 8:24 P.M. there was anyone else wishing to speak response, Chairman Brown asked if in opposition. Receiving no response, anyone wished to speak on the matter. Chairman Brown closed the public Commissioner Gilenson commented on page 2 of the Staff Report, under Circulation Element, agrees with the recommendation that the land owner or future developer should contribute and would like staff to note this when the site starts developing. Commissioner Wilsey stated this is probably a better zoning for this particular area. As a buffer between the commercial and the downtown that we are trying to create in that area, and some of the infill problems that we have run into downtown. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would like it noted, for the record and the developer, that this is a very high visibility area, particularly from the freeway, and we will be Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -7 AND ZONE CHANGE 88 -11 = RANCON REALTY FUND IV CONTINUED looking for some top quality projects in this area. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with Commissioner Wilsey about the visibility factor, and then commented on the open space - -are we talking no parks, will there be recre- ational centers within the facilities? Planning Manager Thornhill responded that there is not yet a development associated with this project. It is very likely that you will see private recreation areas. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption if Negative Declaration 88 -38 and approval of General Plan Amendment 88 -7, Zone Change 88 -11 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, and adoption of Resolution 89 -7, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -7 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 9.12 ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 4. General Plan Amendment 88 -8, Zone Change 88 -12 - Hidden Valley Springs Ranchos - Consultant Planner Haag presented a request to change the General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (0 -6 dwellings per acre) to High Density Residential (12 -24 dwellings per acre), and an associated Zone Change from R -1 (Single - Family Residential) to R -3 (High Density Residential), for 18.11 acres generally located on the north side of Pottery Street, east of Rancho Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88 -8 and Zone Change 88 -12. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield /Keith Companies, representing the applicant, stated this project was started just a little behind the other one, and it was apparent that there was a need to try and create some compatibility in the area. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing 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 8:32 p.m. Commissioner Gilenson commented on page 2 of the Staff Report, under Circulation Element, agrees with the recommendation that the land owner or future developer should contribute and would like staff to note this when the site starts developing. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88 -39, approval of General Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 7 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -8 AND ZONE CHANGE 88 -12 - HIDDEN VALLEY RANCHOS CONTINUED Plan Amendment 88 -8, Zone Change 88 -12 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and adoption of Resolution No. 89 -8, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -8 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 18.11 ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 5. General Plan Amendment 89 -5, Zone Change 89 -5, Tentative Tract Map 23988 - Ortega Partners - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Specific Plan and Floodplain /Floodway to Low Density Resi- dential (0 -6 dwellings /acre); to pre -zone the site R -1 (Single - Family Residential), for 72.5 acres of land generally located northwesterly of Machado Street at the terminus of Lincoln Street. Planning Manager Thornhill stated that staff has concern with some of the lot sizes, specifically the 75 percent criteria adjacent to some of the larger lots; would request that the Commission take input on the tract map and then continue Tentative Tract Map 23988 for two weeks. Commissioner Wilsey asked to be excused. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:34 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 89 -5 and Zone Change 89 -5. Mr. Jeff Kenyon, Senior Project Manager with California Communities, representing the land owner, gave a brief update on their meeting with the school district and their working together on the possible acquisition of a site for a new elementary school. Mr. Kenyon stated that they are working closely with the other participants of the West Lake Elsinore Assessment District to see that the assessment district successfully goes into place. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. 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: traffic impacts on Alvarado and the opening of four side streets; flooding problems in the area; air quality; density and incompatibility with neighbors; recreational trail; Environmental Impact Report and Biological Report, many of the endangered plants and animals in the area can only be identified in the early Spring; Princo should be cul- de- saced, or if Princo does go through it should have consistent front yard setbacks; perimeter fencing should be consistent with existing homes; there should be a buffer consistency; traffic signals should be in place by the time the first occupants move in; fire station should be fully manned; square footage of homes proposed; law enforcement and Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 8 GENERAL -PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -5, ZONE CHANGE 89 -5 = ORTEGA PARTNERS impact on schools. Edward Kane, 15341 Alvarado Street; Guy Sylvester, 30517 Princo Street; Lynn Josefsen, 15070 Alvarado Street; Scott Josefsen, 15070 Alvarado Street; Rosemary Connelly, 30516 Princo Street; George Pratt, 15058 Christina Court; Rita Wilsey, 15015 Lincoln Street; Gail Batson, 15057 Zieglinde Drive; Linda Rempp, 15016 Zieglinde Drive; Pam Eriser, 15049 Larson Road; Lilly Brown, 30537 Princo Street; Mike Priske, 15015 LeGaye; Jim Bishop, 15080 Christina Court; James Messer, 30528 De La Lama; Larry Underwood, 15075 Christina Court; Nickie Deutsch, 15019 Zieglinde Drive; Carol La Pearl, 32151 Michelle Lane; Lynn Williams, 15059 Christina Court; Al Baker, 30580 Coplas Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing 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 9:05 p.m. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table on the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change only. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the density for the General Plan Amendment, if approved the density will change, correct? Planning Manager Thornhill responded that it will, the allowable density, and on this particular map it will be about four units per acre. Mr. Jeff Kenyon, Senior Project Manager California Communities, stated that on the density issue, we were under the impression that we fell within the approximate guidelines discussed approximately a year and a half ago with Council. We will make every attempt to look at some of the buffer zones, and some of the lots that surrounds this particular property and we will do this in the period forthcoming, prior to coming back before the Commission. Mr. Kenyon commented on the following concerns brought up: drainage, school impact, access, trail system. Mr. Kenyon then stated that the need for a fire station, traffic signalization and drainage these issues will all be mitigated through a combination of what the assessment district will install and each individual development will install. Commissioner Brinley commented on the density, and the 25 foot wide trail system and the maintenance. Discussion at the table ensued on the density for the General Plan Amendment. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -5, ZONE CHANGE 89 -5 = ORTEGA PARTNERS Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -5 and Zone Change 89 -5 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstained) Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Tentative Tract Map 23988 to the meeting of December 20, 1989, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstained) Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt Resolution No. 89 -9, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -5 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 72.5 ACRES FROM A COMBINATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AND FLOODPLAIN /FLOODWAY TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 (Commissioner Wilsey abstained) Commissioner Wilsey returned to the table at 9:25 p.m. 6. General Plan Amendment 89 -8, Zone Change 89 -9, Tentative Tract Map 22537 - Brookstone Development - Withdrawn by applicant. 7. General Plan Amendment 89 -10, Zone Change 89 -11 and Tentative Tract Map 24213 - Marinita Development - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Specific Plan and Floodplain /Floodway to Low Density Residential (0 -6 dwellings acre); to pre -zone the property R -1 (Single - Family Residential), and to consider a 160 single - family subdivision, for 56.9 acres of land generally located northwesterly of Machado Street at the terminus of Princo Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 9:31 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 89 -10, Zone Change 89 -11 and Tentative Tract Map 24213. Mr. Scott Fawcett, representing Marinita Development, commented on condition number 16, pertaining to the 25 foot wide equestrian easement, agrees with the dedication - -only question is, along the southerly line where it goes to the adjacent lots there are two homes being built there, believes they are going to be a nursery or pre - school, and doesn't know how this will be handled. Mr. Fawcett requested that condition number 5 and condition number 9, be amended by changing the word "grading" to "building ". Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The following persons expressed concern on Tentative Tract Map 24213 as follows: lots size -- should be minimum quarter acre; recreational trail; density; drainage; air quality; the Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 10 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -10, ZONE CHANGE 89 -11 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24213 = MARINITA DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED keeping of horses, and traffic safety. Lynn Josefsen, 15070 Alvarado Street; Rosemary Connelly, 30516 Princo Street; Guy Sylvester, 30517 Princo Street; James Brown, 30537 Princo Street; Scott Josefsen, 15070 Alvarado Street; Dan Grimes, 15371 Alvarado Street; Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. The following persons commented on the access from Grand Avenue; equestrian trail and rider's visibility into rear yards; crime element; recreational trail being provided not an equestrian trail and landscape screening can be provided. Jim Withrow, 33044 Machado Street; Rita Wilsey, 15015 Lincoln Street; Pam Eriser, 15049 Larson Road; Jan Matson, 15057 Zieglinde Street Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Brinley commented on the multi purpose recreational trail and stated she would like "equestrian trails" changed to "multi purpose recreational trail ", condi- tion 16. Commissioner Wilsey stated that with regard to staff reports and all references to equestrian easements /trails should be deleted and all reference in the future should be address as recreational trail. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 42, and recommended that the words " "if it causes flooding" be deleted. Discussion was held on the applicant's request on condition number 5 and 9 pertaining to changing the word "grading" to "building ". Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 17, pertaining to the re- configuration of Lot 6, and recommended that this condition be deleted. Commissioner Saathoff made a brief comment on continuing the tract map until the tract map for Ortega is reviewed. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -10, Zone Change 89 -11 and Tentative Tract Map 24213 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 5: "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." Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 11 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -10, ZONE CHANGE 89 -11 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24213 - MARINITA DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Condition No. 9: "Applicant shall submit and receive approval of landscape and irrigation plans for model homes (if such as desired), back -up wall areas, street trees and slope planting in accord with the City Landscape Guidelines, prior to the issuance of building permits." Condition No. 16: "Subdivider shall provide a 25 -foot multi - purpose recreational trail along the rear of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 46 and 47 with final location, design and improvement subject to the approval of the City Public Works Director and the Community Development Director. Said easement to be dedicated to the City." Condition No. 17: "If Lot 6 is re- configured to take vehicular access from De La Lama Street, a variance may be needed to allow a lot to be created with substandard frontage." DELETED. Condition No. 42: "Increase in downstream drainage in De La Lama, Audelo and Princo Streets shall be mitigated." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt Resolution No. 89 -11, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION 89 -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -10 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 57 ACRES FROM A COMBINATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AND FLOODPLAIN /FLOODWAY TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 10:03 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 10:06 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED 8. General Plan Amendment 89 -11 - Centex Homes - City Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Specific Plan and Floodway /Floodplain to Low Density Residential (0 -6 dwellings per acre), for 206.4 acres of land generally located south of Mountain Avenue, west of Michigan Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 10:07 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 89 -11. Mr. Mike Aller, representing Centex Homes, spoke in favor of the proposal. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 89 -11. Receiving no response, Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -11 = CENTEX HOMES CONTINUED 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. Dennis Johnson, 15026 Vista View, commented on access, drainage, view, and stated that he concurs with the concerns expressed on the other plans. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 10:14 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89 -11 and adoption of Resolution No. 89 -12, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 89 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -11 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 206.4 ACRES FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AND FLOODPLAIN /FLOODWAY TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Annexation Number 47 - Ortega Partners - Community Development Director Gunderman requested this item be withdrawn. 2. Annexation Number 49 - Brookstone Development - Withdrawn by applicant. DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gilenson Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff Nothing to report. Minutes of Special Planning Commission Meeting November 29, 1989 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Wilsev Commented on the recreational trail system and requested that staff put together design and construction criteria. Commissioner Gilenson suggested that staff contact the County and request a copy of their standards for recreational trail systems. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 Jeff Chai Respectfully s mitted, inda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Gilenson, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Manager Thornhill, Assistant Planners Restivo and Fairbanks, Public Services Director Kirchner and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Minutes of November 29, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -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 BE TAKEN UP BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. CHAIRMAN BROWN ASKED IF THE APPLICANTS OR REPRESENTATIVES ON THESE ITEMS WERE PRESENT. RECEIVING NO RESPONSE, CHAIRMAN BROWN STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE LIBERTY TO REOPEN THE PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION SHOULD AN APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE ARRIVE LATER. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single - Family Residence - 1305 Sumner Avenue - J. Reidy Homes (Scott Howard) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 2,130 square foot single- family dwelling on a 8,150 square foot lot, located approximately 175 feet east of the northeast corner of Sumner and Davis 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. A brief discussion was held on switching from stucco to T1 -11 siding, and if it would be harmonious with the neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 1305 Sumner Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 2. Single - Family Residence - 16792 Lash Avenue - William Mousseau - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 1,360 square foot dwelling and a 575 square foot garage situated on a 5,148 square foot lot, located approximately 450 feet west of the intersection of Hunt Avenue and Lash 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. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 2 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 16792 LASH AVENUE = MOUSSEAU CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single- Family Residence at 16792 Lash Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 3. Single - Family Residence - 16801 Holborow Avenue - Bob Delao (Steve Kerckhoff) - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 2,083 square foot structure positioned on a 4,680 square foot lot, located approximately 225 feet southeast of the corner of Holborow and Hague. 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. A brief discussion was held on condition number 32, pertaining to drainage. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single- Family Residence 16801 Holborow Avenue based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 4. Single - Family Residence - 313 Davis Street - James Cantrell - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 2,816 square foot single - family residence situated on a 9,000 square foot lot, located 180 feet south of Pottery on the west side of Davis. 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. A brief discussion was held on the possibility of the City assisting the applicant with getting drainage easements, conveying drainage to a public right -of -way, and amending condition number 32 to reflect this. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single - Family Residence at 313 Davis Street based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with condition number 32 amended, as follows: Condition No. 32: "On -site drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage ease- ment. The City will assist the applicant in forming an agreement with the various property owners to obtain easements for drainage, for the entire lot within the perimeters of Davis, Pottery, Townsend and the alley between Pottery and Sumner." second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 5. Single - Family Residence - 780 Parkway - Scott Sherman - Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented a proposal to construct a 2,021 square foot single -story dwelling, situated on a 6,650 square foot lot located at the southwest corner of the inter- section of Parkway and Avenue 1. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 3 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE = 780 PARKWAY = SHE RMAN CONTINUED 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 Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residence at 780 Parkway based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 6. Residential Project 89 -16 - Sylvia Zeita Gloozman (Liberty Associates) - Assistant Planner Restivo presented a proposal to construct a 16 unit apartment complex, consisting of two building, on a 29,000 square foot lot on the north side of Graham Avenue just south of Chestnut Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Ms. Sylvia Gloozman stated that she was in agreement with staff recommendation. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on renderings depicting a harsh /stark building scape. Chairman Brown stated for the record, a letter was received, and included in the packet, from Mr. Thomas Frost, 224 East Graham Avenue, expressing concern on: the need for a traffic signal or a four -way stop sign on Graham, condition of Graham Street and the need for repairs and parking. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt Negative Declaration 89 -44 and approve Residential Project 89 -16 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 7. Residential Project 89 -17 - Lewis Homes - Assistant Planner Restivo presented for Minor Design Review and site approval single - family dwellings for Tract 19750. The tract is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Robb Road and Mountain Street. Phase "A" is located on the east side of Robb Road south of Mountain Street. Phase "B" and "C" are located on the north and south side of Spruce Street between Laura Lake Drive and Date Street. Assistant Planner Restivo requested that condition number 8 and condition number 21 be deleted. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Ms. Mimi Rayl, representing Lewis Homes, commented on the staggering of front yard setbacks, and because of certain physical properties of the lots we would like to alter some of the lots that are proposed for staggering, to certain other lots. This has been discussed with staff and we think that Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 4 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 89 -17 = LEWIS HOMES CONTINUED they are acceptable. For the record, these lots are: Unit 2, the setbacks that will be staggered are: Lots 3 and 42 Unit 3, the setbacks that will be staggered are: Lots 3, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 15 Ms. Rayl stated that a couple of the houses plotted do not meet the fifteen -foot side yard setback requirement. We need to re -plot three of the lots to make those fit, and believes this has been provided to the Commission in letter form. Ms. Rayl requested discussion on the possibility of deferring the installation of front yard landscaping and irrigation until after the homes are occupied, condition number 16. Our proposal would be to delay installation until twenty -five days after the homes are occupied. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the tract map being substandard and vague in many areas - -would like this brought up to meet the minimum R -1 Zoning Standards; cul -de -sacs being substandard; if condition number 9 was included to bring this up to R -1 Standards, and the plans being brought into conformance with the approved tentative map. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the wood shingle roofing material being Class "A ", condition number 9; and recommended that conditions 8, 16 and 21 remaining as stated. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 16, and the applicant's request to delay installation of front yard land- scaping and irrigation Discussion ensued on condition number 16, pertaining to the applicant's request to delay installation of front yard landscaping /irrigation and the control problems. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 1, pertaining to Minor Design Review and approval will lapse and be void after one year, on a phased project. Design Review should follow the tract, if consistent with the original approved houses, and recommended that condition number 1 be amended to reflect this or deleted. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 89 -17 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendment: Condition 1: "Design Review approval will lapse and be void one year following date of approval." DELETED. second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 PUBLIC HEARINGS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING #2 PRIOR TO #1. 2. Zone Code Amendment 89 -3 - Deleo Clay Tile - Community Development Director Gunderman stated that staff is requesting this item be continued to the meeting of January 17, 1990, as Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 5 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 89 -3 - DELEO CLAY TILE CONTINUED it deals with city -wide issues and we feel that it needs a little more review. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Zone Code Amendment 89 -3 to the meeting of January 17, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 4 -0 AT THIS TIME, 7:37 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 7:47 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. Chairman Brown re- opened the discussion portion on Single - Family Residence at 16792 Lash Avenue at the request of Mr. Alan Manee, representing Mr. William Mousseau. Mr. Manee stated that Mr. Fairbanks received, late in the process, a grading plan that shows the home moved a few feet closer to the garage. The purpose for that was an engineering decision to keep it out of the hill, because of the cost of retaining walls. I was informed that I could mention this now or bring the whole project back. Assistant Planner Fairbanks stated that he believes the question pertains to the positioning of the dwelling unit in relation to the garage, and condition number 3 allows for some modification. Chairman Brown stated that it looks like we both have some flexibility, and unless you have a problem with that we will move on. Mr. Manee stated that he did not have a problem with the flexibility referred to in condition number 3. 1. Specific Plan 89 -3 - Homestead Land Development (Tuscany Hills) - Mr. Hardy Strozier, Special Projects Consultant for the City, presented the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan which includes a total of 2,000 dwelling units as part of a 973 acre project. Parks, private recreation areas, open space, a wildlife corridor and lake area comprise approximately 253 acres. An addendum to the previously adopted Environmental Impact Report is included as part of the Specific Plan, as well as an amendment to the 1980 Development Agreement. Summerhill Drive serves as the main access to Tuscany Hills from the southwest. This road intersects with Railroad Canyon near Interstate 15, approximately one mile from the site. Canyon Lake (Railroad Canyon Reservoir), which is situated in the San Jacinto River plain, is east of the site. The project is bounded on the north by Greenwald Street. Greenwald Street intersects with Highway 74, approximately two miles north of the site, providing access to the cities of Perris and River- side. Mr. Strozier also gave a background report on Tuscany Hills covering the original Tract Map 17413; the Specific Plan; 1980 Development Agreement, and the Conservation Agreement with regard to the Stephen's kangaroo rat. Mr. Strozier stated that he would like to correct the Staff Report, Page 5 number 2.c.: Landscaping and Lighting District - staff's position, and I will be adding an amended condition, on open space area is that all open space areas outside the public right -of -way be maintained by a Homeowners Association or by individual property owners. The City does not want to have any responsibility /liability for maintenance of this open space or private park areas under a landscaping and lighting district. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 6 TUSCANY HILLS Mr. Strozier commented on the following planning /engineering issues, which were the focus of quite a bit of discussion between the developer and staff over the past six months. Also, I would like to add that the developer and staff have come to an agreement on almost all of these issues, there may still be some minor disagreements. - I think, the developer has submitted to you a report that outlines two areas of disagreement: the street section size on a minor single loaded street; as well as, the ownership and maintenance of open space areas. - Front yard setbacks: The developer wanted to have some reduced setbacks, down to five feet. Staff looked at how reduced setbacks have been handled in other jurisdictions and our recommendation would be, and it is reflect in the conditions, a seventeen foot minimum setback allowing the developer to go down in certain circumstances to an eleven foot setback, but subject to Community Development Director review. That review would take into consideration special circumstances in the hillside areas. - Lot sizes: The Specific Plan proposes a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. Staff did not support the 4,000 square foot lots, because at the time the 1980 Development Agreement was signed the minimum size lot was 6,000 square feet. Mr. Strozier stated that we have recommended a condition that would permit reduction in lot size, based on future review by this Commission, on a separate product and program design that developes some clustering concepts. The developer has suggested 4,000 square foot lots within Tentative Tract Map 25074. I should point out that the 4,000 square foot lots maintain the same lot frontage criteria as the 5,000 square foot lots, so you would not perceive any difference in the street scene or in the parking /loading on the individual street. - Local Street Widths: The City Engineering and Planning Staff met with the developer and their consultant, we analyzed some reduced street sections where the loading on the streets only occur on one side. - Cul -de -sac Lengths: Staff has recommended that certain cul -de -sacs can be extended based on the amount of develop- ment that occurs on that Cul -de -sac, based on the characteristics of that cul -de -sac being single loaded or double loaded. This is also carried forward and provided as a special condition. - Master Entry Sign Program: The Engineering Department has asked the developer to contribute toward the Master Entry Sign Program, and it was not a previous agreement in their 1980 Development Agreement. The developer may address this, however, under the 1980 Development Agreement he has no legal obligation to abide by this. - Use of Redevelopment Funds for the School: Schools are an important consideration in this community. This project carries with it some recommendations for some contributions from the tax increments. This entire project area is within a Redevelopment Project Area, significant tax increments flow from the project and there has been agreement from the City Manager's office to provide or make recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency to provide some Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 7 TUSCANY HILLS CONTINUED contributions from the tax increments to the proposed project. Mr. Strozier requested that condition number 46 be deleted, as it is a redundant condition, and condition number 51 be added to read, as follows: Condition No. 51: "All open space and slopes outside the public right -of -way will be maintained by either a master homeowner association or private home owners. All open space areas owned by the homeowners association will be offered for irrevocable dedication to the City." Mr. Strozier presented the following proposals as listed: - Resolution No. 89 -13 - Recommending Approval of a Specific Plan for the Tuscany Hills Development. - Resolution No. 89 -14 - Certifying Environmental Documents for the Tuscany Hills Development. - Resolution No. 89 -15 - Recommending Approval of Amendments to the 1980 Development Agreement for Tuscany Hills Develop- ment and making certain Findings with respect thereto. - Resolution No. 89 -16 - Recommending Approval of a Conservation Agreement and Declaration of Covenants for the Tuscany Hills Development and making certain Findings with respect thereto. - Tentative Tract Map 24383, which consists of 166 single - family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25074, which consists of 130 single - family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25075, which consists of 122 single - family residential lots, one private recreation lot, one park lot and one lot for lake purposes. - Tentative Tract Map 25076, which consists of 144 single - family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25077, which consists of 176 single - family residential lots - Tentative Tract Map 25078, which consists of 183 single - family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25079, which consists of 102 single - family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25080, which consists of 105 single - family residential lots. Mr. Strozier commented briefly on the following: the New Proposed Development Agreement, Specific Plan; Technical Appendices, which contains the Conservation Agreement approved by City Council; Mitigation /Monitoring Program, and the Final Environmental Impact Report Addendum. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:19 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor on the Tuscany Hills proposals. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 8 TUSCANY HILLS Mr. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development, gave a brief background history on the proposal, and stated that the Specific Plan and some of the other documents that Homestead is using to implement this project will result in a very high quality project. Mr. Taylor stated that the higher quality project may be mis- represented in the Staff Report, in terms of the fiscal impacts on the city. The fiscal analysis provided in the Staff Report represents that this project, at build out, would contribute about 2.9 million dollars a year in redevelopment revenues. Our expectation is that the redevelopment revenues off of this project at build out will probably exceed 5 million dollars a year, under the revised program. Mr. Taylor then commented on the letter he sent in response to the Staff Report and understands that he may have been mis- understood in the way he presented the information. My intent was to provide information on an alternate way of handling things for your consideration, so we wouldn't really have to be debating with staff. That is not our intention, we think that staff has done a very good job working on this project. Mr. Taylor stated that he would like to introduce Mr. Chris Weber of Hunsaker and Associates. Mr. Chris Weber, Hunsaker & Associates, commented on the design theme and architecture the planning team has worked on for the past couple of years; much of this is reflected in the design guidelines which was circulated through the city approximately a year ago. Mr. Weber then commented on the following: - The Land Plan: Highlighted the land use, open space areas, green belts and wildlife corridor, future location of school and parks, private recreation center, previous land use plan which had commercial uses and current commercial overlays being requested in the Specific Plan, as well as an overlay over the private recreational center. - Commercial uses - -the overlays: It is important to remember that those overlays would be, if Homestead were to choose those options, subject to further discretionary review by the city in the future. - Phasing: The phasing is roughly four large phases. The first phase being Tentative Tract 17413, which is currently being developed. The second phase, approximately in the middle of the project, and then the third and fourth phase on the north side. - Single - family homes: There has been issue on the 4,000 square foot lots, comprised of Tract 25074,25075 and 25076. These three tracts are comprised of a total of 396 single - family lots of which 94 are actually under 5,000 square feet. Those 94 lots represent less than 5 percent of the project total of being under 4,000 square feet. Approximately 7 of the 94 miss 5,000 square feet by approximately 50 square feet. It is important to note that this 50 foot wide lot, even though it may be 4,000 square feet, as previously mentioned, will not be perceived as a smaller lot from the street scene. It is a 50 foot wide lot, so really the difference is in the size of the house that is on that lot. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 9 TUSCANY HILLS Mr. Taylor commented on the following: - The project was originally approved at a 1,000 acres. There is 27 acres north of Greenwald that was included as commercial in the original plan and would continue to maintain whatever rights it has. It was not purchased by Homestead. - The commercial overlays, the commercial that was included in the 973 acres which we purchased; we do not think the market is there. But we want to provide that option so that we will not have to do a zone change in the future. - The Master Entry Sign Program and their participation. - The 1980 Development Agreement pertaining to land dedicated to the city for a park, and staff's recommendation that the city not accept this, and that it be incorporated into the association. I do not have a problem with the city not accepting that, but would like to say that it doesn't have to go to the association so that we can continue to evaluate alternatives for that area of the project. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to continue with the public hearing, and then go over the individual items. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor on Specific Plan 89 -3. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Alan Manee, Manee Consulting, 112 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, stated he was not speaking against the proposal, but you have to come up with more options. Mr. Manee stated that he represents ten land owners that are proposing projects on the Canyon Lake side in the County and they have concerns. One concern, which is not critical, that you should be aware of, for legal purposes and for the purpose of recommending approvals, is that we do not have all the signed agreements for off -site improvements, as of this date. Mr. Manee then expressed the following concerns: The Specific Plan does not meet the density requirements; proposed lot widths do not meet the Specific Plan criteria; setback standards are vague; the final grading plans are submitted and yet we are told that variations in the setback standards may occur; lot size reductions are unacceptable; three cul -de -sacs with a length over 600 feet and one over 1,000 feet; copies of documents not available, and any roads considered in the open space. 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 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows: - Specific Plan: This Specific Plan is going to add 160.7 acres to the housing element. It is going to subtract 9.4 acres of commercial development; 6/10 of an acre off the school site; we will loose 61.4 acres of park land. Also, we will be loosing 30.9 acres of open space. This is something that should be emphasized. - Approximately 88 acres of manufactured slopes, which was included in the 35 percent open space. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 10 TUSCANY HILLS - No local parks in the area. Talking about approximately 8.5 acres of parks for the entire project. Some in conjunction with the proposed lake, which could or could not be public. Vast area with many homes and many children and no neighborhood parks. - Fire station indicated on the plans, and discussion about setting aside a one acre parcel for a fire station. Does this mean you are going to dedicate, or are you going to build one, house one, and put in the equipment in this program? The 1980 Development Agreement talked about specific equipment for a fire station to be provided, would like this cleared up. - Tract 25074 being comprised of the majority of the 4,000 square foot lots. I have a problem with this because it is on the outer perimeters of your tract, which means that we are going to have a problem with adjacent landowners wanting to continue with this lot size. - Open space and slopes outside the right -of -way to be maintained by a homeowners association, or private home owner. Do not want to see private home owner included in this condition, condition number 51. - Tract Maps presented -- street widths, lot widths, cul -de -sac lot widths, are substandard compared to R -1. - How many lots are under 6,000 square feet? Mr. Taylor responded to Commissioner Wilsey's comments, as follows: - Referred to the Land Use Table, thinks that it should be noted that the previous plan had nearly 700 units of multi - family development. We do not see multi - family as being a level of quality as what we have planned for this project. We see it as making a trade off - -for an apartment to a 4,000 square foot lot. You have nearly 700 lots that fit that circumstance. Secondly, I do not know the answer to the question on the 6,000 square foot threshold. But to go from 94 to nearly 700 gives a lot of buffer in there to hit the 6,000 square foot issue. Within the 709 acres of single - family, as identified in the table, there is over 200 acres of green space, and we are not counting roads into the open space. - The park and private recreation issue, referring to the posted rendering, identified the 35 -37 acre park site, which the city doesn't want. This is not my request it comes through the discussion that we have had with staff to try and refine this project into one that will achieve the goals of both Homestead Land Development and what staff perceives as Council /Commission goals. - There is a potential loss of commercial acreage within this project. In terms of revenues, if that is lossed, we believe that the increase in value from the project to the city through redevelopment revenues would be more with the current project than perhaps what was previously included. - Loss of school acreage: The site that we have offered to the school district is in excess of 11 acres. - Fire station issue: Originally the fire station proposed was to be right next to the school site. The school Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 11 TUSCANY HILLS district said that you do not put a fire station next to our school site. The land plan for the southern half was virtually approved and moving forward and construction occurring, so there was not a lot of opportunity to move it south. We evaluated the northern half of the project to find a place for the fire station. But there is a fire station right inside the gate at Canyon Lake, so putting one in this area wouldn't be what the fire district was looking for. We have talked to the fire district and they indicated that they did not want a site on Tuscany Hills. What they were looking for was a site at the corner of Railroad Canyon and Grape Street or Railroad Canyon and the freeway. In addition, the 1980 Development Agreement requires the provision of a triple -a- pumper, and we are going to provide the offer of dedication for the fire station site and the triple - pumper. Commissioner Wilsey stated with regard to the Specific Plan, what is required as far as off -site improvements down Greenwald to take care of the additional traffic flows. Mr. Taylor responded that they would be doing improvements to Greenwald along their frontage. Greenwald as it extends north- erly is a County facility. Chairman Brown commented as follows: - Since the General Plan designation for this area is 2.0 units per acre, do we need a General Plan Amendment to go higher? - The Environmental Impact Report, since the product type and density has changed, with the elimination, are the fiscal impacts in the Environmental Impact Report legal? Do we have findings or are we required to have findings to support the lot size reduction, as compared to what we normally require. - The 35 acre park site, that nobody wants, what is the percentage of slope on that site? Mr. Taylor stated that the acre park site is a very rugged site. Approximately 37 acres, 3 to 4 acres are relatively flat and the rest is rocky or hillside. Chairman Brown resumed comments, as follows: - Would want to amend or discuss the Development Agreement referred to in the Staff Report, Page 4, last sentence: "They do not include physical and /or content changes to the project ". Unless totally mistaken this statement is erroneous. - Staff Report recommends setbacks of twenty -feet with some flexibility. Anticipating 20 foot front yard setbacks at design stage with some flexibility, but the condition directly states 17 foot and as little as 10 foot. If it is proposed for 20 why are we even starting at 17, and under what conditions that would be allowed? Also that it be brought back to the Planning Commission not the Community Development Director. Since the final grading plans are done believes that we can get an exact count on what is going to be at what setback and where. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 12 TUSCANY HILLS CONTINUED Mr. Taylor stated he would like to indicate that was somewhat of an erroneous statement that the final plans are done. The final plans are done on Tract 17413, but the final plans are not done on the northern portion of the property. Chairman Brown resumed comments, as follows: - Condition Number 13, this should be consistent - -the first half with the second half. "Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum, of five feet of level ground. Corner lots shall have a setback of a minimum of ten feet including five feet of level ground." - Condition Number 20, suggested that the words "wood fencing" be deleted. - Condition No. 22, suggested that the words "wood fencing" be deleted. Mr. Taylor stated that there is a relatively detailed fencing plan within the Specific Plan. Mr. Strozier stated that the intent here is that all exterior fencing or walls will be of decorative masonry. All fencing visible from a public right -of -way will be of a decorative wall. Chairman Brown resumed comments, as follows: - Condition Number 27, Would like to see a traffic signal phasing plan. Mr. Strozier asked when this traffic signal phasing plan should be brought back to the Planning Commission? Chairman Brown responded prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Brown resumed comments, as follows: - Condition Number 43, pie- shaped lots -- assume you are going to use a 16 foot driveway approach, something close to that. Mr. Taylor responded that in situations where there are three car garages we would be at 24 -25. Discussion ensued on condition number 43, and the amount of curb face needed to adequately park a vehicle out of an approach. Chairman Brown resumed comments, as follows: - Condition Number 51, all open space and slopes will be owned and maintained by a homeowners association, including the 35 acres. - Letter submitted by Mr. Taylor, whether or not he would like the letter entered into the record or withdrawn. Mr. Taylor responded that the letter was merely provided for information to the Commission. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 13 TUSCANY HILLS CONTINUED Chairman Brown stated that the letter would be entered into the records and he would respond to it that way. - It goes on to talk about all of the wonderful facilities that is going to be provided for the community, but the problem is that it is all going to be private. - School site, how much of this school site will be dedicated to buildings? In your letter, you state that it has 10 acres of play field and it is only an 11 acre site, where are the buildings and the parking? Mr. Taylor referred to the posted rendering, and gave the location for the parking, buildings and the hard surface play areas. The ten acres of play field is a combination of the public park site and the school site. Chairman Brown stated that he would like an answer, before we are done, on the legal issues. Mr. Strozier stated that he believes that the existing General Plan calls for a specific land designation for the hillside areas. The Zoning calls for a Specific Plan Area (SPA) designation. I do not believe there is a legally adopted density for that mountainous terrain; it has been a policy of the city to identify 2 dwellings per acre in the mountainous terrain. The new General Plan that is proposed, and coming before you, has some detail numbers attached to these mountainous areas. You are under no legal requirements; you certainly have a consistency requirement between Zoning and General Plan. What you have in front of you today is Zoning, and your General Plan calls for Specific Plan. You have an informal policy that says that we are looking a 2 dwellings per acre, sort of, in the hillside areas. So the answer is no you don't have a problem. Chairman Brown stated that it is not under the General Plan as 2.0 and we do not have to amend the General Plan, to do this? Mr. Strozier responded in the affirmative. Chairman Brown stated that the second questions was about the fiscal changes in the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Strozier stated that economics is not a required element under the California Environmental Quality Act, so the answer is no you do not have a legal problem. Chairman Brown asked about the findings to support lot reductions. Mr. Strozier stated that if it is the Commission's desire to attach a finding we can do that. The rationale behind the single - family detached lot reduction was provided by the applicant. In that they have decided not to do apartments which are smaller lots than what is proposed, and we could add an additional finding to that affect. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that the ordinance relative to specific plans does not require a finding relative to fiscal aspects of the specific plan. Chairman Brown stated that the reason he was curious was the City Council had directed the developer, ABC Heritage, to apply for a variance, and variances have to be supported by findings. The reason for the variance was the widths of streets and setbacks, and why would that not hold true now? Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 14 TUSCANY HILLS Mr. Strozier responded that we are approaching it through a different legislative action, Specific Plan. Commissioner Saathoff referred to Mr. Taylor's letter, and asked Mr. Taylor if the conditions discussed in your letter remain as submitted, or are there any changes. Mr. Taylor stated that on condition number 27, we met with staff and they indicated that since a plan has been submitted that "submitted for review and" be deleted from this condition, and that makes it virtually what I had indicated here. Mr. Taylor stated that condition number 32 is one that we requested. Mr. Taylor stated that they have had some positive discussions with the Community Services Director regarding park issues. Mr. Strozier asked Mr. Taylor if he could live with staff conditions the way they are. Mr. Taylor responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Saathoff asked if there were any other off -site improvements other than Greenwald. Mr. Taylor stated that to the south been completed, for some time; three-, that it looks like we are going another project, the developer is install about three miles of regional terms of road facilities, it would be we have a bridge that has xuarters of a mile of road to have to build through leaving the city; and, sewer trunk line. But in just to the south. Commissioner Saathoff stated that personally he does not have a problem with 4,000 square foot lots, if the product it right. However, an adjacent tentative tract map was just recently approved with estate size lots, and I have a concern about the estate type lots and the small lots here without any phasing. Commissioner Gilenson asked who drafted the Development Agree- ment? Mr. Strozier responded the City Attorney. Commissioner Gilenson stated that throughout the Specific Plan it refers to Minor Design Review going back to the Community Development Director as opposed to the Planning Commission. We have always had everything come back before the Planning Commission, what was the reasoning behind this? Mr. Strozier stated Gunderman respond to have the authority question about wheth, current philosophy bring it back. that it is administrative. Will let Mr. this, because the intent is that he would to make those changes, or if there is a er he should be making that given the or direction of the Commission he would Community Development Director Gunderman stated that first of all this is essentially the reason. What we are talking about here, administrative minor design review, with approved tract maps, elevations, setbacks, lot sizes where they want to build a model complex, and there is no deviation from what the Commission had previously approved. It is not an action that I take independent of you, it is an action that you have already directed the way it should be developed. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1989 Page 15 TUSCANY HILLS CONTINUED Commissioner Gilenson stated that he is not sure that Minor Design Review should be delegated away from the Commission when Council has directed us to look at it. Maybe Council should define what they want us to look at. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that this is a legitimate concern, and something that should be reflected to the City Council. Discussion ensued on administrative design review, and Planning Commission authority to establish specific guidelines for development within the City. Commissioner Gilenson commented on the fire station site, asked if this is strictly land dedication, or are you building the fire station and then being reimbursed through the assessment. Mr. Taylor responded that it is strictly land dedication. Commissioner Gilenson asked if the school site was strictly land dedication, or are you building the school and then being reimbursed through the assessment. Mr. Taylor responded that the school issue is a little more complex. As well as inheriting a Development Agreement on this project, inherited existing agreements with the School District, that were approved by the parties, particularly by the School District, at a time that they didn't have the problems that they have now. We are providing and improving the site and we are providing some cash. The City would be providing some cash and the rest will come from the State. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like to continue the public hearing to allow additional time to review the documents, adjourn the meeting to next Wednesday, and asked for consensus from the table. Discussion at the table ensued on a day, time and place for the adjourned meeting. Community Development Director Gunderman stated that since the public hearing was closed, believes that it would be appropriate to re -open the public hearing and leave it open until that time. Chairman Brown re- opened the public hearing on Specific Plan 89 -3, at 9:45 p.m. Motion by Chairman Brown to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, December 13, 1989, at 6:00 P.M., second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4 -0 MINUTES OF ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1989 THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 6:05 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Gilenson Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Manager Thornhill, and Senior Civil Engineer O'Donnell. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Specific Plan 89 -3 - Homestead Land Development, Tuscany Hills, (Continued from December 6, 1989) - Mr. Hardy Strozier, Special Projects Consultant for the City, presented the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan which includes a total of 2,000 dwelling units as part of a 973 acre project. Parks, private recreation areas, open space, a wildlife corridor and lake area comprise approximately 253 acres. An addendum to the previously adopted Environmental Impact Report is included as part of the Specific Plan, as well as an amendment to the 1980 Development Agreement. Summerhill Drive serves as the main access to Tuscany Hills from the southwest. This road intersects with Railroad Canyon near Interstate 15, approximately one mile from the site. Canyon Lake (Railroad Canyon Reservoir), which is situated in the San Jacinto River plain, is east of the site. The project is bounded on the north by Greenwald Street. Greenwald Street intersects with Highway 74, approximately two miles north of the site, providing access to the cities of Perris and River- side. Mr. Strozier then presented the following proposals as listed: - Resolution No. 89 -13 - Recommending Approval of a Specific Plan for the Tuscany Hills Development. - Resolution No. 89 -14 - Certifying Environmental Documents for the Tuscany Hills Development. - Resolution No. 89 -15 - Recommending Approval of Amendments to the 1980 Development Agreement for Tuscany Hills Develop- ment and making certain Findings with respect thereto. - Resolution No. 89 -16 - Recommending Approval of a Conservation Agreement and Declaration of Covenants for the Tuscany Hills Development and making certain Findings with respect thereto. - Tentative Tract Map 24383, which consists of 166 single - family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25074, which consists of 130 single - family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25075, which consists of 122 single - family residential lots, one private recreation lot, one park lot and one lot for lake purposes. - Tentative Tract Map 25076, family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25077, family residential lots which consists of 144 single- which consists of 176 single- Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1989 Page 2 TUSCANY HILLS CONTINUED - Tentative Tract Map 25078, which consists of 183 single - family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25079, which consists of 102 single - family residential lots. - Tentative Tract Map 25080, which consists of 105 single - family residential lots. Chairman Brown stated that he would like the discussion to be an open forum. Mr. Strozier stated that a memorandum has been transmitted to the Commission, as requested, addressing the following issues: Comparisons of the 1980 and 1989 Development Agreement; Legality on using the Environmental Impact Report Addendum; Summary of the 35 percent open space, and; A breakdown of lot sizes Discussion was held on the following: Memorandum Dated December 12, 1989 Item number 2, Legality of the use of an addendum for the Tuscany Hills Specific Plan, need to know that none of these items are occurring and that we are within the guidelines of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). Mr. Strozier stated that through the city the developer retained ultra- systems to prepare quite a lengthy Environ- mental Impact Report Addendum, just on that point; to determine if there had been any significant changes to the project. The circumstances surrounding the project have changed. Their opinion, and the opinion of this document is: no there were not any significant changes to the project, nor were there any circumstances surrounding the project that had changed. Furthermore, just to re- enforce the CEQA process we have added a Mitigation Monitoring Program, a very detailed follow on to the previously prepared EIR /EIS, and this new addendum which articulates standards /conditions by which adverse impacts will be mitigated below a level of significance. Chairman Brown asked if there was a statement included, in short terms, that states we are not in violation of Section 15162 or 15164. Mr. Strozier referred to page 6 of the Addendum, and read the following for the record: "This addendum indicates that the FEIR is amended to incorporate the information contained herein - -that is the information in this document and the Monitoring Program- - adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan and Conservation Agreement. No significant on -site or off -site adverse environmental affects will result from those actions or any of the project modifications or changes or circumstances discussed in this addendum; nor do those modifications or changes require significant changes to the FEIR." Development Agreement Chairman Brown commented on the original Development Agreement as opposed to what is proposed now, pertaining to density, and the 35 percent open space. Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1989 Page 3 TUSCANY HILLS CONTINUED Mr. Strozier referred to the Technical Appendices, 4th page in. Traffic Signal Studv The request was for a phasing plan for traffic signalization. Mr. Taylor, utilizing the rendering posted, gave a brief summary on the road improvements and location for potential signalization. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the City would determine, and when? Mr. Strozier responded the City would take a bond for those improvements, and when the traffic warrants are there to require a signal, as opposed to a stop sign, a signal would be installed by the City. Asked if the Commission would like the traffic study to come back to them for review. Considerable discussion ensued on the traffic study and implementation of signalization; a schedule presented based on tying the installation of signalization with a unit specific. Mr. Taylor stated that a detailed development phasing, infrastructure and implementation plan was submitted, last year. Commissioner Saathoff asked if this plan was submitted for the entire project, not just the lower portion. Mr. Taylor responded that the plan was submitted for the entire project. Lot Sizes Considerable discussion was held on 4,000/5,000 square foot lots; infrastructure and local amenities need to be there to support the small lots, and the market dictating whether or not you will get away from it; providing additional open space as a tradeoff; number of dwelling units in Tract 17413 and in the next eight. Public and Private Recreation Programs Mr. Taylor stated that the 35 acre site is something that we are not trying to force on the City, it was included in the Development Agreement. Commissioner Saathoff referred to the memorandum of December 12th, asked if the 35 acres was included in the 35 percent of open space. Is the lake of 26.5 acres included in the parks and open space? What other items are included in the parks and open space? Mr. Strozier responded that the 35 acre site was included in the open space. The 26.5 acre lake site is not. Mr. Taylor, utilizing the posted rendering, highlighted the location of manufactured slopes and the green space, lake, wildlife corridor, recreation center with the following amenities: tot lot, picnic center, swimming pool /spa, wading pool, three tennis courts, sand volleyball and basketball court. Commissioner Brinley asked if these would be maintained by the homeowners association for their own private use, no public access. Adjourned Planning December 13, 1989 Page 4 TUSCANY HILLS Commission Meeting Mr. Taylor responded in the affirmative. Mr. Taylor stated that they propose for the private portion of the lake boating, fishing, a swim lagoon and a club house facility, these plans have not been finalized. For the public area we anticipate volleyball courts and picnic areas. Chairman Brown stated that everything has been identified except for 149 acres of parks and open space. Mr. Taylor stated then you have the 5.3 acres of public park which has been anticipated to include a soccer field with an overlay of baseball diamonds, restroom facilities, picnic areas, tot lot and a parking lot. This is in conjunction with the school site. Mr. Strozier stated there will be an imaginary line separating the city park and the school district. There is a combined total of 10 acres of active recreation area on that school park site combination. Discussion ensued on the park issue pertaining to park /open space, and deducting the 35 acre park site that no one wants, the 5.3 for the field space; 10.0 for the school site and 3.7 for the public access to the lake, which leaves 131 acres of natural hillside; State average for parks being 3 -5 per thousand residents, occupancy being at 2.5, per the Specific Plan, and the need for 29.8 acres of park, if full credit is given for private recreation; when amenities will be provided, and showing amenities prior to need; condition on Tract 17413 stating that the public park site adjacent to the school site will be installed by the 50th Certificate of Occupancy; an approved conceptual plan for the park which has two soccer fields, four baseball diamonds, tot lot, restroom facilities, paths /picnic areas and parking. Commissioner Saathoff asked if there is anything in the southern portion for park facilities. Mr. Taylor responded the fire station site, which the fire district doesn't want. Discussion ensued on the school /public park site and if the improvements were tied to development of a particular tract map. Homestead's commitment that the public park site, which is 5 acres, be completed with the 50th unit as specified in the conditions on Tract 17413; what the other soccer field and baseball diamonds are tied to. Chairman Brown asked if there was a mechanism /agreement that the school would be opened by a certain date. Mr. Taylor responded in the negative. Chairman Brown stated that we then have a problem with the other 5 acres, conceivably the school could not get funding for that school site for five additional years, three year at best case scenario. Lets set up a system where the park would be improved regardless - -we are giving that credit to you as park site. I do not want to be tied to the school's funding difficulties. What are we going to key the next 5 acres to, the next 50 units? Mr. Taylor responded that after 100 units, you want that park in. I do not think this is reasonable, and suggested after a 1,000 units. Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1989 Page 5 TUSCANY HILLS Discussion ensued on all public parks, except for the very top one, being in place at the completion of 1,050 units; 10 acres of play area, public play area, half completed right away and half at 1,000 units, which is halfway through the project. Utilizing the State Standards we should have 15 acres of park by then not ten - -by a thousand units, 3 people per house is 3,000 people, and that is 15 acres of parks; a total of 27 acres of park needed for the density, and that includes the private area. Commissioner Saathoff stated that with Tract 17413 Revised and a Specific Plan going in place, what is the purpose of the Development Agreement? Mr. Strozier responded that the Development Agreement serves as a vesting instrument for the developer. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that the Commission go over the conditions one by one and get conceptual agreement on each item. The Commission discussed each conditions on Specific Plan 89 -3, and it was the consensus of the Commission to amend the Conditions of Approval as follows: Condition No. 8: Lot sizes shall not deviate in any way by lot count or percentage of lot sizes as exhibited in Exhibit 121389, dated December 13, 1989. Condition No. 11: There will be no greater number of lots, nor greater density, nor less lot square footage than that identified in Exhibit 121389. Minor Design Review of all lots under 4,000 square feet will be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. At this time, 7:35 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 7:47 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. The Planning, Commission resumed amendments to the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 89 -3, as follows: Condition No. 12: Front yard setbacks shall be seventeen -feet (171) with minor variations for grading and aesthetic purposes permitted to a minimum of ten -feet (101) and subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Condition No. 13: Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five -feet (51) of level ground. Corner lots shall have a setback of ten -feet (101) of which five -feet shall be level ground. Condition No. 20: All lots with side and /or rear yards adja- cent to public rights -of -way or open space areas shall have decorative walls installed by the developer. Condition No. 21: Interior lot and installed fencing shal Specific Plan Condition No. 22. The Specific various wall line fencing will be required by the builder. Said internal L meet the standards of the for residential development. Plan shall designate where the designs are to be located; Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1989 Page 6 TUSCANY HILLS i.e., decorative masonry, combination wrought iron, and decorative masonry or wood fencing. Condition No. 27: A traffic signal phasing plan, based on traffic counts as opposed to warrants, for Tuscany Hills shall be submitted for review and approval of the Engineering Department. DELETED. Condition No. 28: On- street parking shall be provided at a minimum of one (1) space per unit /lot. On- street parking can be aggregated within a tract /neighborhood. Condition No. 35: A complete and detailed infrastructure schedule shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer before any final map is approved. Infrastructure schedule shall include timing of and bonding for traffic signal installation and ultimate completion of the backbone system. The schedule shall be tied to occupancy of specific tracts and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Condition No. 43: The minimum lot width at the street property line for pie- shaped lots shall be thirty - feet (301) or alternatively, there shall be at least one -on- street parking space for each pie- shaped lot. No parking in approach areas. Condition No. 45: A park implementation plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the Community Services Director. Installation of or financial guarantee for park facilities shall occur in accordance with park implementation plan, as follows: Planning Area 112A ": One 5 acre park fully improved by the issuance of the 50th Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Area 112b ": Shall be completed by the opening of the lake for any use. Planning Area 11411: One 5 acre park fully improved by the issuance of 1,000 Certificate of Occupancy, of any tract of the entire Specific Plan. Condition No. 46: Developer shall participate in the City of Lake Elsinore City -wide Landscaping and Street Lighting District pursuant to Resolution No. 88 -27. Condition No. 52: All open space and slope outside the public right -of -way will be owned and maintained by a master homeowner association or private homeowner. All open space areas owned by the homeowners association will be offered for irrevocable dedication to the City. City specifications for slope maintenance shall be recorded on the deeds. Mr. Strozier stated that he has the intent and requested the Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1989 Page 7 TUSCANY HILLS Commission consent for authority to create a better legal condition. It was the consensus of the Commission to grant authority to Mr. Strozier to prepare a better legal condition. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt the following Resolutions, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION 89 -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE TUSCANY HILLS DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO RESOLUTION NO. 89 -14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE TUSCANY HILLS DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 89 -15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 1980 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO RESOLUTION NO. 89 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONSERVATION AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS FOR THE TUSCANY HILLS DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Specific Plan 89 -3, subject to the aforementioned amendments to the Conditions of Approval, approval of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement of 1980 between the City and Homestead Land Development for the Tuscany Hills project, approval of the addendum to the Canyon Lake Hills Final Environmental Impact Report, and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 24383, 25074, 25075, 25076, 25077, 25078, 25079 and 25080 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4 -0 Ta ctful Submitted, Grindstaff12� %' Planning Commission Secretary Appro ed, Jeff Br w , Chairm n MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1989 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mr. Fred Crowe. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brinley, Gilenson, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Gunderman, Planning Manager Thornhill and Assistant Planner Fairbanks. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Minutes of December 6, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Commissioner Brinley abstaining Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Minutes of December 13, 1989, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4 -0 Commissioner Gilenson 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 November 29, 1989) - Planning Manager Thornhill stated that staff is requesting this item be continued to the meeting of January 3, 1990, to allow the subdivider an opportunity to redesign the project in response to public testimony taken at the November 29th meeting. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Tentative Tract Map 23988 to the meeting of January 3, 1990, second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 2. Tentative Parcel Map 25347 - Centex Homes - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request to subdivide 833.3 acres into 4 lots for financing and conveyance purposes, located on the south side of Mountain Avenue (extended) and west of Michigan Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor Tentative Parcel Map 25347. Mr. Larry Truman, Butterfield Surveys /The Keith Companies, representing the applicant stated that he would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 25347. 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. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 25347 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission December 20, 1989 Page 2 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25281 - Century American - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request for the subdivision of air space into 144 condominium units on approximately 9 acres. The project is located at the southeast corner of Casino Drive and Franklin. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25281. Mr. Robert Long, Century American, gave a brief background report on the proposal; stated that they concur with staff recommendation and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25281. 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 7:12 p.m. 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 recommend to City Council reaffirmation of Negative Declaration 88 -41 and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25281 based on the Findings and subject to the 37 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 4. Conditional Use Permit 89 -8 Century American - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a Conditional Use Permit application for condominiums. The project is located at the southeast corner of Casino Drive and Franklin. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor Conditional Use Permit 89 -8. Mr. Robert Long, Century American, stated that they concur with staff recommendation and would answer any questions that may arise. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -8. 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 7:15 p.m. Discussion was held on condition number 6, pertaining to the CC & R's and when they would be put in place; formation of a homeowner's association for maintenance of common area land- scaping, and this being included in the CC & R's; formation of a silent homeowner's association prior to the recordation of map to prevent future right -of -way and ingress /egress problems, or an agreement with the developer for those types of things. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to reaffirm Negative Declaration 88 -41 and approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -8 based on the Findings and subject to the 6 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No. 6: "CC & R's shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director and City Attorney, prior to the recordation of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25281." second by Commissioner Wilsey Approved 5 -0 Minutes of Planning Commission December 20, 1989 Page 3 5. Conditional Use Permit 89 -6 - Herron & Rumansoff - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a Conditional Use Permit to operate offices and concrete tile storage for a roofing company. The project is located on the east side of Riverside Drive approximately 125 feet north of Collier Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor Conditional Use Permit 89 -6. Mr. Russell Rumansoff, of Herron & Rumansoff, stated that they concur with staff recommendation, but would like clarification on condition number 7. Planning Manager Thornhill responded that condition number 7 pertains to some work related activity that is occurring on the premises, and this was for storage only. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 89 -6. 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. Discussion was held on the tennis court type screening and if any other material was considered; type of material to be stored and its height with regard to fencing and height of fencing; condition number 1, not allowing any storage until the entire site is completed - -no interim storage. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to adopt Negative Declaration 89 -39 and approve Conditional Use Permit 89 -6 based on the Findings and subject to the 12 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 6. Development Agreement - Brighton Homes - Community Development Director Gunderman stated that due to continuing negotiations with Brighton Homes, staff requests this item be continued to January 3, 1990. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue the Development Agreement for Brighton Homes to the meeting of January 3, 1990, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5 -0 BUSINESS ITEMS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER BUSINESS ITEMS 1 -4 CONCURRENTLY. Assistant Planner Fairbanks presented the following proposals as listed: Single - Family Residence 317 Scrivener Street - Select Housing - A request to construct a 1,366 square foot single -story manufactured dwelling and a 380 square foot attached garage, positioned on a 9,000 square foot, lot located 60 feet south of the southwest corner of Scrivener Street and Pottery Street. Single - Family Residence - 319 Scrivener Street - Select Housing - A request to construct a 1,902 square foot single -story manufactured dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot, located southwest of the corner of Pottery and Scrivener Street. Single - Family Residence - 1507 Sumner Avenue - Select Housing - A request to construct a 1,801 square foot single -story dwelling on a 8,250 square foot lot, located on the northwest corner of Sumner Avenue and Townsend Street. Minutes of Planning Commission December 20, 1989 Page 4 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES: 317 & 319 SCRIVENER; 1507 SUMNER; 320 LEWIS - SELECT HOUSING CONTINUED Single - Family Residence - 320 Lewis Street - Select Housing - A request to construct a 1,821 square foot single -story dwelling situated on a 9,000 square foot lot, located at the southeast corner of Pottery and Lewis Street. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Brad Pomeroy, questioned the condition on masonry walls for corner lots, condition number 15 on 320 Lewis, 319 Scrivener and 1507 Sumner, and the ten -foot dedication on 319 Scrivener and 320 Lewis, condition number 25 and 26 respectively. Considerable discussion was held on masonry walls for corner lots and fencing; the ten -foot dedication, conditions 25 and 26, and moving the house toward the rear of the property; sewer connection, and the material to be used for support pier foundation. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Single - Family Residences at: 317 Scrivener; 319 Scrivener; 1507 Sumner, and 320 Lewis based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 AT THIS TIME, 7:55 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:02 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. 5. Industrial Project 89 -9 - Herron & Rumansoff - Planning Manager Thornhill presented a request to construct a single 1,818 square foot building on 1.16 acres. The project is located on the east side of Riverside Drive approximately 125 feet north of Collier Avenue. Planning Manager Thornhill requested that one additional tree be planted adjacent to the building, utilized posted rendering to illustrate location, and this tree shall be selected from the City's Street Tree List. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Russell Rumansoff, of Herron Rumansoff, commented on condition number 7, project connecting to sewer, and requested that they be allowed to install and use a septic system for approximately two months. In discussion with staff they have indicated that sewer will be installed approximately mid -year 1990, and we anticipate the project to be completed about May or June, 1990. Mr. Rumansoff then commented on condition number 24, pertaining to construction of the Arroyo Del Toro Channel and drainage easements, and requested that they be allowed to work with staff, between now and the City Council hearing, on this. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 7, recommending that language be added that the applicant shall connect to sewer within 30 days of it reaching 200 feet of his property, and posting security to ensure compliance. Commissioner Gilenson recommended that the standard language for septic system be added to condition number 7; the standard language for landscape bonding be added as condition number 8.a; commented on condition number 24, pertaining to drainage easements and who determines what is reasonable and necessary. Minutes of Planning Commission December 20, 1989 Page 5 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 89 -9 - HERRON & Commissioner Brinley commented on the screening of air con- ditioning equipment and recommended that the standard language for screening of said equipment be added as condition number 8.b. Chairman Brown commented on the overhang and starkness of walls and carrying the same color theme around the building with a band. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 89 -39 and approval of Industrial Project 89 -9 based on the Findings and subject to the 24 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 7: "Project must connect to sewer within 30 days of it reaching 200 feet of appli- cant's property, and applicant shall post security to ensure compliance. Prior to issuance of building permits applicant shall submit a soils report which includes a sewage disposal plan approved by Riverside County Health Department." Condition No. 8.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. Final Landscaping Plans for the entire project shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Landscape Architect and the Community Development Director. One (1) additional tree to be provided adjacent to the building along the west elevation." 8.b: "All air conditioning equipment and other mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be roof mounted and screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Any roof mounted central swamp coolers shall be screened. second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 6. Residential Project 88 -5 Revised - Century American - Planning Manager Thornhill presented an application to consider Minor Design Review for a 144 unit apartment complex, which was approved by City Council on March 14, 1989. The revised project contains only minor differences from the original; however, now, the project is proposed to be converted to condominiums. The project is located at the southeast corner of Casino Drive and Franklin. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone present representing the applicant and if there were any concerns. Mr. Robert Long, Century American, gave a brief background report on the proposal; stated that they concur with staff Minutes of Planning Commission December 20, 1989 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88 -5 REVISED = CENTURY AMERICAN recommendation except for condition number 25, pertaining to the fireplaces and requested that this condition be deleted. Commissioner Gilenson commented on condition number 25, stating that he would prefer to see the fireplaces remain; whether or not the proposal would connect to sewer, and that the standard language for sewer connection be added to condition number 39. Commissioner Brinley commented on the metal carports, and suggested that the carports be wood with texture. Chairman Brown stated that since the carports are going to be painted and textured metal, would like to see them tiled, Met -tile. Discussion ensued on the roof pitch needed for proper drainage; material to be used for carport structures, and parking structure plan to be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Commissioner Wilsey commented on whether or not this is a phased project, and erosion control planting to be provided for all undeveloped pads. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 17, pertaining to the type of barrier to be provided; condition number 18, pertaining to all sound barriers should be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or his designee; applicant providing automatic sprinkler system for landscaping and this added as numer 24.b. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to re- affirm Negative Declaration 88 -41 and approve Residential Project 88 -5 Revised, based on the Findings and subject to the 52 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 18: "All sound barriers recommended above should be continuous structures without gaps or gates and should be constructed of a material that is impervious to noise (e.g. earthern berm, concrete block, stucco -on -wood, one - fourth inch (1/4" plate glass, or any combination of these materials, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." Condition No. 24.b: "Automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for landscaping." Condition No. 25: "Final elevations and floor plans shall reflect second floor fireplaces as ap- proved in Residential Project 88 -5." DELETED. New Condition 25: "Parking structure plan, carports and garages, will to be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval." Condition No. 39: "Submit a letter of verification to the City Engineering Department, from the applicable water district, stating water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project prior to applying for building permit. Project shall connect to sewer." Minutes of Planning Commission December 20, 1989 Page 7 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88 -5 REVISED - CENTURY AMERICAN CONTINUED Condition No. 53: "Any pads that are not developed within 30 days after rough grading shall be provided with temporary planting and irrigation." second by Commissioner Gilenson. Approved 5 -0 DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Gunderman stated that the Draft Elements of the General Plan have been submitted to the Planning Division and have been disseminated to all departments and agencies. We will have comments returned to the consultant by January 15, 1990. We are probably looking at Planning Commission Meetings beginning in April on the General Plan Program. On behalf of the Planning staff we would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Nothing to report. Commissioner Gilenson Machado and Lakeshore, northeast corner, the street was cut back and widened, did we have any input on the stop sign? This is a traffic hazard as the stop sign is not easily visible, can we ask the County to correct? Community Development Director Gunderman responded that we will look into this and report back. Commissioner Brinlev Wished staff, City Council and everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Commissioner Saathoff Wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Chairman Brown Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5 -0 Approved, Jeff Brown Chairman Resp tfully s mitted, L'nn staff Planning Commission Secretary