Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-2000 NAHMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS WILSEY, SANDS, AND POLK BARNES AND MATTHIES Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - December 15, 1999 PUBLIC HEARINGS None. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Minor Design Review for Residential Project No. 99 -5, Pardee Construction Community Development Director Brady indicated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued indefinitely. The applicant was not able to obtain all the necessary exhibits in time for this meeting. Community Development Director Brady noted that this item would be brought back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting, along with other applications that the applicant has submitted to the Planning Division. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY POLK AND APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE THIS PROJECT INDEFINITELY. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:05 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:10 pm. INFORMATIONAL PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 2000 STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following_ • He noted that there would be a Town Hall Meeting tomorrow at 7:00 pm at he Cultural Center. The area of discussion will be Country Club Heights. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Sands commented on the following: • He inquired about the Ford dealership using the dirt lot across the channel. Community Development Director Brady indicated that Lake Elsinore Ford would be paving this lot and installing lights and fencing so that it can be used for overflow storage. He noted that since the paving has not yet occurred, all inventory is being stored at the dealership and thus there is no parking available for employees. He indicated that employees should `start to park at the dealership once the lower lot is available for inventory storage. • He asked for any update regarding Liberty. Community Development Director Brady indicated that City staff recently met the new TMC management staff. He noted that Planning Staff has not had any other communication from the applicant. • He noted that Mission Trail is getting worse and asked when the improvements may take place. Community Development Director Brady noted that the plans for some improvements are still moving forward. City Engineering indicated that negotiations are taking place between the City and County. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He asked why the Racetrack and the Liberty project could not switch locations. Chairman Wilsey noted that first of all, Liberty does not own the location of the proposed racetrack. Chairman Wilsey also noted that a study was done which indicated that the proposed location is the best site in the Inland Empire for a racetrack. Commissioner Polk noted that the Liberty project would have less environmental and traffic issues to deal with at the other location. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following_ • He asked that staff look into abandoned vehicles that are parked on a vacant lot on Hwy 74 near Rose. • He asked if the will be a Grand Opening ceremony for Lake Elsinore Ford. Community Development Director Brady indicated the proposed date for the Grand Opening is February 15. • He asked about the project proposed by the Outlet Center for the other side of the freeway. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the current owners do not have plans to move forward with that expansion project. He did indicate that the current owners do have an application filed with the City for a Specific Plan Amendment and noted that they have been doing some exterior upgrades, such as new signage. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY WILSEY, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:28 PM. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 2000 Respectfully Submitted nika Hennin , Community evelopment Secretary ATTEST: to the Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 19, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, SANDS, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Senior Planner Villa, Senior Planner Morita, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Barnes indicated that on page 2, the second bullet under Chairman Wilsey's comments should read "He asked if there will be a..." MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY A 3 -0 VOTE WITH BARNES AND MATTHIES ABSTAINING TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - January 5, 2000 Chairman Wilsey announced that the order of the agenda will be revised due to the anticipated length of agenda item number 3. Business Item No. 4 will be heard first followed by the Public Hearings and remaining Business Item. 4. Minor Design Review of Residential Project No. 99 -6 Heritage Homes "Lakeview" (Formerly "Windermere II" ) Located at Macy Street and Lake Ridge Road (APN's 387- 130 -013 to 022 and 387 -130 -026 to 030) Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a Minor Design Review of 15 homes. He asked that Associate Planner Miller review the project with the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that she would first like to make a correction on page 3 of the staff report. She noted that the second to last sentence should refer to "Condition No. 22 ". Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a request to construct 15 homes on approximately 7.1 acres. She noted that underlying Tract Map No. 24235 was approved in 1989 and CC &R's were recorded in 1991. She stated that Morrison Homes was approved to build 28 homes ranging in size from 1,857 square feet to 2,855 square feet. The development was known as "Windermere II" and only 13 of the original 28 homes were constructed. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 Associate Planner Miller indicated that per staffs recommendations, the applicant has agreed to provide 2 car garages for the Plan 1's proposed but to provide 3 car garages for all but one of the Plan 3's. She noted that staff requested this revision since all of the original "Windermere II" homes provide 3 car garages. Associate Planner Miller noted that staff also requested that the applicant redesign one elevation to conform to the recorded CC &R's, which require a Mediterranean architectural style. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the last issue is the replacement of portions of the existing wood fencing to bring the fencing in conformance with the current fencing standards. She noted that Condition No. 22 has been recommended to address this issue. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff is recommending approval subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Sands indicated that the project looks good and he would recommend approval. Commissioner Barnes concurred. He noted that all the pads have been graded and the utilities are already in. Commissioner Matthies and Commissioner Polk concurred. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant had any questions on the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Partin indicated he did not have any questions. Chairman Wilsey asked City Engineer O'Donnell if the asphalt has degraded over the years and if he had any concerns about the condition of the roadways. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that the streets would not be accepted until they are in acceptable condition. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY BARNES AND APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. 99-6 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBITS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 99 -13 for Canyon Hills Community Church Located at 31733 Riverside Drive. Unit'B' and 31735 Riverside Drive. Unit'C' (APN 379 -171 -084 & 379 -171 -085 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for a Conditions Use Permit to allow a church use within a retail center. He noted that there have been several other churches approved for this location previously. He asked that Associate Planner Miller review this request with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated she would like to first add the project number to the recommendation on page 4 of the staff report so that it reads "Staff recommends Planning Commission approve the request of a Conditional Use Permit No. 99 -13 for Canyon Hills Community Church..." Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to use Units 'B' and 'C' for church related uses. She reiterated that several other churches have previously use Unit 'B'. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the two predominant issues are related to economic under- utilization of the center and parking. She indicated that staff has prepared a detailed parking analysis. Associate Planner Miller indicated that even if all units were open at the same time, there would still be 15 extra spaces. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the Uniform Building Code will only allow 50 occupants in Unit 'C', therefore, staff has recommended that applicant be limited to 43 children and 7 adults in Unit'C'. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff determined that Wednesday would generate the most parking requirements. She stated that for this reason, staff originally PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 recommended that the applicant only occupy Unit 'B' on Wednesdays. She noted that the applicant has requested that instead of being limited to Unit 'B', they instead be allowed to use both units but that they occupy a maximum of 27 parking spaces. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff is agreeable to this request and is recommending that Condition No. 3 be revised to read: "The maximum number of parking spaces allowed on Wednesday's shall be 27 spaces. The applicant shall use the spaces in front of Unit 'B' first." Associate Planner Miller indicated that with this change, staff recommends that the Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 pm. Bill Ketts, Pastor of Canyon Hills Community Church, wanted to thank the staff for their help with this application process. He indicated that he understands all Conditions of Approval. Clyde Bruner, Owner of Brookstone Landing, stated that since purchasing the property he has been attempting to clean up the center. He noted that he just recently donated 1,000 square feet of space to the Sheriff Department for a Substation. Mr. Burner indicated he is behind the church 100% and noted that parking has never been a problem. There being no further comments, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 pm. Commissioner Matthies inquired if signs can be installed warning of children in the vicinity. Chairman Wilsey noted that the parking lot has been fenced off so that it is no longer possible to drive straight through. Commissioner Matthies indicated she had no other concerns. Commissioner Sands indicated that the applicant should comply with the Building Codes regarding maximum occupancy, however, they should not have to limit their activities on Wednesdays. He noted that Unit 'C' is needed for childcare while their parents are in Unit 'B' and that it does not generate additional parking requirements. He recommended that Condition No. 3 be deleted and the occupancy in Unit'C' be limited to 50 persons. Commissioner Barnes and Commissioner Polk concurred with Commissioner Sands. Chairman Wilsey requested clarification from Commissioner Sands as to what Condition he wanted to revise regarding the occupancy limit. He noted that Condition No. 3 refers to parking. Commissioner Sands recommended adding verbiage to Condition No. 3. Associate Planner Miller suggested adding the following sentence to the beginning of Condition No. 3: "The maximum number of occupants in Unit 'C' shall be limited to 50 persons at all times." Chairman Wilsey questioned Conditions No. 4 and asked if the Community Development Director could perform this review. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the initial review would occur at the staff level and any recommended changes to the Conditional Use Permit would need to be brought to the Planning Commission as they are the approving body. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY POLK AND APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99 -13 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBITS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CORRECTION TO CONDITION NO. 3. Commissioner Barnes excused himself from the room at 7:28 pm. 3. Annexation No. 69 and Sphere of Influence Amendment, General Plan Amendment No. 98 -3 Zone Change No 98 -3 Tentative Tract Map No 28751 Environmental Impact Report No. 98 -1 PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this project includes approximately 64 acres of land that is currently in the County area. He indicated that land is an island surrounded by the Tuscany Hills area of the City of Lake Elsinore and the City of Canyon Lake. Community Development Director Brady outlined the applications being presented tonight. He noted that there have been several community meetings held with regard to the project including a Public Scoping Session in 1998 to discuss the Environmental Impact Report as well as meetings with the applicant, staff, and the Homeowners Association on several occasions. Community Development Director Brady indicated that these applications are before the Planning Commission tonight for consideration and recommendation to the City Council. He noted that this is the first of two public hearings, with the second public hearing being at the City Council level. He further noted that the applicant would also be required to bring the Design Review before the Planning Commission at a later date. Community Development Director Brady asked Senior Planner Villa to review the project with the Commission. Senior Planner Villa noted that the applicant is here tonight for review of four applications. He noted that the subject property is sandwiched between the City of Canyon Lake and the City of Lake Elsinore in the County area. He stated that there are no services currently being provided by the County. Senior Planner Villa indicated that in order for this project to take place, the property must be annexed into one of the City's and the applicant has chosen the City of Lake Elsinore. He stated that the annexation request has triggered a General Plan Amendment with a proposed designation of Low Medium Density (LMD) which would allow up to 6 dwelling units per acre. Senior Planner Villa indicated that it is also being requested to pre -zone the property with an R -1 (Single Family Residential). Finally, he indicated that a Tract Map has been submitted to divide the 64.52 -acre project site into 133 single - family residential lots. He indicated that the proposed density is 2.06 dwelling units per acre, which is far below the allowed 6 dwelling units per acre. Senior Planner Villa indicated that the two main issues of concern are lines of sight and drainage. He noted that the neighboring property owners are concerned that they will lose their view of Canyon Lake. He indicated that the applicant has re- designed the project, lowering the pad elevations, so these views will be preserved. He noted that the applicant has also proposed open space lots for a tot lot and a detention basin. Senior Planner Villa indicated that most of the storm water run -off would run to Canyon Lake due to the topography. He stated that staff required the applicant to prepare a Hydrology Study to address the potential impacts from project grading and ultimate development. He stated that Mitigation Measure have been incorporated to bring these impacts to insignificant levels. Senior Planner Villa indicated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Approve Annexation No. 69 and expand the Sphere of Influence, approve General Plan Amendment No. 98 -3, approve Zone Change No. 98 -3, and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 28751. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 pm. Danny Hester, 56 Villa Milano, indicated that he is a Civil Engineer by trade. He stated he was not opposing the development, but he would like to request that the Commission postpone the decision on this project. He noted that although some of the elevations have been lowered, others have been raised. He indicated he would like to have a chance to work with the applicant and see about returning the elevations to the previous level. Thomas Mails, 30491 Longhorn Drive, indicated he was here with four other homeowners that will be effected by the drainage from the project. He indicated that all of the project area would drain to a natural pool directly behind their houses which goes through a drainage pipe under his property. He noted that he has not agreed to provide drainage for an entire hillside of houses. He indicated that any additional run -off into this / drainage pipe would floo is property. He stated that the applicant has not provided for PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 any drainage and has not approached any of the four affected homeowners. He stated that if the project moves forward, his property will be rendered valueless and he will file a massive lawsuit. Steve Gregory, 33445 Welford Place. (He was no longer present at the meeting) Wes Lind, W. R. Lind, Inc., 505 E Colorado Blvd, Pasadena, indicated he is the engineer for the project and is working for Lusk Elsinore. Chairman Wilsey asked Mr. Lind to give an overview of the project. Mr. Lind indicated that Lusk Elsinore, Inc. brought the project to the City approximately 2 1/2 years ago. He noted that he was been working with staff, Homeowner Associations, and the homeowners throughout the process. Mr. Lind explained the existing storm drain system, noted the existing outlets from Tuscany Hills, and noted that the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association maintains the drains. He noted that the area behind the four houses on Longhorn Drive is overgrown and is of a wetland substance. He stated that there is a 72" storm drain that does go under Mr. Mails house and noted there is a 48" drain at the end of the canyon. Mr. Lind indicated that the 72" inlet appears to be on Lusk property. Mr. Lind indicated that as the situation exists today, in a 100 -year storm the hydraulics for the 72" pipe will probably work but the hydraulics for the 48" pipe will not work. He stated that this indicates that there is a flooding condition that exists today, under the right circumstances. Mr. Lind stated that originally he proposed a retention basin in the lower area. He stated that Fish & Game was concerned about the wetland area. He stated that consequently the wetland area would remain open space under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineer. He indicated that the applicant is now proposing a larger retention basin at the top of the hill. This will provide the necessary drainage protection and thus the homeowners of Canyon Lake will not have high drainage problems. Mr. Mails commented that a retention basin would not work. Mr. Lind indicated that he has made every effort to address the problems. He noted he would be happy to meet with the concerned residents. Mr. Lind indicated that the map has been revised. He stated that where the proposed roads join with the existing road, it is necessary to maintain the higher elevation. Where possible, the grade has been lowered so that the views can be maintained. He noted that in the location where it was not possible to lower the grades, a tot lot was planned to maintain the view. He stated that during this process, the middle lots were raised. He noted that these homes would still have a view of the lake. He indicated that the applicant was not opposed to building some single -story homes. He stated this issue would be addressed during the Design Review process. He noted that the density has also been reduced during the re- design process. Jim Johnson, President, Lusk Elsinore, Inc., 16592 Hale Avenue, Irvine, thanked staff for all their help throughout the process. He indicated staff was not easy but has been fair. He stated that they have worked hard to preserve views. Mr. Johnson indicated that they only raised lots from the first plan, which didn't work. He noted that considerable money has been spent in the re- design of the project and preparation of the model. He noted that all views have been preserved. He further indicated that Lusk is hoping to annex into the Tuscany Hills Home Owners Association, but noted that if that is not possible then a new Home Owners Association will be formed. Mr. Johnson indicated he would like to discuss a few of the Conditions. He stated he believes Condition No. 15 implies that the City of Canyon Lake approves the grading plans. He further stated he does not have any problem with sending the grading plans to Canyon Lake, but he would like to have it changed so that the City of Lake Elsinore approves the grading plans. Mr. Johnson requested that the last sentence be removed from Condition No. 23. He stated he does not object to some one -story houses, but he does not want to see a line of one -story houses. Mr. Johnson indicated that he believes Condition Nos. 60, 61, and 62 are in conflict with Condition No. 36. He asked for clarification. Mr. Johnson stated he PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 would like to pay the fees required by Condition No. 56 at issuance of building permits. Mr. Johnson noted that he has no objection to Condition No. 64 but stated that he was not sure you could regulate the microwave satellite antennas up to 18 ". Mr. Johnson stated he had no further comments at this time. Mr. Scott Hildebrandt, 3788 McCray Street, indicated he works for Albert A. Webb Associates and is the corporate engineer for the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association. He commented on the tremendous amount of work done by staff and the applicant on the project. He stated that the Property Owners Association was in opposition to the project due to the drainage issue not being completely resolved. He stated that there has been work done but more areas need to be addressed. He indicated there are three areas that the project will drain into and the Property Owners Association and feels the issues can be resolved and noted they are not looking to hold up the project as the issues can be resolved during the Design Review process. Mr. Hildebrandt requested that a Condition be added that stated that the project obtain approval from the City of Lake Elsinore, City of Canyon Lake, and the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association. He further stated that Condition No. 15 should remain as proposed by staff. Mr. Hildebrandt stated that the Property Owners Association was concerned about the amount of flow that will enter the Property Owners Association. Mr. Hildebrandt further stated that the last plan he reviewed showed a facility to be built on the Property Owners Association's land. He stated that he needs to see the design of the facility and determine who will be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Hildebrandt reiterated that the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association does not want to hold up the project but that they are opposed to the project at this time. Mr. Bud Harmer, 30537 Longhorn Drive, indicated that his property sits right on "Stream A ". He noted the pad of his house sits lower than the creekbed and during El Nino the water was within one foot of flooding his property. He further noted that the creek is at a constant flow and it was getting greater every year. He noted that the drainage tiles do not work at this time and additional flow will increase the problem. Mr. Harmer noted that he does not think that Lusk has done enough to address the drainage situations. Ms. Lee Hester, 56 Villa Milano, noted that her property backs up to the project site. She stated that she wants to go on record as being opposed to the project. She stated that in order to raise the pad level, Lusk has asked to take up to 50 feet of the slope that she owns. Ms. Hester is requesting that Lusk lower the pad back to the elevation as shown on the first plan. Mr. Ron Hewison, 35 Villa Valtelena, indicated that he has no overall objection to the project, but he would like to ask that the Planning Commission to defer the decision on the Tentative Tract Map. He stated that certain property owners were only notified on January 17`h that this was the plan that was to be presented tonight and that easements would be required. He stated that these property owners have not had enough time to fully consider the request. Mr. Hewison indicated that he feels that the Condition requiring single -story houses remain. He noted that this only effects 5 or 6 lots out of 130 lots. Hewison further stated that his friend, Jeff Niebash, who also lives on Villa Valtelena has never received any contact from the City or the applicant. Mrs. Hewison, 35 Villa Valtelena, stated that she saw and agreed upon the original plan. She stated that Mr. Johnson should not say Plan 1 did not exist. She indicated that she has been writing letters and trying to stay in the loop. She stated that it wasn't until Monday that she found out that Plan 2 was "a done deal ". She indicated that she was under the impression that there was still time to negotiate. Mr. Gary Soper, 41 Villa Valtelena, indicated that he was concerned about the changes that have been made. He stated that he paid a premium for a view lot. He commented that he was shown Plan 1 and was under the assumption that that was what was going to be built. Mr. Soper stated that in December he was told that if everyone did not agree with the second plan, then Lusk would revert back to the original plan. He noted that Lusk has asked for a 40 feet easement on his property and noted that Lusk indicated if the PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 easement was not granted than an unsightly 10 -foot retaining wall would be built. Mr. Soper stated he would like to have more time to negotiate with Lusk. Mr. Paul Miller, 1 Villa Piazza, stated he was present on behalf of Mr. Mike Maskell. He stated he would like to echo the previous comments requesting additional time and noted that this has been on an accelerated time frame. He noted that Mr. Maskell purchased his home on the understanding that plan 1 would be built and that his view would be preserved. Mr. Mark Arden, 27 Villa Valtelena, indicated that most people are ready to approve the new Lusk plan, except for the 9 or 10 people that are effected. He stated that plan 2 shows the pad elevation directly behind his house at being approximately 18 feet higher than shown on Plan 1. He stated that he would like to compromise and ask that the elevation only be raised 8 feet and that single story houses be built. He stated he understands that he will have to see a rooftop, however, he would like to have that rooftop as low as possible. He further stated that if Lusk would like to negotiate for an easement, he would like to negotiate for the pad elevation. Mr. Arden stated his final request was to ask for "zero tolerance substantial conformance ". He stated that in other words, he wants to make sure that the developer is bound by the elevation as presented on the plan. He indicated he was not in total opposition, he would just like the opportunity to compromise. Ms. Sandra Lock, 27 Villa Valtelena, indicated she would like to address Condition No. 23 requiring the single -story homes. Ms. Lock presented a typed statement to the Planning Commission outlining the elevations of lots that will be impacted by Plan 2. Ms. Lock reviewed the number with the Commission. Ms. Lock stated, in conclusion, that single -story homes be required on lots 7, 8, 9, and 10. She further stated that to keep from having four identical houses in a row, she recommended that Lusk be required to develop a second single -story model. Mr. Taz Waller, 30525 Longhorn Drive, indicated that he recently moved to the area. He stated that the real estate agent told him there would never be any development on the hillside. He noted that he currently has a running stream into his property. Mr. Jim Clifford, 48 Villa Milanto, stated that he would like additional time. He indicated that he has not had an opportunity to review the elevation data. He further stated that he also supports a "zero tolerance substantial conformance ". Mr. Dave Evers, 44 Villa Milano, indicated that his house is on the corner of Villa Roma. He stated that two years ago this development was brought to his attention and he was notified that he would be on the corner of the main entrance to the development. He stated that he has a night and day view of the Lake. He indicated he has made the neighbors aware of the Lusk development and that everyone on Villa Milano paid a premium for their view. He stated that he brought it to the attention of the City and Lusk that a two -story home would block his view. He noted that Mr. Johnson worked with him and has proposed a tot lot behind his lot. He commended Mr. Johnson on the efforts he has made and noted that he believes he is trying to work with the community to solve these problems. Mr. Scott Hildebrant stated that earlier in the evening he requested that the Commission include an additional condition but in talking with the City Engineer and Mr. Johnson he was made aware that Condition #51 addresses his concerns. Mr. Hildebrant requested that Condition #51 be revised slightly to require review and approval prior to the issuance of the grading permit and not prior to the approval of the final map. Mr. Art Bakewell, 40 Villa Milano, stated he would like to speak on behalf of the project. He noted he became involved when it became apparent that the development would impact the neighborhood and it was his initial estimate was that 30% of the lots would be impacted. He stated that he has been happy to say through the re- design of the plan, Lusk has virtually guaranteed the view of all lots. He noted he has the same concerns as expressed previously but he is grateful that Lusk has made such a great effort. He PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 indicated that although he may have a rooftop at his feet, he will not have a house in his backyard and he will still have a view. Mr. Thomas Mails stated he would like to speak to the developer and ask why they have not talked directly to him and his neighbors. He stressed that he is the only source of drainage for the development. Ms. Debra Soper, Villa Valtelena, noted that he hoped Lusk would give the people in the middle of Villa Valtelena the same consideration as they gave to those on the extreme ends. There being no further comments, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 8:45 pm. Chairman Wilsey recessed the meeting at 8:45 pm. Chairman Wilsey reconvened the meeting at 9:00 pm. Chairman Wilsey asked City Engineer O'Donnell to address the drainage. City Engineer O'Donnell suggested that the first sentence of Condition #15 be revised to read: "The applicant shall have the City of Canyon Lake and the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association review the grading plan." City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that Condition No. 36 is a standard condition and is not in conflict with any other conditions. He said the only comment he can make regarding Condition No. 23 is that at the time the Tentative Tract Map is approved, the grading map will not be finalized. He noted that the Tentative Map is a planning document, not an Engineering document and the pads are not graded finite within a couple of feet. He noted that if the Planning Commission wishes, they might put a limitation on the pad elevations in Lusk compared to the pad in Tuscany Hills. City Engineer O'Donnell noted that Condition No. 39 requires Lusk to obtain all off -site easements prior to final map or grading plan approval. He noted that until Lusk obtains the necessary easements from the adjacent property owners, Lusk can not final the map or obtain approval of the grading plan. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that the fees addressed in Condition #56 must be paid at the time of the final map. He noted Pardee already paid to improve Railroad Canyon Road. He noted that under the Subdivision Map Act, the fee should be paid at final map because the improvements are already in the ground. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that Conditions 60, 61, and 62 are specific to this map and will override any general conditions. He indicated that Condition No. 51 could be revised to read "... final map and/or grading permit." City Engineer O'Donnell read Condition No. 55 and noted that the Hydrology Studies previously submitted have not addressed the capacity of the storm drainpipes in Canyon Lake. He indicated this is still an open question that must be addressed. City Engineer O'Donnell noted that the inlets might be in wetlands. He stated that this is an important note as then there may not be any maintenance allowed. He stated he would like Mr. Lind to address this issue. Chairman Wilsey noted that the property owners in Canyon Lake are not required to accept more drainage than what is now accepted. City Engineer O'Donnell concurred. Chairman Wilsey indicated than that the drainage situation for the people on Longhorn Drive would only get better, not worse. Community Development Director Brady suggested deleting the words "microwave satellite" from Condition No. 64. Commissioner Polk noted that it seems that the drainage and the raised elevations on the four or six lots are the only issues remaining. He requested that Lusk negotiate the pad elevations with the impacted landowners and suggested that the Tentative Tract Map consideration be postponed for two weeks. Mr. Johnson indicated he would be more than happy to meet with the property owners. He stated that he can plot four single - family houses on the four lots, but the proposal PAGE 9 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 would still have to go through the City Design Review process. He further stated that Lusk would not voluntarily change pads from the elevation that is shown on the map. Chairman Wilsey requested that Mr. Johnson have one more meeting with the impacted homeowners. He indicated that he would like Mr. Johnson to meet with the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association. Mr. Johnson stated that he would meet with the homeowners. He stressed that the drainage issue can not be resolved in two weeks, and that the issue must be resolved before the map is finaled and/or the grading plan is approved. He reiterated the project could not move forward until the drainage is resolved. Commissioner Matthies noted that there has been a lot of work on both sides. She commended Lusk on their efforts to working with the homeowners. She pointed out that most of these changes have been voluntary as the project would be able to move forward in the County. She requested that the property owners get their neighbors together with Lusk. Commissioner Sands noted that a tot lot is associated with children and a detention basin is associated with water. He asked what safeguards are in place to keep the two separated. Senior Planner Villa indicated that they are not on the same lot. Commissioner Sands questioned Finding No. 4 under "Subdivisions" on page 8. Senior Planner Villa indicated that Finding No. 4 should have the word "not" inserted before result in the second line. Commissioner Sands asked if Condition No. 57 references this. Community Development Director Brady indicated that they are two separate issues. Commissioner Sands indicated that Condition No. 55 should read "then" not "than". Chairman Wilsey indicated that the Conditions would be approved with the Tentative Tract Map in two weeks. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND APPROVED BY A 4 -0 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -01, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, . CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 98 -1. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY SANDS AND APPROVED BY A 4 -0 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -02, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND ANNEX TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 69 (APN 363 - 030 -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -007, -008, -009, - 010, -011, -012, -013, AND -014) INTO THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND APPROVED BY A 4 -0 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -03, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98 -3 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APN 363-030-002,-003,-004,-005,-006,-007,-008,-009, -010, - 011, -012,-013, AND -014 FROM CATEGORY 2 (COUNTY) TO LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (LMD) RESIDENTIAL. PAGE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND APPROVED BY A 4 -0 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -04, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 98 -3 (PRE -ZONE) TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APN 363-030-002,403,404,405, - 006, -007, -008, -009, -010, -011, -012, -013, AND -014 FROM R -R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL COUNTY) TO R -1 (SINGLE - FAMILY) RESIDENTIAL. MOVED BY POLK-, SECONDED BY SANDS AND APPROVED BY A 4 -0 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28751 UNTIL FEBRUARY 2, 2000. Community Development Director Brady informed the public that there would be no further notification of the continuance of the Public Hearing, as notice was given this evening. Commissioner Barnes rejoined the meeting at 9:30 pm. Chairman Wilsey recessed the meeting at 9:30 pm. Chairman Wilsey reconvened the meeting at 9:45 pm. Commissioner Matthies excused herself from the meeting at 9:45 pm. BUSINESS ITEMS (continued) 5. Consideration of a Request Submitted by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District Regarding the Acquisition of a Parcel of Land in an Industrial Zone for a School Site Community Development Director Brady indicated that the School District swapped parcels of land. He indicated that it is the identical project on a 5.72 -acre parcel adjacent to the flood control channel off Chaney Street. Community Development Director Brady indicated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission make the findings that a school is not a compatible use in the industrial zone. He noted that Dan Lovingier, Facility Services Manager for Lake Elsinore Unified School District, was at the meeting earlier in the evening but needed to leave earlier. Community Development Director Brady indicated that Mr. Lovingier wanted the Commission to know that he had no further comments to make regarding the request. Commissioner Polk requested clarification of the location of the original parcel. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the original 6.66 -acre parcel was located on the corner of Chaney and Flint, on the opposite side of the flood control parcel. Commissioner Polk noted that the new parcel is actually deeper into the industrial zone. He indicated that it is his understanding that this school is for adults, not juveniles. He noted that if the businesses in the business park were to provide internships for the students, than the location would not be inappropriate. Commissioner Sands indicated that he did not understand that the school was for adults, he was under the impression that the students are those that can not attend regular school. He stressed that an industrial park is not the proper location for a school and would concur with the findings in the staff report. Commissioner Barnes questioned if the School District is giving the original 6.66 -acre parcel back. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the School District and the developer are just swapping parcels. He stated that the Flint and Chaney site would be an industrial development. Commissioner Barnes inquired when this request was submitted as just last week the School District installed the sewer connection to the 6.66 -acre site. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the process has PAGE 11 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 been in the works for a couple of months. Commissioner Barnes noted that there would still be a restriction on the type of adjacent uses, especially on manufacturing processes that produce noise, vibration, etc., due to the fact that there is a school nearby. Commissioner Barnes stated that his feelings have not changed and he indicated that he concurs with the findings in the staff report. Chairman Wilsey inquired about the access to lots 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E'. Senior Planner Villa noted that the Lot Line Adjustment required a 40' easement to provide access to these lots. Chairman Wilsey inquired if the code will have to be amended to protect the students from any negative impacts from nearby future development. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this issue would be addressed under the Environmental Review required by CEQA. He indicated that it would depend on the type of school and the type of proposed uses. Commissioner Barnes indicated that CEQA does not differentiate different types of schools and the City will have to monitor all uses in the area. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND APPROVED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH POLK VOTING AGAINST AND MATTHIES ABSTAINING TO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT; DETERMINE THAT THE LOCATION OF A SCHOOL IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH MANUFACTURING USES AND IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE GENERAL PLAN; AND DIRECT STAFF TO FORWARD A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT AND DETERMINATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 21151.2 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE TO THE LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD. Commissioner Matthies returned to the meeting at 9:55 pm. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 9:55 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:57 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following_ • He noted that there will be a Study Session tomorrow at 10:00 am at City Hall for the Mid Year Budget Review. • He indicated that on Saturday there would be a Chamber of Commerce benefit. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: • He stated that the City needs to install signs indicating that no motorized vehicles are allowed on the trail system. He stated that approximately six signs would be needed in the vicinity of Lincoln and Washington and Lincoln and Terra Cotta. • He noted that a motorhome and car is still being parked on Rose off Riverside Drive. He asked that these be removed. • He asked for the status of the complaint he made on the BBQ Restaurant on Riverside Drive. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the PAGE 12 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2000 issue has been turned over to Code Enforcement. He noted staff is also reviewing the Conditions of Approval for the project. Commissioner Sands commented on the following: He stated that he has heard complaints about the cars being test driven along Avenue 9 and Avenue 10. He noted he has not personally seen this but he has had complaints from people near his home. He indicated that he has also heard complaints about the cars being parked on Casino. Community Development Director Brady indicated that he believes the Conditions of Approval addresses the issue of cars being test driven in residential areas. He stated he would talk to the dealerships. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: He brought up the security lighting at Wienerschnitzel. Community Development Director Brady noted that the owner would be installing shields on the lights. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: None. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: None. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 10:00 PM. Respectfully Submitted M ika HemmngS,-e mmunity Development Secretary ATTEST: Robert A. Brad, See ary to the Planning Commissi MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 2, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, SANDS, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Senior Planner Villa, Senior Planner Morita, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar will be approved at the February 16, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - January 19, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 28751, Lusk Elsinore, Inc. (Continued from January 19, 2000) Community Development Director Brady indicated that this project was continued from the January 19 meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the Environmental Impact Report, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change but that the applicant offered to continue the Public Hearing for the Tentative Tract Map due to concerns expressed by the public. He noted that the applicant and the property owners have had a chance to meet to discuss the issues and staff has also met with the Corporate Engineer for the Property Owners Association and the City Engineer to discuss the drainage and hydrology concerns. Community Development Director Brady asked Senior Planner Villa to review the Tract Map and some of the concerns that have been expressed. Senior Planner Villa gave a brief overview of the project. He noted that the Tract Map is proposing to subdivide the 64.52 -acre project site into 133 single - family residential lots with a proposed density of 2.06 dwelling units per acre. Senior Planner Villa indicated that the concerns expressed at the last meeting included preservation of views and storm water runoff. He stated that the applicant has met with the neighboring residents to discuss grading options and that there was also a very successful meeting between the City Engineer, Property Owners Association Engineer, and the applicant. Senior Planner Villa stated that the applicant would be making a brief presentation concerning these two issues. Senior Planner Villa indicated that the project has been redesigned several times and the pad elevations have been modified to provide grade differences of approximately 26' to 38' lower than the existing homes along Villa Valtelena and Villa Milano. Senior Planner Villa indicated that a condition is being proposed that may require the applicant to construct single story homes if there is less than a 30' grade difference. Senior Planner PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 Villa indicated that the staff recommendation on page 4 of the staff report should refer to "Resolution No. 00 -05 ". He stated that staff is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 00 -05 and recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 28751, based on the Findings, Exhibit, and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Wilsey reopened the Public Hearing at 7:10 pm. Mr. Wes Lind indicated that at the last meeting all applications were approved but the Tentative Tract Map. He stated that there were two issues left to be resolved. Mr. Lind gave a brief background of the project to date. He indicated that the map was submitted to the City and staff contacted him early last fall regarding the problems with some of the views. Mr. Lind stated that he redesigned the tract and lowered the grade elevations at both the north and the south end where the two access roads to the project are located. He stated that they knew they were going to have problems where the two roads connected and they tried to solve the problem by removing approximately 13 houses in those areas. He stated that they constructed a model of the project and presented it to the City. He noted that the property owners in the center then approached them since the grade behind their homes were raised. Mr. Lind stated that the reason the grade was raised at that point was because of the constraints facing the project such as the limitation of only two access points, the steep grade of the property, and the drainage of storm water. Mr. Lind stated that since the last meeting he has met with the City Engineer, a representative of the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association, and their Engineer. Mr. Lind then explained the drainage solution that was agreed upon by those present at the meeting. He stated that the Property Owners Association has agreed to provide a diversion letter that will allow the water to be redirected and thus drain directly into Canyon Lake. Mr. Lind thanked all those involved especially the City Engineer who proposed this solution. Mr. Lind then went on to explain the issues concerning the preservation of views. He noted he met with the neighboring Tuscany Hills property owners and he had requested that each individual make a list of what they wanted. He noted that the end result was that everyone requested a single story house. He indicated that he does not feel he could construct eight or nine single story house in a row. Mr. Lind presented a map showing the existing Tuscany Hills lots, the proposed Lusk lots, and the expected line of sight if a 32' high house was constructed. He went through the detailed analysis that he prepared and the conclusion was that there would not be any view restriction if there were at least a 30' difference in pad elevations. Mr. Jim Johnson indicated that they have tried to work with the property owners while at the same time making the adjacent property owners aware that they could not build a string of single -story houses. Mr. Scott Hildebrandt, Corporate Engineer for Canyon Lake Property Owners Association, thanked the City Engineer and Mr. Lind for taking the time to meet with him. He indicated that based on the revision to the map being presented tonight and the revised conditions of approval, the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association withdraws any objections to Tentative Tract Map No. 28751. Ms. Laura Miranda, California Indian Legal Services, indicated that she is here tonight representing the Luiseno Mission Indians. She referred to a letter from Joanne Willis Newton dated February 2, 2000. Ms. Miranda stated that California Indian Legal Services is requesting that Condition No. 17 be revised to read: "The applicant shall enter into a pre- excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians to ensure that Native American monitor(s) shall be present onsite during grading, site preparation and groundbreaking activities and to provide for the treatment PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 and disposition of Native American human remains and cultural resources" Ms. Miranda indicated that she was unsure whether Joanne Willis Newton had spoken to the developer but she indicated that she would make sure that to speak with them tonight. Ms. Sandra Lock, 27 Villa Valtelena, presented a letter, with two attachments, dated February 2, 2000 to the Planning Commission. Ms. Lock read the letter for the record. The letter written by Ms. Lock highlights two sentences in a proposal sent by Wes Lind to the property owners adjacent to the proposed Lusk development (attachment #2). The sentences read: "The lots below yours will be kept a minimum of 30 feet, vertically below your lot and no house will be constructed on those lots abutting your lot, that is higher than 26 feet, above the pad grade. This is to insure that your view of the lake area below and easterly of our property is preserved." Ms. Lock stated that this proposal would most likely be acceptable, however, this is not what is shown on the Tract Map. Ms. Lock presented her own analysis (Attachment #1), illustrating exactly what Mr. Lind originally proposed to the property owners. Her conclusion was that in order for Tuscany Hills lots 107, 108, 109, 110, 115, 117, 119, 120, and 122 to have a 4' view preserve, Lusk will need to construct houses with a maximum height of 22' to 34' for Lusk lots 2 through 10 (Her detailed analysis shows the maximum house elevation by lot.) Ms. Lock stated that these house heights do give Lusk the option of mixing one and two story homes along this border. Ms. Lock concluded by asking the Planning Commission to incorporate the maximum pad elevations and maximum house heights as a condition of approval of the Tract Map along with a condition specifying zero tolerance for any houses whose rooflines are not at least 4' below the existing Valtelena elevations. Mr. Mark Ardin, 27 Villa Valtelena, stated that at the last meeting he spoke about Lusk lots 9 and 10. He stated that after much negotiation he is down to a concern about only lot 10. Mr. Ardin noted that the current plan shows a 3' error in the stated elevation. He asked the Planning Commission to impose the following condition on lot 10: "Do not let any builder construct a house whose rooftop reaches higher than 1587' elevation." He noted that this elevation is 4' below his pad. He stated that he does not care if the house is one or two story, he just wants to have at least 4' between elevations. Mr. Ardin also asked that the Planning Commission enforce a zero tolerance substantial conformance. Mr. Ardin stated he had one final concern. He indicated that at the last meeting, it appeared that the members of the Planning Commission were neutral and open- minded with the exception of Commissioner Matthies. Mr. Ardin asked Commissioner Matthies to publicly assure the residents that she has no conflict of interest and assure the audience that she can be fair. He stated that if she can not state this that she should not vote on the proj ect. Ms. Lee Hester, 56 Villa Valtelena, indicated that she is opposed to the Tract Map as presented for some of the same reasons already stated but also because there has not been an agreement for the easement on her property. Chairman Wilsey clarified that there is already a condition that indicates that the project can not continue until the applicant is able to obtain all the necessary easements. Mr. Gary Soper, 41 Villa Valtelena, referenced Condition No. 39 and asked when the grading plan will be approved and if it would be approved at a public meeting. He also stated that Mr. Lind indicated that some houses in his area do not currently have a view of Canyon Lake. Mr. Soper stated that he had to disagree with that statement as he does have a view of the lake. He mentioned that previously he was told a single story house would be 16' high and a two -story house would be 26' high. He asked why the figures are now changing to a maximum height of 30'. Mr. Soper stated that he would either like Mr. Lind to commit to certain heights or better yet to agree to a minimum of a 4' PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 separation as Ms. Lock proposed. Mr. Soper further stated that Mr. Lind was incorrect when he stated that all property owners requested a single story house behind their lot as he specifically stated that he would not mind a two -story house behind his house. Mr. Soper indicated that only 3 or 4 homes would need to be single story and he stressed that more time is needed to talk through the issues. Ms. Cindy Hewison, 35 Villa Valtelena, indicated that this is the first time that she heard that a two -story house would be 32'. She stated that Mrs. Lind did not accurately record the wishes of the property owners and she further stated that Mr. Lind gave the same response to all involved. She stated that it seemed like he was rushed and did not adequately address the requests of the residents. Ms. Hewison stated that the residents did not all ask for one -story houses and she indicated that more time was needed to discuss the new proposal with the applicant. Mr. Ron Hewison, 35 Villa Valtelena, submitted a written statement to the Planning Commission. He noted that this is the first time he has seen this proposal and indicated that more time is needed for review and discussion so that the property owners understand what is being proposed. Mr. Hewison reiterated that not everyone required a single story house and he noted that it is a better solution to address the pad elevation, as presented by Ms. Lock, instead of height of house. He suggested that dirt be moved from the centers to the end as originally proposed. Mr. Hewison indicated that the staff report notes that the pad elevations have decreased, however the staff report fails to mention that some pad elevations have actually been increased. Mr. Charles Maskell, 37 Villa Valtelena, indicated that he has been out of the country for the last several months and indicated that Mr. Hewison has represented him during this time and as such felt it best to speak after Mr. Hewison. Mr. Maskell indicated that he currently has a view of the lake and that he will be in worse shape under the plan that Mr. Lind is proposing. Mr. Maskell stated that he supports the plan as presented by Ms. Lock. Mr. James Clifford, 48 Villa Milano, thanked Mr. and Mrs. Lind for taking the time to meet with the residents, however even after all of these discussions he stated that he still does not know how this new plan will effect him. He stated that the plan is too ambiguous. Mr. Clifford stated that there needs to be more time spent on the plan to make it very specific. Chairman Wilsey asked Mr. Lind to rebut. Mr. Lind stated that at this time he does not know the actual height of the houses and it was for this reason that he referred to the Code and used the maximum allowed height of 30' to prepare the analysis. Mr. Lind clarified that although two individuals stated that they would be willing to accept a two - story house behind their lot, their neighbor requested a one -story house. This was how it came about that all one -story houses were requested. Mr. Lind indicated that his illustration was just an analysis not a proposal. Mr. Johnson indicated that if he understands what it being said tonight, everyone is willing to accept a 4' elevation difference between the Tuscany Hills pad and the top of the Lusk homes. He noted that he will agree to this proposal as long as people understand that there may be F -2' change from what is on the proposal from Ms. Lock and that the 2' chimney can encroach within that 4' view preserve. Mr. Lind noted that it appears the drainage problem is solved. Mr. David Angle, 39 Villa Valtelena, requested that the property owners have one more change to meet with Mr. Lind and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson indicated that he does not have a problem with the language being proposed by California Indian Legal Service for Condition #17. He did ask that the record show that the contract must be reasonable in terms of cost. Mr. Jams Clifford, 48 Villa Milano, pointed out that the homes along Villa Milano are effected in the same ways as the homes along Villa Valtelena. Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 8:06 pm. PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 Chairman Wilsey asked City Engineer O'Donnell to address the grading permit process. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that the Tentative Tract Map is a planning, not an engineering, document. He stated that the engineering department approves the Precise Grading Plan, however the public may view the plans at City Hall. Chairman Wilsey noted that the specific elevation data is not available until the Precise Grading Plan is submitted. City Engineer O'Donnell confirmed. He noted that Grading Plans are reviewed using good engineering practices and that a grading plan has never been previously approved based on views. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that the Planning Commission would have to specify that the Lusk pads have to be a specified distance below the Tuscany Hills pads, although the distances will have to be specified per lot. Chairman Wilsey asked how this could be worded as a condition. Community Development Director suggested that the conditions specify an agreed upon elevation difference. He noted that the height of the proposed structures will than be reviewed during the Design Review process. Commissioner Matthies stated that if there were even a hint of a conflict, she would have excused herself from the meeting. She stated that at the last meeting her concerns had been addressed by the other Commissioners so she saw no reason to repeat them. Commissioner Matthies confirmed that she had stated that she was impressed that the developer and the homeowners were working together. She stated that she was trying to convey that the developer was voluntarily coming to the City as the project could have been built in the County. Commissioner Matthies stressed that in no way does she have a conflict of interest. Commissioner Polk noted that it does not seem like the residents object to the encroachment of a 2' chimney. He indicated that it does seem like not all of those effected understand the proposal and asked for Mr. Johnson to clarify. Mr. Johnson stated that he would agree to a 4' difference between the existing Tuscany. Hill pad elevation and the roof of the Lusk homes with the allowance that the chimney can encroach 2' into this view area. Mr. David Angle, 39 Villa Valtelena, noted that to have a blanket rule of thumb may work for some of lots, but some already have more than a 4' view preserve. He indicated that he is concerned that Lusk will raise the grade behind his lot and he will be worse off than he is now. He indicated that there would be opposition if there were a general rule applied to all lots and that the individual situations are not taken into consideration. Mr. Mark Arden, 27 Villa Valtelena, indicated that if the property owners agree to only a 4' view preserve, it is essential that there is a zero tolerance substantial conformance. Commissioner Polk asked if this rule could also apply to those on the other side of the subdivision. Mr. Johnson clarified that this proposal is only for Lusk lots 2 through 10, as these are the property owners who have requested to meet with Lusk to discuss their concerns. He also stated that in order to make this agreement work the property owners must agree to grant Lusk the necessary easements. Commissioner Sands stated that it does not appear that the property owners and applicant are at an impasse and noted that he believes that the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map. Commissioner Sands stated that it appears the property owners who purchased the homes in Tuscany Hills thought they would have an unobstructed view forever and noted that without a written agreement, they need to realize that development will happen. Chairman Wilsey suggested that instead of trying to draft any new conditions tonight, he asked that prior to the City Council Meeting, staff develop a condition that will address the agreements presented tonight. Commissioner Matthies asked if staff had any comments about the request to review Condition No. 17. Senior Planner Morita stated that the applicant and Ms. Miranda discussed this request and Mr. Johnson indicated that the requested verbiage is PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 acceptable. Senior Planner Morita indicated that it is the responsibility of the applicant to work with the California of Indian Legal Services to work out the issues and to draft the agreement. He stated that the City is not part of this agreement. Chairman Wilsey asked that staff looks at the condition before the City Council to make sure the concerns of the applicant are addressed and that the cost to the applicant is reasonable. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -05, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28751 TO SUBDIVIDE CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS APN 363 - 030 -002, -003, - 004, -005, -006, -007, -008, -009, -010, -011, -012,-013, AND -014 INTO 133 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. Chairman Wilsey recessed the meeting at 8:25 pm. Chairman Wilsey reconvened the meeting at 8:45 pm. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Minor Design Review of Residential Project No. 99 -5, Pardee Construction Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for Minor Design Review of a Model Home Complex on an approved Tract within the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan Area. He asked Senior Planner Villa to review this project with the Commission. Senior Planner Villa indicated that this is a request for a 3 unit Model Home Complex to be constructed throughout 99 single - family residential lots on a previously approved Tract. He stated that the homes would range in size from 1,954 s.f. to 2,410 s.f. Senior Planner Villa indicated that the project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan and stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 00 -06 and approve Residential Project No. 99 -5. Mr. Jim Stringer, Pardee Construction, indicated that they are in agreement with the proposed conditions. Mr. Michael Geer, 32050 Crooked Arrow, Wildomar, stated that he would like to discuss a requirement of the Cottonwood Hills Environmental Impact Report. He noted that although he has some concerns, he is not opposed to the overall project. Mr. Geer stated his concern is that with the approval, there will be construction traffic within a few months. He stated that the Environmental Impact Report requires a Traffic Study at the start of the Second Phase. He stated that his concern is that there will be no base traffic counts when the second phase is started. Mr. Geer stated that he believes this preliminary study is necessary before any construction takes place and that if this study is not completed the City is in violation of the Environmental Impact Report. He indicated that there is also confusion about who is responsible for completing this study, the County, the City, or the Applicant? Chairman Wilsey stated that he is not sure what Mr. Geer is hoping to accomplish. Mr. Geer stated that the Environmental Impact Report indicates that if the traffic counts on Lost Road increase, than Lost Road South will be improved. He noted that this would be the responsibility of the County, not the applicant. PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 Chairman Wilsey asked City Engineer O'Donnell if he had comments. City Engineer O'Donnell stated he has not recently reviewed the Environmental Impact Report. Senior Planner Villa indicated that he has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and stated that a Traffic Study was completed with the Environmental Impact Report. He stated that at that time, the traffic counts did not warrant any improvements to Lost Road. Senior Planner Villa stated that Phase 1 encompasses approximately 1000 homes and that the traffic impact would be reevaluated at the start of the second phase. Senior Planner Villa stated that the application be presented tonight is only a Design Review and does not trigger any traffic study requirements. Mr. Geer stated that he understands what Senior Planner Villa is stating but he is concerned that the traffic study in the Environmental Impact Report was completed in 1989 and the base figures are not accurate as the traffic has increased since 1989. Mr. Geer stated that the traffic on Lost Road, which is a dirt road, has increased along with the number of accidents. Mr. Geer suggested that the Planning Commission should postpone the decision on the Design Review until a Traffic Study is completed and the Environmental Impact Study is satisfied. City Engineer O'Donnell noted that if a new traffic study were completed today, than the traffic impact at the start of Phase 2 would actually be less than if the increased traffic were compared to the counts from the original Traffic Study dated 1989. Community Development Director Brady stated that Pardee Construction is also in the process of submitting a Specific Plan Amendment. He stated that depending on the scope of the amendment, a traffic study might be required in conjunction with the amendment. He stressed that this is an approved and fmaled map. The Mitigation measures and conditions have already been addressed and an approval of this Design Review request will not be in violation of the Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Matthies reiterated that the base traffic levels are in the Environmental Impact Report. She stated that it would be more beneficial to compare future levels of traffic with the 1989 levels as it will be more apparent that there has been an increase of traffic. Chairman Wilsey stated that now that the Planning Commission and staff is now aware of the situation and will be sure to look at the Specific Plan Amendment to see if the amendment warrants an updated traffic study. He stressed that the application before the Planning Commission tonight does not deal with Lost Road. Commissioner Sands thanked Mr. Geer for bringing this situation to the attention of the Planning Commission and he concurred with Chairman Wilsey that they should look at the situation in the future. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant is willing to comply with the current fencing standards as the standards have been updated since the Specific Plan was adopted. Senior Planner stated that there is a proposed condition that requires the applicant to meet the current fencing standards as the Specific Plan is not specific about type of fencing. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY SANDS AND APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. 99 -5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBITS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 9:10 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:11 pm. PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following: • He noted that the Police Substation on Riverside Drive was dedicated yesterday and that it will be staffed with volunteers. • He stated that the City Council will consider the Lusk EIR, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change at the next City Council meeting. • He indicated that at the last meeting, the City Council approved the concept of a future Automall that will bring approximately 3 to 5 dealerships to the city. He indicated that the City Council directed staff to proceed with the drafting of the agreements. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: None. Commissioner Sands commented on the following: • He stated he has RSVP'd for the Grand Opening at Ford. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following_ • He mentioned that there is some grading going on at the old Lusk tract and asked if this was approved. Senior Planner Villa stated that it is the old Lewis Homes Tract. He stated that they are clearing the land to make the Tract more marketable. • He stated that he was not happy to read about the Amomall proposal in the newspaper. He suggested that the Planning Commission should have been made aware of this before the City Council meeting. Community Development Director stated that the Reeves Group had requested that the proposal be kept confidential until it was brought forward to the Council. Community Development Director stated that the project has not been approved, but rather the concept was approved and staff was directed to develop the agreement only. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He stated that he has a worry about he grading taking place at the school site within the Centex Tract. He asked if the grading plans have to be approved by the City. Community Development Director Brady indicated that schools, like any public agency, are not subject to City regulations and as such are not reviewed by the City. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:20 PM. AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN PAGE 9 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 2, 2000 Respectfully Submitted is �// nika Hennings, Prnmunity Development Secr tary ATTEST: Robert A. Brady, Seer Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Barnes. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, SANDS, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - January 19, 2000 b. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - February 2, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS None. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Minor Design Review, M 99 -12, for Construction of a Leasing_ Office for Lakeside Apartments Located at 15195 Lincoln Street - APN 379 -111 -015 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for Minor Design Review of a Leasing Office for the Lakeside Apartments. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the project with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that she would like to make a few corrections to the staff report. She indicated that under 'Environmental Setting" the existing land use for the property to the northeast is duplexes, the property to the southwest is multi - family apartments, and the property to the southeast is vacant. She requested that the phrase "therefore this use could be considered an existing legal nonconforming use" be deleted from the second sentence on the second page under 'Existing Parking ". Associate Planner Miller requested that the recommendation on the second page be revised to read "Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 00 -07 which approves the proposed construction of a leasing office..." Associate Planner Miller stated that this is a request for the construction of an 811 square foot Leasing Office for the Lakeside Apartments. She stated that the complex consists of PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 2000 nine buildings located on approximately 5 acres at 15195 Lincoln Street. She stated that the office would include a waiting area, receptionist area, office, kitchen, restroom, separate maintenance and mechanical rooms, porch, and front landscaped planter area. She stated that there is currently a deficiency in the number of parking spaces provided. She stated that with the construction of the Leasing Office, the applicant is proposing to remove four parking spaces, however the applicant is proposing to add five new parking spaces. Associate Planner Miller indicated that each apartment is allotted one covered parking space. She noted that the complex was built prior to the parking regulations went into effect and that the deficient spaces are used for visitors, not tenants. Associate Planner Miller stated that the Manager of Lakeside Apartments indicated that there have never been complaints about the parking at the complex. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff feels the Leasing Office will be a benefit to both the existing and future tenants and the construction of the leasing office would outweigh the loss of parking spaces. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 00 -07, which will approve Minor Design Review, M 99 -12, subject to the findings, exhibits, and conditions of approval. The Construction Manager of Steadfast Properties indicated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Sands inquired if any apartments will overlook the office. Mr. Mathew Robins, Steadfast Properties, indicated that none of the apartments directly overlook the proposed Leasing Office. Commissioner Sands noted that the Leasing Office would be a benefit to the complex and that since parking is the only issue of concern he would concur with staff and recommend approval. Commissioner Matthies requested clarification on the location of the new parking spaces. Associate Planner Miller indicated that there are 2 new parking spaces on the inside of the security gate and 3 on the outside. Commissioner Matthies indicated that she saw no problems with the project and recommended approval. Commission Polk asked if the apartments currently used one unit for the sales office and one unit for maintenance. The Construction Manager indicated that this is correct and that the new building will encompass both which will free up two more apartment units. Commissioner Polk indicated he is satisfied with the project and had no further concerns. Commissioner Barnes indicated that the Leasing Office will be an asset to the development and that he had no concerns. Chairman Wilsey stated that his concern is the parking along Lincoln Street. He noted that there are always cars parked on Lincoln Street including inoperable vehicles. He stated that he also sees people working on their cars in the street. He asked staff if anything could be done. Associate Planner Miller indicated that Carol Gordon, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, is working on the problem of inoperable vehicles throughout the entire city. She indicated that many times, Code Enforcement does not know where the problems are unless a complaint is filed. Associate Planner Miller indicated she would ask Code Enforcement to look into this situation. The Apartment Manager indicated that there is not a parking problem. He said that during the day, people might park on the street when they have business with the Leasing Office, but that the new office will alleviate this situation. He did confirm that guests do park in the street in the evenings, however he noted that this is true all along Lincoln. Community Development Director indicated that Code Enforcement would work on moving the inoperable vehicles in the street however he noted that not much could be done about the guests parking on the street. Commissioner Polk asked if the parking spaces for the Leasing Office would be available for guests in the evenings. The Apartment Manager confirmed that they would. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 2000 MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -07 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW, M 99 -12, WHICH ENTAILS DESIGN REVIEW OF A LEASING OFFICE WHICH WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE LAKESIDE APARTMENT COMPLEX AT 15195 LINCOLN STREET. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:15 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:16 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following • He noted that the Barbecue hosted by Lake Elsinore Ford was a success and that they have a nice facility. • He indicated that Tentative Tract Map No. 28751 for the Lusk project will be brought to the City Council next Tuesday, February 22. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Sands commented on the following: • He stated that the Design Review for Torn Ranch was approved back in April. He asked staff for the status of the project. Community Development Director Brady stated that the project would not be going forward as previously approved. He indicated that the property has changed hands. He stated that there has not been any activity at the project site or any permits pulled. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: • He stated that the Nuisance Abatement Hearing Officers have been extremely fiustrated lately. He indicated that nothing seems to happen and some cases have been on the books for years. He asked if additional secretarial help is planned for Code Enforcement. He indicated that it would help if letters were sent immediately notifying property owners of code requirements. Commissioner Sands stated that he and Commissioner Barnes do not mean to throw bad light on the Code Enforcement Officers. He indicated that he is aware that they are doing all that is possible at this time. Community Development Director Brady noted that he understands. He stated that staff is looking at the codes to make them easier to enforce. He indicated that staff is also looking at cleaning up the process. He stated that one possibility that is being looked at is the addition of a clerk to work with Planning, Engineering, and Building divisions. • He asked for the status of the shields that are to be installed on the security lights at Wienerschnitzel. Associate Planner Miller stated that the developer has indicated that it will take 4 -6 weeks to receive the shields. She stated that she would keep on this situation. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 2000 He stated that progress has been slow at the Ultramar station on Main Street. He asked if it would be possible in the future to put time constraints on developers. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the plans are in plan check. Chairman Wilsey noted that it is hard for small business owners to obtain financing and as such are required to work with limited funds. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: She concurred with Chairman Wilsey's statement regarding small businesses. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: No comments. Commissioner Sands commented on the following: Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: He indicated that he uses the trail system quite regularly and suggested that an "Adopt a Trail" program be started and have local business volunteer to clean the debris from the trails. He stated that he would support the project. He also suggested that the trail system on the West End be improved dramatically if the Flood Control District would allow the use of half of the maintenance driveway along the flood control project. He stated that this could extend the trail system from the Lake to Grand Avenue and beyond. He stated that the children would be able to use the trail to get to and from school instead of walking along Lincoln Street. He suggested that the flood control district fencing behind the housing tracts be relocated closer to the channel to allow a pathway. He asked that this suggestion be brought tot he City Council to see if there was any interest in pursuing it. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:33 PM. Af'WffSEY,­CFfAIRAKAN Respectfully Submitted %� omka Hennin , Community Development Secretary ATTEST: Robert A. Brady, Secret to the n Planning Commissio MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 1, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sands. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, SANDS, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - February 16, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Man No. 23848 -14, Amendment No. 1, Pardee Construction "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is an application for review of a Tentative Tract Map within the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan area. He stated that the applicant has requested that the Public Hearing be continued to the next meeting to enable them to work out a few concerns regarding the Conditions of Approval with staff prior to bringing this application to the Commission. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23848 -14, AMENDMENT NO. 1 UNTIL MARCH 15, 2000. 3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29549, Pardee Construction "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is an application to review Tentative Tract Map No. 29549. He stated that the applicant would like to request that this Public Hearing be continued also so that the two applications are brought forward at the same time. MOVED BY POLY., SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29549 UNTIL MARCH 15, 2000. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 1, 2000 BUSINESS ITEMS 4. Minor Design Review of a Model Complex, Phasing_ Plan and Phase One Plotting Plan for Residential Project No. R 00 -1, Pacific Century Homes Development Known as " Summerhill" Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for approval of a Model Home Complex. He stated that the applicant, Pacific Century Homes, would be completing the tract currently being developed by Cornerstone Communities. He asked that Associate Planner Miller review the project with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the Planning Commission has seen proposed projects for this tract several times over the years, starting back in 1989. She stated that most recently, Cornerstone received Planning Commission approval in 1998 and 1999. Associate Planner Miller indicated that 77 of the existing 226 improved lots have been developed. She stated that Pacific Century is proposing to develop the remaining 149 lots in six phases. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the proposed homes would range in size from 1,780 square feet to 2,671 square feet. She noted that the proposed elevations, colors, and materials would blend in with the homes previously built. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff had concerns regarding the completion of the landscape improvements on Summerhill Drive, the park improvements, the phasing plan, and the addition of a single -story unit. She stated that staff met with the applicant and Granite Homes and all concerns were resolved. She stated that tonight the applicant has presented a new phasing plan and the plans for a single -story unit. She stated that the applicant has estimated that the Summerhill Drive improvements will be completed by the end of April. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant and Granite have determined that Century Pacific will be responsible for the park improvements and the revised conditions presented tonight address this issue. Associate Planner Miller asked that the staff report be corrected throughout to show that there are 26 lots in the first phase. She requested that the last sentence on page three be revised to read "190 through 194" instead of "184 through 192 ". Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 00 -10 and approve Residential Project No. 00 -1. She noted that the applicant is present to answer any questions. Associate Planner thanked the applicant for being very cooperative throughout the process. Teri Kelly, Pacific Century Homes, requested that the revised Condition No. 32 read "shall commence" instead of "be completed ". She stated that with this change, she concurs with the conditions. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this change would be acceptable. Commissioner Sands indicated that he consulted with staff prior to the meeting and all of his comments have been addressed. Commissioner Polk asked which schools would serve this development. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the development would be served by Tuscany Hills Elementary, Railroad Canyon Elementary, and the new middle school and elementary school that will be included in the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan. Ms. Kelly indicated that high school students would attend Elsinore High School. Commissioner Polk requested clarification of the size of the smallest plan. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the two -story plan 1 is 1,780 square feet. She noted that an addendum to the staff report would be put in the file showing the single story plan 1 being offered is 1,760 square feet. Commissioner Polk asked if the soccer fields are part of the tract. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the soccer field already exists. He noted that the Canyon Creek Specific Plan proposed several parks for the area. He stated that since PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 1, 2000 the Tract Map was approved, funding for city parks have decreased. He stated that staff has consolidated the number of parks being offered and have instead asked the applicant to provide improvements to the existing parks. He noted that the development would still include a new passive park. He stated that there are eight other lots that are being retained by the original owner. Ms. Kelly stated that these lots would be revegetated for fish and wildlife and kept in a natural state. Commissioner Matthies asked that the park comply with ADA requirements. Ms. Kelly indicated that they would. Chairman Wilsey indicated that he is satisfied with the proposal. MOVED BY POLE, SECONDED BY SANDS AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -10 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NO. R 00 -1, WHICH ENTAILS DESIGN REVIEW OF A MODEL COMPLEX, ASSOCIATED USES AND DEVELOPMENT OF 149 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED WITHIN THE CANYON CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, BASED ON THE FINDINGS, EXHIBITS, AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS TO THE CONDITIONS: 30. THE APPLICANT SHALL OFFER THE OPTION OF A SINGLE STORY PLAN PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS OF PHASE ONE. THIS SINGLE STORY PLAN SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF d�S9 1,760 SQUARE FEET. THESE PLANS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE 149 LOT PROJECT. A REVISED MATRIX OF DEVELOPMENT AND PLOTTING PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR PHASE ONE BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE. THIS PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND SHALL INCORPORATE CONSISTENT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES FOUND ON THE PROPOSED MODELS. 32 (A). THE APPLICANT SHALL CONSTRUCT A n A uv ON r OT W ANT ADD PLAYGROUND AND PLAY STRUCTURE EQUIPMENT TO THE EXISTING SOCCER FIELD A.K.A. LOT 'C'. THIS SHALL BE DONE 1N COOPERATION 3AIIT-11 THE BUILDER OF TRACT 20709. THESE PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR LOT 'C' SHALL BE COMPLETED COMMENCE PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF THE LAST DWELLING IN PHASE ONE OR THE APPLICANT SHALL BOND FOR IMPROVEMENTS. (B) CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARK ON LOT 'F' SHALL BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF THE LAST LOT OF PHASE Z THE TIMING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PARK (LOT 'F) MAY BE RENEGOTIATED IF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DEEMS IT NECESSARY. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:19 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:20 pm. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 1, 2000 INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following He noted that there would be a City Council Study Session next Tuesday at 3:00 pm to discuss water issues. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Sands commented on the following: • He asked if there was a revised date of the ribbon cutting for the new Sheriffs Station. Community Development Director indicated that the date has not been set, but that new invitations will be mailed prior to the event. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: No comments. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He complemented staff on the completeness of the staff report, especially the historical information that was presented. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: No comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:26 PM. Respectfully Submitted � �� �� /4Ionika Henni s, Community Development Secretary ATTEST: Robert A. Brady, S to the Planning Commissio MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Acting Chairman Barnes. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, SANDS, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Senior Planner Villa, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - March 1, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS Acting Chairman Barnes turned the gavel over to Commissioner Sands and excused himself from the room at 7:03. 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Man No. 23848 -14, Amendment No. 1, Pardee Construction "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" (Continued from March 1, 2000) Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is an application for review of a Tentative Tract Map within the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan area. He stated that the applicant has requested that the Public Hearing be continued to the next meeting to enable them to resolve a few concerns regarding the Conditions of Approval. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23848 -14, AMENDMENT NO. 1 UNTIL APRIL 5, 2000. 3. Tentative Parcel Man No. 29549, Pardee Construction "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is an application to review Tentative Tract Map No. 29549. He stated that the application was continued from the March 1, 2000 meeting and that the applicant is now ready to move forward. Community Development Director Brady asked Senior Planner Villa to review the project with the Commission. Senior Planner Villa stated that this is a request to subdivide 52.2 acres into three large parcels and four lettered lots. He stated that the proposed project is located at the PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 15, 2000 southwest corner of Cottonwood Hills Road and Lost Road within Final Tract Map Nos. 23848 -2 and -7 and part of Vesting Tract Map No. 23848 -8. Senior Planner Villa indicated that Parcel 1 and 2 will be for future school sites and that Parcel 3 will be subdivided at a later date for single - family residential lots. He further stated that the lettered parcels would be for slope landscaping, a detention basin, and Street 'A'. Senior Planner Villa stated that staff is recommending that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 00 -8 which recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 29549 based on the Findings, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. Acting Chairman Sands opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 pm. Mr. Jim Stringer, Pardee Construction Company, stated that he has no concerns with the Conditions of Approval with the exception of Condition #64 and #63. He suggested that a period is placed after the phrase "Phasing Program" in Condition #64 and the remainder of the sentence is deleted. He stated that his concern is that as written it can be construed to mean that the street will be widened at a later date. Mr. Stringer requested that Condition #63 be changed to read "Street A" instead of "local streets ". Community Development Director Brady suggested that the first sentence in Condition #63 remain as stated but that the second sentence be deleted. He stated that he was not able to consult with the City Engineer on Condition #64. He recommended that Condition #64 be left as presented and that the City Engineer review it prior to the City Council meeting. Senior Planner Villa asked how many lots are planned for Parcel #3. Mr. Mike Medafer, Project Design Consultants, stated that the preliminary plan shows 44 lots with two cul- de -sacs off Street A. Senior Planner stated that he would like to confer with the City Engineer before agreeing to delete the second sentence. Mr. Stringer stated he would like to confirm that this condition only pertains to Street A. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the condition could be reworded to stated "Street A" instead of "Local Streets ". There being no further requests to speak, Acting Chairman Sands closed the Public Hearing at 7:16 pm. Commissioner Polk requested clarification of "benchmark ". Community Development Director stated that a benchmark is an identification marker used for surveying. Commissioner Matthies stated she had no comments. Acting Chairman Sands noted that Condition #28 of the staff report from March 1 was not carried forward tot he staff report for March 15. He asked staff if this deletion was intentional. Senior Planner Villa stated that it should be included in the March 15 staff report as Condition #72. Community Development Director Brady stated that this condition is dealing with underground water rights and he believes the City Attorney reviewed this condition in conjunction with another project. He stated that he is unsure what the outcome was and suggested that the conditions remain as proposed. He stated he would discuss this with the City Attorney and if appropriate the Condition would be included in the City Council report. Acting Chairman Sands asked if there would be another school site proposed in future maps. Mr. Medafer stated that the school sites are included in Parcel Map No. 29459 only. Lot 1 will be a middle school and lot 2 is for an elementary school. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -8 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 15, 2000 RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29549. BUSINESS ITEMS None. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Commissioner Barnes rejoined the meeting at 7:25 pm. The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:25 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:54 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS None. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Sands commented on the following: No comments. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She noted that residents have been telling her what great service they are receiving from Lake Elsinore Ford. • She noted that the owner of the Chimes is having serious health problems. She stated that some ladies asked that since the Chimes is a historical landmark, would the City be able to help trim the trees. Community Development Director Brady stated that there are no city funds available. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: No comments. Acting Chairman Barnes commented on the following: • He asked if a date has been set for the Sheriff Station ribbon cutting. Community Development Director Brady stated that he believes it will be in April. He noted that the Commissioners would receive invitations. • He asked why there was no agenda for the last Nuisance Abatement Hearing. Community Development Director Brady stated that it might have been that there were no cases ready to be brought forward to hearing. He stated he would check with the Code Enforcement Officers. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:02 PM. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 15, 2000 BARNES, ACTING CHAIRMAN Respectfully Submitted onika Hennings Community Development Secretary ATTEST: /' Z'z obert A. Brady, Secre to the Planning Commissio MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 5, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, SANDS, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR- 1 Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - March 15, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 23848 -14, Amendment No. 1, "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Pardee Construction Company (Continued from March 15, 2000) 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 23848 -5, Amendment No. 1, "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Pardee Construction Company 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 29568, "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Pardee Construction Company Community Development Director Brady indicated that the applicant has requested that the Public Hearing for Agenda Item 2, 3, and 4 be continued to the next meeting. Chairman Wilsey asked if a Study Session is necessary to work out some of the remaining details. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the additional time is needed as the applicant is making some design modifications. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY A 4 -1 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23848 -14, AMENDMENT NO. 1, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23848 -5, AMENDMENT NO. 1, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29568 UNTIL APRIL 19, 2000. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 2000 5. Minor Design Review, M 00 -1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 00 -1 for a Telecommunication Facility located at 16401 Lakeshore Drive (APN 379 - 250 -044, 045, 030), Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is an application for a Minor Design Review and Conditional Use Permit of a telecommunication facility located at 16401 Lakeshore Drive. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the project with the Commission. Chairman Wilsey indicated that there have been some discussion with regards to continuing this hearing. He stated that a study session is needed to further discuss the issues relating to telecommunication facilities. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the Commission should hear the staff report and give the applicant a chance to speak before making a decision. Associate Planner Miller first stated that there was a correction that needed to be made on page 2. She stated that the chart of telecommunication facilities indicated that the first site listed was never built. She stated that the facility was built; only the height was 60 feet, not 154 feet as originally proposed. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a request for a Minor Design Review of a telecommunications facility to include a 75 -foot monopole to be disguised as a pine tree or "monopine ". She stated that a Conditional Use Permit is needed, as the maximum height allowed is 35 feet. She stated that staff is recommended that the applicant add an additional 8 feet of "tree" to allow the branches to taper to create a more natural tree shape. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff is recommending that the applicant provide a wrought iron gate to the facility rather than the chain link gate as proposed. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 pm. Ms. Barbara Saito, Nextel Communications, thanked Associate Planner Miller for all her help throughout the application process. Ms. Saito indicated that she has provided a photo simulation of what the facility might look like at the proposed location. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 7:08 pm. Commissioner Sands indicated that since the site is located in a valley, the height is necessary. He stated that he thought Condition #10 was a good idea. Commissioner Matthies stated that she concurred with Commissioner Sands. Commissioner Polk asked the approximate height of the other tall pine trees in the area. Associate Planner Miller stated she was unsure, but that they were most likely close to 80 feet. Commissioner Polk noted that staff mentioned in the staff report that the color of the monopine did not look natural. Ms. Saito indicated that this new technology is constantly evolving and each monopine constructed is more natural looking than the last. She noted that brown is now being added to make the branches look more natural. Commissioner Polk stated that he was concerned about the 15 feet width at the top. Ms. Saito stated that the plans have been revised. The antenna portion of the monopole is 10 feet across versus 12 feet across. Commissioner Barnes stated that there are now approximately nine sites throughout the City. He stated that this proposal is a step in the right direction. He indicated that he liked the proposal to disguise the facility. Commissioner Barnes stated that he is concerned about the on -going maintenance of the monopine. Ms. Saito stated that Nextel Communications will provide all maintenance and would not have a problem if the Commission added a condition to this effect. Commissioner Barnes reiterated that this is a stop in the right direction. Ms. Saito pointed out that there is also room for up to four other carriers to co- locate on this pole. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 2000 Commissioner Polk asked why Nextel chose this location. Ms. Saito stated that they are trying to obtain coverage within the city and to provide additional capacity. Chairman Wilsey noted that previous monopoles have been in higher locations, usually in conjunction with water tanks. Ms. Saito noted that Nextel looked at other locations, but they were too high. She indicated that Nextel is looking for a more intense coverage for the city. Chairman Wilsey indicated that it sounds like there will need to be more monopoles in the future. Ms. Saito indicated that she did not have any on her schedule at this time, but that as the demand increases additional facilities may be required. Chairman Wilsey indicated that he talked with some Councilors and a study session is being tentatively scheduled for May 17 to discuss the placement of monopoles. He stated that his concern is the number of monopoles that are being constructed in the City with no regulations in place. He suggested that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve this application with the understanding that staff inform the City Council of the Commissions concern regarding the number of sites in the city and the need for a study session. Community Development Director Brady indicated that both applications, the Minor Design Review and the Conditional Use Permit, are final after the Planning Commission meeting, however he would be sure to relay the Commission concerns to the Council and request that a study session be scheduled. Associate Planner Miller added Condition No. 12 to address maintenance of the monopine. Commissioner Polk asked Ms. Saito if she agreed to the condition about the wrought iron gate. Ms. Saito stated that she agreed to all proposed conditions. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY BARNES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -11 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW, M 00 -1, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP 00 -1, WHICH ENTAILS REVIEW OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WHICH WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT MACHADO STORAGE AT 16401 LAKESHORE DRIVE (APN 379- 250 -044, 0459 030), WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NO. 12: 12. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN AND / OR REPAIR THE TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY INCLUDING THE MONOPOLE PER THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, OR HIS DESIGNEE. 6. Conditional Use Permit No. 00 -2 for a Recycling Facility Located in Stater Brothers Parking Lot, 16750 Lakeshore Drive Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for a new recycling facility to replace an existing facility located in the Stater Brothers parking lot located at 16750 Lakeshore. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the project with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this recycling facility would replace the two existing recycling bins that are currently located in the Stater Brothers parking lot. She stated that the new facility would consist of 3 "roll off' trash containers for a total area of 496 square feet. She stated that two large bins are removed when full and the small bin is used as an automated redemption center for use while the facility is unmanned. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the only remaining issue is the total area of signage. She stated that the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code would allow 29 square feet of sign area per side, while the applicant is proposing 36.1 square feet of sign area. Associate Planner Miller indicated that Condition #2 would limit the total sign area to 29 square feet. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 2000 Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 pm. Mr. Richard Kearns, Director of Tomra Pacific, gave a brief background of Tomra Pacific and RePlanet. He stated that the goal is to present a better image at the markets. He indicated that the color of the roof would match the color of the center. Mr. Kearns stated that Tomra Pacific is seeking continuity among all the units with the use of the same signs, promotions, print ads, etc. He stated that all signs have been purchased and are used as needed. There being no further questions, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 7:42. Commissioner Polk asked if the existing trailers would be removed. Mr. Kearns stated that they would be removed the same day that the new unit is constructed. He stated that it only takes approximately 5 hours to set up a unit. Commissioner Polk asked which side would face the street. Mr. Kearns stated that the front of the facility would face the street to present the best possible image. Commissioner Polk asked if anti- graffiti paint is used. Mr. Kearns confirmed that anti - graffiti paint is used. He stated that there are maintenance teams that are responsible for touch ups. He also indicated that the facility is washed down daily. Commissioner Polk asked if the machines use optical imaging. Mr. Kearns confirmed. He stated that machines could not handle the large items and that is one of the reasons that the machines are personally manned during the day. Commissioner Barnes asked if unscheduled inspections would be made. Mr. Kearns stated that District supervisors and "floaters" do unscheduled inspections to make sure the attendants are doing their job and keeping the area clean. He stated that store managers are also asked to call with any complaints. Commissioner Barnes stated that he would like to see a condition added that would require daily inspections. Mr. Kearns stated that would not be a problem. Commissioner Barnes also suggested that a maintenance condition be included. Associate Planner added Condition No. 7. Commissioner Sands asked how many parking spaces are lost. Mr. Kearns stated that the facility uses three parking spaces. Commissioner Matthies asked how the water is obtained to clean the facility. Mr. Kearns stated that he will hire the center's landscaper to install a quick connect valve on the control valve of the irrigation system. Commissioner Matthies asked if the graffiti remover is biodegradable. She stated that she is concerned about the runoff. Mr. Kearns stated that he did not know but if it is not he will be sure to change products. Commissioner Matthies confirmed that there would be trashcans. Mr. Kearns stated that they would be in a concrete container so that they will not be blown over or removed. Commissioner Matthies stated that she understood the difficulty with signage and stated that she would be willing to change Condition No. 2 so that the signage would be allowed as proposed. Associate Planner Miller stated that staff believes the logo is overdone on the signage. She indicated that the logo is presented six times. She stated that staff is asking that the logo on the side elevations be removed. Chairman Wilsey stated that the strict interpretation of Chapter 17 might not apply to this project. He suggested that the condition be changed and to have staff and the applicant work together to come up with a solution. Commissioner Polk stated that he did not find the signage obtrusive. Chairman Wilsey stated anything to enhance recycling is good. Community Development Director proposed new wording for Condition No. 2. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY BARNES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -12 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP 00 -2, WHICH ENTAILS REVIEW OF A RECYCLING FACILITY WHICH WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT STATER BROS. PARKING LOT LOCATED AT 16750 LAKESHORE PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 2000 DRIVE, WITH THE REVISION TO CONDITION NO. 2 AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NO. 7: 2. A SIGN PROGRAM SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, OR HIS DESIGNEE. 7. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN AND REPAIR THE RECYCLING FACILITY PER THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, OR HIS DESIGNEE. 7. Design Review of Commercial Project No. 00 -1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 00 -3 for Sav -On Located at 31700 E. Lakeshore Drive (APN 363 - 130 -071) Community Development Director Brady stated that this is a request for Design Review of a Sav -On to be located at 31700 E. Lakeshore. He asked Associate Planner Miller to present the project to the Commission. Associate Planner Miller stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 14,884 square foot retail commercial building to be occupied by Sav -On. She indicated that the Conditional Use Permit is required for a proposed drive -thm for the pharmacy. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant is short one space of required parking but that staff did not feel this was an issue. She stated that the applicant is proposing a drive -thru with a stacking capacity of four cars. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant is proposing both a monument sign and a pylon sign. She stated that the proposed monument sign is 8 feet tall and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code allows a maximum height of 6 feet. Associate Planner stated that staff has proposed Condition No. 26 to require the applicant to lower the height of the monument sign to 6 feet. She stated that staff is recommending that the Commission deny approval of the pylon sign as they are not allowed in the City. Associate Planner Miller stated that staff is recommending that the Planning commission approve Commercial Project No. 00 -1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 00 -3. She further stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Sign Program with the exception of the Pylon Sign. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 pm. John Koenig, Rich/Koenig Lake Elsinore, LLC, stated he is representing the applicant. He introduced the other representatives present from Sav -On. Mr. Koenig gave a brief background of the project and the reasons why Sav -On wants to relocate with the main reason being the need to modernize. He stated that Sav -On is purchasing the land from Mr. Truax. He indicated that Countrywide Manufactured Homes will have their main access from Casino while Sav -On's main entrance is from Lakeshore although there will be shared ingress and egress. Mr. Koenig stated that the signs would be shared also. He indicated that the Pylon sign was proposed to allow visibility from the freeway. He stated that the applicant did not have a problem with the 6 -foot monument sign on Lakeshore. Mr. Koenig indicated that the applicant had proposed a traffic light on Lakeshore, but the Traffic Study states that it is not warranted at this time. He asked that the issue be left open for future review. Mr. Koenig stated that Condition No. 15 requires all of the roof - mounted equipment to be screened from the freeway. He stated that this would be hard to do. He suggested that an option would be to paint everything on the roof the same color so that it would all blend. Mr. Koenig stated that Condition No. 40 should be reworded to read mutual ingress /egress. He indicated that additional parking is not required. He stated that the applicant agrees with all remaining conditions. PAGE 6 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 2000 There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 8:10 pm. Commissioner Barnes stated that his plans do not show the location of the monument sign. Associate Planner Miller stated that the monument sign would be located where the pylon sign was proposed. She suggested rewording for Condition No. 26. Chairman Wilsey stated that in the past sign programs have been submitted as a separate application. Mr. Koenig stated that this application process has been going on for a few months and the applicant needs to close escrow. Chairman Wilsey stated that the Commission could approve the project, but ask the applicant to return at a later time with the sign program. Commissioner Barnes confirmed that the existing store across the street would close. Mr. Koenig confirmed. Commissioner Matthies clarified that the applicant proposes to paint the roof - mounted equipment as well as provide screening. Mr. Roger Watson, Watson Group, stated he is here representing Sav -On. He indicated that everything would be painted a neutral color. He stated that he would like to have Condition No. 15 require that the equipment be painted but that the reference to Interstate 15 is dropped. Chairman Wilsey stated that the applicants concerns are understandable but that he does not believe the screening will be a problem. He suggested that the condition be left as is but that the applicant work with staff to come up with a plan. Commissioner Matthies asked the City Engineer to address the applicants concern on Condition No. 40. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that Condition No. 40 could be deleted. He indicated that Condition No. 41 would cover the ingress /egress. Chairman Wilsey suggested that condition No. 26 be reworded to require the applicant to return with a Sign Program. Commissioner Polk asked if the proposed square footage of the monument sign include the area to be used by both Sav -On and Countrywide. Mr. Koenig stated that it does not, however when he will get together with Mr. Truax. Commissioner Polk stated that he was concerned about the vacant store that is being created. Mr. Watson stated that Sav -On is currently leasing the building across the street. He stated that they want a better presence. Commissioner Polk asked for an explanation on why a traffic signal is not warranted. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that there will not be enough left turns to warrant a signal. He stated that the issue could be revisited in the future. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -13 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF COMMERCIAL PROJECT NO. 00 -1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP 00 -3, WHICH ENTAILS REVIEW OF A RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR SAV -ON WHICH WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT 31700 EAST LAKESHORE DRIVE (APN 363- 130 -071), WITH THE REVISION TO CONDITION NO. 26 AND THE DELETION OF CONDITION NO. 40. 26. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A REVISED SIGN PROGRAM COMPLYING WITH THE LEMC AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. None. PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 2000 ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 8:33 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:45 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS None. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She commended staff on the preparation of the staff reports. • She indicated that she there is a good chance that she will be absent from the next meeting. • She asked about the Lavender house on Main Street. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the house would be repainted. She stated that Code Enforcement Officer Martinez is to be commended with working with the owner. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: No comments. Commissioner Sands commented on the following: • He asked about the status of the median landscaping on Railroad Canyon. Community Development Director Brady indicated that work should start soon. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: • He indicated that he has to abstain if Pardee returns next meeting with their project. He stated that if Commissioner Matthies is absent, then the other commissioners have to be present for a quorum. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: • He reiterated the importance of scheduling a joint Study Session with the City Council to discuss the issues relating to telecommunication facilities. Commissioner Sands suggested that another topic on the agenda for the study session could be to discuss the number of liquor licenses approved in the City. Chairman Wilsey stated that it is better to keep the study session to one topic. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:56 PM. C AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 5, 2000 Respectfully Submitted onika Hennin s, Community Development Secretary 0 $obert A. Brady, Secret to the Planning Commission/ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Barnes. ROLL CALL PRESENT: WILSEY, BARNES, SANDS, AND POLK MATTHIES Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Senior Planner Villa, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Sands noted that the time that the Planning Commission reconvened from Design Review Committee was 8:45 pm, not 7:45 pm like stated on page 7 of the minutes. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE ABOVE CORRECTION. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - April 5, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilsey stated that since there were people in the audience wishing to speak on Agenda Items 5 and 6, he suggested that these items be heard first. 5. Summerhill(Canyon Creek) Specific Plan No. 85 -1, Amendment No. 1, General Plan Amendment No. 00 -1 (Land Use Element), General Plan Amendment No. 00 -2 (Circulation Element), , and Zone Change No. 00 -1 6. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29235 "Abbacy Holding Corporation" Community Development Director Brady indicated that the applicant has requested that the Public Hearing for Agenda Item 6 be continued. He stated that since item Agenda Item 5 is related to Item 6, staff would also like to request that Agenda Item 5 be continued. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMERHILL (CANYON CREEK) SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 85 -13 AMENDMENT NO. 1, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00 -1, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00 -2, AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 00 -1 UNTIL MAY 17, 2000. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 19, 2000 MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29235 UNTIL MAY 17, 2000. Community Development Director clarified for those in the audience that there will be no further notice sent out on the above items. He stated that both Public Hearings have been continued to May 17, 2000 at 7:00 pm. Commissioner Barnes excused himself from the room at 7:10 pm. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 29568 "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Pardee Construction Company (Continued from April 5, 2000) Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map. He asked Senior Planner Villa to review the project with the Commission. Senior Planner Villa indicated that this is a request -to re- subdivide approximately 10.7 acres of vacant land into 45 numbered residential lots and one lettered lot which is designated open space. He gave a brief background of the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan and the previous approvals received relating to the proposed project. Senior Planner Villa indicated that staff has found the request to be consistent with all development and design standards of the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan and as such is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 00 -14 which recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 29568 based on the Findings, Exhibits, and proposed Conditions of Approval. Senior Planner Villa indicated that staff would like to request a few minor changes to the proposed Conditions of Approval. He requested that the second sentence of Condition No. 12 be revised to read "...around the east side of tract boundary ... of first Certificate of Occupancy, pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan." He asked that the first sentence of Condition No. 20 be revised to read "A homeowners association shall be established..." Senior Planner Villa requested that the phrase "pursuant to the approved Development Agreement" be added to the end of Condition No. 56. Finally, he requested Condition No. 64 be deleted as Condition No. 20 covers the issues relating to a homeowners association. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 pm. Mr. Jim Stringer, Pardee Construction Company, stated he agrees with all conditions and would be available for any questions. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 7:17 pm. Commissioner Sands indicated that as the proposed project is in compliance with all codes, he would recommend approval. Chairman Wilsey indicated that the applicant is proposing to re- designate the lots single - family. He asked if this proposal would effect the total number of multi - family units being proposed. Senior Planner Villa indicated that the applicant is proposing a less dense project than originally approved. He stated that overall the Specific Plan will include less units. Chairman Wilsey indicated that Condition No. 21 prohibits on- street storage of boats, motor homes, and trailers. He suggested that the Specific Plan area include a storage facility for recreational vehicles for the convenience of the future residents. Chairman Wilsey asked for clarification of Condition No. 67. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the City is concerned that if the applicant uses storage containers from PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 19, 2000 someone other than CR &R, the material will not be properly recycled. He stated that the applicant may use some other service, buy they would than have to show the City proof that the debris was properly recycled. Chairman Wilsey stated that the wording is too vague and suggested that the condition be reworded for clarification prior to the City Council meeting. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY SANDS AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -14 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29568, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 12. COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT. PROVIDE FIRE BUFFER ZONES AROUND THE EAST SIDE OF TRACT BOUNDARY AND LANDSCAPE FOR FIRE RETARDANT AND EROSION CONTROL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.2 OF THE COTTONWOOD HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN. 20. A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED, IT SHALL MANAGE AND IMPOSE FEES TO MAINTAIN ALL SLOPES OR COMMON AREAS, OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES, FIREBREAKS, HABITAT AREAS, PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND GROUNDS, PRIVATE STREETS AND ANY OTHER COMMON AMENITIES. THIS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED SUBJECT TO CURRENT STATE LAWS AND BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WHO SHALL REVIEW ALL CC &R'S AND RULES FOR THEIR ADEQUACY AND COMPLETENESS. THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL REVIEW CC &R'S, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS AND ALL DOCUMENTS TO CONVEY TITLE TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 56. DEVELOPER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL MASTER PLANNED DRAINAGE FEES AND WILL RECEIVE CREDIT FOR ALL MASTER PLANNED DRAINAGE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 64. DELETED. Commissioner Barnes rejoined the meeting at 7:26 pm. 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 23848 -14, Amendment No. 1, "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Pardee Construction Company (Continued from April 5, 2000) Chairman Wilsey indicated that the applicant is requesting to continue this Public Hearing to May 3, 2000. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23848 -14 UNTIL MAY 3, 2000. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 19, 2000 4. Tentative Tract Man No. 23848 -5, Amendment No. 1. "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Pardee Construction Company (Continued from April 5, 2000) Chairman Wilsey indicated that the applicant is requesting to continue this Public Hearing to May 3, 2000. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY SANDS AND PASSED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23848 -5 UNTIL MAY 3, 2000. BUSINESS ITEMS Review of a Draft Ordinance Regulating Fortunetelling Uses Community Development Director Brady gave a brief background of the ordinance. He noted that previously the code had prohibited fortunetelling uses. He stated that the City can regulate, but not prohibit, fortunetelling uses. He stated this ordinance is outlining the application process as well as the regulations for fortunetelling. Community Development Director Brady stated that staff is recommending that " fortunetelling uses" be an allowed use in the C -2 (General Commercial) zone. He stated that the ordinance would repeal and replace the existing Chapter 9.64 of the Municipal Code. He stated this item is before the Planning Commission tonight for review and discussion and is scheduled for the April 25, 2000 City Council meeting. Commissioner Sands asked if an applicant would have to pay the permit fee each year. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the permit fee has been changed to an annual fee of $250. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant would also have to pay for a business license. Community Development Director Brady confirmed. Commissioner Polk asked the general location of the C -2 zone. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the C -2 zone is located along the major arterials, such as Casino, Riverside Drive, and Mission Trail. Commissioner Polk asked if allowing fortunetelling uses is putting the City at risk. He indicated that the bond required is an awfully high amount. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the bond is required in order to protect future patrons. Commissioner Polk asked if this ordinance is based on what other cities require. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it is very similar to ordinances passed by other cities. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:36 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:37 pm. 1_ \_�i PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Sands commented on the following: • He commended staff on their success in getting the purple house on Main Street repainted in a timely manner. • He noted that it is time that the banners are removed from the buildings along Collier Avenue, facing the freeway. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: • He stated that the inflatables along the freeway also need to be removed. • He indicated that the scrap metal at the BBQ restaurant on Riverside Drive needs to be removed. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: No comments. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: No comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:40 PM. Respectfully Submitted onika Hennin , Community Development Secretary ATT 'ST. obert A. Brady, Secret to the Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 3, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, SANDS, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Senior Planner Villa, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Mark Dennis introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He indicated that he is the new Information and Communication Manager for the City of Lake Elsinore. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - April 19, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Man No. 23848 -14, Amendment No. 1,. "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Pardee Construction Company (Continued from April 19, 2000) Chairman Wilsey indicated that the applicant is requesting to continue this Public Hearing indefinitely. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this project would be re- noticed before being brought back before the Planning Commission. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND PASSED BY A 4 -1 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23848 -14 INDEFINITELY. Commissioner Barnes excused himself from the room at 7:02 pm. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 3, 2000 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23848 -5, Amendment No. 1, "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Pardee Construction Company (Continued from April 19, 2000) Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for approval of another Tract Map in the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan area. He asked Senior Planner Villa to review the project with the Commission. Senior Planner Villa indicated that this is a request to re- subdivide approximately 22.5 acres of vacant land into 53 single family lots and three open space lots for future HOA slopes, HOA Recreation Lot, and Neighborhood Park. He noted that the average lot size being proposed is 6,791 square feet with an overall density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. He stated that the subdivision would have access to four streets. Senior Planner Villa indicated that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the approved Specific Plan and therefore staff is recommending that that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 00 -21 which recommends to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23848 -5, Amendment No. 1 based on the Findings, Exhibit, and Conditions of Approval. Senior Planner Villa indicated that the applicant had a few concerns about the Conditions of Approval. He stated that these concerns could be addressed with minor revisions to Conditions No. 63 and No. 64. He requested that the phrase "excluding Hollyhock Street" be added to the end of the second sentence in Condition No. 63. He also recommended that the word "fully" be stricken from the first sentence in Condition No. 64. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 pm. Mr. Jim Stringer, Project Manager, Pardee Construction Company, indicated he was in agreement with the conditions as revised and was available for any questions. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 pm. Commissioner Sands requested clarification of the recreation lots. Mr. Stringer indicated that the HOA recreation lot was being reserved for a future recreation center that would be maintained by the HOA. He stated that the Neighborhood Park would be a public park to be maintained by the City. Commissioner Sands indicated that he would recommend approval of the application. Commissioner Polk noted how important it is to include parks in all subdivisions and also recommended approval of the proposal. Commissioner Matthies asked for clarification as to why Condition No. 63 was reworded to exclude Hollyhock Street. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that Hollyhock Street is classified as a restricted local street because of the lower volume of traffic. Commissioner Matthies asked if the recreation lot would be separated. Mr. Stringer indicated that the HOA recreation center will include a swimming pool and as such would need to be fenced for safety reasons. Chairman Wilsey asked why the word "fully" was stricken from Condition No. 64. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that condition was in conflict with the phasing program in the Specific Plan. He indicated that the construction of Lost Road and Cottonwood Hills Road would be done in phases. He noted that the road would always be at least two lanes, with possible widening for turn pockets at intersections. Chairman Wilsey noted that both Conditions No. 66 and No. 22 pertain to the CC &R's. He asked if the conditions should be combined. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it is up the Commission, but that historically the City has separated conditions relating to Planning and Engineering. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 3, 2000 Chairman Wilsey indicated that he would like to recommend that Condition No. 68 be revised to strike all mention of CR &R, with the exception of the last sentence. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that he has reviewed the franchise agreement and indicated that the agreement states that only CR &R can charge for storage bins. Chairman Wilsey suggested that the City Attorney review this condition as he thinks it is unconstitutional. He stated that he does not think that franchise agreements pertain to construction job sites. Community Development Director Brady indicated that he understands what the Chairman is saying, but the requirement is included in the franchise agreement. He noted that he would talk to the City Attorney. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the reason the condition was included is that historically construction sites use outlaw trash collectors that haul all debris to the dump. He stated that the City gets penalized if it does not meet the recycling requirements. MOVED BY POLK-, SECONDED BY SANDS AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -21 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23848 -5, AMENDMENT NO. 1, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CONDITION NO. 68 BE REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND THAT CONDITIONS NO. 63 AND NO. 64 BE REVISED AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. BUSINESS ITEMS None. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Commissioner Barnes rejoined the meeting at 7:24 pm. The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:24 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:29 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following: • He welcomed Mark Dennis to the City. • He noted that the City Council approved the Fortunetelling Ordinance at the last City Council meeting and that the second reading will be May 9, 2000. • He stated that the Sheriffs Station dedication was on Monday and that it was a great event. • He noted that there would be a Study Session on June 8, 2000 at 2:30 pm at City Hall to discuss cell and satellite facilities. He noted staff would provide some general background information prior to the Study Session. Chairman Wilsey asked that staff provide pictures of cell sites in other jurisdictions. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 3, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Sands commented on the following: No comments. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: • He welcomed Mark Dennis to the City and invited him to a future Code Enforcement Hearing. • He noted that he attended the Open House and. indicated that the new Sheriff Station is a beautiful facility. • He indicated that he was pleased to see that the Albertson's remodel went well. • He stated that he was glad to see that the landscaping along Summerhill Drive has been started. • He indicated that the Code Enforcement Officers have indicated that there is a need to revise the regulations for banners. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this has been one of staffs goals. He indicated that staff would like to bring the entire Sign Ordinance back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Sands indicated that the revised ordinance should include regulations relating to awnings. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: No comments. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She stated she concurred with the need to review the Sign Ordinance. She indicated she would also like to review the fencing requirements. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following_ No comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:35 PM. Respectfully Submitted )ionika Henni s, Communit- Development Secretary PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 3, 2000 ATTEST v Robert A. Brady, Secretary the Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 17, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, SANDS, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Planning Manager Villa, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY A 4 -1 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - May 3, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98 -3, The Power House Church located at 16782 Lakeshore Drive Suite 'B', a Children's Church located at 16770 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 'E', and Youth Church located at 16770 Lakeshore Drive, Suite T' Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a church to be located in the Lakeside Plaza, a Neighborhood Commercial center, near Four Corners. He stated that the City of Lake Elsinore has determined that church uses are not the best use for commercial centers due to the over - utilization of parking spaces and the economic under- utilization of a commercial center. He stated that due to these concerns, staff has usually recommended a time limit be placed on the use. He noted that staff analyzed the available parking and has found the parking to be adequate at this time. He indicated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit for a two year period with a possibility of two one year extensions of time. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 pm. Pastor Gary Adams indicated that he understands that the City has concerns about a church occupying a retail center, however he noted that a church could also have a great impact on a community. He stated that a church brings people from other cities into town. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 7:08 pm. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 2000 Commissioner Barnes asked the applicant if he has read and understands the conditions. Pastor Adams indicated he has. Commissioner Sands indicated that he does not see a problem with a church locating in this center and would support this request. Commissioner Polk stated that he is familiar with this church and noted that it is safer for the congregation of a church of this size to be located in a shopping center. Commissioner Matthies concurred. She noted that the members of the congregation are likely to shop in the centers after church. Chairman Wilsey concurred with the Commissioners. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -22 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP 98 -3, WHICH ENTAILS REVIEW OF A CHURCH FACILITY KNOWN AS THE POWER HOUSE CHURCH WHICH WILL BE LOCATED IN THE LAKESHORE PLAZA AT 16782 LAKESHORE DRIVE. 3. Summerhill (Canyon Creek) Specific Plan No. 85 -1, Amendment No. 1 General Plan Community Development Director Brady indicated that this request has been continued from a previous meeting. He stated that after receiving input from several residents, staff would like to recommend that the Planning Commission hear the staff report and open the Public Hearing to allow the public a chance to provide input. Planning Manager Villa indicated that this is a four -part application consisting of a Specific Plan Amendment, a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment, a General Plan Circulation Element Amendment, and a Zone Change. He stated that the primary application, the Specific Plan Amendment, is proposing to extract approximately 32 acres from the Specific Plan. He indicated that this property is bisected by I -15 with the 12 acres to the west of the freeway currently zoned Commercial while the approximate 20 acres to the east of the freeway being Neighborhood Commercial and Multi - Family. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the approved Specific Plan allows a density of up to 26 dwelling units per acre compared to the existing Casino Drive Apartment complex, which are only 16 dwelling units per acre. Planning Manager Villa indicated that staff is recommending a Zone Change from Multi - Family to Neighborhood Commercial (C -1) Zoning while the property owner has indicated that he wants a General Commercial (C -2) Zoning designation. He stated that staff feels a C -2 Zoning is too intense of a use for the subject property location. Planning Manager Villa briefly reviewed the types of uses that would be allowed in a C -1 and a C -2 Zone. He indicated that staff would like to examine the possibility of creating a special Specific Plan Commercial designation that would allowed specific uses from both the C -1 and C -2 Zoning Designations. Chairman Wilsey indicated that he wanted to clarify that the property owner currently can build apartments with a maximum density of 26 dwelling units per acre or 350 units. Planning Manager Villa concurred. Chairman Wilsey requested clarification of the current General Plan Circulation designation for Canyon Estates Drive. Planning Manager Villa indicated that Canyon Estates Drive is a Secondary Arterial. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this means that there is a 90 -foot right -of- PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 2000 way. He stated that the proposal is to have Canyon Estates designated as a modified width of 76 feet curb to curb which is only 10 feet wider than the current width. He noted that this would allow four lanes of traffic with a center turn lane. Chairman Wilsey noted that this is downsizing from what is called for in the General Plan. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 pm. Jennifer Te, 31529 Stoney Creek Drive, stated that her house is next to Canyon Estates Drive and indicated that apartments would not be an appropriate use for that location. She stated her concern was the additional traffic and decreased property values. Rick Meyer, 31540 Stoney Creek Drive, stated that he is in strong disagreement with the proposed plan due to increased traffic and noise. He indicated that he is concerned about the children playing that close to heavy traffic. He noted that the Commission is contemplating a decision that is against the residents' wishes and he urged the Commission to carefully consider the potential impacts and not just focus on additional tax dollars. Ramamurti Iyer, 31600 Saddle Ridge Drive, stated he is opposed to a five -lane highway and stated that his concerns echo Mr. Meyer concerns. He added that the increased traffic would also result in greater pollution. Linda Khanfar, 31537 Sagecrest Drive, indicated that she is against a highway being built next to her house. She noted that she saved a long time to be able to afford the house she lives in and is concerned about a decrease in property values and reduced safety. Julie Cruz, PO Box 3014, San Dimas, indicated that her house at 31530 Stoney Creek Drive is still being built. She stated that she is against a five -lane highway. She asked for a better description of a "secondary arterial" and requested more information about the location of the proposed apartments. Brian Bates, 31620 Boulder Vista, noted that he has been in City Hall several times to research the proposed applications. He stated that he moved to Lake Elsinore because it was quiet and not too close to commercial centers, although he understands that Lake Elsinore has to grow. He asked the Commission to consider the loss of quietness, reduced safety for the children, increased pollution, and additional congestion on Railroad Canyon interchange. He stated that people will always find the quickest route to their destination and he is afraid that it will be through the adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Bates stated he is opposed to the proposal. He also mentioned that the rumor is that the city gave up additional Mello Roos dollars and asked for clarification. Mr. Bates further inquired who is qualified within the city to determine that the environmental impacts will be insignificant. Samantha Keith, 31528 Stoney Creek Drive, voiced her objection to the proposal. She reiterated concerns about traffic, safety, pollution, and property values. Conni Cooper, 31640 Saddle Ridge Drive, stated that she objects to a five -lane highway being built. She indicated that the population of Lake Elsinore is only 30,000 and the City is stating that 27,000 to 47,000 cars will travel that roadway each day. She noted that she is representing all the residents who were unable to attend and urged the Planning Commission to think about the residents. Brian Kirkpatrick, 31521 Stoney Creek Drive, indicated that he also is representing many who where unable to attend. He first asked about the 12 -acre parcel. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the 12 acres consists of one parcel which is currently zoned C -1. Mr. Kirkpatrick noted that the street is actually proposed to be four lanes with one turn lane and parking on the edges. He stated that his concerns are the impact that 26,000- 43,000 cars a day will have on the neighborhood. He noted that even 5,000 cars a day would be too many with Canyon Estates Drive being only 12 feet from houses. He indicated that children walk along the streets to the park and they will not be able to do this if the project is approved. He reiterated that property values would also decrease and noted PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 2000 that many paid premiums for view lots. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that he talked to Air Quality, EPA, and Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that Mr. Rob Hill from OPR indicated that the documents he received on May 10 are not the same documents that staff gave to him at City Hall. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated that Mr. Hill believes further environmental clearance is needed for this project although he could not comment further until he receives an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Kirkpatrick further stated that Mr. Hill mentioned that one person should not win while 50 -60 lose. Jason Cooper, 31640 Saddle Ridge Drive, indicated that he is also opposed to a four -lane highway. He indicated that it is bad for personal reasons and business reasons. He noted that a city grows by word of mouth and having unhappy residents will not help Lake Elsinore. Carl Jackson, 31619 Saddle Ridge Drive, stated that he moved to Lake Elsinore to get away from smog and congestion. He noted he was attracted to the peace and quiet. He stated that the additional cars and commercial development would increase the pollution and congestion. Mr. Jackson stated that the builder should have disclosed the future plans for the adjacent property. He also stated that property values would decrease with the construction of a five -lane highway. He reiterated that he does not want another Los Angeles and that he moved to Lake Elsinore for the clean environment and the peacefulness. He asked that the Planning Commission consider the resident's feelings. Charlotte Newman, 31625 Boulder Vista Drive, stated that she did not make a hasty decision to move to Lake Elsinore. She stated that she went to 72 developments and choose to buy in Lake Elsinore where her family plans on retiring. Ms. Newman indicated that if the proposal is approved than her grandchildren will not be able to visit. She stated that she is a professional woman and she wants to come home at night to peace and quiet. She further indicated that the city does not have adequate police support and has not fully studied the potential for accidents especially at the intersection of Canyon Estates Drive and Summerhill Drive. Darcel Herring, 31613 Saddle Ridge Drive, stated she is a single person and is proud to say she was able to buy her first home. She stated that an apartment complex would block all views. She further stated he was concerned about the type of people who may rent the apartments and she is alone and is concerned about safety. Keith Newman, 31625 Boulder Vista Drive, stated that he looked at a number of communities before falling in love with the area. He said that he commutes by choice, but he also lives in Lake Elsinore by choice. He stated his concerns echo those already mentioned. He asked if the plan is approved what will be done about the noise and safety issues. Denise Sampson, 31524 Stoney Creek Drive, stated that she first lived in Lake Elsinore in the 1990's. She came back only after hearing that the leadership of the City had changed for the better. She stated that she drives a Federal Express truck all day in traffic and that by the end of the day all she wants to do is relax. She stated that this is a beautiful community with wonderful families with children and that bonds are developing among the residents in the new communities. Ms. Sampson stated that she feels like the City is not being truthful and is trying to hide something and stressed that the home owners need answers about what is planned to be built adjacent to their homes. Rudy Couler, 31525 Stoney Creek Drive, stated that he objects to the proposed road. He stated he just moved to town from Corona to get away from the crowds. He stated that his window is only 15 feet from Canyon Estates Drive. He stated that the residents pay Mello Roos and he doesn't see why the residents should give the city money. He indicated the residents could put the money in a trust fund and fight back. Ruth Meyer, 31540 Stoney Creek Drive, stated to the Community Development Director that the city should see if the property owner is willing to sell the property to the city for a park and / or soccer field. She noted that there are many vacant parcels of land in the city and that she thought the developer would find a more appropriate parcel to develop. PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 2000 James Clemon, 1316 Canyon Estates, noted that he heard the City is trying to open up Canyon Estates Drive since the traffic at the Diamond Drive interchange is always backed up. He asked for confirmation. A resident at 31604 Saddle Ridge Drive indicated she and her husband do not like the idea of a highway next to their house. She commented that they choose to move from Long Beach to get away from the congestion and noise. There being no further comments, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 pm. Chairman Wilsey asked Community Development Director Brady to address some of the concerns of the residents. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the term "secondary arterial" is a street designation, it does not mean there is another primary route. Chairman Wilsey asked for confirmation that the proposed width is only 10 feet wider than the current roadway. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that he understands the concerns of the residents. He stated that the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which was adopted in 1990, classified Canyon Estates Drive as a collector street with a curb to curb width of 48 feet, which is four lanes of traffic. He indicated that when the original tract maps were approved, the City looked at the Circulation Element and required that no houses front Canyon Estates Drive. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that in 1995 the new computer model indicated that Canyon Estates Drive needed to be a Secondary Arterial with a 72 -foot curb to curb width, which provides two travel lanes in each direction with a median but with no parking. He stated that the City has already started the design phase of connecting Canyon Estates to Franklin Street and the connection should be made in approximately one year. He noted that the 1990 General Plan shows an eventual connection from Summerhill Drive to Main Street, and eventual to Highway 74. He stated that Canyon Estates Drive is part of this connection. He indicated that back in 1990 the computer model showed that at maximum build out, approximately 2035, there would be approximately 38,000 trips a day. He stated that this requires Canyon Estates Drive to be a collector with or with out this project, as these figures are not generated by this project but rather as normal growth of the city. Community Development Director reiterated that the City would not see maximum buildout for at least 30 to 40 years. Planning Manager Villa asked the City Engineer to clarify the definition of a highway. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that a highway connects two cities. He indicated that Summerhill Drive is a major roadway with a right of way of 100 feet. He indicated that Canyon Estates would even be smaller than Summerhill Drive. He stressed that this has been in the City's General Plan for 10 years. Chairman Wilsey indicated that the future Franklin Street interchange would relieve the congestion at Diamond Drive. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that most of the congestion at Railroad Canyon is from traffic trying to cross from one side of the freeway to the other side. He noted that the Franklin Drive interchange would relieve the congestion, which will alleviate idling engines, and thus reduce pollution. Community Development Director Brady addressed Mr. Bates comment about who may be qualified to complete the environmental review. He stated that the City has staff who is qualified to complete environmental reviews in conformance with CEQA. He further noted that all documents are public records and are circulated for public review. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Mello Roos issues are more detailed and noted that nothing proposed tonight is related to the Mello Roos. He advised those who want more information to contact the Finance Department at City Hall. Community Development Director Brady clarified that apartments would currently be allowed under the existing zoning. He stated that staff is considering rezoning to PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 2000 commercial to lessen the impacts on the community. He noted that the existing zoning would allow the construction of up to 350 multi - family units. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City does not have any funding to purchase or maintain another park. He indicated that the residents have to remember that the property is privately owned. He stated that Tuscany Hills has a Home Owners Association that the residents pay approximately $100 a month to maintain the facilities. He noted that the residents could create a Homeowners Association and purchase and maintain the park themselves if that is what they desire. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the City has no idea what may be built on the property. He stated that once the developer submits a Design Review application, notices will be sent to the adjacent property owners and public meetings will take place. Community Development Director Brady stated that there is no noise abatement currently proposed. He noted that the property owners could most likely currently hear the existing freeway. Chairman Wilsey stated that this is very early in the process. He indicated that there is currently an approved Specific Plan that the property owner and staff are looking at to see what may be best for the property. He stated that staff has determined that a commercial use would be less dense and less intrusive than the currently allowed 350 apartment units. He noted that the first step is to process the Zone Change and that after the Zone Change is approved the property owner can then find a developer who may want to the develop the property. Chairman Wilsey also stressed that the proposed road, at the modified width of 72 feet, is already smaller than stated in the General Plan. He also indicated that the City does not make a profit on this development as the City does not own the property. Chairman Wilsey stated that the City is trying to balance the rights of the property owner with the concerns of the community. Commissioner Barnes thanked all those who took the time to attend the meeting. He asked for clarification that no decisions would be made tonight. Community Development Director Brady stated that the property owner has requested a continuance to allow him and staff to further discuss what uses may be allowed on the property. He indicated that staff requested that the Public Hearing take place to allow the public to provide input in the process. He stated that staff is recommending that the Specific Plan be amended to create a hybrid commercial zone that would only allow specific commercial uses that would be appropriate for this location. Community Development Director stated that if the Planning Commission desires, staff would like to have more meetings and then bring a proposal back at a later date. Commissioner Barnes asked when the original Specific Plan was approved that permitted the high density residential use. Community Development Director stated that it was approved in 1985. Commissioner Barnes stated that the current plan would allow 350 apartments, which would mean over 1,000 people. He stated that he likes the park idea but that the City has no means to purchase or maintain the land. He stated that the residents might be able to negotiate with the property owner to purchase a portion of the land for a small park. Commissioner Barnes reiterated that the property owner has the right to develop his land. Commissioner Polk stated that the residents need to remember that the maximum capacity of the road will not take place until 2035, if ever. He also noted that the median would help with safety. Commissioner Polk stated that he does not see a problem with the road and commented that the Franklin interchange will help alleviate the congestion. He stated that the residents need to remember that the property owner purchased the land with good intent and that the current plan, which would allow the construction of 350 apartments, was approved 15 years ago. He said the City and the property owner are trying to come up with some commercial uses that will serve the existing homes and be the least intrusive. Chairman Wilsey said he would like to see a professional office complex. PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 2000 Commissioner Matthies stated that the residents need clarification of the C -1 and C -2 Zoning designations. She indicated that staff and the community need to work together to create a selective list of what will work for that location. She stated that her concern is the roadway and stated she would like to see a wider road that would include a bike lane. She reiterated that the City does not know what will be built. She noted that it was nice to see people attend the Planning Commission meetings and be willing to get involved. Commissioner Sands stated that in his opinion the C -O and C -1 Zoning uses, not C -2 Zoning uses, would be acceptable in this location. He indicated that staff should continue to work with the developer and the public to come up with a special Commercial Specific Plan designation. He stated that he has empathy for the residents as he has been in their shoes. He indicated that he has lived in his current house for 8 years and has had to face apartments being built down the road from his house. Commissioner Sands stated that the courts allowed the apartments to be built on Casino even though the City denied the application. He stated that he hopes the City can resolve the issues. He noted that even with the apartments right down the road from his house, his property value has increased. Community Development Director Brady clarified that the City is not against apartments, just that there are more appropriate locations. James Clemon, 1316 Canyon Estates Drive, asked if the Franklin Street connection is definite. He stated that in his experience, when traffic increase, property values decrease. City Engineer O'Donnell clarified that the maximum traffic flow of 38,000 trips per day will not be reached for 20 -50 years. He stated that the City has to do something to relieve the congestion at the Railroad Canyon interchange. He stated that the Franklin interchange is currently under design and he anticipates that it will be completed in one year. Jason Cooper, 31640 Saddle Ridge Drive, asked why the homebuyers where never told about the future plans for Canyon Estates. He stated that most people would not have purchased their houses, and thus not be angry now, if they had known. Brian Kirkpatrick, 31521 Stoney Creek Drive, stated that no one told the residents of the future plans. He stated that staff can not say that the residents should have known as he did ask at City Hall before he purchased his home. He indicated he was told it would be residential, but he was never told it would be high density residential. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that this would go to court if approved. He stated that the topographic map at Granite Homes as well as his title report shows a small street. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated he has thoroughly read staffs report and indicated that there are other options for alleviating the congestion. He stated that the report states that there was a planned extension of Summerhill across I -15 but that this is not an option now that the dealerships are built. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked what the current zoning is of the Lake Chevrolet property. Community Development Director Brady stated it is C -2. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that just six weeks ago it was Neighborhood Commercial. He further stated that the City is not looking at any other options because they want the developer, not the city, to pay for the improvements. He indicated that the builder should have told the homebuyers of the future plans for the area. He stated that they could not have known just by looking at the street as the utilities are placed up to the curb, not set back as if the street was planned to be widened. Mr. Kirkpatrick also stated that he believes traffic will go even faster on Canyon Estates than on Summerhill Drive. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked if the city ever had financial interest in the property. Chairman Wilsey stated not to the Planning Commission's knowledge. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the City never had ownership of the land. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the City had bonds against the property. PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 2000 Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that a mini - storage facility would be the perfect use for the property, but staff turned down that proposal because it did not bring in enough tax dollars. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the street should have been shown on the maps. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the Circulation Map, which is a public document approved in 1989, shows the ultimate width of all the roads in the City when development occurs. He indicated that the Circulation Element is updated from time to time as conditions change. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the City denied two documents. He asked if the residents don't know what exists, how can they ask to see the right documents. Chairman Wilsey stated that he is going to ask for a continuation at this time. He stated that he hope the residents will get together with staff to provide more input in what they would like to see as possible permitted uses. He stated that another Public Hearing would be scheduled after these meetings take place. James Clemens asked if Granite Homes can attend one of these meetings so the residents can ask why they were never told of these future plans. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the builder would have been notified of all meetings. MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMERHILL (CANYON CREEK) SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 85 -1, AMENDMENT NO. 1, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00 -01 (LAND USE ELEMENT), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00 -02 (CIRCULATION ELEMENT), AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 00 -01. Chairman Wilsey thanked the public for attending tonight's meeting. Chairman Wilsey recessed the meeting at 8:55 pm. Chairman Wilsey reconvened the meeting at 9:14 pm. 4. Tentative parcel Map No. 29235 "Abbacy Holding Corporation" (Continued from April 19 2000 Community Development Director Brady indicated that since this application is related to the previous application, staff would like to request that this Public Hearing be continued indefinitely also so that both proposals could be brought back at the same time. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY BARNES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29235. BUSINESS ITEMS None. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 9:15 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:16 pm. INFORMATIONAL PAGE 9 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 2000 STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following: • He indicated that the City is hosting the Chamber Mixer next Thursday, May 25 from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm. City Hall will be open to the public. • He noted that the Budget Study Session would be Thursday, May 25 at 10:00 am. • He stated that Students in Government Day would be Monday, May 22 with a mock City Council meeting on Tuesday. • He indicated that he was pleased to announce that Armando Villa has been promoted to Planning Manager. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Sands commented on the followine: No comments. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: • He commended Community Development Director Brady and Planning Manager Villa on a good job handling the public questions tonight. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She commended staff on a job well done. She noted that it is good to see the public at a meeting. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He congratulated Mr. Villa on his promotion. • He noted that this is encouraging public input on projects is a good trend to continue. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: • He noted that there have been problems with the residents in the new neighborhoods not being aware of what may be developed around them. He indicated that the City should have a means of requiring the builder to include a Specific Plan land use map in the packets that are given to prospective buyers. Commissioner Matthies asked if this could be included as a condition of approval. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City could require this but it would be hard to enforce. Community Development Director Brady noted that staff has been playing with the idea of educating the sales staff since they play a big part in promoting the City. He indicated that new homebuyers are given so much information, many just do not read all of the fine print. Commissioner Barnes commented that the builder hires professional realtors who will tell you just about anything to get you to buy a house. He noted that one example is that when he purchased his house, he was told that the Lusk property was permanent BLM property. • He indicated that during the break he told some residents to contact Planning Manager Villa regarding C -1 and C -2 alternatives. Commissioner Matthies noted that she did the same. Planning Manager Villa indicated that he hopes they do come in with suggestions. PAGE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 17, 2000 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:28 PM. Respectfully Submitted /fqonika Henni gs, Community Development ecretary Robert A. Brady, Se /retary to the Planning Commis 'on MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: WILSEY, BARNES, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SANDS Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes None. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Minor Design Review, M 00 -3, for Freestanding Center Identification Sign Located Within the Brookstone Landing Center at 31737 Riverside Drive - APN 379 - 171 -083 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for a new Center Identification Sign at Brookstone Landing Center. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the request with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the Brookstone Landing shopping center is a retail commercial center on approximately 4.7 acres. She stated that there are five separate buildings with 22 commercial units. She stated that the owner has been upgrading the center by painting and planting landscaping. Associate Planner Miller stated that the proposed sign is 24 feet tall by 18 feet wide for a total area of 432 square feet. She stated that staff has interpreted the "sign area" to be that area where the words, lettering, and numbers are which would be only 11 1/2 feet tall by 18 feet wide for a total area of 207 square feet. She stated that the LEMC allows a maximum area of 258 square feet. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant is proposing a gray "tex coat' finish to match the existing buildings. She stated that the legs and the base have been revised to use a river rock. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant proposed a medium blue for the name of the center and a lighter blue for the two decorative indented lines and red for the names of the individual tenants. She stated that since the color blue is not used anywhere else in the center, staff has conditioned the applicant to change the accent colors to match the buildings. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 7, 2000 Associate Planner Miller stated the LEMC also requires all freestanding signs to be located within a planter. She stated that staff has required the applicant to construct a planter the width of one parking space and approximately 20 to 25 feet long. She stated that the applicant plans to construct the planter of river rock to match the legs of the sign. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff has also conditioned the applicant to remove all can signs and other illegal signs within one year of approval and replace these signs with illuminated channel letters. She stated that with these changes, staff would recommend approval of the freestanding sign. Associate Planner stated she would like to make a few corrections to the staff report. She asked that on page 1, under project requests, the second sentence be revised to read "...Section 17.82.100 (Minor Design Review) and Section 17.94.170.17 (Sign in Commercial Districts)..." She also asked that on page 2, in the first sentence under Analysis the words "Identification" and "Center" be reversed to read "Freestanding Center Identification Sign." Finally, she asked that the recommendation be revised to read "...Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 00 -23 which approves..." Steve Harriman, Steve's Signs, stated he is representing the property owner and that they agree with all proposed conditions. Clyde Brunner, property owner, stated that he believes the sign is one of the nicest in the City and he hopes it will help the tenants bring in additional customers as well as fill the vacancies in the center. Chairman Wilsey commended Mr. Brunner on the changes that he has already made at that center. Commissioner Matthies asked if the applicant would be willing to change the colors. Mr. Brunner stated he would like to use green to match the buildings. Commissioner Polk stated the sign looked beautiful. Commissioner Barnes concurred. He asked about the location of the sign, as the exhibits provided in the staff report do not match. Mr. Brunner stated that the sign would be across from the State Park by the video rental store and the existing kiosk. He noted he would always have the Sheriff Substation listed on the sign. Chairman Wilsey concurred. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -23 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW 00 -3 FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN FOR BROOKSTONE LANDING CENTER LOCATED AT 31737 RIVERSIDE DRIVE - APN 379 -171 -083. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:15 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:25 pm. INFORMATIONAL PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 7, 2000 STAFF COMMENTS Communijy Development Director Brady commented on the following: • He noted that the Joint Study Session to discuss the wireless communication antennas would be tomorrow at City Hall from 2:30 to 3:30. • He indicated that the benefit for Cops for Kids would be at Lake Chevrolet on Friday. He stated tickets would be available at the door. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: • He indicated that his term expires this month. He stated that if he is not re- appointed he wanted to state it has been a wonderful experience being able to serve on the Commission. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: No comments. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She stated that the Grand Prix last Saturday was a nice event. • She echoed Commissioner Barnes thoughts. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the following_ • He stated that the Planning Commission received good press from the last meeting. He indicted that there was a nice article about how the Planning Commission handled the public and involved them in the process. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted 14onika s,, Community Development Secretary PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 7, 2000 n Robert A. Brady, Sec ary to the Planning Commissi MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: WILSEY, BARNES, SANDS, AND MATTHIES ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: POLK Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH SANDS ABSTAINING TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR- Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - May 17, 2000 b. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - June 7, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS Design Review of an Industrial Project No. 100-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 00- 05 Located on Chaney Street - APN 377 -160 -002 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for approval of an industrial building located on Chaney Street across from the Water District. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the request with the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a request for approval of a 17,500 square foot tilt up industrial building located on Chaney Street. She stated that the Conditional Use Permit is required as the applicant is proposing a storage yard for company vehicles and modular offices. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the front half of the building will include 4,990 square feet of office space while the rear half of the building includes a 2,700 square foot mezzanine and a 9,900 square foot warehouse. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the front half of the building is proposed to be a two tone split face block wall with blue metal barrel roofs. She stated that blue accent lines would bring the office space and the warehouse together. She noted that the applicant brought in the new color elevations after the staff report was written and staff believes the blue color on the equipment covers make them stand out. She stated she would like to propose Condition PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 21, 2000 #25a that would read "The material covering the roof equipment shall match the wall color." Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff has found that the proposed building meets all applicable codes and that staff would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the project. Associate Planner Miller indicated that page 3 of the staff report under "Recommendation" should refer to Exhibits 'A' thru 'E'. She further stated that earlier today the applicant mentioned that he was going to request that Condition 49 be revised to allow temporary chain link fencing along the southwest property line. Associate Planner Miller suggested that the condition could be revised to read "A six foot (6) block wall shall be constructed to conceal the storage yard with the exception of the southwest boundary line that states "temporary chain link fence." This chain link portion of the fencing may remain until the neighboring project is built or a maximum of two years, whichever comes first. Opaque gates shall be constructed at the entrance to the storage area. Six foot (6) wrought iron fencing may be sued along the front setback boundary lines." Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 pm. Kim Quon, Studio 7 Architecture, indicated that he agreed with the staff report and the suggested changes to the conditions. He thanked staff for their help with this project. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 7:09 pm. Commissioner Matthies stated that she had no comments other than requesting verification that the applicant will be bringing a sign program back to the Planning Commission at a later date. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant is aware of this requirement. Commissioner Sands asked about the applicant's intent for the other parcels. Mr. Quon indicated that the parcel to the south would be developed next with a spec warehouse. He noted that the building would be similar in design to the warehouse portion of the building being proposed tonight. Mr. Quon stated that the applicant is master planning the area and that there is the potential for five more buildings. Commissioner Sands stated that he is concerned about the future restrictions on industrial uses due to the school being proposed on the adjacent parcel. Mr. Quon stated that they are aware of the proposed school and suggested that this be looked at on a case by case basis. Commissioner Barnes asked if the building being proposed tonight is a spec building. Mr. Quon indicated that this would be an owner occupied building. Commissioner Barnes reiterated that the owner would need to be sure that the future uses are compatible with the school. Mr. Quon indicated that he understood. Chairman Wilsey noted that that he likes the proposed building and indicated that he had no further comments. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -24 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CUP 00 -05, WHICH ENTAILS REVIEW OF AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA FOR AN INDUSTRIAL PROJECT TO BE LOCATED ON CHANEY STREET - APN 377- 160 -002. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -25 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2000 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 00 -02 TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO BE LOCATED ON CHANEY STREET - APN 377- 160 -002, WITH THE REVISION TO CONDITION NO. 9 AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NO. 25A. BUSINESS ITEMS None. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:16 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:21 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following_ • He noted that there would be a Neighborhood Meeting tomorrow night, June 22, from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at the Cultural Center. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss possible uses for the Abbacy parcels across from Granite and Tuscana. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Sands commented on the followine: 11• 40I_rI4-i Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: • He indicated that he received a copy of the letter regarding the torn awning on Main Street. He noted that the building was vacant and asked if the owner would have received the letter. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the letter went to the Realty Office next door who is listed as the owner of the building. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She thanked staff for doing a great job on tonight's projects. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the following_ • He indicated he would have like to attend the Community Meeting but he would be in a meeting. Community Development Director Brady indicated it is not a formal meeting. He stated that staff would receive input from the public tomorrow and then bring a proposal to the Planning Commission at a later date. Chairman Wilsey asked if there would be minutes of the meeting. Community Development Director Brady indicated that staff could type a general summary but that there would be no minutes as it is not a formal Planning Commission Meeting. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2000 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:28 PM. Respectfully Submitted Ponika HenniAgs, Community Development Secretary MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2000 Chairman Wilsey called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Barns. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, POLK, SANDS, WILSEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MATTHIES Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell, Senior Planner Morita and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY A 3 -1 VOTE WITH POLK ABSTAINING AND MATTHIES ABSENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. Approved the Regular Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2000. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Lake Elsinore Outlet Center Specific Plan Amendment No. 3, Zone Change No. 00 -02, Minor Design Review No. 00 -02, and Ne ag tive Declaration No. 00 -02 (Castle and Cooke California, Inca Community Development Director Brady gave an overview of the project and noted that the purposed of the proposal was to improve the marketing and overall performance of the Center. Senior Planner Morita, Project Manager, indicated that Castle and Cooke, California, Inc. was in the process of upgrading the Outlet Center. He explained that Castle and Cooke are attempting to Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 improve their marketing by enhancing the overall look of the Outlet Center. He noted that as part of that effort, the applicant found it necessary to amend the Specific Plan document to provide additional parking and amend the Signage Standards to be more consistent with their upgrade efforts. Senior Planner Morita presented a power point program, which gave an overview of the location of the parking lot and explained that the purpose of the zone change was to annex a portion of the parking lot into the Specific Plan area. He noted that the project plan proposed a full access with a right turn in and right turn out; left turn in and left turn out. He stated that if approved the amount of parking spaces would total 2,475 spaces, which was 520 more spaces than required by the Specific Plan. He noted the amount of landscaping proposed and indicated that this would greatly enhance the project. He noted that upon staff review it was found that the original Signage Standards were stringent and inflexible and the amendments would provide more flexibility and relax some of the standards to allow the applicant to improve the overall look. He noted that the applicant proposes to introduce a Freeway Message Sign to be located on the northern perimeter of the project site, facing the Freeway and the Minor Design Review of the project was to consider the design of the Message Sign. He explained that the other signage proposed would include Exterior Tenant Signs and Interim Tenant Signs. He explained that the Exterior Tenant Signs would be located on the exterior of the building along the Freeway and Collier Avenue. He further explained that the Interim Tenant Signs would be temporary and were intended to provide tenant identification until such time that the permanent signs were installed with a time limit not to exceed 180 days. He presented an exhibit of the Message Sign and gave an overview of the sign. He noted that consideration was given to the 82 feet request for the Freeway sign and noted that it was found necessary to allow visibility of the sign because of the height of the Nichols Road Overpass and this would allow the motorists the time to exit off of Nichols Road to go to the Outlet Center. He indicated that staff recommends approval of the Message Sign. Senior Planner Morita noted that Negative Declaration concluded that no significant impacts would result and staff recommends the Planning Commission certify Negative Declaration No. 00 -02 by adoption of Resolution No. 00 -26, based on the Findings found in the Staff Report; approve Zone Change No. 00 -02 by adoption of Resolution No. 00 -27, based on the Findings found in the Staff Report; approve Lake Elsinore Outlet Center Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 by adoption of Resolution No. 00 -28 based on the Findings found in the Staff Report; and approve Minor Design Review No. 00 -02, by adoption of Resolution No. 00 -29 based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval found in the Staff Report. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. and called upon Mike Hillstrom, who had submitted a request to speak. Mike Hillstrom, 39033 El Torro Road, stated that he was not opposed to the project, however he did have some concerns as follows: Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 1. Stated his concern regarding the reconstruction of the median along Collier Avenue. He noted that at the time that his property is developed a similar median break and driveway may be proposed and the proximity of two such left turn lanes could cause traffic congestion that might preclude access to his property. He suggested that the driveway be moved two full parking bays (or approximately 120 feet) to the northwest. He noted that this could be done without major redesign and would assure greater and safer spacing between the entrance to the proposed parking lot and future entrance to the corner of his property. 2. Addressed the issue of noise and stated that he has a verbal agreement with the Outlet Center management about parking lot sweeping and the Ramjet compactor. However he was concerned about the noise of the delivery trucks which enter the Outlet Center between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. and often honk their air horns to alert the security personnel to open access gates. He asked that the new access off Collier Avenue be limited to car traffic only as long as his property remains a residence. 3. Addressed signage and stated that should the driveway be moved and the new entrance monument signs moved as well, it would prevent the likelihood of it eclipsing future signage on his property. He noted that the site topography requires the Freeway Electrical Message Sign to be tall so as to be effective, and he had no objections as long as it was tastefully constructed and limited to non - glaring monochrome lighting. He stated that he did object to the billboard that was located on property owned by the Outlet Center and asked for reassurances from the Planning Commission and City Council that the amended guidelines within SP #3 preclude any changes in construction, size, location, electrification and/or elevation of this particular billboard and forbids the construction of any new billboards. 4. Noted that the available site plans show an existing block wall at the south east property line, and in reality, this wall begins at Collier Avenue and traverses only about 280 feet of the total distance, of 530 feet. He noted that the balance is a hedge of tall eucalyptus, a grapestake fence and a wood rubble wall, none of which is appropriate for the division of commercial property. He noted his concern about plans for the extension, location and the height of the wall. He further questioned the drainage from the project site and stated his concern about the project's impact on his structure. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant would like to speak on the project. The following representative addressed the Planning Commission: Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 Dan Kipper, KCT Consultants, Inc., 4344 Latham Street, Riverside, representing Castle and Cooke, stated that his firm prepared the Specific Plan Document and the Design Review Document. He thanked staff and stated that they worked closely with him and felt that his firm had come up with a very good plan for the Center. He noted that the Outlet Center is facing tremendous competition and the reason for the project was to allow Castle and Cooke to compete effectively and keep Lake Elsinore on the map as a retail center. He stated that if the Commission had any questions he would be available to respond. Deputy City Clerk Bryning stated that there was one piece of correspondence from Caltrans. Chairman Wilsey asked if anyone else would like to speak on the project. Hearing no requests, the public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Barnes stated that it was noted that Castle and Cooke were going to advertise City sponsored events on the Message Board and asked if there has been any agreement to the percentage as was done with the Union 76 Station. Community Development Director stated that there was not an agreement at this time and this would have to be addressed at a later time. Commissioner Barnes stated that he hoped that Castle and Cooke would not use the same company as Union 76, since they have a problem with maintaining their board. He stated that the Board does not get monitored at all and he questioned who on City staff should be addressing this issue, and hoped that this would not be the case with Castle and Cooke. He stated that he was in favor of the sign and felt that it was needed and would be of benefit to the Outlet Center. He addressed the new parking area and addressed the existing contours and asked where the drainage would go. Mr. Kipper stated that the grading design of the parking lot would perpetuate the existing drainage patterns. He explained that the water now flows into a concrete ditch that runs along the front of the property and empties into the wetland area. He noted that it also conveys the drainage from the Hillstrom's property as well. He indicated that the drainage would be perpetuated, however in the area of the new parking lot it will be proposed to receive the drainage in an underground pipeline to avoid having and unattractive open "V" ditch in the middle of the parking lot. He further indicated that they would be raising the grade of the lot a small amount to facilitate entry and exit to the parking lot. He further noted that staff has added a condition to requiring the applicant accept and convey off -site flows. Commissioner Barnes stated that he found it to be ironic that this Country spends so much time and money worrying about wetlands and then a parking lot is drained into the wetlands, full of hydrocarbons. He questioned the quality of water in any wetlands. He stated that due to the last minute submittal of the letter by the Hillstrom's, he would like the opportunity to review their concerns and recommended that the item be continued to the next regular Meeting. Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 Commissioner Polk noted that there has been a name change for the exit on Nichols Road to Outlet Center Drive and asked when it was to take place. Community Development Director Brady stated that the applicant was moving forward with the change. Mr. Kipper stated that the applicant has met with Caltrans and has come to an agreement on the design of the signs. He noted that they have solicited bids from appropriate contractors and stated that they were in the process of making a review of the bids at this time. He indicated that it was their intent to go forward with this project despite the large cost. Commissioner Polk commented on the cost of the proposed Message Board and Mr. Kipper concurred that it was costly, however necessary to the Outlet Center. Commissioner Polk stated his concern regarding active signs on the Freeway and stated that he felt that it represented a hazard because it could distract the drivers. He asked why the applicant was adding more parking when the current parking was adequate. Mr. Kipper noted that at peak seasons there was an overflow and the applicant felt that it would be a sound investment to utilize that area for parking as well as creating a balanced parking plan for the Outlet Center. He gave an overview of the current parking situation and noted that this project would improve the access to the Outlet Center. Commissioner Polk questioned the billboard that Mr. Hillstrom addressed. Community Development Director Brady stated that he would have to make a review of the billboard in question, however there had been issues of signs removed and litigation ensued. He indicated that Settlement Agreements were issued and the billboard in question may have been part of that issue. Commissioner Polk asked if there were going to be anymore billboards. Senior Planner Morita stated that the Specific Plan does not include any billboards. Commissioner Polk stated that in general he had no problems with the other signs. He stated that he does have a concern regarding potential development of adjacent property and asked if the applicant would consider the relocation of the driveway to mitigate the adjacent property owners concerns. Commissioner Sands stated that he does not have a problem with the Message Sign, however he does concur with Commissioner Barnes regarding the continuance of the item to allow time to review Mr. Hillstrom's concerns. Chairman Wilsey asked when staff received Mr. Hillstrom's letter. He stated that the project is now at this level and it is just now that these concerns were brought forward. Senior Planner Morita stated that the Public Hearing was properly noticed and staff met with the Hillstroms last Thursday. Chairman Wilsey asked if staff has any suggestions regarding the ingress and egress to resolve Mr. Hillstrom's concerns. Senior Planner Morita addressed Mr. Hillstrom's concern regarding noise and stated that it was an operational issue and noted that the applicant was willing to discuss the issue further. He explained that the City does have a noise ordinance that controls noise based on Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 performance standards regarding the level of noise that a development can generate. Chairman Wilsey suggested that Castle and Cooke develop operating procedures to facilitate being good neighbors. He suggested that Castle and Cooke install signage on the new entrance limiting it to automobiles and no truck traffic. He noted that Castle and Cooke own the property that the billboard is on and have a contractual obligation. He noted that the billboards were in litigation and there were certain issues that were resolved in litigation that the City must follow. He asked the applicant if it would be possible to delay the project two weeks for further consideration. Mr. Kipper stated that he felt that the applicant could accommodate the Hillstroms and stated that it was important to have a decision so the process could move on to prevent losing more customers and tenants. Chairman Wilsey conferred with Commission and it was agreed to address the issues and resolve the concerns. Chairman Wilsey asked if the entrance to the parking lot could be addressed. Community Development Director stated that he felt that it could and asked the City Engineer and Senior Planner to address the issues. Senior Planner Morita noted that the Revised Conditions of Approval address the issue of the block wall and stated that Condition No. 12, requires that the applicant coordinate with the neighboring residence to insure that there will be a 6 foot masonry wall along that site and stated that the City does not want to have a double wall situation, therefor, the requirement for coordination. He noted that the drainage was addressed in Condition No. 16, which requires the applicant to accept and convey the off -site drainage subject to the approval of the City Engineer. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that he visited the site with the Traffic Engineer to review the concerns of Mr. Hillstrom and noted that the driveway was in an unusual location and if it was developed as a commercial site the driveway would be in the center, however the way that it was designed is to allow for a truck exit. He noted that most of the trucks would be coming off of Nichols Road and turn left into the Center, however if the proposed driveway were made available, they would use this site for an exit to allow a right turn to allow access to the Freeway. Commissioner Barnes stated that if the parking lot is being used for overflow then he questioned why the parking lot could not be closed when there is no need. Chairman Wilsey stated that the parking lot would be used for overflow, however the intent was to balance the parking for the entire Center. City Engineer O'Donnell presented an overview of the existing driveway and indicated the relocation of the driveway. He stated that if Mr. Hillstrom developed a commercial project, typically the driveway to his site would be in the center of the property and would cause no conflict with turn-outs. He noted the location of Easy Products to Mr. Hillstrom's property and the left turn in and out could be shared with E -Z Products, located the opposite side of Collier Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 Avenue. He indicated that he could not say if moving the driveway would be a large benefit to the site. The applicant addressed the site of relocation of the drive and indicated that they would have no problem with relocation, however it does not fully address what they were trying to achieve, which was a smooth flow around the Center for safety and convenience. He stated that they would comply with the wishes of the Planning Commission. There was general discussion in regard to the location of the driveway and the use of the entrance and exit of the Outlet Center by delivery trucks. Mr. Hillstrom stated that if the applicant was willing to move the driveway down two parking bays, which would amount to approximately 120 feet, then he would be satisfied with the project. Chairman Wilsey stated that a sign could be posted restricting driveways during certain hours for truck deliveries. The applicant concurred. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that he would create a condition that states that "The driveway along Collier Avenue shall be approximately 130 feet northerly of the southerly property line to be approved by the City Engineer. The driveway at the Collier and at the existing entrance shall be posted for non -use of delivery trucks during night -time hours. Planning Manager Villa stated that this would be listed as Condition No. 19, and the following numbered conditions to be changed accordingly. Chairman Wilsey asked what letter size is found on the Reader Board on Railroad Canyon Road. Community Development Director Brady stated that he was not sure and would research this issue. Chairman Wilsey asked that the Senior Planner work out a percentage for the Reader Board prior to the item being presented at the City Council Meeting. Community Development Director Brady stated that Condition No. 10 addresses the issue. Chairman Wilsey stated that he had no problem with the Reader Board and noted other Reader Boards that he has seen. He felt that this would be appropriate. Commissioner Sands clarified the conditions and questioned the Monument Signs. Chairman Wilsey asked the applicant to respond. Mr. Kipper stated that the Monument Signs would be moved to correspond to the driveways. Community Development Director Brady stated that he would like to revise Condition No. 5 and all number changed accordingly to read "Parking lot sweeping shall not occur prior to 7:00 a.m. within any area closer than 750 feet to a residential use. Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 Senior Planner Morita noted for clarification the parking entrance issue should be numbered as Condition No. 17 and not Condition No. 19 and the remaining numbers fall accordingly. He suggested that a Condition No. 13 read "Signs shall be posted restricting delivery trucks during night -time hours." Commissioner Polk stated that it was not necessarily the trucks being on site, but rather them blowing their horns that caused the disturbance and felt that a more appropriate sign would prevent them blowing their air horns. He suggested that Castle and Cooke should take some responsibility for this as well and advise their tenants that they should inform their delivery drivers that there are residents in the area. Chairman Wilsey stated that the Commission was not trying to restrict delivery trucks, but rather to promote quiet hours. Community Development Director Brady stated that the intent was to restrict the truck traffic at the one driveway and that would be the only one affected. Senior Planner Morita stated that in addition, the Condition would also read "Store tenants would also be notified of any restrictions." Mr. Kipper stated that they have accommodated Mr. Hillstrom and asked that the Planning Commission consider recommending to City Council that the Permit Plan Check for the sign be expedited and the requirement for Landscape Plan review waived. He indicated that they have a detailed landscape pallette and he felt that a review would not be necessary. He noted that this would greatly aid the timing on the project. Community Development Director Brady stated that they would do everything in staff's power to expedite the project. Planning Manager Villa noted the location of the sign and indicated that one leg would be in an existing landscaped area, however the other leg of the sign would be in the parking lot that is currently not landscaped and he felt that this should have a review, however he noted that this could be done in a very short time and would not impede the project in any way. Senior Planner Morita clarified the need for a Landscape Plan review and noted the need for review of irrigation for maintenance purposes. Commissioner Polk questioned the timing for placing the Freeway exit signs versus the construction of the Message Sign Board. Mr. Kipper explained that the Reader Board required a City Permit and can be done in a timely manner, however the Street Name Change Signs has an exhaustive Structural Plan review by Caltrans; an exhaustive inspection process; and exhaustive Fabrication review process, prior to placing the signs on the Freeway. He indicated that if they had approved Caltrans structural documents today, he noted that it would still be six months before the signs would go up. He noted that the Reader Board would provide the Outlet Center with the necessary advertising needed to remain competitive. Community Development Director Brady then read each of the resolutions for consideration by Planning Commission inclusive of the revision of the Conditions of Approval. Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 00-26, CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 00-02. RESOLUTION NO. 00-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CERTIFICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 00-02. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 00 -27 APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 00-02. RESOLUTION NO. 00-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 00-029 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APN 389- 22 -01, FROM M -1 (LIMITED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT) TO "LAKE ELSINORE OUTLET CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN". MOVED BY SANDS, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO.3 TO THE LAKE ELSINORE SPECIFIC PLAN. RESOLUTION NO. 00-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, ASPPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO.3 TO THE LAKE ELSINORE OUTLET CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, TO EXPAND THE OVERALL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BY 3.5 ACRES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AND AMEND THE SIGNAGE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY SANDS AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 1 WITH POLK CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE AND MATTHIES ABSENT TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 00 -29 MINOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. 00-02. Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, APPROVAL OF MINOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. 00 -029 FOR A PROPOSED FREEWAY ELECTRIC MESSAGE SIGN AT THE LAKE ELSINORE OUTLET CENTER. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED AT 8:15 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 8:24 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECESSED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AT 8:24 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 8:25 P.M. INFORMATIONAL Summary of Neighborhood Meeting on June 22, 2000. Community Development Director Brady stated that this item is a summary of the Neighborhood Meeting held June 22, 2000, for the proposed project on Canyon Estate Drive. He stated that another meeting would be scheduled in the near future. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Sands commented on the following: Noted the report received from staff regarding Canyon Estates was very good and stated that he hoped that this would be moving forward in the near future. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: • Concurred with Commissioner Sands and noted that he realizes what hard work it was on staff to have all the extra meetings, however he felt that it was worthwhile and would smooth the way for the project. • Stated that he was glad that all the concerns were met regarding the Outlet Center. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • Stated that he was not aware that a resident was located next to the Outlet Center and he was glad that all the concerns were met. Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes - July 5, 2000 • He commended staff for the Neighborhood Meetings and stated that although it is a lot of extra work it is necessary. He when Canyon Estates will be before Planning Commission. Community Development Director Brady stated that it would be sometime in August. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: • Concurred with the rest of the Commissioners regarding a job well done. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:29 P.M. i�� Respectfully submitted, Adna L. Brynmg, Deputy ty Clerk ATTEST: i OBERT A. BRADY, ECRETARY TO THE PLANNING C MISSION MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. OATH OF OFFICE Deputy City Clerk Bryning administered the Oath of Office to re- appointed Commissioners Matthies and Barnes and newly appointed Commissioner Nash. NOMINATION OF OFFICERS Community Development Director Brady suggested that this be continued until the first meeting of August when the annual Planning Commission and Design Review Committee Reorganization will take place. The Commissioners Concurred. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, MATTHIES, POLK, AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, Information / Communications Manager Dennis, Deputy City Clerk Bryning, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY A 3 -2 VOTE WITH MATTHIES AND NASH ABSTAINING TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - July 5, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS None. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Resolution No. 00 -30. a Resolution of Intention Initiati Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a matter of procedure that needs to be followed to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code. He noted that the Section to be addressed at this time is temporary signs and inflatables. Planning Manager PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 19, 2000 Villa reiterated that this is just a matter of procedure. He indicated that a major overhaul of the Sign Code needs to be done, but that at this time the priority is to bring back a draft temporary advertising amendment. He noted that Resolution No. 00 -30 would initiate Zone Code Amendment No. 00 -01 and set a Public Hearing date of August 2, 2000. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -30 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 17.94.090 AND 17.94.150 (ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, ZCA NO. 00-01). 3. Discussion on Regulations Pertaining to Temporary and Inflatable Advertising Devises Community Development Director Brady indicated that staff is requesting input from the Planning Commission regarding drafting a new temporary sign code. He indicated that there is an urgency to draft a new temporary sign code now and if the Planning Commission so wished, staff could look at a major overhaul of the sign code at a later date. Chairman Wilsey suggested that staff listen to the Planning Commissioners' comments on the entire sign code tonight so staff would have input for a future overhaul. Planning Manager Villa stated that currently balloons and inflatables are prohibited. He stated that staff is suggesting that these signs be allowed as a temporary sign. He stated that some of the direction that staff would like input on is duration of permits, number of permits permitted per year, number of inflatables permitted per permit, and maximum size of inflatables. He stated that staff is requesting this information so that an ordinance can be drafted and submitted for review on August 2, 2000. Community Development Director noted that Southern California Edison submitted a letter indicating that they did not have a problem with balloons in general but requested that balloons be not allowed on long tethers which could interfere with power lines. The letter also requested that metallic balloons be prohibited as when they are released they interfere with power lines. Commissioner Barnes suggested that Section 17.94.020(A) be amended to include flags, pennants, and balloons in the definitions. He commented that the size of the signs allowed in Section 17.94.060(A)(7) be smaller. He questioned the last sentence of Section 17.94.075 and asked if the City should be prohibited from reviewing or approving the contents of non- commercial signs. Commissioner Barnes asked what happens if signs are not removed pursuant to Section 17.94.110(A)(1). He asked if private property, as used in Section 17.94.150(E)(4), specifically means not on public right -of -way. He noted that Section 17.94.170(1) should indicated that no signs, etc. be allowed on freeway fencing. In conclusion, Commissioner Barnes noted that the ordinance should include verbiage that all signs, balloons, etc., be kept in good repair or be removed within five days. Community Development Director Brady noted that the some of this would be enforceable, such as the time limit, through the permitting process. Commissioner Polk noted that the large inflatables, such as those on Casino, could be a safety issue if they come loose. He also noted that many of the power lines are above ground and could be an issue. Commissioner Nash stated although the City is trying to be more business friendly, there is still a need to have these large inflatables properly anchored. He stated that the ordinance must clearly indicate how many permits are allowed per year and the number of days each permit is good for. He stated that inflatables should be an impact advertising device, not a permanent sign. He noted the City needs to allow a business to advertise as long as the advertising is done in a proper and responsible way. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 19, 2000 Commissioner Matthies stated that the ordinance definitely needs to be more business friendly while at the same time it must outline safety precautions that must be adhered to, such as anchoring. She noted that Section 17.94.060(A)(7) needs to address the requirement that these signs be removed in a timely manner. She stated that Section 17.94.060(A)(8) should indicate that window signs might only cover a certain percentage of the window area. She noted that Section 17.94.110 requires that political signs be removed within 7 days of the election. She asked why Special Event signs not be allowed the same standards, instead of 24 hours. Community Development Director stated that political signs must be dealt with a little differently due to a person's right to freedom of speech. He also noted that staff needs to look at how the regulations will be enforced. Commissioner Polk noted that he believes a person should have to post a bond guaranteeing the removal of political signs. Commissioner Barnes showed an example of a cardboard sign being posted around Tuscany Hills. He asked how the city could enforce the removal of such signs if it is not known who posted the signs. Commissioner Nash stated that the ordinance must be enforceable in terms of available Code Enforcement staff. Commissioner Matthies stated that Section 17.94.200(D)(3) should also stated that alcohol and tobacco signs are prohibited near gasoline pumps. She also noted that the ordinance should prohibit signs on awnings. Chairman Wilsey stated that these are all excellent comments. He noted that Section 17.94.090(H) prohibits billboards. He asked how to deal with illegal billboards. He stated that he wants to be fair with inflatables. He stated he also has problems with banners along the freeway frontage. He suggested that staff might want to consider allowing additional signs on buildings with freeway frontage to discourage the use of banners. He stated that the issue of smaller balloons, as commented on by Southern California Edison, needs to be addressed. He suggested that maybe the balloons could be allowed on weekends only. He stressed that inflatables may have to be allowed, but they must be regulated. He stated he thought 2 -3 times a year with a two -week maximum per permit may be acceptable. Commissioner Barnes noted that developers also use balloons and flags for new subdivisions. He stated that he was concerned about balloons at dealerships breaking free. Commissioner Polk stated that clean, i.e. all staples and tape removed, and timely removal of garage sale signs also need to be addressed. Community Development Director Brady stated that educating the community about any new regulations is important when considering enforcement. He noted that any sign in a public right -of -way is illegal if not approved by the City. He stated that the existing garage sale permit does not allow signs in the right -of -way. He concurred that enforcement is difficult if it is not known who posted the sign. Commissioner Polk asked how public awareness could be raised. Chairman Wilsey noted that City newsletters and brochures could be included in utility bills. Community Development Director Brady stated that what he was hearing the Commissioner's say was that inflatables should be allowed including small balloons, large inflatables, and inflatable statuaries, but that metallic balloons should be prohibited. Commissioner Barnes asked if there was a standard size for the inflatable statuaries. Community Development Director Brady suggested that a maximum height from grade be considered, instead of a maximum overall size or mass. Chairman Wilsey stated staff should review what other cities are allowing. Commissioner Nash noted that there should be setback requirements, including setbacks from the edge of buildings if placed on a rooftop, and from power lines. Community Development Director Brady suggested that maybe small balloons can be permitted outright by dealerships on weekends only. Chairman Wilsey questioned the fairness of singling out one group. He noted that this should be allowed for any type of business on weekends only. Chairman Wilsey suggested staff contact a few manufacturers to PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 19, 2000 see what they suggest in the way of anchoring. Commissioner Polk noted that it is important to educate the public on the City's concerns regarding aesthetics and safety. Commissioner Nash stated that the more successful the businesses, the more they benefit the City. Commissioner Matthies stated that it would be nice to hear from business owners. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 8:10 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:11 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following • He noted that the City Council next week would be Monday, July 24. • He indicated that the City Council requested a Study Session on the Outlet Center Specific Plan Amendment. He stated that it would be set for Public Hearing after the Study Session. • He welcomed Commissioner Nash to the Planning Commission and congratulated Commissioner's Matthies and Barnes on their reappointments. He noted that staff enjoys working with all the Planning Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: She welcomed Commissioner Nash to the Commission and congratulated Commissioner Barnes on his reappointment. She indicated that she was happy to be back. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: He congratulated Commissioners Nash, Barnes, and Matthies. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: He also congratulated Commissioner Nash and Matthies and noted he was honored to be back. He thanked Jim Sands for all his hard work on the Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, and Nuisance Abatement Committee. He noted his disappointment in the action City Council took on the Outlet Center Specific Plan Amendment. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: He indicated that he was honored to be appointed to the Planning Commission. He congratulated Commissioners Matthies and Barnes in the reappointment. He stated that he was looking forward to working with everyone. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following He noted that if the city Council so desires, the Planning Commission would be happy to attend. PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 19, 2000 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:15 PM. Respectfully Submitted onika Hennin , Community Development Secretary Robert A. Brady, Secret to the Planning Comm n issio MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, MATTHIES, POLK, AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, City Engineer O'Donnell, Planning Manager Villa, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. ANNUAL REORGANIZATION Community Development Director Brady declared the Planning Commission Chairman position open and asked for nominations. Commissioner Matthies nominated Commissioner Wilsey. Commissioner Barnes seconded this nomination. There being no other nominations, Community Development Director Brady closed the nominations for Chairman. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER WILSEY AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN FOR THE NEXT YEAR. Community Development Director Brady declared the Planning Commission Vice Chairman position open and asked for nominations. Commissioner Wilsey nominated Commissioner Barnes. Commission Barnes nominated Commissioner Polk. Commissioner Polk declined the nomination. There being no further nominations, Community Development Director closed the nominations for Vice Chairman. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY WILSEY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER BARNES AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE NEXT YEAR Community Development Director Brady indicated that at this time Section 8.18 of the LEMC requires two Planning Commissioners be appointed to the Nuisance Abatement Committee. He indicated that the City Council, at their next meeting, would be discussing the possibility of revising this requirement to allow other individuals to sit on the Nuisance Abatement Committee. He noted that until the City Council acts on this item, he would suggest the Planning Commission go ahead and appoint two Commissioners to the Nuisance Abatement Committee. Community Development Director Brady declared the Nuisance Abatement Committee positions open and called for any nominations. Chairman Wilsey noted that the meetings are held on the first Wednesday of each month at 9:00 am. He stated that only those PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 2000 individuals that can attend during the day should be appointed. Commissioner Polk nominated Commissioner Barnes. Commissioner Barnes nominated Commissioner Polk. There being no further nominations, Community Development Director Brady closed the nominations. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER BARNES AND COMMISSIONER POLK TO THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes a. Planning Comtission Regular Meeting - July 19, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Commissioner Barnes excused himself from the room at 7:06 pm. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is an amendment to a previously approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map in the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan area. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the project with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that there were a couple of corrections that needed to be made. She asked that on Page 4 the recommendation be corrected to read "... Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23848 -9, 10, 11, Amendment No. 1... " She also asked that Condition No. 15 be corrected to read "... prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, pursuant to Section 6.2... " Associate Planner Miller gave a brief background of the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23848. She noted that the amendment being requested by the applicant would reconfigure the roadways and reduce the number of lots. The proposal will now include 252 lots single - family lots and two HOA lots on approximately 77 acres. Associate Planner Miller stated that all of staff s concerns have been addressed through the proposed Conditions of Approval. She noted that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23848 -9, 10, & 11, Amendment No. 1. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant is present and she understands that he would like to revise one condition. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 pm. Mr. Jim Mullins, Project Design Consultants, stated he would first like to note that staff did an excellent job. He indicated he is not strongly opposed the Condition No. 74 but that he would like to recommend alternative wording. He noted that Pardee Construction is looking at the possibility of interim striping on Lost Road. He stated that the condition requires the installation of a traffic signal without any further study. He said he would like to recommend that a stop sign is installed immediately and then a study is completed to determine if a signal is needed and at what point in build out is it warranted. He stated that they have worked hard to improve the old design and they think they accomplished it. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 2000 There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the public hearing at 7:14 pm. Commissioner Polk stated that he has reviewed the Conditions of Approval and find them well written. He stated that he is concerned about safety and feels the traffic signal should be installed as soon as possible. He indicated that the condition should remain as presented. Commissioner Nash commended staff on a well- written report. He indicated that he does not feel he can comment on the signal without more knowledge of the overall project. He noted he does understand what the applicant is saying but noted he would need more information on traffic flow from surrounding Tract Maps. Commissioner Matthies asked City Engineer O'Donnell for his input. City Engineer O'Donnell stated he received this requested revision today and he talked to the Traffic Engineer this afternoon. He explained that a Traffic Warrant Study does not take into account the type of pedestrians, i.e. children, and does not take into account of the type of street, i.e. width. He stated he would be willing to compromise and say the signal can be installed after 100 units. City.Engineer O'Donnell asked the applicant if Planning Areas 1 through 8 are going to be built before Planning Areas 9 through 11. Mr. Morris indicated that Planning Areas 1 through 8 would be approximately 40% built out when Planning Areas 9 through 11 are started. City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that the traffic would not be from just this tract. He stated that the condition just be left as proposed. Commissioner Matthies commended staff on a job well done. She stated that she feels the condition should be left as is, especially since there is a school in the vicinity. Chairman Wilsey asked the applicant why they are proposing these changes to the map. Mr. Mullins stated that they looked at phase 1 and noted an abundance of shallow lots. He indicated that they wanted to come up with something to complement phase 1. He stated that the new configuration alleviates some four way stops and adds more cul -de -sacs. He stated that the emphasis is now on quality not quantity. He stated that all of the lots are either on the rims with views, on cul -de -sacs, or back up to open space. Chairman Wilsey inquired about the Residential Monitoring Program. Planning Manager Villa stated that the intent is to monitor the number of residential lots and associated statistics within the Specific Plan Area. He noted that there have been enough changes to the individual maps that an updated Monitoring Program is needed to allow staff to keep track of what is being built. Associate Planner Miller noted that she has also asked the applicant to update Exhibit 'A' to reflect the recent changes to the maps. Chairman Wilsey indicated that he is in favor of leaving the Condition as proposed. He noted that this does not prevent the applicant from talking with staff and possibility coming to another solution prior to the City Council meeting. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that he looked at the proposed map again and he indicated that he would be in agreement with changing the wording to 100 units. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY A 4 -1 VOTE WITH BARNES ABSTAINING TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -31 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23848-9, 10, & 11, AMENDMENT NO. 1, WITH THE CHANGE TO CONDITION NO. 74. Commissioner Barnes returned to the meeting at 7:30 pm. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 2000 3. Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA) No. 00 -01, An Amendment to Sections 17.94.090 & 17.94.150 "Signs- Advertising Structures" of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Community Development Director Brady indicated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, the Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention to amend the Sign Ordinance with the focus being on temporary, signs. He noted that staff has prepared a proposed amendment with this being the focus with the understanding that staff will come back at a later date with a major overhaul of the entire Sign Ordinance. Planning Manager Villa indicated that he considered the concerns that the Commission voiced at the July 19 meeting and included the concerns of staff. Planning Manager Villa reviewed the changes that were made to the Sign ordinance. Chairman Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 pm. Mr. Norris Marshall, owner of The Bookstore, indicated that it was comforting to know that the City is listening to the concerns of the local businesses and making an attempt to find a solution. He stated that he is concerned about the proposed time frame mentioned in Section 17.94.150 (D) (4) (a). He stated that he is aware of the need for safety but pointed out that the new inflatables are much different than those used 10 -15 years ago. He stated that there are professionals that install and maintain these large inflatables, the business owner does not do it. He indicated that a major cost is incurred each time the inflatable is handled. He suggested that the inflatables should be allowed to remain for 30 days instead of the proposed 14 days to make it cost efficient. Mr. Marshall indicated that the local businesses need to attract customers. He stated that the businesses along Casino Drive agree that inflatables and balloons are needed to attract customers, but they also agree that regulations have to be adopted. He noted that he would not be able to afford to have an inflatable installed for only 14 days. He offered to provide phone numbers of some companies that would be able to answer technical questions regarding the installation and safety measures being used. He noted that these inflatables would not fly away. He stated that if they were for some reason separated from the air source, then they would just deflate. He further noted that the companies who provide and install the inflatables have restrictions about flying the balloons during high winds, especially during the Santa Ana winds. He ended with the request that the Planning Commission extends the 14 -day period to 30 days to meet both the City needs and the business needs. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 7:46 Pro. Commissioner Nash thanked Mr. Marshall for taking the time to come to tonight's meeting and to voice his concerns. He stated that he would not have a problem allowing large inflatables at a business for two or three 30 days periods during a one -year period. He noted that safety concerns will always be a priority and noted that he does not believe the requirements in the proposed ordinance are extravagant. He stated that the intent of the ordinance is to prevent an inflatable from becoming a permanent devise, he stated that it should be an impact advertising device. He stated that the City does not have the ability to enforce much of the day to day violations. He indicated that there really needs to be cooperation between the City and the local business and a public awareness campaign. Commissioner Matthies concurred with Commissioner Nash. She stated that she understands the costs to the businesses and that the City does want to support the local small businesses. She indicated that she agreed with all the other changes. Commissioner Barnes noted that Section 17.94.090 (C) prohibits signs which incorporate flashing, moving, or intermittent lighting. He asked if these signs need to be regulated not prohibited since some signs, like the message board that was just approved for the Outlet Center, do incorporate these features. Community Development Director Brady indicated that some areas, such as the Outlet Center, has special signage regulations encompassed in PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 2000 the Specific Plan. He suggested that the wording "unless otherwise permitted by a Specific Plan" be added to the end of this sentence. Chairman Wilsey noted that the Union 76 off Grape Street is not in a Specific Plan area and it has a message board. Community Development Director Brady suggested that the wording "unless specifically authorized by a Specific Plan or overlay district." Community Development Director Brady stated that it could be included that these signs would only be allowed in an area of approximately 45 acres in size. Chairman Wilsey noted that eventually the area around Collier and Central may want a message board and that area would not fall in that size guideline. Commissioner Nash noted that anyone with a large business would realize that they could request a Variance. Commissioner Barnes noted that 17.94.150 (D)(2) should include a statement that temporary banners not be used for store names, but only to advertise special offerings or sales. Community Development Director Brady expressed caution over regulating sign copy as this is protected under the 1' Amendment. Planning Manager Villa stated that the title of the section states "for promotional purposes" and that this type of banner would only be allowed six times per year instead of the currently allowed 12 times per year. Commissioner Barnes also noted that both Sections 17.94.150 (D)(2)(e) and (4)(e) state "... be kept in good condition at all times." He asked "or what ". Chairman Wilsey stated that if a banner or inflatable were not kept in good condition, the matter would be turned over to Code Enforcement. Community Development Director Brady stated the difficulty is defining "good ". He stated that the intention is to look at the appearance and aesthetics of all signs. He noted that any sign could not remain for longer than 30 days. He indicated that this is one method of assurance that a temporary sign can not stay up forever and deteriorate. He stated that Code Enforcement is also looking at their processes to see if it may be possible to rewrite the enforcement process to allow Code Enforcement to react to code violations more quickly. Commissioner Barnes stated he would not have a problem with allowed inflatable to remain up for 30 days four times a year with at least 30 days between occurrences. Mr. Marshall pointed out that when the inflatables or signs are taken down, maintenance could occur. He stated that the purpose of any type of temporary sign is to attract customers and that a business owner would want the sign to look good. He requested that the inflatable be allowed six times per year, just like the banners, to maximize a business' profits. Commissioner Barnes stated that he would like to see the section to read 30 days with 30 days in between. He questioned if the tenant should provide proof of permission from the owner to install. Community Development director Brady stated that this could be part of the permit process. Commissioner Barnes indicated that the proposed regulations for window signs as outlined in Section 17.94.150 (F)(2) will not work during the Thanksgiving and Christmas. Community Development Director suggested simplifying the wording and just require signs be removed so many days after a holiday. He stated that what the City needs is a mechanism for dealing with businesses that leave up the window signs and the holiday. Planning Manager Villa stated that the proposed wording is consistent with the regulations for the Downtown area. He stated that the primary concern is the removal of these signs. Chairman Wilsey suggested that the word "season" be added to add additional clarification. Corrunissioner Polk stated that he is concerned about Section 17.94.090 (C) and suggested that the sentence end with the following verbiage: "... except by Conditional use Permit as approved by the Planning Commission ". Planning Manager Villa cautioned using the Variance and Conditional Use Permit processes too loosely. Commissioner Polk noted that banners are allowed six times per year while inflatables are only allowed four times. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the focus is on aesthetics. He stated that the proposal is to allow inflatable four times a year for 30 days each occurrence. He stated that this means a business can have an inflatable for 120 days while the current ordinance prohibits them. He stated that this opens up all businesses the option of having inflatables. Commissioner Polk noted that banners are just as unsightly PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 2000 and suggested that the two are kept consistent. Community Development Director Brady indicated that banners have a great influence on the aesthetics along freeway frontage. Commissioner Polk as if 45 feet is high enough for the small balloons. He stated that they are currently much longer. He suggested allowing them to be 75 feet longs. Community Development director Brady noted that a letter was received from Southern California Edison outlining their concerns in regards to the length and height of strings of balloons. He stated that inflatables are stationary while strings of balloons can fly over right of ways and power lines. Commissioner Polk stated that the value of any advertising is the number of times the advertising is seen. He stated he agreed with Mr. Marshall's concerns and stated that the inflatables should be allowed for 30 -day increments. Commissioner Polk stated he still has a concern with the word "season" in Section 17.94.150 (F). He also asked if the City could limit the number of balloons or inflatables on any one street or area. The consensus was that this would not be possible. Planning Manager Villa reiterated the aesthetic value. Commissioner Polk suggested that banners be changed to only four times per year. He stated that any advertising benefit diminishes after 30 days because people are used to seeing the sign and thus ignore it. Mr. Marshall indicated that the 30 -day cycle is acceptable. He stated that inflatables are not unsightly. He stated that in fact they could be permanent signs. He stated that he does not see a concern with the holiday season. He reiterated that he would like to be able to have inflatables six times a year. Mr. Marshall noted his appreciation to the Commission for the amount of time that they have spent on this issue. Commissioner Polk stated that Section 17.94.150 (E)(2) really only is an issue twice a year. He stated that if the wording was changed to six weeks before the holiday and six weeks after the holiday, then all concerns should be covered. Commissioner Polk further stated that he understood the company who installs the inflatables is liable for any damage. Mr. Marshall stated that that is true but that the ultimate responsibility still lies with the business owner. He stated that it would not be unreasonable to request a certificate of insurance during the permit process. Commissioner Barnes stated that his concern is if there would be any way the City could be held liable since they issued the permit. Chairman Wilsey stated that it is not any different than any other sign permit. Community Development Director stated that he could check with the City Attorney. Associate Planner Miller noted that one difference is that a building official inspects other signs and balloons and inflatables would not be inspected. Chairman Wilsey noted that he agrees with the proposed wording that Commissioner Polk can up with for Section 17.94.090. He asked staff what the purpose of Section 17.94.150 (C). Planning Manager Villa noted that this section would allow one banner and one balloon. This gives the business owner flexibility. Chairman Wilsey indicated that there is a fine line for inflatables between advertising device and permanent sign. He stressed that inflatables should not be used as a permanent sign. He stated he would agree with a duration of 30 days for 3 or 4 times a year. He stated this would be the same for pennants and flags. Commissioner Nash stated that the emphasis is to be more business friendly and not to regulate the businesses to death. He said the spirit is to trying to make an impact and not to loose efficiency by the sign being too permanent. He stated that he understands that Mr. Marshall thinks inflatables are beautiful but that beauty lies in the beholder. Commissioner Nash applauded Mr. Marshall for coming to the meeting tonight and participating in the discussion. Commissioner Matthies concurred. Community Development Director Brady read through the agreed upon changes to the proposed ordinance. They are as follows: Section 17.94.090 "The following signs shall not be permitted in my disttiee unbs Vaifica ly allowxi by a SpecificPlcm, owrkry dutmt, or a&ud eLTub?rr in the code. " PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 2000 Section 17.94.090 (B) "Vehicles containing advertising parked wheth on public or private property... " Section 17.94.150 (Title) Deviees "Temporary Signs ". Section 17.94.150 (D)(2) (a) "Banners shall be allowed a maximum of thirty (30) consecutive days per occurrence period, 4x -((r) four (4) times per calendar year. Each occurrence period shall be separated by €eth-teen (14) thirty (30) consecutive days. Section 17.94.150 (D)(44)_ Title) "Large inflatable non - metallic devices "balloons" greater than 12" in diameter" Section 17.94.150 (D)(4l(al "... a maximum of fewteen (14) thh-ty (30) consecutive days per occurrence period, four (4) times per calendar year. Each occurrence period shall be separated by €eth-teen (14) thirty (30) consecutive days... " Section 17.94.150 (D)(4)(al "Only one injlatable affou&per buiYing. " Section 17.94.150 (F)(2) "...limited to a period not exceeding two -(2} six (6) weeks prior to the holiday and t v&o six (6) weeks following the holiday." MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00 -32 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 00 -01 WHICH PROPOSES TO AMEND SECTIONS 17.94.090 AND 17.94.150 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, ZCA NO. 00 -01). BUSINESS ITEMS None. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 8:43 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:45 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Develoyment Director Bradt/ commented on the following: He noted that the Outlet Center SPA would be going to the City Council on August 22, 2000. He stated staff and management met with the applicant and a study session will not be necessary. He noted that at their last meeting, the City Council saw a presentation of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP). The City Council requested additional information on the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). He noted a Study Session has been tentatively scheduled for August 17 at 2:00 pm. He indicated that the Planning commissioners would receive a notice when the date has been confirmed. PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 2000 He indicated that he would be on vacation when the Planning Corntnission next meets. He stated Planning Manager Villa would be present at the meeting. Planning Manager Villa commented on the following: No comments. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: • She thanked the Commission on her nomination of DRC Chairwomen. • She thanked Florence Mowrer on her quick response to her request. She congratulated staff on a job well done tonight. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: • He indicated that the staff report on Cottonwood Hills Tentative Tract Map was excellent and the Proposed Sign Ordinance was well prepared. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: He concurred with Commissioner Polk • He asked staff if the used car sale at Wal -Mart last weekend was approved. Associate Planner Miller indicated that they did not have a permit but they would be notified. Commissioner Barnes noted his concern was that they had cars parked along Grape Street. • He asked for the status of the shields on the lights at Wienerschnitzel. Community Development Director Brady indicated his impression that they had been installed. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff was told they were installed when they had not actually been installed. She noted she would be meeting with the applicant soon. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: • He congratulated staff on both reports. Community Development Director Brady indicated City Engineer O'Donnell also puts in a lot of work on the reports. He stated that all staff does a great job. He congratulated the Commissioners on their appointments. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: He congratulated the Commissioners on their appointments and thanked his fellow Commissioners on reappointing him as Chair. He stated that Excel was asked to clean up the trail system. He stated they stopped at the Flood Control Ditch. He noted that the job needs to be completed. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:54 PM. PAGE 9 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 2, 2000 Respectfully Submitted /1 !I / Z onika Henning V, Community Development Secretary 90 Robert A. Brady, S retary to the Planning Co ion `/ L�Lamon ��oTOme of t& Stadium" E dium NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission / Design Review Committee Meeting regularly scheduled for Wednesday, August 16, 2000 has been canceled due to lack of agenda items. DATED: August 11, 2000 Monika Hennings Community Development Secretary City of Lake Elsinore 130 cSout� e�Main eSitEEt, - akE 'Ef1[noce, CC�4 92530 • g' &Pfzone: (909) 674 -3124 lax: (909 ) 67g -2392 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Polk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, MATTHIES, POLK, AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - August 2, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS None. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Resolution No. 2000 -33 Recommending to the City Council Adoption of the California Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a housekeeping item and asked that Planning Manager Villa give a brief background. Planning Manager Villa stated that CEQA has changed over the last few years. He stated that the City could choose to adopt the State CEQA Guidelines or draft their own guidelines. He stated that staff did not see it necessary to reinvent the wheel so they are recommending adoption of the State CEQA Guidelines. He noted that staff is also asking that the Cit-y's Implementation Procedures be adopted. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 Commissioner Nash asked if this changes the way that the City currently processes projects. Planning Manager Villa stated that this would not change anything. He stated this is just a procedure that needs to be done to keep the City in compliance with State Law. There were no comments from any other Commissioners. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -33 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATE GUIDELINES AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED (DECEMBER 1, 1999) BY THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) OF 1970, AS AMENDED AND ADOPTION OF THE CITY'S PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. INFORMATIONAL Community Development Director Brady indicated that on August 23, 2000 staff held a Community Meeting regarding the Summerhill project. He stated that approximately 12 -15 people attended the two -hour meeting. He noted that staff was surprised with the residents comments. He stated that the consensus was that the residents prefer to keep the property zoned residential, but if it were rezoned to Commercial they would approve of the majority of staff s recommendations of allowed uses. He noted that the residents did not want low income residential, but their first choice would be multi - family residential. Community Development Director Brady noted that this was a change from the previous meetings where the residents did not want multi - family residential. He stressed that this was the feeling of only 12 -15 of the residents. Community Development Director Brady noted that this is tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission Hearing on October 4, 2000. Planning Manager Villa stated that there was a different atmosphere at the second Community Meeting compared to the first. He stated that he had revised the allowable uses to reflect the majority of the wishes expressed at the first meeting. He noted that staff will present a recommendation on October 4, 2000 and the Planning Commission can hear comments and make a recommendation to the City Council at that time. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:16 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:22 pm. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following: He noted that a Study Session has been tentatively scheduled for September 19, 2000 to discuss Regional Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees. He indicated that the City Council approved the amendments to the Sign Ordinance. He stated that the City Council has requested a Study Session be held to discuss a comprehensive review of the Sign Ordinance. He stated that this Study Session is tentatively scheduled for October 17, 2000. He indicated that the City Council approved the Outlet Center Specific Plan Amendment and the Design Review of the Message Board. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 He stated that the League of California Cities Conference is this week. He noted that staff is requesting that the City Council approve a consultant to prepare the update to the Housing Element. He noted that there would be Public Hearings held later in the process, once the draft is completed. Planning Manager Villa commented on the following_ No comments. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Nash commented on the following: He welcomed Dr. Arce to the City. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: He asked for a report on the first Code Enforcement Meeting with the new members. Community Development Director Brady apologized for not informing the Commissioners that new members were appointed. He noted that the City Council nominated and the City Manager appointed two members and one alternate. He stated that George Rivera turned down the appointment, which leaves David Cheney and Tim Crawford as the Nuisance Abatement Hearing Officers. He asked for an update on Granite Homes. Community Development Director Brady stated that he last talked to Granite Homes 1 -2 weeks ago. He stated that at that time Granite Homes was working with the Fish and Wildlife Service and moving towards obtaining their permits. He stated that at this time Granite Homes is allowed to complete any homes currently under construction but can not start any new homes. He stated that they hope to have all necessary permits early next year. He noted that Pacific Century Homes is moving right along. Community Development Director Brady indicated that they are moving at a fast pace. He stated that the landscaping on Summerhill should begin at the end of the month He thanked Associate Planner Miller for her efforts in getting Wienerschnitzel to comply with the lighting requirements. He told her to keep struggling and don't let up until they are in compliance. Comrissioner Polk commented on the following: He noted that it does look like the residents surrounding the Summerhill project have changed their tune. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it did take staff by surprise. He stated that it did seem like there was one definite spokesperson for the group and noted that this also does not necessarily represent the feelings of all the residents, as only a small group was present. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: She noted that the Rodeo made money their first year back. She stated that that is great as it usually takes a new event a few years before it starts making money. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: He asked that the Commissioners attending the League conference to report back at the next Commissioner Meeting. He noted that he would be out of town until September 19, 2000. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:35 PM. Respectfully Submitted onika Hennin , Community Development Secretary MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, MATTHIES, POLK, AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, and Community Development Secretary Hemungs. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no request to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - September 6, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS None. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Minor Design R Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a Minor Design Review for a single family residence. He asked Planning Manager Villa to discuss the project with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa indicated that this is a Minor Design Review for a single family residence to be located at 4108 Crestview Drive. He indicated that the proposed house is located in an area known as Crystal Aire Estates and noted that the house is proposed to be 2,350 square feet on a lot of approximately 24,987 square feet. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the house will be set back from the street 50 feet. He reviewed the proposed colors and materials with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the proposal meets all the requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and as such Staff recommends approval. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 3. The applicant, Mr. Curtis Pace inquired who would approve any changes to the design as mentioned in Condition No. 5 and 6. Community Development Director Brady noted that staff would approve any minor changes to the plans. Mr. Pace stated that Condition No. 12 requires that he plant the street trees prior to the issuance of building permits. He asked if this could be postponed until after construction. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the Condition should stated that the street trees are required to be planted prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, not the issuance of building permits. Mr. Pace indicated that Condition No. 15 is similar in that it requires the fence to be constructed prior to issuance of building permits. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this condition should also state "prior to certificate of occupancy" not issuance of building permits. Mr. Pace asked whom the park -in -lieu fees are paid to and how much they are. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the are paid as a part of the building permit. Commissioner Matthies had no comments Commissioner Polk noted that he was surprised that a sewer connection is not available to the proposed location. Commissioner Barnes also was surprised that sewer is not available. He noted that the leach line is only eight feet from the property line and asked if this meets all codes. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Building Codes would dictate the requirements of the septic system. Commissioner Barnes asked that staff double check the requirements for a septic system. Commissioner Nash had no comments. Chairman Wilsey asked where the nearest sewer connection was located. Community Development Director Brady stated that he believed it was at Machado. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -34 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 2,350 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 590 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE LOCATED AT 4108 CRESTVIEW DRIVE - APN 379 - 300 -005 WITH THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED CHANGES TO CONDITIONS NO. 12 AND 15. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request similar to the previous item. He asked Planning Manager Villa to review the request with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa noted that this is a request for Minor Design Review of a two -story single family residence to be located at 4127 Crestview Drive. He stated that the house is proposed to be 2,243 square foot on a lot of approximately 24,987 square feet and that it would be set back 50 feet from Crestview Drive. He reviewed the materials and colors with the Planning Commission. Planning Manager Villa noted that the request meets requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and staff would recommend approval. Community Development Director Brady indicated that Conditions No. 12 and 15 are the same as the previous request and need to be changed from "prior to issuance of building permits" to "prior to certificate of occupancy". Mr. Curds Pace, 4108 Crestview Drive, stated that he has talked with the applicant of this project and they believe the square footage listed is inaccurate. Community Development PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 Director Brady noted that this would not effect the pulling of permits and he would have staff look at the staff report. Commissioner Nash stated that both houses are very nice designs. Commissioners Barnes and Polk had no comments. Commissioner Matthies indicated that she agreed with Comtissioner Nash and noted that they would a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Chairman Wilsey had no comments. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY BARNES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-35 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 2,243 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 600 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE LOCATED AT 4127 CRESTVIEW DRIVE - APN 379- 300 -019 WITH THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED CHANGES TO CONDITIONS NO. 12 AND 15. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:20 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:21 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Bradt/ commented on the following: • He noted that tomorrow there will be a City Council Study Session at the Cultural Center at 2:30 pm. He stated that the purpose of the Study Session was to hear a presentation by Dr. Husing on the City's Economic Profile. • He indicated that there was a Study Session yesterday regarding regional transportation mitigation fees for transportation improvements. • He stated that the resurfacing of Railroad Canyon Road from I -15 to the city limits of Canyon Lake will go to bid mid- October and work will begin around Thanksgiving. • He noted that at the last City Council meeting the City Council agreed to have The Planning Center complete the Housing Element update. Planning Manager Villa commented on the following: No comments. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies commented on the followine: • She stated that she has heard on concerns about the speed of traffic in the Reflections Tract. She noted that the residents would like the city to look at the possibility of installing a stop sign. Community Development Director Brady indicated that staff would look at the situation to determine if a stop sign is PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 warranted. He noted that he would also ask the police for additional monitoring in the area. She noted that the Chamber's Golf Tournament last Friday was a success. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: No Comments. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: He indicated that the League of California Cities conference was very informative. He briefly talked about some of the sessions he attended. Commissioner Matthies noted that she also had a good time at the conference. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: He indicated that Wal -Mart has 15 large storage containers behind the store. Community Development Director Brady indicated that staff with check on them. He asked if the Circulation Study for the Railroad Canyon interchange is complete. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the study is not complete but he would get an update to Commissioner Barnes. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: No Comments. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POM SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:34 PM. Respectfully Submitted onika Hennings, Community Development Secretary A. Brady, Secretaryto ig Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Barnes. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, MATTHIES, AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: POLK Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell, and Community Development Secretary Hennings. PUBLIC COMMENTS Les Siler, 31662 Willow View Place, stated that since the block wall was constructed on Summerhill the noise level has increased as it is acting like a sounding board. He indicated that something needs to be done to decrease the noise. Chairman Wilsey suggested that he get together with staff after the meeting to provide the location and further details. There being no further requests to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - September 20, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS FJ Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a public hearing that has been continued from April 19, 2000. He stated at that time the residents had concerns relating to the zoning, road widths, land uses. He stated that staff was asked to address these concerns. Community Developmernt Director Brady stated that staff has held two neighborhood meetings to obtain input from the adjacent residents. He noted that through the input from the applicant, residents, and other staff, a listed of proposed commercial uses has been submitted to the Planning Commission. He asked Planning Manager Villa to review the project with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa first corrected the project title listed on the agenda from Specific Plan No. 95 -1 to Specific Plan No. 85 -1. Planning Manager Villa listed the four applications PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 2000 that the Planning Commission will consider tonight. He stated that the Specific Plan Amendment will remove the 12 acres on the lake side of I -15 from the specific plan and it will redesignate 20 acres on the opposite side of the I -15. He stated that General Plan Amendment 00 -01 will assign a General Commercial Land Use designation to the 12 acres west of the I -15 and General Plan Amendment No. 00 -02 will delete a segment of the Summerhill Drive extension. He indicated that the last action to be taken would be to consider establishing a C -2 (General Commercial) Zoning designation to the previously mentioned 12 -acre parcel. Planning Manager Villa stated that staff is proposing a C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning designation for the 20 acre parcel that will be redesignated within the Specific Plan area. He indicated that staff has created a list, presented as Exhibit A, of uses that are tailored for the specific site and will meet the needs of the nearby residents. Planning Manager Villa indicated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions 2000 -15 through 2000 -20. Community Development Director Brady stated that after the last neighborhood meeting, a couple of the residents present stated that they would prefer to leave the zoning as multi- family. He indicated however, that the same residents stated that if the zoning was changed to commercial, they were satisfied with the majority of the uses presented by staff. Chairman Wilsey open the public hearing at 7:14 pm. Mr. Brian Kirkpatrick, 31521 Stoney Creek Drive, stated that the staff report does not mention any proposed widening of Canyon Estates Drive. Planning Manager Villa stated that the proposal before the Commission at this time is only looking at land use. Mr. Kirkpatrick asked if any of the actions tonight would have any bearing on the roadway. Planning Manager Villa indicated that the Parcel Map is the next item on the agenda. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that he is representing several residents of the Castellina development, many of which never received notice of tonight's meeting. He stated that the primary concerns of the residents were that gas stations and hotels were still listed as possible conditional uses. Mr. Kirkpatrick also stated that he has been in contact with Mr. Ed Hill, Director of Research and Permits, was told that an Environmental Impact Report is required for the project because of the proposed roadway widening and the commercial uses which are proposed to be adjacent to residential uses. He noted that the staff report states that the project is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. He stated that a multi -story commercial building would impact the neighborhood and traffic. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that property values would do down. He indicated that he is not against development but it must be reasonable development. Mr. Kirkpatrick reiterated that an Environmental Impact Statement is required by law as traffic, noise and air pollution will increase. Mr. Brian Bates, 31620 Boulder Vista, stated that he is speaking on behalf of many that could not attend from the Tuscana development. He noted that he also did not receive a notice to tonight's meeting. Mr. Bates stated that he has attended the other meetings that were held on the project. He stated he is satisfied with the proposal but noted he would rather see multi- family residential than commercial. He thanked Mr. Villa and Mr. Brady for all the work that went into preparing the proposal that is presented tonight. Mr. Mike Maceranka, 31512 Sagecrest, stated that he is interested in the future of the area as he just recently moved to Lake Elsinore. He stated he is concerned about zoning property without knowing what will be built. He stated in the past, previous commissions have not made good decisions. Mr. Ford, 440 Avenue 10, indicated that he also never received a notice of any of the meeting. He asked what impact the decisions made tonight would have on the residents on the west side of I -15. He noted he was involved in the protest of the apartments that were built on Casino. He cautioned everyone to be aware of what surrounding properties are zoned. He noted he was not aware the property was zoned muti - family until after the application for the Casino apartments was submitted. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 2000 There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the public hearing at 7:31 Pm. Chairman Wilsey asked Community Development Director Brady to clarify some of the issues that were just raised. Community Development Director Brady stated he would like to clarify the misunderstanding regarding the environmental review. He noted that under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study is prepared on every project. The result of this study determines what environmental document needs to be prepared. He stated that the Initial Study that was prepared for the project presented tonight showed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared. He stated that this document was prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. He stated an Environmental Impact Report would only need to be prepared for very large projects such as the "Liberty" project in the back basin. Planning Manager Villa stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to the state and was also recirculated after the Specific Plan was revised. He stated the circulation period was 30 days. Community Development Director stated that the height of any building constructed is limited by the regulations set forth in the Specific Plan. He stated that the Specific Plan is the current zoning for the area. He stated that the Canyon Creek Specific Plan, which was adopted in 1985, included the property on the lake side of I -15. He stated that tonight staff is trying to clean up the Specific Plan and remove the property to the west of the freeway as it is not really related to the specific plan area. He stated that this property to the west of the freeway is already developed as commercial so this action would not be changing anything. Community Development Director Brady stated that the property on the east side of the freeway along Canyon Estates Drive would remain in the specific plan. He stated that staff met with the residents and developed the list of possible uses based on the input received. He noted that some of the uses are permitted by right, while others require a Conditional Use Permit. He noted that the specific plan also lists the development standards such as landscaping, lot coverage, height limit, setbacks, etc. He stated that this zoning designation and development standards will be unique to the specific plan area. Community Development Director Brady stated that state law requires the City to adopt a General Plan and to zone all land within the city limits. He also noted that the applicant has the right to request the property be rezoned. Chairman Wilsey noted that because the property is within a specific plan area, staff has been able to create a list of commercial uses that would be appropriate for that specific area instead of applying a conventional C -1 or C- 2 designation to the property. Planning Manager Villa stated that Public Hearing notices are required by state law to be sent to all residences within a 300 -foot radius of the affected property. He stated that others might have received notices of the community meetings because staff elected to send those notices out to a broader group. Community Development Director Brady stated that those property owners on the lake side of the freeway would not have received a notice to the community meetings because the subject of the community meetings was strictly limited to the property along Canyon Estates Drive. Chairman Wilsey noted that all Public Hearing notices are also published in the newspaper. Commissioner Matthies stated that her questions have been answered. She clarified that the 12 -acre parcel is not being rezoned, it is just being removed from the Specific Plan. She also noted that hotels would only be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. She noted that this would require that the applicant bring the proposal back before the Commission. Community Development Director Brady indicated that when the property is developed, the residents within 300 feet of the property would receive another notice. Commissioner Nash thanked everyone for voicing their opinions and attending the meetings as many times there is no one in the audience. He stated that his questions were answered. He stressed that the list of uses are just examples and that any future project would still have to go through the Design Review process and possibly obtain a Conditional Use Permit. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 2000 Commissioner Nash stated that staff is recommending eliminating a freeway overpass. He asked if there are plans to make a connection to Main Street. Community Development Director Brady stated that a connection would be made from Canyon Estates Drive to Franklin. He indicated that in the future when development takes place to the north, the connection would be extended to Main Street. Commissioner Nash stated that he is not sure everyone is in agreement with changing the zoning from Multi - Family residential to Commercial. Community Development Director stated that a few at the last community meeting felt the zoning should remain Multi - Family residential. He noted that these people also stated that if the zoning was changed, they found the proposed uses acceptable. Community Development Director Brady stated that the residents also stated they did not want low income apartments built. He explained that the City can not zone out low- income housing and that is what would likely be built if the zoning were not changed due to the location of the property and the proximity to the freeway. Commissioner Nash again thanked everyone for attending tonight's meeting. Commissioner Barnes also thanked those present for attending. He stated that his questions have been answered. He noted that the Planning Commission and City council voted down the Casino apartments. He indicated that a judge required that the city allow them to be built. He stated that if the zoning is left multi - family residential, the Planning Commission can not restrict what type of apartments night be built. Chairman Wilsey asked if some of the proposed uses could be deleted from the list. Community Development Director Brady stated that if it is the desire of the Commission, they could revise the list. He suggested that item MM should be removed from permitted uses. He stated that by removing this item, all uses not specifically listed would have to be brought before the Commission as a Conditional Use. Chairman Wilsey stated he would also like to strike items A, D, E, and J. He stated that this would prevent automatic car washes, gasoline dispensing establishments, hotels, motels, and public utility distribution facilities from being built on the property. The Planning Commissioners concurred with these changes. Mr. Tom Salterelli, representing the applicant, stated that he hears what the residents are saying. He stated that the 12 acres is really leaning towards low income housing due to the proximity to the freeway. He stated that the applicant is very aware of what may be built. He stated that the proposed commercial uses are very well prepared and that a landscaped buffer will be provided. He noted that 8 acres are already zoned commercial with only 12 acres in question. He stated that the owner wants to see good development and has already committed to C -1 type uses, not C -2 uses. He noted that the applicant wants to make sure that everyone is happy as he is working on other projects in the City. He requested that no further uses be stricken as they have already done quite a bit of compromising already. He noted a hand car wash might be an acceptable use on the lower property which is farthest from the houses. Chairman Wilsey stated that he is looking for commercial projects that will have a comfort level with the neighborhood. He noted that he does not see any kind of car wash as being a good use for that area although the applicant has the option of bringing this idea before the City Council. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -15 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 00 -01 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 85 -1, AMENDMENT NO. 1, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00 -01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00 -02, ZONE CHANGE NO. 00 -01, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29235. PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 2000 3. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -16 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 85 -1, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PARCEL WITHIN APPROVED SUMMERHILL SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS APN 363- 100 -089, 363 - 100 -090, 363 - 100 -087, AND 363 -100 -034 FROM COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APN 363 -100 -084 AND 363 -100- 056 FROM MULTIFAMILY- COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO "C -1 /SP" (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN). MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-17 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00 -01 TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PARCEL SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS APN 363- 100 -089, 363 - 100 -090, 363 -100 -087, AND 363 - 100 -034 FROM COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APN 363 - 100 -084 AND 363 -100- 056 FROM MULTIFAMILY - COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO "C -1 /SP" (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN) WITH THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED DELETION OF PERMITTED USE NO. MM AND CONDITIONAL USES NO. A, D, E, AND J. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00 -02 TO AMEND THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ELIMINATING AN EXTENSION SEGMENT OF SUMMERHILL DRIVE. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -19 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 00 -01 CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PARCEL SPECIFIC ALLY DESCRIBED AS APN 363 - 100 -089, 363- 100 -090, 363 - 100 -087, AND 363 -100 -034 FROM COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO C -2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL). Community Development Director Brady indicated that this request is related to the previous item. He stated that the applicant is requesting to divide the 12 -acre parcel into 3 parcels. He asked Planning Manager Villa to review this request with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that the applicant is requesting to divide approximately 12.2 acres into three parcels ranging in size from 3.4 acres to 5.3 acres. He noted that the map, at the request of staff, has been re- designed to include the remaining parcel to make up a total of 20 acres. He noted that the map is in compliance with all codes and staff is recommending that the planning commission recommend the City council approve the PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 2000 Tentative Parcel Map. He noted that previously adopted Resolution 2000 -15 adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration is also related to the application. Commissioner Matthies left the meeting at 8:15 pm. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 8:15 pm. Mr. William Kipp, President and CEO of Abbacy Corporation, thanked staff for their hard work. He stated that after listening to the residents he has decided to install a traffic light. He is upset about dedicating 10 feet for possible widening of the road. He wanted the residents to know that he is against widening the road. He is in agreement with the remaining conditions. Mr. Mike Maceranka, 31512 Sagecrest, stated that he was not very knowledgeable of how the process works prior to this meeting. He indicated that he is very happy with the way everything has turned out. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the public hearing at 8:20 PM. Commissioner Barnes asked for clarification. He stated that if the applicant has agreed to put in the signal, does the condition regarding reimbursement (Condition N 40) still stand. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it is a 50/50 split. Commissioner Nash stated that he is concerned about the widening of the road. He stated that there are a lot of environmental concerns in this area and noted he is concerned about the traffic flow. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the City is only asking for a dedication. He stated that this does not mean the road will be widened, it is just allowing for this option in the future if necessary. Chairman Wilsey asked what would happen with the land that is dedicated until road is eventually widened. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the developer would maintain the land as an additional parkway. He noted that the developer would not have to put in future curbs and gutters after the road is widening. Commissioner Barnes asked what condition requires this dedication. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that this is covered by Condition No. 20. Commissioner Nash asked how many lanes would be allowed. Community Development Director Brady stated that at this time there are two lanes with parking. Community Development Director Brady reiterated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for both this item and the previous items. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -20 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29235. BUSINESS ITEMS None. PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 2000 ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Corrunission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 8:28 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:29 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Bradt/ commented on the following He noted that the Commissioner's should have received a memo regarding the traffic study that Commissioner Barnes had previously requested. Planning Manager Villa commented on the following No comments. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: He noted that it has been over one year since the Uhramar station on Main Street was approved. He asked the status. Planning Manager Villa stated that the applicant has been notified that the approval is due to expire. He noted that the applicant has indicated that they would be filing an amendment as they are currently in negotiations to purchase the adjacent property. He stated that the applicant has been talking to staff regarding their plans. Community Development Director Brady noted that staff has not received a formal application, but if the property is obtained the original plan will be amended. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: He thanked the residents for attending the meeting. He also noted that it was good to see a Boy Scout in the audience. He commended staff on their hard work on tonight's agenda items trying to make everyone happy. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following He noted that he was glad they eliminated more multi - family residential. He stated that there is currently a resurgence of graffiti throughout the city which seems to be centralized around the low income housing throughout the City. He stated he would Eke to see the City Council and staff put together aggressive policies regarding graffiti. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:34 PM. PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 2000 Respectfully Submitted Nfonika Hennings, acmmunity Development Secretary ATTES obert A. Brady, Secret to the Planning Commission MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Acting Chairwoman Matthies. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: MATTHIES, POLK, AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY AND BARNES Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell, Associate Planner Miller and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - October 4, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 00 -4 and Design Review for Industrial Project No. I 00 -1 Located on Chaney Street - APN 377 - 160 -015 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for an Industrial Project on Chaney Street. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the project with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a Design Review for a 17,325 square foot tilt up building. She noted that the building would be divided in 3,600 square feet of office space and 13,725 square feet of manufacturing space. She stated that the property is located in the industrial area of the City and the same property owner owns the neighboring property. Associate Planner Miller reviewed the landscaping and materials and colors to be used with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff has determined that the project meets the requirements and would recommend approval of the project. Acting Chairwoman Matthies opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 pm. Kim Quon, Studio 7 Architecture, stated that once again staff has been easy to work with the process has been a good experience. He stated that he is in agreement with all the Conditions of Approval and would be available for any questions. There being no further requests to speak, Acting Chairwoman Matthies closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 pm. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 2000 Commissioner Polk asked how close this new building would be to the School District's proposed adult training facility. Mr. Quon stated that he understood that the School District's facility will be on the north side of the flood control channel, which is on the other side of the previously approved industrial project. Commissioner Polk asked if the applicant knows what type of manufacturer will be occupying the building. Mr. Quon stated the building is being constructed as a "spec" building. He noted that there are specific uses that are allowed in the Limited Industrial zones and the City will have a chance to review the use before the company occupies the building. Commissioner Nash confirmed that there was no perspective tenant at this time. Mr. Quon concurred. Commissioner Nash stated that the project looks like it meets all the requirements and fits in with the neighboring property. Acting Chairwoman Matthies confirmed that the applicant did not have a problem with Condition No. 4, which requires a third color. Mr. Quon said that was not a problem. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-36 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00 -6 FOR AN OUTDOOR STORAGE YARD FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 00 -1 TO BE LOCATED ON CHANEY STREET - APN 377 -160 -016. MOVED BY NASH, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -37 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT NO. 00-1 TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TO BE LOCATED ON CHANEY STREET - APN 377 - 160 -016 BUSINESS ITEMS None. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:12 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:15 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Bradt/ commented on the following: No comments. Planning Manager Villa commented on the following_ No comments. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Nash commented on the following: He noted that it is good to see a new industrial project come forward. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 2000 Commissioner Polk commented on the following: He concurred with Commissioner Nash. Acting Chairwoman Matthies commented on the following: She concurred and also welcomed a new business to Main Street. She stated that the Mayor's Breakfast was wonderful this morning. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:17 PM. n1, EWE! ! 110, � I �► ACTING r • Respectfully Submitted Y nika Hennings, C� mmunity evelopment Secretary Robert A. Brady, Sec to the Planning Commissio MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Connnissioner Nash. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, MATTHIES, POLK, AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, Associate Planner Miller and Community Development Secretary Hennings PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to speak, the Public Comments section was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY 3 -0 VOTE WITH WILSEY AND BARNES ABSTAINING TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - October 18, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Design Review of Miscellaneous Project No. 00 -2 and Conditional Use Permit No. 00 -6 for New Sony; Calvary Chapel, a Church Located at 31507 Machado Street, APN 379 - 150 -004 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for a new church on Machado Street. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the project with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is proposal to construct a new 6,300 square foot building to include a sanctuary, classrooms and nursery, convert the existing 1,300 square foot residence to church offices, and utilize the existing 450 square foot garage for storage. She stated the proposal includes construction of a 101 space parking lot which exceeds the required 87 parking spaces. She noted the sanctuary is designed to seat 210 people and the applicant is proposing to landscape 32% of the site, which is well over what is required by code. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant is proposing a country barn type of architecture and she detailed the special features to be included as well as the materials and colors to be utilized. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff has determined that concerns relating to noise, parking, and traffic can be mitigated with the proposed Conditions of Approval. She stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and recommend that the City Council approve the Design Review. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 2000 Chair Wilsey opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 pm. Marlene Mendez, 31505 Machado Street, stated that she does not believe it is a good idea to construct a church as this location. She stated that the proposed structure is too big to be constructed in a residential area. She noted that this would bring property values down. Ms. Mendez stated that she does not see how noise and traffic will not be a problem with 210 people attending the church. Ms. Mendez stressed that she does not want the church built next to her house. Pastor Dean Murphy noted that New Song Calvary Chapel has been in Lake Elsinore for a number of years and has always been a good neighbor. He stated that he feels the impacts to the neighborhood can be mitigated and noted that they are providing extensive landscaping and fencing. Pastor Murphy indicated that the church could be as strong a powerful presence as they are in their current location. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 pm. Chairman Wilsey asked the applicant if they have read the Conditions of Approval. Pastor Murphy indicated that he has read and agrees to the recommended conditions. Commissioner Nash asked staff if there has been any other objections or input from the surrounding residents. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff has not received any comments. Ms. Mendez stated that the measurements on her plot go to the easement. She asked who has control of the easement. Chairman Wilsey stated that she owns the easement but the neighbors have legal access to their properties via the easement. Ms. Mendez asked if the people would be able to go in and out on the easement. Planning Manager Villa stated that the applicant will be posting the easement as a secondary access to the parking lot and it will be maintained as a driveway. Ms. Mendez stated that there would also be a problem with kids playing and roller skating in the parking lot. She further stated that she is worried about her five grandkids being around the increased traffic. Commissioner Barnes asked if the dedicated right -of -way required by Condition No. 28 would be 15 feet as noted in the Condition or 14 feet as noted on the plans. He also asked if a sidewalk will be constructed and if the applicant will landscape the parkway. He asked if staff has looked to see if the landscaping proposed by the applicant would screen the church facilities from the roadway. Commissioner Barnes also noted that there are several large mature trees on the property and asked if the applicant planned on protecting these trees. Commissioner Barnes stated that he believes the concerns of the neighbor can be mitigated with either landscaping that will screen the property or a block wall. Associate Planner Miller noted that she believes the applicant will be dedicating the right -of- way only and not constructing the improvements. Planning Manager Villa noted that Condition No. 32 requires the construction of all public works improvements. Pastor Murphy stated that he is under the understanding that the exact width of the dedication has not been determined which is why there is a discrepancy. He also noted that if the street were widened, several of the large trees would have to be removed, as they are located in the proposed right -of -way. Further discussion took place regarding the intention of the Engineering Division regarding the dedication of the additional right -of -way and whether the improvements, including sidewalk, would be constructed at this time. There was also much discussion on whether the parkway would be landscaped if the improvements were not constructed at this time. Chairman Wilsey suggested that the applicant construct a block wall down the full easement. Commissioner Nash asked if the church has made overtures to purchase the neighbor's property. Pastor Murphy indicated that if the church expands, they would purchase the vacant parcel on the opposite side. Commissioner Nash recommended that the church not use the secondary access. Pastor Murphy noted that the Planning Manager suggested that signs be posted. He noted that the church would do everything to minimize the traffic. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 2000 Planning Manger Villa noted that the access could not be restricted to exit only as it is an easement for the back property owners also. Commissioner Matthies stated that she concurred with Chairman Wilsey and stated that a block wall along the easement sounded good. She asked the applicant if the bell tower would include bells. Pastor Murphy stated that it would not. Commissioner Matthies asked about the noise ordinance. Planning Manager Villa noted that the ordinance allows a certain noise level between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm and a reduced noise level during the other hours. Commissioner Matthies noted that she is concerned about the 7 am traffic. She stressed that the secondary access should not be used during the early morning hours. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the hours of operation are listed in the staff report but are not a condition of approval at this time. Commissioner Matthies asked about the plans.for a school, as the proposal does not include any playground. Pastor Murphy stated that the school is proposed with the future expansion. Commissioner Matthies asked if all neighboring residents were notified. Associate Planner Miller noted that all residents within 300 feet of the project were sent a hearing notice. Commissioner Polk asked the Pastor if the church currently owns the property. Pastor Murphy noted that the property is in escrow contingent on the church getting the approval from the City. Commissioner Polk asked about any plans to improve the house and garage. Pastor Murphy stated that both existing structures will get a facelift and the garage will be upgraded for safety. Commissioner Polk stated that it appeared the fence on the southwest property line is in the middle of a 30 -foot easement. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the fence is currently chain link. She stated that the church is currently proposing to use their half of the easement to access the property. Commissioner Polk noted that if noise is a concern than a block wall would be important. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a problem because the wall would have to be built on Ms. Mendez's property and they would need her permission. Planning Manager Villa stated that the City could not condition the church to build a block wall on her property. Community Development Director asked if the easement was one 30- foot easement or two 15 feet easements. Pastor Murphy said they were two 15 feet easements that served different properties. Community Development Director Brady indicated that a block wall could be built between the two easements if they served different properties. He suggested that the applicant build a block wall at least part of the way. Pastor Murphy stated her property is 319 feet deep. He suggested that the block wall could be built to the end of her house not her property. Commissioner Nash asked that the church maintain both sides of the block wall since there is a graffiti problem in the City. Community Development director Brady suggested that the second sentence of Condition No. 10 be revised to read "A six foot (6) decorative block wall with anti graffiti paint shall be constructed to approximately the end of the neighbor's house subject to the approved of the Community Development Director. The remainder shall be Wrought Iron." Commissioner Barnes asked if the school should be removed from the possible uses. Pastor Murphy stated that Machado School is also located nearby. Commissioner Barnes suggested that the hours of operation be changed from 7:00 am to 8:00 am as a courtesy to the neighbor. Pastor Murphy said that would not be a problem. Community Development Director Brady suggested the hours of operation be included as a Condition of Approval. He also noted that if a school were pursued, the applicant would need to come back for a new Conditional Use Permit. Pastor Murphy stated he was concerned about the cost of another Conditional Use Permit. He indicated that he was told to list all possible uses on the application to eliminate the need for applying for another Conditional Use Permit. He stated it would be punitive to put restrictions on this property. Associate Planner Miller stated her understanding is that the church is requesting approval for a day school with a maximum of 50 students. Pastor Murphy stated the church does not have the room for a school on the current parcel. He said the school would not become a reality until the church expands to the neighboring parcel. Community Development Director stated that if additional property were required, another Conditional Use Permit would need to be acquired. He stated that at the time the new Conditional Use Permit could include all church and school activities. There would not have to be two separate permits. Community Development Director Brady suggested the hours of operation be changed to 8:00 am to 9:00 pm daily. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 2000 Pastor Murphy noted that the church is having an arborist look at the trees. He stated he has not received the full report but he has heard that some of the trees are not being recommended for saving as they have not been kept up and they are a safety hazard. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -38 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00 -6 FOR A CHURCH FACILITY, NEW SONG CALVARY CHAPEL, TO BE LOCATED ON 31507 MACHADO STREET - APN 379 - 150 -004 WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS TO CONDITION NO. 10 AND NO. 32 AND THE ADDITION OF CONDITION NO. 26A. 10. A SIX FOOT (6') WROUGHT IRON FENCE WITH LANDSCAPING MATERIAL THAT WILL SCREEN THE PARKING LOT SHALL BE REQUIRED THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST BOUNDARIES. A SIX FOOT (6) DECORATIVE BLOCK WALL WITH ANTI- GRAFFITI PAINT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO APPROXIMATELY THE END OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THE REMAINDER SHALL BE WROUGHT IRON. APPROMALkTEUY R LINEAL A T FEET OF 6 FOOT VakOT TGHT- 1R49?4 L'CAT!`FST A Ism - T A NDSG A PITS ` T R A'T ERI A T STARTING F G rT THE P TUT IG LTIITDJVTSIT�Z1SlT IS"ST -�T UTl-`HT'OFWAY SETBA!`TI SHAT BE GG9484RU `TCT ATlIPT THE SOUTTFPWCESTERN D0TTATDAR THE EXISTING GHATAT T11sa L'L'NGE N AV REMAIN AT THIS B014INTADV DUE T!1 THE PRESENT P BT IG EASEMENT AT THIS LOCATION. A TION 26A. THE HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE 8:00 AM TO 9:00 PM DAILY. 32. CONSTRUCT ALL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENTS PER APPROVED STREET PLANS (LEMC TITLE 12), SUBJECT TO CITY STANDARDS AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. PLANS MUST BE APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT (LEMC 16.34). MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY POLK AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-39 BY TITLE, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT NO. 00 -2 FOR NEW SONG CALVARY CHAPEL LOCATED AT 31507 MACHADO STREET - APN 377 -160 -016 SUBJECT TO THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED REVISIONS AND ADDITION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. BUSINESS ITEMS None. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 8:22 pm. The Planning Conmrission reconvened at 8:25 pm. INFORMATIONAL PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 2000 STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Bradv commented on the following. He stated that there would be a City Council Study Session tomorrow at 3:00 pm at City Hall for a presentation on the proposed Enron power generation facility. He stated that the City Council made a few changes to the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Canyon Creek Specific Plan. He stated that hand car wash and gasoline dispensing stations, not service stations, will be permitted uses. Planning Manager Villa commented on the following: No comments. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: None. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: He inquired on the status of the racetrack. Community Development Director Brady stated that the draft EIR is being printed and should probably be sent to the Clearinghouse next week. He noted that the City should not be including advertisements for businesses outside the city within employee paychecks. He asked about the rules regarding noise generated by construction activity. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Noise Ordinance controls all noise regardless of origin. He stated that construction activity could take place at any time as long as the noise is below the level allowed by ordinance. He further stated that the School District does not have to come before the City for any permits. He stated that he could talk to the School District and try to work with them. Commissioner Nash commented on the following: None. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: He read a Press Enterprise article regarding the recently approved Canyon Creek Special Plan Amendment. The article read "Mr. Brian Kirkpatrick, a nearby resident, who has led the fight against the rezoning and road widening said he didn't attend Tuesday's meeting because the City never seriously considered the resident's concerns. We knoew from day one they were going to push this thing through." Commissioner Bames stated that he resented Mr. Kirkpatrick's comments. He stated that staff made exceptional measures to come up with a plan that comes as close to pleasing everyone as could be expected. He further noted that in the future he hopes that anyone who comes before the Commission citing CEQA and threatening lawsuits knows what they are talking about and not wasting the Commission's time on uninformed rhetoric. He noted that Jiffy Lube has opened and Wienerschnitzel has still not installed the light guards. Community Development Director Brady stated that staff could not hold up Jiffy Lube, as separate individuals own the two businesses. He noted that staff would continue to follow up on this issue. PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 2000 Pastor Murphy stated that he appreciates the help he received from City staff, especially Armando Villa and Linda Miller. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:36 PM. Respectfully Submitted onika He s; Community Development Secretary MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, MATTHIES, AND POLK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NASH Also present were: Community Development Director Brady and Community Development Secretary Hemrings PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Tracy Bowdle, 13683 Desert Ridge, Corona, California, stated that she lives in Horsethief Canyon but pays taxes to the Lake Elsinore Union School District. She indicated that she is against the proposed Alberhill Raceway and is concerned about the Environmental Impact Report. She asked how she could obtain a copy and present her opinions. She stated that she believes Lake Elsinore is taking the low road to increase taxes. She noted the racetrack would lower property values and interrupt species migratory route to the Cleveland National Forest. She stated that she is all for development, but not the dragstrip and racetrack. She noted that everything else proposed would be all right. Chairman Wilsey explained that this will be a long process and that there will be ample time to provide comment. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the Environmental Impact Report is currently out for a 45 -day public review period. He stated that copies are available for review at City Hall and the Library or it can be purchased by contacting Rancho Bell Blueprint. He noted that there will be a minimum of two public hearings and that there is a study session tentatively scheduled for November 30, 2000 at 10:00 am. Community Development Director Brady stated that all comments should be sent to City Hall which will then be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report. He noted that if the Specific Plan were approved, there would still have to be further public hearings throughout the remainder of the development process. Commissioner Polk indicated that there is also a group of citizens in her neighborhood call CARR that has copies of the EIR. Community Development Director Brady noted that the applicant did send copies of the EIR to the Horsethief Canyon Homeowners Association. Ms. Bowdle asked if the facility would be built. Chairman Wilsey stated he does not know as the information was just provided to the Planning Commission tonight. Ms. Bowdle asked if the Commission would take the EIR seriously, even if it indicates that there will be negative impacts. Chairman Wilsey stated that the Planning Corrunission takes everything seriously. Ms. Bowdle asked the difference between the Planning Commission and the City Council. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City Council is elected by the residents of the City. The City Council in turn appoints members to the Planning Commission. He noted that the Planning Commissioners are not professional planners but rather residents who live in the community. He stated that the Planning Commission approves some applications while providing a recommendation to the City Council on PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 2000 others, depending on the type of project. He stated that the Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing projects for compliance with the General Plan, Zoning and Development Codes. Chairman Wilsey stated that the Commissioners volunteer their service to the community. He stated that the Commission analyzes the projects to remove some of the burden off the City Council. Commissioner Barnes noted that the Planning Commission and City Council do not always agree. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - November 1, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS None. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a process that the City needs to follow whenever the City sells, grants, or dedicates any property to determine if the property conforms with the General Plan. He stated that staff will start bring Capital Improvement Projects to the Planning Commission to find conformance with the General Plan. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the 29 acres in question was dedicated to the City with Tract 20705. He stated that the City does not have the funds to maintain additional open space. He stated that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) has determined that the property is habitat after seeing a gnatchatcher on the property. Granite Homes had to mitigate their impacts on the habitat. The Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) is a non -profit group that will take ownership and maintain the property as habitat. Granite Homes will be able to use the acreage as a credit but they will still need to pay $120,000 to USFWS. Community Development Director Brady stated that tonight the Planning Commission is being asked to find conformance with the General Plan. He stated that the property is within the Canyon Creek Specific Plan and is zoned Open Space. Commissioner Barnes stated that he would vote in favor of this action only because he wants to see a private property owner be able to continue to develop their property. He stated that he thinks this is extortion. He read parts of the staff report. He stated that Granite Homes has no choice but to pay USFWS if they want to continue to build homes. Community Development Director Brady indicated that Cornerstone had to go through the same process with Tract 20704. He noted that Granite Homes has estimated that the overall mitigation costs to be approximately one million dollars. Commissioner Matthies concurred with Commissioner Barnes. Commissioner Polk asked for the location of the 29 -acre parcel. Community Development Director Brady stated that the parcel is on the left while going up to Tuscany Hills. Commissioner Polk verified that the land had no buildable value to the city. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the property is already zoned Open Space. Commissioner Polk stated that $120,000 is "highway robbery" PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 2000 Chairman Wilsey concurred with the previous comments. He noted that the cost is passed on to the new homeowner and questioned when the public would get fed up with the USFWS. Chairman Wilsey asked if the property will be privately owned and if it would be returning to the tax rolls. Community Development director Brady noted that the Center for Natural Lands Management is a non -profit organization so they would not be paying property taxes. Chairman Wilsey asked for clarification on how this is a benefit to the City. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City does not have the ability to maintain the property as open space. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY POLK AS PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT, DETERMINE THAT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY BY GRANT DEED TO CNLM AMOUNTS TO A DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AND DIRECT STAFF TO FORWARD A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT AND DETERMINATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 65402 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:28 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:30 pm. INFORMATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following_ He noted that the Unity in the Community Parade would be this Saturday at 10:00 am. He indicated that a Joint Study Session has been tentatively scheduled for November 30, 2000 to go over the Raceway and Entertainment Center Specific Plan Amendment. He indicated that at the last meeting, the City Council approved the Industrial project on Chaney and an amendment to the Graffiti Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Polk commented on the following: He suggested that Phil Williams, EVMWD, be invited to make a presentation on the findings of the Task Force regarding the use of reclaimed water. Community Development Director Brady noted that EVMWD could be contacted to see if they would be willing to give a presentation. Commissioner Polk stated this is a very urgent issue. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: She noted the Unity in the Community Parade this weekend is parry of the Community Action Program (CAP) and many of the local schools and organizations will be represented. She stated that the Elsinore 100 last weekend had a great turnout. She thanked everyone for their support during the last couple of weeks. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 2000 Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: None. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: • He asked that Code Enforcement to notify Mr. Miller to remove his election signs. He noted he has permission from Commissioner Barnes to read a letter he wrote to Mayor Brinley. He read the letter written by Commissioner Barnes. He stated that he is deeply concerned by the actions of Commissioner Polk. He noted that Commissioner Polk sits with the Commission and then goes out and calls them mediocre hacks which are controlled by special interest groups. Chairman Wilsey stated that he is infuriated by this unprofessional behavior. He stated that he is asking staff to put this on the next agenda so the Commission can discuss this as a body and make any necessary determinations and find out why this had occurred. He noted that the Planning Commission has never been politicized before now. He stated that Commissioner Polk has been quite adminant about not wanting the racetrack. He stated that by publicly voicing these views before the Commission even received the related materials, is lining the City up for litigation. Chairman Wilsey stated that the Commissioners represent the entire community and they should keep all personal thoughts to ones self until all facts have been presented. He stated that in his opinion Commissioner Polk should at the very least not vote on this project. He stated he would like this issue to be put on the agenda for the next meeting when the Commission can discuss what, if any, action they may want to take. Chairman Wilsey stated he would not take any comments until the next meeting. He asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED WITH POLK VOTING NO TO COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:44 PM. Respectfully Submitted onika Hennings, ommunity Development Secretary A. Brady, Secret to the la Commission BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY 3 -1 VOTE ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING l AL WILSEY, CHAIRMAN MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Barnes. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, BARNES, MATTHIES, POLK, AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell, Senior Planner Morita, Associate Planner Miller, and Community Development Secretary Hennings PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Polk requested a more accurate rendition of Chairman Wilsey's comments at the conclusion of last meeting. Chairman Wilsey asked what he would like to add. Commissioner Polk said he would like to see the minutes reflect all that was said. He stated he could read the list he made. Chairman Wilsey told him to go ahead. Conunissioner Polk stated that the first thing he had an objection to was Chairman Wilsey stating he would not accept any rebuttal on the statements he was about to make. Chairman Wilsey noted that at this time they were only discussing any additions or changes to the existing minutes. He stated that this was not the time for Commissioner Polk to make a statement or a rebuttal to what was said. Commissioner Polk stated Chairman Wilsey made statements relative to the fact that he politicized the proposed Alberhill racetrack, which was then a non - specific future issue. He stated that there were comments made that he had betrayed the public's trust, that he had shamed the Commission with his presence, that he was unworthy of his position, and that he would be hearing from City official's regarding his future on the Commission or other penalties. Chairman Wilsey asked if Commissioner Polk was stating that he said these things. Commissioner Polk confirmed. Chairman Wilsey stated he was dead wrong. Conunissioner Polk asked to see the tape. Chairman Wilsey stated he could go into City Hall at any time. MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED BY BARNES AND CARRIED BY A 3 -2 VOTE WITH POLK OPPOSING AND NASH ABSTAINING TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDARAS PRESENTED. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - November 15, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No. 95 -12 for an Outdoor Barbecue Grill and Outdoor Patio Located at 31733 Riverside Drive, Unit A - APN 379 - 171 -085 Commissioner Nash excused himself from the room at 7:02 pm. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 2000 Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is a request for an extension of time for an existing Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant on Riverside Drive. He asked Associate Planner Miller to review the request with the Commission. Associate Planner Miller indicated that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor grill and patio at Lake Elsinore Smokehouse. She gave a brief background of the original request. She indicated that the applicant was not aware that the Conditional Use Permit had expired. Associate Planner Miller indicated that the applicant has completed the improvements required by the original permit. She stated that in the past there has been complaints regarding the storage of the portable grill and commercial trucks, although there has not been any problems recently. Associate Planner Miller stated that staff is recommending that the applicant move the woodpile to the other side of the patio so that it is not visible from Riverside Drive. Associate Planner Miller indicated that staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:06 pm. Clyde Brunner, 27127 Calle Arroyo, 1901 -A, San Juan Capistrano, stated that he is the owner of The Brookstone Landing Center. He stated that the outside grill is a necessity for Mr. White to continue operating his business. He asked that the Planning Corrunission approve this request. Mr. LeRoy Tucker, 3532 Cherry Blossom Lane, Lake Elsinore, stated that without the barbecue there is no restaurant. He stated that he hopes Mr. White would be able to continue his business. He also noted that the wood is a conversation piece. There being no further comments, Chairman Wilsey closed the public hearing at 7:08 pm. Commissioner Barnes stated for clarification that staff is only requesting the wood be moved to the other side of the patio so that it is not so visible from the street. Commissioner Polk questioned Condition #3. He noted that the trucks would have to be parked at the restaurant to prepare for catering events. Community Development Director Brady stated that the intention is for there to be no long -term storage of the truck or trailer. Commissioner Polk suggested that additional wording is needed. He noted that the truck should be allowed to be parked during normal business hours. He asked when the improvements needed to be completed. Associate Planner Miller noted that the improvements were completed as part of the previous Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Matthies noted the intention of Condition No. 3. She indicated that the wording "no overnight parking" would allow the trucks to be used during the day. She stated that they would need to be moved at night. Chairman Wilsey stated that he is sure the applicant understands the intention. He noted that he was involved with the original application and gave a brief background. He stated that Condition No. 3 was also part of the original application. He stated that the applicant might not have been aware of the requirement as the restaurant has changed ownership. He stated that now that the applicant is aware of the condition, he would be watching for compliance. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY BARNES AND PASSED WITH A 4 -1 VOTE WITH NASH ABSTAINING TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -44, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95 -12 FOR AN OUTDOOR BARBECUE GRILL AND OUTDOOR PATIO LOCATED AT 31733 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, UNIT A (APN 379 - 171 -085). Commissioner Nash returned to the meeting at 7:16 pm. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 2000 3. Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is an amendment to the City Center Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, and a request for Design Review. He asked Senior Planner Morita to review the project with the Commission. Senior Planner Morita stated that Oak Grove Equities is proposing to construct apartments on the remaining parcel within the City Center Specific Plan area. He noted that the parcel is approximately 8.2 acres and has been previously graded. Senior Planner Morita stated that the application is proposing to construct 141 one and two bedroom apartments in nine separate buildings. He stated that the buildings fronting Grape Street will be two stories and the remaining buildings will be three stories. Senior Planner Morita outlined the applications being presented tonight. He stated that the General Plan Amendment is needed to clean up the General Plan and propose language that will allow Multi - Family Residential uses and continue to allow General Commercial uses within the City Center Specific Plan area. He indicated the Specific Plan Amendment would add language to allow Multi Family Residential and provide development standards. He stated that the Design Review application presents the site plan and proposed elevations. Senior Planner Morita finally noted that the Addendum to the 1992 Final City Center Specific Plan EIR shows that there will not be any adverse impacts subject to the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Senior Planner Morita indicated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the project for several reasons. He noted that the City Council held a Study Session on March 11, 1999 during which the applicant made a presentation. He stated that based on that presentation the City Council told the applicant to move forward with the proposed project application. He further noted that the Fire Department and Police Department have both reviewed the plans and have given their approval subject to some conditions that have been included in the Conditions of Approval. Finally he noted that the applicant has worked with staff in coming up with a design that works well with the physical constraints of the property. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:22 pm. Mr. Glen Daigle, representing Oak Grove Equities, 28991 Front Street, Temecula indicated that prior to the meeting, Commnission Matthies suggested that the tot lot be relocated to a safer location. He stated he agreed with her recommendation and will relocate the tot lot to just below building 5. He noted he is available to answer any questions. Mr. Bill Tucker, 740 Acacia Avenue, Lake Elsinore, asked what the traffic impact would be with the proposed project. There being no further requests to speak, Chairman Wilsey closed the public hearing at 7:24 Pin. Commissioner Polk stated he had the same question. He asked how many daily trips will be generated and if the applicant has paid their fair share contribution towards the Grape Street / Railroad Canyon Road / I -15 intersection improvements. Community Development Director Brady stated that the applicant is conditioned to pay their fair share. He noted that the property is already zoned for commercial. Community Development Director Brady stated that the City is also conducting a study to see how the traffic situation can be improved. He stated that staff is looking at possible alternatives now. Commissioner Polk clarified that he believes this is one of the best planned projects that he has seen come forward. He asked what the timeline might be for traffic improvements. Community Development Director Brady indicated that he is not sure but construction is a number of years off. He stated that the City is only at the study stage and funding must still be obtained prior to construction. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 2000 Commissioner Matthies thanked the applicant for agreeing to move the tot lot. She asked if the playgrounds and barbecue areas would be handicap accessible. Mr. Daigle indicated that they would. She stated that traffic is another concern. Commissioner Barnes noted that the circulation plan discusses three driveways into the project while the plans only show two driveways. He asked which is correct. He further noted that the traffic study does not take into consideration the human element. Comtissioner Barnes stated that he believes the project should be put on hold until the City has a direction to follow. He stated that no more traffic generating development should be approved until a solution is found. Senior Planner Morita indicated that the original plans showed three driveways but that through the Design Review process the plans were revised and only two driveways are now proposed. Mr. Daigle stated that there is a letter included in the Addendum to the EIR from the Traffic Consultant that states the change in the driveways will not result in a change in the level of service. Cormnissioner Barnes stated that the EIR states that energy demands are not considered significant. He noted that the applicant has not received a "Will Serve" letter from Southern California Edison and that the area is already under an energy crunch. He wondered if the statement is correct and if the applicant would even be able to obtain a letter. Mr. Daigle noted that residential development requires less energy than the previously approved commercial development. Commissioner Nash stated that he is aware that staff worked very diligently and put a lot of work into the proposal; however, he asked why the applicant is proposing to change the land use designation. Mr. Daigle stated that the owner has tried for seven years to find a commercial tenant for the parcel and has been unsuccessful. He stated that the location is not suitable for commercial development. Commissioner Nash stated that he concurred with Commissioner Barnes in that the traffic study and solution to the problem should be completed prior to adding even more to the problem. Commissioner Nash asked if there were any other three -story complexes in the valley. Senior Planner Morita indicated that he is not sure of the valley, but there are none in the city. Commissioner Nash asked how many total people would be living in the apartments. Senior Planner Morita indicated that he did not do that analysis. Commissioner Nash indicated he would guess approximately 350 people. He stated that he is not sure that there are enough amenities offered for that many people. He wondered if one pool is enough for 350 people. He suggested that the proposal needs to be massaged before moving forward and either more amenities added or a building removed. Chairman Wilsey asked if Olive Street is one of the possible locations for a new ingress /egress to the freeway. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the city is still in the early stages of the study. Commissioner Barnes asked if the study was complete. Community Development Director Brady stated that staff is currently reviewing the alternatives. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that staff is analyzing approximately nine alternatives. He stated that only three alternatives would be forwarded on to Caltrans for review. He noted that the City Center Specific Plan and EIR included a traffic study which was approved. Senior Planner Morita stated that exhibit 4 -4 compares the land uses. He stated that commercial development would generate approximately 3,000 daily trips while the multi family development would generate only 1,000 daily trips. He noted that the existing entitlement would generate three times more traffic than the proposed project. Chairman Wilsey stated that he concurs with Commissioner Barnes and Nash. Commissioner Barnes stated that the study does not address the load the Abbacy development will have on the traffic. He suggested that the traffic study might be flawed. Senior Planner Morita stated that the Abbacy development was not approved when the traffic study was being completed. City Engineer stated that the applicant is required to pay $30,000 in mitigation fees based on the traffic they will generate. He stated the applicant is also required to pay approximately $97,000 for a traffic signal on Grape Street at the entrance to Wal Mart. PAGE 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 2000 Chairman Wilsey stated he does not care what the traffic study says, there are too many cars. He further noted that he has a hard time removing any land out of a commercial land use designation. He stated the City needs that commercial corridor. Mr. Daigle stated that he did exhaustive research of other multi family developments when determining what type of amenities to be provided. He stated that what is provided is similar to other developments of the same size. He noted that the applicant is also providing special features not provided elsewhere such as direct access garages. Mr. Daigle stated that the applicant has done the best possible due to the physical restrictions of the site. He indicated that this is the number of units that are needed to make the apartments affordable. Commissioner Nash suggested that the other developers might have been shortsighted when determining the amenities needed. He stated he is not opposed to the apartments, however he feels the plans need to be massaged. He stated that what is status quo today might not work tomorrow. He stated that residents are already screaming about the traffic conditions. He stated he does not feel the City can approve another project without first mitigating the traffic congestion. Commissioner Polk noted that with more people coming to the area, housing is important also. He reiterated that he likes the project and noted the applicant can time the construction to coincide with the traffic improvements. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that he is estimating that the improvements may be constructed in 2003, however the City should know the design in about six months. Commissioner Matthies stated that she was looking only at on -site safety previously. She noted that traffic is important and that three years is too long a time for residents to have to put up with additional congestion. Community Development Director Brady reminded the Planning Commission that the property is already approved for commercial development, which would generate even more traffic. He stated that if the applicant came back with a design review for a commercial development, traffic would not be a basis for denial of the project. Chairman Wilsey stated he would rather see commercial. He stated that there is no doubt that more multi - family housing is needed in the City, but the General Plan identifies the areas set aside for that use. He stated that land should not be taken out of a commercial designation for multi- family residential housing. MOVED BY BARNES, SECONDED BY NASH AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO TABLE THE PROJECT UNTIL THE TRAFFIC STUDY BY THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IS COMPLETED AND THE RESULTS, CAN BE REVIEWED. Chairman Wilsey recessed the meeting at 7:50 pm. Chairman Wilsey reconvened the meeting at 8:00 pm. INFORMATIONAL 4. Discussion Regarding Planning Commissioner Conduct Chairman Wilsey stated that he had this item placed on this agenda as an informational item because the entire Commissioner was not present at the last meeting. He noted the Elsinore.com Magazine was brought to his attention via a letter from Commissioner Barnes, which is in the Commissioners packets. He noted he was not aware of this website until receiving this letter. He indicated he was really saddened by what he read. He stated he did not realize that Commissioner Polk had such disregard for all of the Commissioners. He stated that the letter written by Commissioner Polk and posted on the website included a lot of rhetoric in regards to the upcoming racetrack project. Chairman Wilsey stated that this project has just now been put before the Commission for long range study. He said his primary concern was that a city official, representing the voice of the city, was coming out in direct opposition to a major project before the Commission even had the opportunity to see the first page of the materials. He noted that this creates a little bit of a liability problem for the city. He stated that if in time the project is denied for any reason the applicant could use this as a legal excuse to challenge the decision. He stated that is why the Commission has PAGE 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 2000 always been very careful about any public comments that are made with regards to any possible future project. Chairman Wilsey indicated that he has heard some comments with regards to how he placed this item on the agenda. He reiterated that he did it this way because there was not a full complement of Commissioner's at last meeting. He stated he wanted to make sure everyone had the information so that they could analyze the situation and get their feelings in order. He stated that is why he started out his comments last time by stating he would not take any comments. He indicated it was because he wanted everyone present so that it would be fair and above board. He asked Commissioner Polk to express his views of what was going on and then he would open it up for general discussion. Commissioner Polk thanked Chairman Wilsey and began by stating that the Pledge of Allegiance of the Flag of the United States and the Republic means a pledge to respect the laws of the land. He indicated that the First Amendment to the Constitution was enacted in 1789 and guarantees the right to the Freedom of Speech. He stated it restricts the government from interfering with, or disciplining a worker who speaks out on issues of public concern. Commissioner Polk stated that the Constitution provides that a public sector employee can not base employment decisions on the fact that an individuals associates with particular people or is affiliated with any organization or holds particular views. He noted that when a public sector employee speaks out on issues of public concern, his employer could not discipline or discharge him for his comments. He stated that Commissioner Barnes pointed out that the Commissioners are public employees. He noted that politicizing future projects, issues, or initiates seems to be a free practice of the present elected city officials. He used the district initiative as an example. Cormnissioner Polk stated that the voter initiative has been brought forward and has been openly criticized by every member of the City Council. He noted that criticizing the officials of a community is not restricted to the general public. Commissioner Polk stated that when he referred to hacks, he was not making those comments with respect to the Planning Commission. He noted that the letter came out as a result of an insult that was hurled at him by another elected official. He stated the letter was directed at him and he noted that only one of the Commissioners, Mr. Nash, had the servility to call him about this matter. He stated he appreciated that phone call and he stated he respected and admired Commissioner Nash for making it. Commissioner Polk stated that he believes it has been a practice of this City for people to speak out against others. He noted that a "hack ", by definition, is a person who is thought to be engaged in a position involving a strong personal commitment, but chooses to ignore or express contempt for the law of the land, in particular the individual rights of others. He stated that in his opinion a person who practices public humiliation rather than diplomacy, servility, and private inquiry to resolve a matter. He stated that if any one of the Commissioners had asked him about the letter, privately, he would have explained it to them, privately. He stated, however, that he did not respect anybody going behind his back and writing a letter to the Mayor, not that the Mayor can interfere. He sated that in all of his life, whenever he has had a problem with anybody, he has gone to them directly, quietly, diplomatically, and civilly and have either resolved the mater or at least walked away with mutual respect. Commissioner Polk stated that this could not happen here. He stated that the racetrack was a rumor when he wrote the letter and he was not aware that an EIR was in preparation. He said he was not paying attention to what was happening. He said that when he walks away from this podium, he works on his own business. He stated his concern, when he heard about the racetrack, was that it was a project that was brought forward by a man who has had projects fail in the past. He stated he does not think the City can afford those types of things. He stated the projects he was talking about where the stadium, which he said has never been managed property, Camelot properties, which he said was another claim against the city which has not yet resolved, and the Liberty project. He stated he wrote the letter in a brief show of passion, but noted that is how he feels. He indicated the bottom line is that he has the right to speak about these and other issues, in association with whomever he pleases. He stated that he was sorry if he offended any of the Commissioners when making these comments but that they were not directed at them or at the particular group of staff that he works with. He stated the Commissioners can chose to make their disagreements as public and protracted as they wished but that all they were PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 2000 going to gain is additional readership for Elsinore Magazine. He noted that this is not the proper forum for this matter, but rather over lunch between the individuals involved, not on the public's time. He stated his behavior on the podium is the only thing that should be subject to any criticism, if even that. He stated he didn't have any other comments, except that he is standing by what he has said. He noted that whether it was right or wrong, he had the right to say it. Commissioner Barnes commented that there are a lot of things in this society that we have a right to do, but whether they are ethical and moral is something different. He said that as far as his responsibility of discussing his letter with Mr. Polk before sending it, he thinks Commissioner Polk should have afforded that same courtesy to his fellow Commissioners when he wrote that letter and had it posted on that website. He stated there is nothing in the letter that tells him that Commissioner Polk did not mean the Commissioners. Rather he said that the letter specifically indicates that staff is only mediocre. He stated he resented to being referred to it that manner. He noted that it is insulting and unjustified. Commissioner Barnes stated that in 1996 he submitted his application for the Planning Commission without being asked. He noted he went through the review process and was selected without any connections or knowing anyone at City Hall. He indicated that he is very proud of that appointment and takes it very seriously. He said he applied because of all the negative impressions the outside world has of this city. He stated he thought that maybe he could help. Commissioner Barnes stated that he has no aspirations to higher office, like some of have on this commission and that he would refuse any request to run or be nominated for an appointment. He stated he has no intentions of accepting an appointment or a nomination. He told Commissioner Polk that the thing that concerned him the most is that he is not one of their kind. He stated that his vote as a Commissioner has never been influenced by anyone on the City Council and or at city hall. He indicated that as far as the term hack and their kind goes, perhaps Commissioner Polk should look at himself, since he is the one who seems to be influenced by a negative element in this community. Commissioner Barnes stated that a website is not a small town newspaper, but rather a worldwide publication. He indicated that the City is in the process of building up it's reputation and it is starting to be noticed by potential investors and developers. He indicated that Lake Elsinore already has a reputation in Southern California as having a very unstable political base, not to mention financial. He stated everyone is trying to work on these issues. He noted that he had nothing further to say other than the fact that Commissioner Polk has weakened the working relationship of the Commission by what he did and at the very least, Commissioner Barnes stated he didn't think Commissioner Polk should apologize to the Commissioners, but rather the citizens of this city. Commissioner Matthies stated that when she read the sentence "The hacks in turn take pains to appoint or hire their kind, so that mediocrity continues... " she took it personally. She stated that no where in the letter does it say, except for the people on the Planning Commission. She stated that she never once considered Commissioner Polk as an enemy, but rather all members of the Commission as equals. She stated that every single member of this commission brings a wonderful different facet. She noted that they all have different interests, which is why it is wonderful to have committees and not just individuals. She stated that it hurt he to know or to think that the letter could have been towards her. She noted that Commissioner Polk stated that if anyone had a problem with his letter they should have talked to him personally. She stated that if Commissioner Polk had a problem with this man he referred to why didn't he afford that man the same courtesy. Cormnissioner Polk indicated he had spoken to the man. Commissioner Matthies noted that this was not stated in the letter, which makes it look like the letter is an attack on that man. She stated that she hope that they could get beyond this and move on and once again bring all their special talents and abilities to the Commission. Chairman Wilsey thanked Commissioner Matthies for her insight and noted that he believed it was well received. He stated that he thought he could speak for the rest of the Commission and say that they need to continue on and rebuild a relationship that has been strained. He noted that he thought it could be done. He stated that PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 2000 everyone needs to be aware that as they sit at the podium they represent the entire community. He indicated that he is proud to do that. He indicated that he tries ver hard to keep his personal views out of the public eye when reviewing projects. He stated that the Planning Commission has been "apolitical ". He noted that they were there to look at the future of the community in a positive light. Chairman Wilsey stated that he wanted to put this on the agenda so that everyone could speak openly and then put it behind them. In closing, Commissioner Polk said that he has heard everybody's position and he respect their positions. Chairman Wilsey stated they all need apologize to Commissioner Polk and Corrunission Polk needs to apologize to them. Commissioner Polk said he thought they needed to talk about it a little bit more, but perhaps not at the meeting. ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 8:15 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:25 pm. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following: He noted that there would be a City Council Study Session on the Alberhill Specific Plan Amendment tomorrow at 10:00 am in the Cultural Center. He stated that this study session would be to go over the Specific Plan Amendment, not the EIR. He stated that the Planning Commission and any public are invited. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Nash commented on the following: He asked if there would be a joint Study Session. Community Development Director Brady stated that there is not one planned at this time. He stated that he hoped the Commission could continue to work together and put tonight behind us. Commissioner Barnes commented on the following: He agreed with Commissioner Nash. He stated he has lived in the City for nine years. He stated that there are people who always have criticism but never have any viable solutions. He indicated that it would be nice to hear the ideas of the residents and put some of their energy into good work. He stated that the neighboring cities joke about Lake Elsinore and developers are afraid to make any big investments in the City. He noted this is very disheartening. He stated he wishes everyone could work together. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: She agreed that everyone should work together. She stated she has seen a lot of the changes take place over the years. She hope that we can all work together and build the city back up. She stated it was nice to see signs for businesses on Main Street come before the DRC Committee. PAGE 9 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 6, 2000 Commissioner Polk commented on the following: He complimented the Commissioners on how the meeting was handled tonight. He agreed with Commissioner Barnes regarding the negative feelings in the city. He stated that it is largely due to past relationships with the elected officials. He stated that a lot of good ideas have been presented but ignored. He stated that the negativity needs to be stopped. He stated he likes to work with folks like those connected to Elsinore Magazine because they can be a good force depending on what you think and how you treat it. Comnussioner Barnes noted that all the commentary on the Elsinore Magazine is negative and most is insulting. He reminded everyone that the Elsinore Magazine is not a small local newspaper, but rather the internet is worldwide. Conunissioner Nash concurred. He stated he would like to have this Commission set an example and judge on the merits of the projects presented not what went on before. He stated he would not be drawn into the politics. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: He stated that there was good discussion tonight. He stated that he hopes this will be an example for the rest of the community. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:35 PM. Respectfully Submitted onika Hennings, gommunity /Development Secretary MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2000 The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Wilsey. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Matthies. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILSEY, MATTHIES, POLK, AND NASH ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES Also present were: Community Development Director Brady, Planning Manager Villa, City Engineer O'Donnell, and Community Development Secretary Hennings PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY NASH AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. Minutes a. Planning Commission Regular Meeting - December 6, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 29811, Pardee Construction "Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan" Community Development Director Brady indicated that this is another request for the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan Area. He asked Planning Manager Villa to review the request with the Commission. Planning Manager Villa stated that the applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 9.6 acres into 43 single - family residential lots and 2 lettered lots. He stated that the lots range in size from 6,000 square feet to 12,800 square feet with the average lot being 8,200 square feet. Planning Manager Villa indicated that a Homeowner's Association would maintain the lettered lots. He stated that the only issue is that some lots will have 20 -foot rear yard slopes. He stated that this issue has been resolved by requiring the Homeowner's Association to maintain all slopes that exceed 15 feet in vertical height. He noted that these slopes would be accessed by a maintenance easement. Chairman Wilsey opened the public hearing at 7:04 pm. Michael Medofer, Project Design Consultants, indicated that he is the civil engineer for the project. He thanked staff and noted that he was in complete agreement will the conditions. There being no further comments, Chairman Wilsey closed the public hearing at 7:05 pm. Commissioner Polk had no comments. PAGE 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2000 Commissioner Matthies had no comments. Commissioner Nash asked how the Homeowner's Associations have worked on previously developed areas in the City. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the HOA would cover the entire Canyon Hills Area. He stated that the Tuscany Hills Homeowner's Association maintains the majority of the slopes in the Tuscany Hills area. He stated that the cost is paid by Homeowner's Association dues. Chairman Wilsey questioned Condition No. 3 and asked about ingress and egress to the easements. Community Development Director Brady stated that the maintenance easement would be fenced separately from the remaining backyards of the adjacent properties. Mr. Medofer stated that he understands the slopes will be fenced at both the top and bottom with gates for access. MOVED BY POLK, SECONDED BY MATTHIES AND PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -45, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29811. BUSINESS ITEMS None. INFORMATIONAL ADJOURNED TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Review Committee at 7:12 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened at 7:13 pm. STAFF COMMENTS Community Development Director Brady commented on the following: He noted that there was a Study Session today regarding the Railroad Canyon Interchange and the City Center Apartment Project. He stated that staff would be placing the apartments back on a Planning Commission Agenda. Chairman Wilsey stated that he still had concerns regarding the timing. He asked if the Planning Commission could condition the applicant to coordinate the apartment project with the interchange improvements? Community Development Director Brady indicated that the City does not know when the improvements will take place. He stated that the Planning Commission needs to take action on the application, as it is not fair to leave the applicant hanging. Commissioner Nash stated that it was his understanding from today's study session that the City needs to move forward by January otherwise nothing will be able to happen until next year. Community Development Director Brady stated that staff still needs to work through the alternatives before working on finding funding. Commissioner Nash asked if there was any idea on the timing of Canyon Estates Drive. Community Development Director Brady stated that the project is in the design stage and funds are set aside in this year's budget to make the connection to Franklin Street. Commissioner Nash asked when it would be pushed through to Main Street. Community Development Director Brady stated that the connection from Franklin to Main is not funded at this time but that it would take place in the future. Commissioner Nash stated that it is his understanding that the apartment project has time issues also. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the widening of the underpass is important. He stated that staff needs to talk to Caltrans to see how the improvements can be phased. He indicated that after the details are worked out, then staff would need to find funding. Community Development Director Brady stated that he understands the Commission's concerns, however he reminded them that commercial development could currently take place that would PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2000 generate even more traffic. Commission Polk noted that it appears the City's timing is 2 -3 years. He stated he believes one project will drive the other. Chairman Wilsey asked if the applicant could be conditioned since Caltrans is the one who will be driving the improvements. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the applicant is already conditioned to pay their fair share. Chairman Wilsey indicated that the applicant is depositing money towards a future signal on Grape Street at the entrance to Wal Mart. He stated that this signal is not needed at this time. He asked if this money could be used towards the other improvements. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the money can be used but it would have to be paid back. He indicated that he is planning on meeting with Caltrans in the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Nash stated that the Commission could at least assure the public that the City is working on alleviating the congestion. Community Development Director Brady noted that most of the traffic is from outside of the city limits. The consensus was to bring the project back on February 7, 2001. Chairman Wilsey stated he would like to have an update from Caltrans so the public has evidence that a solution is in the works. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Nash commented on the following: No further comments. Commissioner Matthies commented on the following: No further comments. Commissioner Polk commented on the following: No further comments. Chairman Wilsey commented on the following: He asked if there would be a meeting on January 3, 2001. Community Development Director Brady indicated that there is nothing scheduled for that night. Chairman Wilsey suggested that the meeting be canceled. He stated that staff can always contact the Planning Commission is something comes up between now and then. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY MATTHIES, SECONDED VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT TO COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:25 PM. Respectfully Submitted z2v�'l b4-- - -) onika Henning, , ommunity Development Seretary Planning Commission BY POLK AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING (_ L� Of LQkE 4Efili LOT£ JTOm£ of tgee 2�iamond Stadium NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission / Design Review Committee Meeting regularly scheduled for Wednesday, January 3, 2001 has been canceled due to lack of agenda items. DATED: December 27, 2000 K4/ Monika Hennings Community Development Secretary City of Lake Elsinore 130 eSoutgz e'Main eSt%zzt, Zak. Ellin.., Co4 92530 • SrE[Epgone: (909 ) 674-3124 Sfax: (909) 674 -2392